The URL can be used to link to this page

Draft EIS 06-30-1992 tPIIEU IURY I ~ TO Mw'JION '" SO/?2- - ( SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXA TION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CITY OF YELM JUNE 1992 R.W. THORPE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. r 1e a.) ~ (? f" r tJ /u--- P- 7o;)f) srAn/17 C /i 1 o~ rGL.-/tq / / /. PREll INARY St~Jecr TO REVISKlN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION Prepared for the Review and Comment of Citizens, Cihzen Groups, and Governmental Agencies In Compliance With The State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) of 1971 Revised Code of Washmgton 43 21 C Chapter 197-11 Washington Admmistrahve Code and the Thurston County SEP A Ordmance NO 7889 . V I' 1/1:; /1 V I III U ^J{Y.1 A1 11 i) (c-) J J 'Iv 1- ~ / . , Iff V U/J / J Lj 11 v ~{I / tJ /',8 I .1?1" 1.,.;1 / ;J~' '111 P r :501 r r-.itl/ ~"" ~~ur/ \\j~P I' / \ .~S I /' U\ ~v I · ~Vr ! ~) I k:: ;f . r .......... '.. //' ,11 ). ~/1J b 17 t!j' I J.:ri)} 1/ j . .' --Y/ j, v /' j I3tt' A At'" J)IfJI./ ,;,v~ ~ ~ oN fi\Itt& Fact Sheet Proposed Action and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action The proposed annexation would not occur and future development would take place under Thurston County regulations. " I Ff~-''' o~~~ ) ~-r-+~ . t I . ternative 2: Proposed Action ..jfiJi3i. - t?~,,~I""-.:h . ~ 5', I'll ';';-1 0 n 0-.., , '. of Yelm is proposing to annex approximately 2000 acres southwest of the current city limits. Annexation would allow development of the site under City of Yelm regulations. As proposed, tl~e development mix would include residential, recreational and commercial uses. Proposed development would include landscaping and buffers as well as roads, open space and public service improvements. Figures 1 and 2 show the location and vicinity maps of the proposed annexation area. ~1-7~~ Alternative 3: Compact".Appmadr ~ S"~lI...r, ~ The proposed mix of uses under this alternative WouI4-re~mai rgely similar tto those of the proposal. Potential land uses would be clu~ter~ to allow the same deni on less land area thus providing more open space and landscape buffenng In the area.' -~ i ~~ Alternative 4: The Village (' ~ ~ S Gtnt 4J./" /) The proposed residential uses would decrease under this approach and additional commercial space S ",.e- would be provided. The overall density of uses on the site would be decreased. oJ ~ /Ii,): I---"'/i I r' ( .~(.... ____ ~ .fc.q '(1 ,. ~ Proponent: Thurston Highlands Associates 1917 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 Contact: Dennis Su (206) 443-3537 Lead Agency: City of Yelm 105 Yelm Avenue West POBox 479 Yelm, Washington 98597 Contact: Todd Stamm, Director of Community Development Phone (206) 458-3244 Authors and Principal Contributors: EIS Preparation, Land Use RW Thorpe and Associates, Inc. 705 Second Avenue, Suite 910 Seattle, Washington 98104 Contacts. Robert W Thorpe, AICP Jeff Buckland, Environmental Planner Phone: (206) 624-6239 i ...!.. Kelso . longview SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION Ii .~~II _Lend.cape .E".tr~'.1 .IC0ftCMMc8 NTS @ Location Ma Y~Ov1 HWy S.~. \-5 {l ~~\. <$I,;.:: . ~ Thurston County ... . l'.~ .~ TO SEATTLE Pierce County FORT LEWIS I u~j ~.. ~( --------- _.~ ehenlive Plan & Z . Code ......""' ~horp~ Associates, Inc. 5Mttle/~Denver :r:~=,., @~ ....-... s..tle." 118104 C 2Qe) 1124 '2~ .le__ SOUTHWEST YELM ANNEXATION Vicinity Map N.T S ill Civil Engineering, Public Services Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Contact: Dana Mower, P.E. Phone: (206) 251-6222 Transportation Skillings and Chamberlain, Inc. 5024 Lacey Blvd. S.E. Lacey, W A 98503 Contact: Tom Skillings, P.E. Phone: (206) 491-3399 WetIands, Plants! Animals Independent Ecological Services 1514 Muirhead Avenue Olympia, Washington 98502 Contact: Rex Van Wormer, Senior Biologist (206) 943-0127 Population Growth and Housing Demand Mundy and Associates Watermark Tower, Suite 200 1109 1st Avenue Seattle, W A 98101 Contact: Rhoda Bliss, Senior Analyst (206) 623-2935 Water Supply, Aquifer Robinson and Noble, Inc. 5915 Orchard Street West Tacoma, W A 98467 Contact: John Noble, P.E (206) 475-7711 iv Table of Contents FACT SHEET SUMMARY INTRODUCTION DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES.. i 1 9 11 I. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT A. AIR 19 B. WATER 1 Surface Water 2 Groundwater/ Aquifer Recharge Areas 3 Frequently Flooded Areas and Runoff/ Absorption 23 30 33 C. VEGET A nON AND WILDLIFE 34 D ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Noise 37 II. BUILT ENVIRONMENT A. ENERGY 45 B LAND USE 1 Population Growth 2 Natural Resource Lands 3 Open ~~<;;orridors 4 Urba~vXrea Bg'lRsar? S Affordable Housing ~"'~------ --.--- C. TRANSPORT AnON 47 70 74 76 81 84 D PUBLIC SERVICES 1 Schools 2 Police 3 Fire 4 Parks and Recreation. S Water Supply Systems 6 Wastewater Facilities 7 Stormwater Drainage. 8 Storm water Collection Systems 9 Solid Waste Collection/ Recycling Systems 10 Concurrent Delivery of Public Services 103 105 106 108 110 113 116 117 120 121 DISTRIBUTION LIST 123 APPENDICES Appendix A Water and Public Services Appendix B Wetland Report Appendix C Housing Unit Demand Study Appendix D Traffic Study v Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 LIST OF TABLES Emission Rates Measured Stream flows Maximum Permitted Noise Levels Typical Sound Levels Results of Sound Measurements Population Growth Covered Employment and Labor Force Employment Wages Resident Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment... Employment Forecast, Thurston County 1990-2000. Employment Forecast, Thurston County 1990-2010 Population Trends, Thurston County Historic Demographic Trends Projected Demographic Trends 1990-2000 Projected Demographic Trends 1990-2010 Housing Unit Distribution Age Distribution Housing Demand Summary, Yelm Area Population Projections, Yelm Area 1990-2010 Local Housing Units and Types Base Year Capacity Analysis Results Assumed Development Densities Estimated Traffic Generation Level of Service Analysis 21 30 37 38 43 48 49 50 51 53 54 55 57 58 59 61 65 66 67 81 85 90 91 100 vi Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30 Figure 31 LIST OF FIGURES Location Map Vicinity Map SEP A Process Chart. Annexation Area Property Ownerships Soils Map Site Plan of Proposal Site Plan of Alternative 3 Site Plan of Alternative 4 Ambient Air Quality Standards Wetlands Map Noise Reading Location Map Noise Readings at Location 1 Noise Readings at Location 2 Noise Readings at Location 3 Noise Readings at Location 4 Competitive Projects Thurston County Census Tract Map Agricultural Soils Map Existing Land Uses Annexation Area and Urban Growth Boundary 1992 Peak Hour Volumes... CMS Recording Intersections Recommended Transportation Program.. Site Traffic Assignment (Preferred/Compact Alternative) Site Traffic Assignment (Village Alternative) 1997 Peak Hour Volumes (Preferred/Compact Alternative) 1997 Peak Hour Volumes (Village Alternative) 2002 Peak Hour Volumes (Preferred/Compact Alternative) 2002 Peak Hour Volumes (Village Alternative) 2012 Peak Hour Volumes (Preferred/Compact Alternative) 2012 Peak Hour Volumes (Village Alternative) i i iii 10 13 14 15 16 18 20 25 40 41 41 42 42 62 68 71 77 78 86 87 89 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 vii SUMMARY I. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Air Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives The proposed annexation would result in both long and short term air quality impacts associated with construction, potential development, and traffic increases after development occurs. No Action would () _ not impact the area. Alternative 3 would have largely the same impacts as the Proposal. The ( ~development under Alternative 4 would generate additional traffic and could have greater impacts than the Proposal, although provisions for alternative transportation methods are intended by this approach. Miti~atin~ Measures Typical dust suppression practices such as watering exposed soils, reseeding disturbed areas and covering vehicles during construction would be followed. Vehicle emission standards are expected to help control emissions form increased traffic. Residences with woodstoves would be expected to follow State of Washington regulations applying to wood burning devices. ('l f ~ Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives " ^ ~ / The primary surface water impacts of the Proposal would be to wetland areas on the site. Some F~ '\ \'/ additional sources of potential pollutants could be introduced to surface waters Alternative~gj , ~J would also impact wetlands and surface water qulaity No Action woulQ.~disturb surface water ) J..::_.A ( Mitigating Measures ~'-611Ittr--- Subsurface and surface conveyance systems would be used to handle additional water from potential development. Storm-tk~inage detention will be required to limit runoff to pre-development conditions. Biofiltration swale~ ma~ be use to preserfe surface water quality Storm water retention will also be encouraged to perc~water directly into the ground where conditions will allow Water -; ~IJ Groundwater! Aquifer Recharge Areas Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives The Proposal would result in additional demands for groundwater in the annexation area. A of well system with a pumping capacity of 2300 to 4400 gallons per minute would be needed. Potential recreational facilities would require sprinkling zones of 2500 gallons per minute for irrigation needs. The Proposal could also introduce new sources of pollutants that could affect the local aquifer These potential impacts would be the same for Alternative 3 Alternative 4 would reduce densities and thus may result in less impact on groundwater No Action would not impact the local aquifer Miti&atin& Measures Offsite sewage treatment is recommended and storage of hazardous wastes and chemicals onsite should be prohibited. 1 Fertilization of recreation areas should be carefully managed to avoid groundwater contamination. Frequently Flooded Areas Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives The Proposal would contribute additional surface water runoff to those areas identified as being subject to frequent flood conditions. Post development runoff is to be limited to the pre-development rate. Alternatives 3 and 4 would be expected to result in similar additional runoff. No Action assumes development would not occur at the the rate identified by the Proposal and thus would not impact these areas Mitigating Measures Siltation control measures for storm drainage should be provided. Design and construction of biofiltration facilities prior to discharge of drainage water should be followed. Wildlife and Vegetation Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Potential development under the proposed annexation would result in loss of wildlife and vegetation habitat in much of the area. Wildlife would be displaced and vegetation would be removed. These losses would likely be greatest under the Proposal since it would consume more area than the alternatives. Alternative 3 is intended to include greater buffer areas and utilize less space than the Proposal. Alternative 4 would reduce proposed residential densities which could provide more area for open space for plant and animal use. No Action would mean the proposed annexation would not occur and habitat areas would not be disturbed by development under the Proposal. Mitigating Measures Development under the Proposal would include landscaping and open space which would provide habitat and protect existing species in these areas. The use of native species for landscaping should be promoted. Environmental Health Noise Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Short term impacts would result from construction and long term impacts would result from additional traffic to and from the annexation area. .'} , t . / "'15 [up,! Mitigating Measures Typical noise reduction measures such as limiting hours, and requiring equipment mufflers during construction could be followed. Landscaping and buffer areas would help to reduce offsite noise impacts. The use of earth berms or barriers to block noise could also be employed if needed. 2 II. BUILT ENVIRONMENT A. Energy Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Development form the proposal would result in additional energy demands within the area. Puget Power would have ton build additional 12.5kV and 115 kV power lines and one to two new substations to serve the projected loads. Relocation or burial of existing Centralia Light power lines would also be needed. Impacts of Alternatives 3 and 4 would be the same. No Action would not affect energy requirements. Mitigating Measures Costs would be imposed on new development as required by Washington State regulations The developer would be responsible for relocation or burial of existing power lines. B. Land Use 1. Population Growth/Housing Demand r Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives I The proposed annexation would increase local population considerably if full buildout of the area occurs ! within the twenty year timeframe. Total population forecasted for the Yelm area in the year 2013 would be 29,366 persons. An estimated 8,732 housing units could be absorbed in the Yelm area over twenty years. The Proposal would contribute approximately 5,000 of the total estimated units in the Yelm area. Alternative 3 would result in the same number of units and the same level of growth as the Proposal. Alternative 4 would represent an approximate 10% reduction in proposed units with a ,~ corresponding decrease jn-pQpulation. Population growth and housing demand rates would continue to \X~ _ occur under No Action; built are expected to take place at a lesser level than if annexation were to occur "\' ~.J Mitigating Measures Future development would occur in phases over a twenty yearn period. Market conditions would help determine the actual number of units provided. In addition, the Urban Area Boundaries should be coordinated with population projections to avoid potential negative impacts associated with sprawling development. 2. Natural Resource Lands Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives The greatest impact to natural resource lands from the Proposal would be to agricultural lands within the proposed annexation area. The potential development projects identified for the Proposal would eliminate some existing farm use in the area. Development would eliminate use of some potentially productive agricultural soils in the area and would continue trends toward farmland reduction. I ~ Alternatives 3 and 4 would have much the same results. Although the site has been used for forest /" growth in the past, no significant forestry occurs in the area. No Action would not impact existing farm use and the annexation would remain under rural zoning in Thurston County Mitigating Measures Buffer areas around the proposed annexation would help form a separation between the proposed development and current offsite agricultural uses. Significant resource lands should be identified and measures to avoid conflicts or losses should be coordinated with future development proposals within the annexation area. 3 3. Open Space Corridors Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives The Proposal would result in additional land within the Yelm city limits. Some of this land would be developed, but some may be preserved as open space or landscape buffers. As proposed, development would include golf course recreational space which would also serve some open space functions. Future development in the area would occur under city regulation and could result in opportunities to plan new open space areas. Alternative 3 would provide even more area than the Proposal for open space. Because it may involve use of clustering techniques it may provide added opportunities to create open areas within the overall annexation area. Alternative 4 would decrease residential densities, but would also increase potential commercial development. It could result in open space areas similar to the Proposal. No Action would not involve annexation and the area would remain zoned for rural use under Thurston County regulations. Mitigating Measures Open space and landscape areas should be coordinated with offsite opportunities to form greenbelt corridors. Future development should be encouraged to provide for open space in proposed plans. 4. Urban Area Boundaries Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives The Proposal would result in adding additional land to the City of Yelm. It would occur within the proposed urban growth area for the city The proposed development would absorb a large portion of the projected population for Yelm, but would not exceed this amount. Alternative 3 and 4 would have the same result as the proposal and No Action would not involve annexation. Mitigating Measures The urban area boundary could be reviewed after five years to determine if adjustments are required. The boundary should be coordinated with future population projections. 5. Affordable Housing Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Annexation would result in more area available for housing in Yelm. Current development proposals for the area are not designed specifically to provide affordable housing, however, development within the annexation area could result in making more of the older homes in the city core available for lower income persons. Alternatives 3 and 4 would likely have similar results, although the latter approach would provide fewer residential opportunities. No Action would leave the area under Thurston County guidelines and not provide additional housing opportunities in Yelm. , , l Mitigating Measures The city could encourage affordable housing to be provided within the proposed annexation area. It could also require future developers to provide contributions to programs designed to assist low income individuals in finding affordable housing 4 ~ \) 'I (} I' . 0~ C. Transportation Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives The proposal would result in traffic increases within the annexation area. Approximately 2,430 trips would be generated for the Proposal and Alternative 3 by the year 2012. Under Alternative 4 approximately 2,560 trips would be generated over the same timeframe. Miti&atin& Measures The primary mitigation option associated with the Proposal would be design of the South Site Drive/SR-S07 intersection. This would involve lane improvements and signalization. D. Public Services 1. Schools Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives The Proposal would result in potential increases in the number of students to be served by the City of Yelm. As development occurs, increasing demand would result in the need for additional classroom facilities and/ or personnel in the city The annexation would also likely result in a loss of a portion of the Rainier School District's jurisdiction as land is absorbed by Yelm. Alternative 3 would involve the same densities and thus would result in the same potential increases. Alternative 4 would involve a ten percent reduction in the number of residential units and would have a corresponding decrease in potential students. No Action would not involve annexation and the area would remain in Thurston County Miti&atin~ Measures Space for a future school facility is a part of the annexation proposal. Impact development fees could be assessed to provide for future school district needs. 2. Police Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives The Proposal would increase the demand for police protection and calls for service within Yelm. It could also require new staff or equipment for the local police department. Miti~atin~ Measures Future development projects could be designed to include features such as lighting, and alarms to I -i discourage crime0 developer contribution to help fund police service needs could be required. 3. Fire Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives The proposal and Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in increasing the needs for fire protection within the city Additional personnel and equipment could be needed. No Action would not impact city services. Miti~atin~ Measures The annexation proposal includes land for a satellite fire station. Property tax revenues would contribute toward purchase of fire support vehicles or other equipment. 5 Water facilities would be constructed within the annexation area to provide adequate fire flow conditions. 4. Parks and Recreation Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives The Proposal would increase the demand for recreation facilities in and around Yelm. Neighborhood and community facilities would be affected. The Proposal would include some additional golf course recreation opportunities. Alternative 3 would result in the same type of increased need as the Proposal. Alternative 4 would provide fewer residential homes and thus could have somewhat less impact on the need for recreational services. No Action would not impact city recreation service needs. Miti&atin~ Measures Developer contributions toward park and receration improvements could be required. Open space areas should be coordinated with offsite areas to provide opportuinities for trails and or corridors. 5. Water Supply Systems Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Complete buildout of the annexation proposal would result in exceeding current water storage capacities. the required total would be approximately 2,078,000 gallons of storage. It would be necessary to build storage capa9ity, for both standby and equalizing needs to meet city and state requirements. Additional wells(rriay)1lso be required to meet needs within the annexation area. Both Alternative 3 and 4 would resulf~milar needs. No Action would not affect water supply for Yelm. Mitigating Measures Construct a water reservoir with a 1.5 million gallon capacity within the annexation area to serve full buildout conditions. Construct a loop water system throughout the entire annexation area to connect to the existing 8-inch main. Provide onsite fire hydrants and protection services as required by city regulations. 6. Wastewater Facilities Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives The proposed annexation would result in increased sewage flows within the area. Approximately 1,260,000 gallons per day would result from full buildout. This would require expansion of the existing sewage treatment plant. Alternatives 3 and 4 would have similar impacts. No Action would not affect city sewage flows. Mitigatin~ Measures Property owners within the annexation area should fund comprehensive sewage plans for the city Additional sewage treabnent plant costs would be passed on to future development on a direct cost basis. Onsite sanitary sewer systems would be required for new development. Trunk lines would be necessary to serve each individual development. 6 ~\ ~ II, ~ \\ I ~) ;,1 i Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives L 1 The proposed annexation would necessitate complete storm drainage collection and conveyance facilities. Open water channels, piping systems, catch basins and oil/water separator pumps would be needed. Alternatives 3 and 4 wold require similar improvements. No Action would not require additional services. 7. Storm Water Drainage Systems l~ IV Miti&atin& Measures Drainage and conveyance systems would be required for each new development. Surface and subsurface systems would be designed. 8. Storm Water Collection Systems Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Additional storm water runoff from new impervious surfaces would result form the proposal. Storm drainage detention/retention systems would be needed. These could be provided in the form of surface ponds, subsurface vaults or pipes. Existing depression/pothole/retention areas would be used to percolate surface water into the subsurface aquifer Biofiltration facilities may also be needed. Miti&atin& Measures Provide storm drainage detention in areas where a viable downstream channel or open body of water exists to accept additional storm drainage flow Provide surface retention in areas without any viable means of surface discharge. Provide retention facilities in areas where retention does not occur naturally but can be created due to good soil conditions. Provide de-siltation facilities to ensure that both retention and detention systems operate as designed. 9. Solid Waste/Recycling Systems J~ Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives i The annexation would result in increased amounts of waste wat~r in the area. The Proposal would result in generate 75,000 to 87,500 pounds per day of residential waste water Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in similar levels. No Action would not impact waste water levels in the city Miti&atin& Measures Waste reduction efforts should be encouraged and recycling programs should be established within the annexation area. 10. Concurrent Delivery of Public Services Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Development under the proposed annexation would require additional services from the city This would require that fadlity extensions or funding for such extensions be provided prior to development. These requirements would also pertain to development under Alternatives 3 and 4. No Action would not involve development at this time. 7 Mitigating Measures Developer impact fees could be required to help fund extensions of services and/or pay for service improvements within the area. 8 INTRODUCTION The City of Yelm is considering annexation of approximately 2,000 acres southwest of the current city limits. This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) presents information concerning potential impacts that may occur from annexation and the general development plans within the proposed annexation area. Annexation proposals are considered "nonproject" actions according to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) under the provisions of WAC 197-11-704 (2) (b) (iv) As such, content of the EIS may be limited, and the lead agency is not required to examine every conceivable policy, implementation measure or designation, but rather should present a general discussion of potential impacts and proposed mitigation measures (WAC 197-11-442) In accordance with these rules, this document provides a general review of impacts associated with the annexation proposal and various development scenarios within the proposed annexation area. Many of the 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) regulations apply to potential growth and development within Yelm and its surroundings. The EIS includes several elements that discuss the relationship of the proposed annexation to requirements mandated by the GMA. While this analysis provides information on how the proposed annexation would be affected by GMA requirements, it is not intended to analyze the GMA itself. Unless otherwise noted, the potential impacts and proposed mitigation in this document refer to conceptual development scenarios as presented under the Description of the Proposal and Alternatives. In some instances mitigating measures refer to various techniques that would be suitable in a certain case. These are guidelines and mayor may not be used, depending on a given project. The exact nature of future development within the proposed annexation area is not known at this time. Future site-specific, project level environmental review will occur as individual development takes place. At the time of submittal of a development proposal, a list of required mitigation will be prepared based on the final project specific EIS, and the share of mitigation attributed to that development. The developer will be required to' a) install all mitigation improvements totally attributable to the development, and b) pay a fee for their proportionate share of larger area improvements, with these improvements to be installed upon completion of funding for said improvements. The State Environmental Policy Act includes public participation in the environmental review process. Opportunities for public involvement are required during the impact statement scoping process and after publication of a draft environmental impact statement. During the preparation of an EIS, other opportunities may arise for public involvement. Frequently a lead agency will involve members of organized groups in technical meetings or other discussions on document content. Informal public meetings may also be held to discuss environmental issues. Citizen participation is part of both non project and project actions. The chart on the following page provides an overview of the SEP A and annexation process. It should be noted that, as future project specific proposals are received, the public may be involved in these reviews. Some projects may require a project level environmental impact statement, at which time additional public participation would be required. 9 Figure 3 SEPA PROCESS CHART Annexation Request Threshold Determination EIS Scoping Boundary Review Board 10 1,1-- DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES \~,\ General Site Description I The 2,0~ Southwestern Yelm annexation site is located directly to the southwest of the City of Yelm i north . corporated Thurston County in portions of Sections 23, 24,26, and 27 of Township 17 North, Ra East W.M. Most of the site is comprised of areas of once heavily vegetated forest lands that have been logged-off between eight and ten years ago. Some reforestation has occurred through both natural processes and the planting of seedlings on some areas of the central and southern sections of the site. The northeastern boundary of the site is contiguous with the southwestern boundary of the City Yelm. The northern-most boundary runs in a east - west d~. . n and is approximately a quarter of a mile south of 93rd Avenue S.E. The site is bounded on th north y both Fort Lewis Military Reservation to ''\ the west and rural residential/agricultural lands close e City of Yelm to the east. The western .) edge of the site is bounded by a section of the Fort Lewis Military Reservation. This portion of Fort ~ Lewis is primarily used for heavy artillery practice and general training maneuvers The southern ~ boundary of the annexation site is directly adjacent to agricultural and wooded-open space lands about ~ a quarter mile north of Manke Road. The eastern boundary of the site is, for the most part, the ~ '-------- Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way and the right-of-way for State Route 507 There is an area of land made up of several large parcels that front State Route 507 that are not included in the proposed annexation site area (see site map, Figure 4) Topography The site contains a range of slope gradients from very steep ( possibly greater than 40 percent) in the far southern and western portions of the site to relatively level through the northern portion of the site The northern portion of the site is made up mostly of large open fields used primarily in the past as livestock grazing pastures. The central and southern portions of the site are characterized by a series of undulating mounds and ridges. There are several crater-like depressions located on the southern section of the site, including one large pothole approximately 95 feet deep The site's elevation is lowest in the far northern portion at approximately 300 feet above mean sea level and highest in the west central portion with an elevation of 575 feet above mean sea level. Soils The soils of the Southwestern Yelm Annexation site exhibit a direct relationship to the underlying glacial parent material, the local climate and vegetation. Surficial soil conditions are shown in Figure 5, and are based on the Soil Conservation Map and Classification System (U.S Department of Agriculture, 1956) Thirteen different soil series were identified and mapped on the annexation site. The majority of the site is comprised of both the Alderwood series and Everett series soils. In general, these soil series have good natural drainage characteristics and are suitable to provide satisfactory foundation support, roadway placement, and utility placement, given proper geotechnical design and construction. A description of soils characteristics is provided in the Wetlands Study in Appendix B of this document. n Jf!.~~ Alternative 1: No Action ~ 0"" The proposed annexation would not occur Only those areas previously identified for "immediate \ \i annexation" in association with the proposed Yelm/Thurston County Joint Plan would be considered for annexation. Under this option, land use would remain as now zoned by Thurston County. The proposal site could be developed in accordance with Thurston County Comprehensive Plan guidelines under the present zoning. Thus future development would be expected to occur consistent with existing regulations over a twenty year period. Lands reserved for rural use or preserved for environmental reasons would be assumed to remain in their current use. Forest lands would be assumed to be replanted for timber production. It is expected that this approach would result in a lower density of development than the ;r / IIJ~ '~f ~ 11 Figure 5 Soils/Topography other alternatives, each of which anticipates annexation and development under City of Yelm regulations. ~ ~9 ~ Alternative 2: The Proposal The Proposed Action is for the annexation of approximately 2,000 acres southwest of the City of Yelm. Under the Proposal, a variety of land uses could occur This is a non-project action under State Environmental Policy Act WAC 197-11-704 (2) (b) (iv). The annexation properties include two large ownerships and a number of smaller parcels (see ownership map, Figure 4) Development plans for these parcels are not complete, however, a mix of residential, recreational, and commercial uses are planned. Based on preliminary development concepts, approximately 4,800 to 5,000 multifamily and single family residential units could be built. This total is preliminary and represents a maximum build-out amount for consideration in the environmental impact statement. The proposed development would include roads, landscaping, landscape buffers and open space within the annexation area. Development around sensitive areas such as wetlands and steep slopes would be limited as much as possible. 11 I? ?D~~ ___0 -- 6 otfi} It is expected that development within the proposed annexation area would occur in phases. Thus potential development impacts could occur at the time of initial construction and are expected to be spread out over a number of years. Furthermore, site specific development proposals would be subject to detailed environmental review at the time such projects are presented to the city That review may include preparation of individual project-level environmental impact statements as specified by SEP A nder WAC 197-11-704 (2) (a) ~ Under conditions of the annexatio~e additional property ownerships could be annexed for potential development at a density of up td 4 welling units per acre. An existing golf course on approximately 130 acres would be allowed to coni. e in its present use after annexation. The exact number of potential dwelling units in the other areas that would choose to develop at the higher density has not been determined. For the purpose of analysis in this environmental impact statement it has been assumed that a portion of the remaining annexation area would adopt the 4 dwelling units per acre and this zoning could result in development of an additional 100-200 residential units. Figure 6 shows a conceptual site plan for potential land uses under the Proposal. Alternative 3: Compact Site Plan This alternative would modify the proposed land uses to decrease the overall amount of land area to be built upon. Under this approach additional open space would be provided around environmentally sensitive areas, productive natural resource lands and adjacent to the Fort Lewis Military Reservation. This approach envisions greater use of clustering techniques, wider buffer areas, and a general increase in open space throughout the proposed annexation area. In order to achieve a more open atmosphere while maintaining the overall number of dwelling units, the proposed residential areas would have higher densities of development. The potential urban area would be approximately one-half the size of the Proposal and include more intensive utilization of urban space. In this manner the Compact Alternative would include the same number of housing units, and the same size commercial and recreation areas as the Proposal, and it would occur at the same rate of development. Land uses under this approach are shown in Figure 7 Alternative 4; The Village Concept This alternative assumes a lower density of development and a different mix of land uses than the other alternatives. This option would incorporate some features of the Compact Alternative, but would include more extensive commercial development and higher levels of on-site employment than the Proposal. Commercial lands on the site would provide additional employment opportunities and would 12 9 elf' \:\ ~i3}.. 1.'031,1-.\-\1.("\0'0 <6'.'" 0""'" 'v 31\,\ellJ3\\'9 d uo^ -a6","1'\ a'1l. NO\1.'I1)C.3NN'I1 -" · ... ,,,,, ,GlCIli,.. ,,'.'.loo u",d as(I pU'" ,,,,,\ a ~ J' .. . M'.... ......, .... "" d ol\.1. · a. ~ .'-.1 3)\ ~ 6(1.9 .1.9 \90;) . U\'~ s~\e\~OSSW ~ eJ . I' ~ 0 ~: .....0'...-'...... ~ "". ,\'" ,','\\ \' ~ \' .' \ \' \' \. ,\' \.' " \ . , \ \ . \. . \ . , . \ i\ ,I , -;\ \ ' ~\ '- ~ \ ... \ t \ 0\ \ \ , , :. \ \ " \ , ", . \. \. . ,\ \ \ .. "I \ \ \ \" ..I,' \ ,1 . . i i \ ,~' as 'p>l "'''' I' \ ' \ \ \ J, \ \: \ ~\:\ \ \ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ...... ........ ,\ ,\ ,\ ,\ ,\ ,\ ,\ ,\ ,\ , \ 2 ." , \ .? \ .,:-... ,\ '^ .... ,\ ~ ~ \ '\~-1--------;;;---;:J --- -------- s3NI' >l3""Od 031'1::>0>3>l >>/",,310d \' \ , . ~ ~ , .. i, \ 0.. .,1 \ I . \ . 4' \ :;{: -j, ~ - 0 .c!. ~ ~ <i ~ ~ ~ \ :::> 0 0 :::> 0 C'I 0 u.l ~ ..- t.O 0 ~ I ..- \.0 - I ~ c"> ? ". ..- ~ t:: ". W, .c!. c.f) -' ~ t:: ". ~ c.f) t:: I- 0 ~ z ~ ~ ? u.l ~ 0 ~ 9 ~ 6 0..- ~ u.- 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ a ~ ~ <.) 0 .... -- ". t:: :d I- ? ~ - u.- c.f) uJ 0.- S (j) fu u.l t; ~ u- u.- ::> cO ~ 0.. ~ o o 1:- o ~ u.l (/) 0: ::> o o o ~ cO ? 0.. ~ o <.!) 0... <.!) .} \ ' , . , . i \ " I Ii' \ \ \ \ \' \ ' ~ I,' \ \ \ ' . \ ' \ , \" o \ ,", \ \ I i \ \' , :. . , , , \ , ------\ '- \ \ '- " \ \ \ ~ (/) ~ c:{ ~ ~ ~ cO - 0.. 3'- Legend m Thurston Highlands Associates ~ Venture Partners I:."':: :1 Individual Ownerships (Bosequette, Doyle, Steadman) J]To, tu:l..lI NisquaMy Valley Golf Course (c. Brown) II Multiple SmaH Ownerships lloarbara Soeteber Carl Hanak David Baker En.- llumeIl Everett Hendriclcsorl C.F Burgman CIen Newby Jack Harmon John SMrfey LBa Willuweit .Nark Soeteber Mary Lousle Cemens MlItCll\ Bu tler Jlosa' WcKJbben Rona1d Lwshlln Itoy Cu..on ; 'Theodore Farad Virgil1laker William Parbr Acres 1,240 264 115 97 144 Total Acres 1,860 -------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Thurston Highlands Associates SOURCE Thurston Highlands Associates ;;/ 11 - Ij,' I I I :// 1/ .-- ~Vid Dayl Bosequet II . I I ; I ' , --.,..~. (/)~ .-'-_. Q) i - ... - '\.- cot '" -._- - . O! . , ol (/) . - (/) -- - ~'-- 1<( I ~ c ~l ~ 4)'- .. - ---, I ,... ----.-.- ~ .... o .r:. l- . ~~ 0::; 4i! .~ . ~!'j:r;"F. I - . ;~:~~ M~_ h ...("1:(:..... - e.r'ljure.Par/lners, ...-- - - '. - - .... , - - .. -j .. '- I , / .. 0"'1 1" 1;41 ....- ----.--+ -.-t- 13 fdt- [-~ ....... . . . . - o c: - a: I ,.... ~" i~' fJj a. E fJj ... C1l c: ~ o Q; > c: Ql e .~ f~ ~~ ,Ill .1- ..! 1,. .1- >- - ... C1l a. o ... a.. c: o - n3 X C1l c: c: c:( .. z 0 ~ X W Z Z <( :E ....J W >- t- (/) W ~ I t- :=) 0 (/) - ~ C1l ... =' 0: u.. N ~ It 0 {)". rt (. 'fa v~!( ~ ((t3'ft.~cc; /Jf~/P -pt1d (t~ · C(/V~ ~ n ' (?.T ,@fi;'~X~ o. ...._..._.....;:~.fjJ1! "'.. ~P.' C~ .""".,- i - .. en ~ :~t@: ' "'.... ~ ~ CD ..:"""":~. _:,t' _---'' (1) ell Z j:ill~, : -' --- 16 f 0 '" .._. L- . - . o~ ~ . OJx en UJ ,_ en Z -- ;. - ~-: <( ~ Z _ _ f ~ > - <( ,_'- ~ ~ lIII::: - -. "'U C -=::: '" ..J ~ UJ . 111\ ~ --.- I "" ~ _,c~__- -c:-:~- C. I- ~ Cf) o UJ ..c 1-9 ~ f J: .~ I- ~---' -~ I~! ~ - - 0::: Cf) CJ) W ~ ....J a: W ~ o C- o W ~ () o ....J W a: ....J <( i= z w ~ o c.. r I II t. IIII_.-~ ~ ..1 .. - - I I - -! MEDIUM DENSITY (TOWNHOUSE) 5-12 DU/[AC It -II ,- HIGH DENSITY 13-16 DU/ AC -- - -(1-'--- rr c-c "" = i I 1 _ .- I c c c c c ~ -, 1 t.ccccc~:..::_ I /;1 . ~-;~ 11/ I -c'-::'--'! 'I - ~=: Ii _ I I ~~_ J ~i--il; ---~ c I ~'~~.'/' ',~--=!! M'c -\~i,-~ i~- I 4 ~~R~~ 'llIl I - I I -: '. ("> ,. ~ ~ ~ I / l~~" l~J~ ~__ ~ PARK/ BUFFER/ STEEP SLOPES II It t\1 ~" f-- m ~.- ~ -~~l t ~~ ~~ II I" ~ ,,~~ ~r'-'~' ~ II I;' ~~";,>S"~"" 'c. ~!: .. ~ i ~~ II "'. ?~...~ It, ~~.;.t..~.~ I~ 1 I~ ~~ ~~~ ~ I I jJ:~ ,~, 1':"-\" )~ ~I .., c' . ~ ~:'~~~___~ : t. ~ .' ... '_ ~' , ..~~."-'~'~~~~~~ '" ~ ....~, I'l""!', ,,' ,.-, ~ . -..~. t. . c~ :)1,.. ....J"......-..;; ~H~j ~. ",' ,),'l'" - <W. ~,,'" ".... . H. ., , I "(I" '\!"; ....~..M- ~ L ,,; ., <' '~,\';)'C> ~t1 "-"I., ' F~ ., Q.~ Cfl... ~ :1;.(~;,..."''' , -.. ""........1J., ,~. , ,0. <:> ,~' . ~j~'i:'J::',;. "- \)..~t:1-r . .'t) ., ") 9c... ~.... t , " 't1 ~,~.. Eo.. ~ i-il_.l~ ,c.~~ . ()Q. )). \:!l~ 'i.l~ ... . "'>I!Il"""_o!; P-:'~ '~.... .I .~. ',~ (: (I lAl "vtb... " )!. -.~ 0", ~,.:It::.. '::0:: " " \>..' ,<,~ . '$.~ ~ I~..~.;'..~. . ... t"". W'" .. , c,."O.Q),J:'!. . II:" ..~ J~ ~t>'&~~~ty~, ~~<i.0'.~ < 4 ~:.1!-~ ~" ," . ,::. "r-; "'l <:l - "Ii . .- , <iI'''' . . u " 'ill I.~-~) ~?;.;. IIll .fJ,., ;'f' ~';J~o: .4 tr ,. .>~ I),' ,~q;p ~!'" '.te~'~ .i~ "o<~"<~.. j!,{ ~ ". ~ ~}. 'I" ~ "! ~1 ~~; ~~ .' r.:~~D.' , ~ <>'\1,5 1\1 ....4 . . ""J~ "? - ;~,~~~r~~.,' I,~ '''9.,' €>.'.~;~ ." =-===- · ~''''' r,,~~'1E~~~..: II'!' ~ ., = ~ o!:,~.i; !i" "' .t!.. ~ r;~,' 't.;~,:.-'..~~~ I}- . !'~J11 ~ " (. ~ ~:c.. ~ . ',),~..--,~:. .;'t', . ;.11 I.; 1Li,. I'~ .,." ~,~ ~."".()'" -J.-. .,I.~I#". __-=- =--=- :s r" ....l!l'lIIl. ..;t I".;,~ ~';" t;.';'~z.....~ ~~ =---=~~ 1 .&:Y~ -- If" .. 'C.o.( ~,~(O ~~ q:~J) ,0" '"it - --- ~ -=-__~ =c-~'1 _ _ AX1"~.- ".; ~ , '&~. . .. llo.. ,.....co. ~c:st ;;', f-- ~ It --=- -== ~ -.=- - ~ ~ . al; f> e~ c .:~: ~ tOo;,. !.. ~:(i-;c ~ ~E~~.?".:. - --~ -~~~"""- Q , I; '.-=:-. ()'....-. r;.;c;'..... ..~(,t^t'.e.\......"i,~I--=- ~ ~ I .. I;>. ~ ~(r:::-..... ~ ~~i'.,fJ"~. '-1~ J..:~ ~j'.szlf!. ,1,~~~,. _=-;:~ ... "'" __=:::E==~..... "Ar.:il~1 .,~ '"i J. c.:;I,-:: . Iilo.l...:, ~J.,. -" ~ _=. c~_ ' I.~ . Ilii~ 0<;.=",. ~ .r:- I!",:(. ~ '. ~ ~ life:--'..... ~~' ~"1 I 1<: JJjJ "1....- ,.. <) '-: 13" .. ~ ~) \~~ ~- ~ -=- ~ ,'1 Iii" ~ :>, . '.- ''J ..-"!" J. ,,~, .\" ^ ,"-';' - ~ ~~ '.41. t li'~ ,...;">0 ....~ "'/ ct;..., oJ ~ 1.". Q 'c.,( Lt.:) ..u~ _...u...:: _ ~ ,. f. .. "," ',,~':'~~." .'. - bE:> oQ ..,? -..- ~ --= ~ - ..:!.. ..,~~~~ ~~~l~?/~~~:o-"-' .~.~ '~~'<}?I~~:' ~~~ ~iiii ~~~-=t=.:.=--=:J ~ t~ ; rl ~ "Ilolii""o:.. ," ,-:, ~ ~.L , ~-? , ~>J' ~ c..-=-ci ~ -= ---- --r;:::;' - -4l --- .-; - t --- ------- I~ ~- - '.;~ ": <;lJ,> ,.~., '1 -..... ~---.....-;::: [>;J.J ~ '" ~-- -L-:--J . I.U , I... r=-~ ~~J) ~ _".:l.".,.:'t~ :~,,~ -'".;J..l. _ ~:::::~...., CJ) I ~_- ... ~~ ~ ~~",r;" (:"~..,, ~=-----=-.::::: J . ~ =--_-:::~ ,I ~ ~ ~~l..111l .1<0.::> ~''l.''''''~'' ~""'O /f), ....~:~..' ..,.~ -=-' 1....~'f'.7 I""I-J~ ,j~~ -:::::::lJ U I ",'j.-. ,. '~.~' '~'.",. ::: " '''llI~J. ....,,~ ~~,; .. ~----....--=: , , cr I' ,~.'!;J.., ",p. ~ ~>! -=-='-..=:1 P.. J,:lIJ~---""":::.n,--:....ao; i_ Il,~' ...~ ,?~<'2 W'. ,~~~~~:;, . I J~~ :-=_~-"l ~ ~~ ~-=-",,--=-:J ~ 'i', ' . lll. ,. J ;; ~_ '~~'\.i ".'~ ': -=-~ ... .-/' . ~-=--"U- ~=" . '-.: ~ -- " ~, ..~ ;)1 . . ;~.;j" 0 ~. ~,.. IIr ,~ 5. ..,:f"'-i -JIll:., tIJ...... I 1/ I/.' ,- I .. /~ -r I I J :r _ .. I I .. _ I --- - ----_ - t _ --- (POTENTIAL LAND USES IN ANNEXATION AREA) LEGEND rnm g I1B - _ I _93rd Ave !'i~ ! .. ! LOW DENSITY (RESIDENTIAL) 1-4 DU/ AC .--- .'-.- - ~ ...J UJ > U. o 11:\'0, c.- ~ ." <~ .l'J'C) GOLF COURSE , "\. .. .... ----, '::;;:."-. . '..... '- ... .....~ i'~..._~ COMMUNITY SERVICE/ COMMERCIAL I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I PUBLIC (SCHOOLS, FIRE, UTILITY) .'... .. ".~ .", , :'-.9-: ~ ~ .. WETLANDS ~ -,- --- --t-----,---- I j . ~--'~ 4:;- ~. "=~, - - .-~. ,I.. ..... ..., _-__ _ _ L.__.;,'j~~~ ... 1'~1 ~ta ;A - - ,,' ~"\ .:.. <(-<?- . - ~~ - - - - - - - I I --". ~~ 6 - - . SOURCE R W Thorpe & I\uociates, Inc (Design Team -.-. ~ ff//W4 'i1~ "-_,'-- _1/~~ < 1/' ~_~~ "'-- N / 15 'i :1. lilf I~HI _ . C 0 A.-,,,,W . . . . CN ~ 4> 0.. .~ Q) -:;; III =: :::::>~ -0<( C ctl -l , 1~i4! ;i"',,*~ wd ctl :J - ~ a. 0.> Q) ~ C,,) 0.> C e 0 f~ u ~~ ~., ctl 1Il('" III _ '" 0 .r- a. .. '" 0 .0 a... ~~ 0.. Q) ~ ~ <,~ ... -- ~ ~N N ._ a> a>N~ CD .~ -a'JO _ ~ ..:IN ~~::: Q) . N(W'J. a- ~-o'O-o :J .,UJI.-lllllllll 0) ~ ~ t~ '~'~.~ w: a:: a:: a:: ~ S am !::J 5"OS 18I:>tpnS NOU'VX3NN'If ~13A lS3MH1()()S .:),...0<10:)) pu., , .'.A....... ..lu....UO'lAU) , ....13."..:).'1 _:)epu., , .........14 6t~~. t~9 (90~) tol86 WM '..,..es iHlUaAY PUl 'iOL OuopMn\:l afioH OL 6 J.Muaal~ry/"".es .~UI 'Sale!~OSS" 1B adJOll.L M.~ b!') IUp f t~- ,I. /.f./J~ I,~'. !:i I:'~:'; "~J1I;r ", I, . '" ~~p", ':1,' 11 ,,) /;' -f ty .4//,-',' 'il I '.:1.1 ~ J.' ,", ".,~/<I.<C ~,~.~. /, , .-', II! I, ,I :;..',,' .:::. ~i,') ,,~tl' i '/1. ~^' ~:1,'>6/~..."~ ~', ~-~ · 0'--- "--T ' '- II /" L. ',. rt ::. I" ,;, f' If-It' ",I ".j;~q.FJ"~.;':r' '.\ , I , _ / I , ! /' -, . oC'i,..... ~ J. .,;' A 1 " i 'i 'II r----.t ' ,/- ',;'p..' ,''';. .,,~," ), r I ' P, .-----, I. ~'. . I >l7,. ,i. {~., , , ! I , I k I i" " , , · " ~ ~ ~, <;t4'oJ', 'J ' ~-7-1 ~~! JT 1, 1 ' ," I ! ~ ;:'-;:~,~j,; :"~~ 'A I'; 'I~'I, 'I' ,1;,1 i II . i ,I' ,,\~i!, {,. ' , ' .II' " L --- -:-il ---~~ " !~. ~ , ,: I~ I ' r ' Iii' ',' I,: i " ' k ," ' · L/ ,). ,-~- ,.:-,-,r---/ --r , ' " ii'" I",' II , I, 1 ' J.A I~~ L; ja:'.. < " " i , i' "I II, I I,! I __IJ_ ' ", 'I "J J!'/r\1 (/), , ~JI/I " I'.':, ,:,.' ,j.:.... ~"j ~,~ (I.<.j "-1-:=: -"'<', , " I :_- <~,;jL~~,~~~=-= / , ' " , ' 't, (/) '. , 1 ~ ., '/ ~ . , '!' !~ I, ~ _~.'-.- ~~," '" 11' "':.:''',: 'I .-;" );.: - ,..~"' ;:;;. '; ", :'\.,,:/ i' I ~~~ ' .. .. v 4- __ i. '--.---.. W I I '- t, ,_. '... ~~, , I 'I i I I',', I .,/ ~ :L' '" ~ " 'f ~ '- ' =-;--:;:.:..-= ',I"" ',' ',' I · I __......p' ' ~ Uj'.....~ ~ '"- io...- ) -~'.E' .. I' ,,;-~~,! Ii' ' --- .- -r- .," ,.~ -..-,. I j I ~ ~;.:' __I r'~ il!'1 L,- i! ", 1~':'li;_" '....~ '... \. ! UJ.' I 'I' I I-~ '"I r "IIII(ljT";, --. - """~~ I, ,~'1 ,..~I,_~I II : I 1,1 ill!!1 ~':~~-- :!, "', 'jD \. I.- '-L~ U~'- ,I ~., .J' ;2~\! ,}'J ~ .,! I (I \..-1" .~' ~ --- , ' I : ,,t... , , : I, I I _____~',' ~ ~ I ~ 'w ~ , \" m ~ '" "'" ' ~ ' ':. I' I ~ 'v I' ; : I U ~.......~ UJ 1~\: "" - I ,,~ ;~~'i! fi= __L I" ,r""',< ' '.. I, W I. ~ ~......' ~"'\. w ) ... j:,t -,-~ s"", r~vYt:"~ \, ( A~~>' i I \':, \ ''--+{ '~'- y ~ It ql H~ t ~.J:t (!i\ HHtH11iUttldHtl If ~ ~ ~! ~ ...""j~.L~ EiJi"'19!.""j"1 I I J1" f l f j f f : f j j i ~ i ~ II f ! ! ! ~ ; ~~,lU : ~ ~ f f f f t i 1," ~," i l J ~ ;, ~ f ! J I E Uj < I I ~ I s. ~ ~ ~ ~ e l! : ~ ,j '3," J i i ~ j ~ I _ W ~ ! ~ i i filE .. -= '" (] 3 :!! 2 ..: S ~ ~~ ~ .. ~ ~ ] ~ ! ~ ! ... :i I J. J- ~ ~ ~ .---~--.J. ...---------- .! ~ .. u ~ a ",. .1Il:q.. 0 v ':I .., .,. u .. II < < < ~ liJ It! It! It! If '" '" oJ ::i Z ell ell ell ... ... ... 'I I ! I !1 , I , I i I , I I , . , , I , I 'i , d I ~ , , : , I ! " - , , I i l I , , . i , 'II ,I , I , , , i I ~~"'~j' ",i ' ..... J. ill '~"',' . 'I " I ,I ,'- ~ 1 I I. " I '" -... . '-.." I i ,~ "" [, I I I' I , ,T , f ~,t, , , I I f I ~ 1 I , j ~s... 1'1 '--"" '. I '--~.' " ' , , --. i,~ ....... N l\-;: ~ " . ~[; ~-: 14 Gl i Q Z &.\I c:J u.J ... ...~\.4'" ... ~ oil oil Ql <( ~ :::) . ,:,/ > l ~ ii .. . ~ <..) ~ III '" a focus on providing commercial and government offices and similar non-industrial land uses. The proposed commercial uses would be expected to meet the needs of on-site residents for daily and convenience goods and services, but would generally be limited to a size and type that would largely serve only these residents. The number of potential residential units would be reduced by approximately ten percent to accommodate commercial uses. Potential recreational uses would remain similar to those of the other alternatives. This alternative would also attempt to identify additional opportunities for non-automobile modes of transportation within the proposed land use pattern in order to be more pedestrian-oriented Figure 8 identifies potential land uses for Alternative 4 pi ",{,7 - ) 5u J i I dI _t7?/ I / c vPd// (1}/f 1/ .erJ.I-O ~ U~' // 17 LEGEND lPOTENTlAL LAND USES IN ANNEXATION AREA) MD MEDIUM DENSITY 5-12 DUI AC t 1 ' \ I j \/1 ="f.,.,-'~o 9 3rd Ave NE _...., _:. \1 - - ... . ,0 - HD HIGH DENSITY 13-16 DUlAC ~! -// ,,- I MD P C COMMUNITY SERVICE/COMMERCIAL P PUBLIC (SCHOOLS. FIRE, UTILITY) G GOLF COURSE I II II II II 1/ // II II II r--------------J~---- ,._-------------J rl~ PIB ill I - n { ~r""l / , HD 5 I ffi I 3 I ~ I @ I ~ I 8 I m I a: -l I ~ I ~ "P /8 ~ ~B .W ., " t==J..- MD '/ II 'I PIS PARK. BUFFER, STEEP SLOPES w WETLANDS .,. I - - I - --. ~--- -".' --"-1 - -\ - \ \ t \ /' ,/'" i -4, o~ ". i- ,.,....-"". -- SOURCE R W Thorpe & Associates, 'oc {Design Team en~ z (1)1 0 ~.- '- - \(0 t-: :- - " ;.-! <( - . . <J, >< . - 0& W en Z en z .- ;:=~-~ \et I <( - - < ~ I~ 1 ...J oOk_ . 'B UJ (1)">- -~ \ a. t- ~= 0 ill .J:. ~ .... :r: .Cll I- -I~ 5 a:;,(f) _ _' ~"'1:7~:"; \ --..--- \.-_:.~;'t;~ - ~l~~~~~~r :~....~ ,..:.~,.- 'l:,lK_~i'.,.- u_~-r::- "Iih .1. ~..'" . . . . ,1~- ~~,.-~~ , ~. - \ i I - i --- -- -- . -- .- - .. - - i . I ( \ - ----,;"............. ...- .. -. . - ---T"P- tJ'.L, 1/2 16 li :> ~ I> e c C') ~ Gl ~ ,~ - Q) III (J) E :::::> ~ "O"i c ~ ....J c;, ::3 - 0- Q) U c I 0 j () I - I u I ~ 0- E 0 () n i- I! . <J c: - .. """ Cl) ~ ::3 ~ I. Natural Environment A. Air Air Quality Air quality regulations for all sources of air contaminants in the greater Puget Sound region have been promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A), the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), and local air quality regulatory agencies. The Department of Ecology has regulatory jurisdiction over all air emission sources within the state. In addition, the EP A has delegated authority to the Department of Ecology to permit significant increases in emissions from "major" new or modified sources of air pollutants (that is, sources with emissions greater than 100 or 250 tons per year of a regulated pollutant depending on the type of source) Local and state air quality regulations are at least as restrictive as similar EPA regulations. The Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority (OAPCA) is responsible for regulating air quality standards within a 6-county area encompassing Clallam, Crays Harbor, Jefferson, Mason, Pacific, and Thurston Counties. The EP A has set regulatory standards for what they call "priority" pollutants. These standards are summarized in Figure 9 Three of the priority pollutants are of interest to this project: carbon monoxide, ozone and particulates. These are discussed below Carbon Monoxide (CO) Carbon monoxide is a direct by-product of the internal combustion engine and accumulates in areas of heavy, slow moving traffic. It also results, to a lesser degree, from industrial emissions and wood burning. Carbon monoxide is one of the primary pollutants associated with motor vehicle traffic. The entire Puget Sound region (from Olympia to Everett) is within an area classified by the EP A as a nonattainment area for carbon monoxide standards. The greatest concentrations of CO within the region occur within downtown Seattle, Tacoma and Bellevue. CO concentrations in these areas freq[uently exceed levels determined to be "safe" by national standards. The CO levels at these locations have little application to the proposal site as CO concentrations are a highly localized phenomenon, however, they do illustrate the cumulative effects of increased traffic generation. There are no CO monitoring stations located in the vicinity of the proposal site. Ozone (03) Ozone is primarily a product of regional motor vehicle traffic. It is created during warm sunny weather when photochemical reactions occur involving hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Ozone is not omitted by anyone source but rather is a result of a chemical reaction of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight. Because the cycle takes from five to seven hours to complete, maximum ozone concentrations are found within an arc that is 5 to 50 miles downwind of major urban centers. Particulate Matter Particulate Matter consists of fine particles of smoke, dust, pollen or other materials that remain suspended in the atmosphere for a substantial period of time. It is measured in two forms Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) and Respirable or Fine Particles, defined as those smaller than 10 micrometers in size and referred to as "PMI0" Any TSP level that reaches 150 micrograms per cubic meter or greater is considered a health hazard This is a state and federally approved level of determination. Table 1 shows a comparison of typical PMI0 emission rates. 19 (' J\ l' s r f J V I u l1' I Y (l f t I ~v 19'1 (\ 1 / V I ~/ltv () (T"1V '~/ ~ov [l,D[~ \/ /;1' V \'1 V V (' l} Figure 9 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS POllUTANT NATIONAL WASHINGTON PRIMARY SECONDARY STATE Total Suspended Particulates Annual Geometric Mean No Standard No Standard 60 pg/m3 24 - Hour Average No Standard No Standard 1 50 pg/m3 lead (Pb) Quarterly Average 1.5 pg/m3 1 .5 pg/m3 1.5 pg/m3 Particulates (PM,o) . Annual Arithmetic Mean 50 pg/m3 50 pg/m3 50 pg/m3 24 - Hour Average 1 50 pg/m3 1 50 pg/m3 150 pg/m3 Sulfur Dioxide (502) Annual Average o 03 ppm No Standard o 02 ppm 24 - Hour Average 0.14ppm No Standard 0.10 ppm 3 - Hour Average No Standard 0.50 ppm No Standard 1 - Hour Average No Standard No Standard o 40 ppm8 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 - Hour Average 9 ppm 9 ppm 9 ppm 1 - Hour Average 35 ppm 35 ppm 35 ppm Ozone (03) 1 - Hour Averageb 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm o 12 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) Annual Average o 05 ppm o 05 ppm 0.05 ppm a-a 25 ppm not to be exceeded more than two times in any 7 consecutive days. b - Not to be exceeded on more than 1.0 days per calender year as determined under the conditions indicated in Chapter 173-475 WAC. ppm = parts per million pg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Annual Standards never to be exceeded, short-term standards not to be exceeded more than once per year unless noted Source Washington State Department of Ecology, Air Quality Report, July 1991 20 Table 1 Comparison of Typical PMI0 Emission Rates ~ F.mis<tion Rate Dail,yUse Emission Duality Wood Stoves Fireplaces Diesel Engines Road Dust 9.0 gm/kg wood 14.0 gm/kg wood 1.3 gm/kg mile 1.6 gm/vehicle/mile 20 kg 20 kg 200 miles 200 miles 18Ogm/day 28Ogm/day 26Ogm/ day 32Ogm/day The highest concentrations of particulates in the State of Washington are found in the heavily industrialized areas such as the tide flats/port region of Tacoma and the Duwamish River VaHey in Seattle. Major sources of suspended particulates are: fossil fuel power plants, smelters, pulp and paper mills, incinerators, emissions from boiler or space heating wood stoves, agricultural activities, forest slash-bums, handling, storage and processing of rock, sand and wood products, cement plants, and re- enl~ained dust from vehicular traffic on unpaved surfaces. Existin~ Conditions The proposed annexation site is located just southwest of the populated area associated with the City of Yelm. Primary sources of air pollution within the general area are the industrial operations in '" Tacoma and vehicular emissions in the Yelm and Rainier areas adjacent to the proposal site. Because \ the site is essentially undeveloped, there are currently only insignificant sources of air quality impacts -) I() ! prese~_ _ _ LV / ~- / \ Consultations were made with the Department of Natural Resources and the Olympic Air Pollution '----eontrorAuthority to determine the current air quality conditions in the Yelm area. According to the DOE and OAPCA, there are no monitoring stations in the direct vic~ity of the proposed annexation site. The nearest location that collects relevant data is located in Lacy at Mountain View Elementary School, and this site only monitors PMlO. 1\ Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action Annexation would not occur under this option. Air quality in the immediate area of the annexation would not change significantly /r Alternative 2: The Proposal The proposed annexation would provide additional area for growth in Yelm. The exact nature of development on the proposed annexation land is not known, however, additional residential construction is expected. The immediate impacts to air quality due to construction would be primarily particulates with only a minor contribution of carbon monoxide from construction machinery Specifically, the sources of particulates would be dust from earth moving-excavation activities and diesel smoke. The project will entail the leveling, grading, separation and stock-piling of top soil over much of the site. The amount of fugitive dust raised by these activities and how far it disperses depends upon the dampness of the soil and the wind velocity The majority of properties adjoining the project on the west, and south are used as either open space (Fort Lewis Military Reservation) or agriculture; and are less affected by dust dispersion th,m are residential areas. There are some areas of single family development adjoining the project site; those 21 on the east side lie in the path of prevailing summer (dry season) winds. A typical source of particulates from the construction phase would be smoke from the burning of land clearing debris. These activities, however, would not occur all at once throughout the whole site area, but would rather be spread over an expected development period of approximately twenty years. c~ *" Residential development could also create potential pollution impacts from the use of wood stoves and ~ fireplaces. The exact number of units including wood stoves and fireplaces has not been determined, however it is expected that electricity would be the primary source of heat for most residences. Thus use of secondary sources is expected to be limited and would not be expected to produce significant emission amounts. Increased use of automobiles on the site could be a concern because of the potential for the vehicle emissions to create localized carbon monoxide (CO) problems. Alternative 3 The Compact Site Plan This alternative would also provide additional land for residential development, but would involve less area for buildings. Thus densities would be higher than the Proposal and open space areas would be greater Sources of air quality impacts would be the same for this alternative as the Proposal, and emission levels would be expected to be the same as well. They would, however, be more concentrated due to the higher densities. Like the Proposal, this alternative would be developed or phased over a number of years. Alternative 4. The Village Concept This approach would allow annexation with future development centering on more commercial uses. It is intended, in part, to provide higher levels of on-site employment than might occur under the Proposal and Alternative 2. In general, air quality impacts would be lower for this alternative due to the lower levels of residential development expected Because this alternative is intended to encourage alternative transportation methods it is expected to have fewer vehicle emissions than the other annexation alternatives. By providing commercial areas designed to serve the immediate needs of annexation-area residences, for example, individuals would be encouraged to walk or bicycle to convenience, or neighborhood-oriented commercial/retail buildings. This alternative, like the others, would be developed or phased over a twenty year period. Mitigating Measures · Watering and/or hydroseeding of the exposed soils during the construction period would limit the emission of suspended particulates and dust into the air The phasing of development itself would reduce the amount of exposed soil and dust at anyone time period. · New state and regional regulatory agency regulations controlling residential wood-burning devices, and the curtailment of use of stoves and fireplaces during air pollution episodes, would apply to residential units erected on the site and would therefore help mitigate an increase in TSP and PMlO. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts . Under worst-c~llefco-ndl IOns (inve ions, low wind speed, etc.), vehicle and particulate emissions fro~ood-burning ap ,lia ould contribute to levels that exceed 24-hour average standards at full bUl \ \\ ~f ~ lIP \l f'~ 22 B. Water 1. Surface Water Existin& Conditions Barghausen Consulting Engineers prepared a Surface Water and Public Utilities study for the proposed annexation area and the information below is from that work. The complete study is provided in Appendix A of this document. The area within the 2,OOO-acre annexation boundary is located generally directly south and west of the downtown Yelm area. The topography of the land within the boundary annexation area is generally rolling in nature with grades ranging between 0% to over 40% in a few areas. However, the average grade could be more accurately described as between 5% and 15% (percent grade defined as the number of the expressed grade in 100 feet, therefore, 15% grade is equal to 15 feet vertically in 100 feet horizontally) It is not uncommon in western Washington to find topography inside urban areas which is rolling in nature. However, the westerly 1,000 acres of the annexation are somewhat unusual. Due to a slowly receding glacier during the ice age, several potholes (enclosed drainage areas or depressions) exist within this part of the annexation area. Normally water quality within urban areas is a function of storm water treatment prior to discharge into major draining channels. The amount of paved surfaces or industrial pollution points which discharge directly into streams also significantly affects water quality For the easterly portion of the annexation area, these general water quality principles apply However, approximately half of the area to be annexed does not drain to an open water channel but it ~late~-dir~tly into the ground via potholes. The d . collect and pond water Water is the~ ~ow~()...sfuwly percolate into the ground an 's essentially f tered by surface and/or wetland ve'get-anon and then is further filtered through the grou ation process. There does not appear to be a substantial amount of pollutant discharges into these pothole areas. For the remaining easterly 1,000 acres of the proposed annexation area which i more urb in nature, w/a~on of pollutant discharges from developed areas. These can r in the form of ;:farm al!i--m~ischarge as well as oil and heavy metal run off from paved surfaces. In either caSe;1hese pointed discharges appear to be minimal and therefore water quality for the natural environment would be considered to be very good. N);I /1 -(/~~ I 1 ,/.I ~d) Wetlands A wetlands study of the proposed annexation area was prepared by IES Associates and the following analysis is taken from that report. A complete copy of the wetlands study is included in this document as Appendix B. Wetlands on the site were defined using the triple parameter procedures as outlined in the Federal Manual for the Identification and Delineation of Jurisdictional Wetlands (1989) The procedures require identification of the presence of all three hydric parameters, i.e., hydric vegetation, hydric soils and water at the surface, or within 18 inches of surface, for seven continuous days during any portion of the growing season. The evaluation procedures, identified in Section 2.0 of the Manual, were utilized to identify and delineate the wetlands. We were classified on the site using two procedures. (l) US Fish & Wildlife Service Wetland assifica 'on System, Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Cowardin and 1(2) the ~y elm Resource Lands and Critical Areas Ordinance. Under the US Fish and Wildlife Service, there were four classes of wetlands identified. (1) Palustrine Emergent Marsh, (2) Palustrine Scrub/Shrub, (3) Palustrine Forested and (4) Riverine Lower Perennial Emergent (non-persistent) There are variations in the hydrologic regime, persistent to non- persistent emergent marsh species and the soil type within each of the Palustrine classes. The persistent wetland 23 type on the site is seasonally flooded Palustrine Shrub/Scrub The US Fish and& Wildlife Service failed to identify any of the areas on the Thurston Highlands property as Palustrine Open Water units, ~cating that the wetlands all d ring the summer months. Those portions which do not dry up ( ar so heavily vegetat . either shrubs or 0 n water components. Based on \,?ur on-site evaluation; e have changed some of the wetlands to Pa strine Open Water and have ified the hydrologic, assifi.sa,tion..oUhe US Fish and wildlihf rvice on others. ,~- ~ \7 The Yelrn Resource Land and Critical Areas Ordinance utilizes th created by the Washington Department of Ecology in th' Odel Wetlands 11, a. "Washington State Four-Tier Wetlands Rating Syste 1990. There are 17 on-site wetlands and one off-site wetland that will impact or be impacted by the development of the Thurston Highlands portion of the proposed annexation area, and an additional wetlands area, including Thompson Creek, which will be impacted by potential development of the Venture Property portion to the north and east of the Thurston Highlands site. Figure 10 provides a map of the wetland areas. There are four additional areas within the annexation proposal that have hydric indicators and may be classified as wetlands, but because of their size, (i.e., less than 10,000 t\ square feet) none of these wetlands were classified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service or Thurston ~ \ County as \{.vetIan<<i!s. \ I , rtii-~~\ ~ , Five of the 17 on-site wetlands were classified as Category IV wetlands under the Yelrn Wetlands ( ~I \ .;, las-slficatio System. All of these were either Palustrine, Scrub/Shrub or Open Water, Intermittent \, ~' ',areas up early in the spring. Seven of the wetlands are Category III Wetlands under the Yelrn : ~~ system. They are classified as Category III because of their size; isolation, or lack of interaction with \ 'fJ other wetland areas, predominance of one wetland indicator species, usually Douglas spirea and the '\1\ depth and duration of standing or surface water during late spring to early summer months. The remaining five wetlands, three which are located in the southeast comer of the proposed annexation site, are Category II Wetlands under the Yelm system. Three of the four provide high functional values, extensive wildlife habitat values and are interconnected through surface drainage with off- site wetlands. Activities associated with these three wetlands could have off-site impacts. ~~ ): ~ " L ~ n l / ( / Under tH Model Ordinance Classification, t e would be no Category I Wetlands on the site, since none proVl itat for endangered or tened plant or animal species. The site has no high quality native wetlan ch are identified as Category I or Category IT quality Natural Heritage wetland sites, it does not have regionally rare wetland communities, nor are the wetlands of _ ~exceptional local sig~~ . A summary of the wetlands to include size, classification (using both US Fish & Wildlife Service methodology as identified by the Fish & Wildlife Service and by IES Associations and the classification using the Yelm system) are included as Table 8, Appendix B. Individual descriptions for each wetland identified are included in the complete wetlands study (Appendix B) . Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action Under this alternative, annexation would not occur and the properties identified would remain in Thurston County Wetlands would be subject to provisions of Thurston County regarding sensitive environmental areas and other development regulations. Alternative 2 Annexation Proposal A total of approximately 5,000 residential units would or could ultimately be constructed within the annexation area. Based on current storm drainage conveyance and retention/detention requirements, as 24 \.. #10 I V ( \. - -- ~,C;, e 'f..."....:v ~o /'-........ ,.., _../ /' I ) \ I >'-\ / _/ ) < \ '- I \#6 0117 0#8 el? .~ v~ _ _ L-O - q L-~ -- b'" - - ~~<::' .~ ~~ o~ ( ) L-~ J- " - ,,<'" ./ x..... -<::- V' / /' "{ , ./ #5 \ / a( 114 \ CJ\ "- ()1I3 " \ .iP ' ~ @ Not to Scale .. , ~ / / / ./ ./ \ \ \ I I ---------'---f l' /1 / 1 J Note: This map is lor orientation purposes only and is not intended for juriSdictional Or site planning purposes. A more aCCurate map of the wetlands can result from a Survey by a qualified land surveyor of the flagged wetland edge. '------ r I I I I I I J I I I I - r-- ..,,--, ) I I I -~ -.....) .'4 V - - " ....... - #18 -- legend [J' ,. Wetlands Property Boundary --- #a logging Roads Wetland Number -- - Thompson Creek -~ -- 1 L. ~~~ (~ t~1 'v ,,\ . Bear alley Rd SE \"u ~" ~ ;:: Q..'ti ~flJ ~ f: ~ o ,... Q. to ~ CI) "C c: to Q) ... . .~I I.L - .... 4> ~ >. C) c ~ III .. o .! Ia Q .....---\ \ \et \~ ~ \.. 'C l>t c: :c !E f~ .c /0 0) ,U .- ! :r ,e: 10 c: I.... o !~ .... If.... CI) I:;' \f ~ 1;5 \ .c ~J~ ~ / (I) Ql 4> ~ N ....QlO~ to>Il)N .- < ~ ... 0'0 0 OC\l< , Ql:>(") (I),r:.;>'It (I) .: rO 0> -- ::l'o. ...... ....... ~ E <D ,,.. 'It >- 0 .." ... _ N lJ.JIl)O-- - ... well as the State of Washington Department of Ecology and State of Washington Fisheries Department biofiltration requirements, water quality from the developed areas can be anticipated to be as good as the natural environment. Land use controls, regulations and ordinances requiring the design and construction of extensive biofiltration facilities prior to the discharge of storm drainage from developed areas into open channels will assure that the water quality similar to the natural environment is maintained. In addition, the preservation of significant wetlands on portions of the '} annexed area as well as the incorporation of retention systems utilizing the existing pothole areas for (, 1 natural biofiltration and percolation will also assure water quality similar to the natural environment ) for the proposal. There are two areas in t _ urston Highlands po ion of the proposed annexation site where significant impacts could occur lOwetIands, surfa ater drainage, or undisturbed climax vegetation. These are the southeast corner of the:;ite-andln the 40 acre inset in the center of Section 23. The major drainage from off-site through the project site, starts in an off-site wetland and properties to the south and runs through Wetlands #1 and #2, where the water is isolated in a lying depression. The drainage way is currently culverted between Wetlands #1 and #2 on the southern-most logging road and north and east of Wetland #2 under the northern entrance logging road. Restricting the drainage through the blockage of the eastern drainage corridor would increase the depth and duration of flooding of Wetland #2 and in all probability, create a intermittent water connection between Wetlands #2, #3 and #4. This would provide an area, approximately 1,000 to 1,200 feet, by the width of the drainage way plus the width of the buffer, which coul ~1 . ed for residential or recreational development. It would eliminate the potential to crea fairways etween Wetlands #2 and #3, and between Wetlands #3 and #4 Presently, the se ~ between these three wetlands is approximately 200 to 250 feet each. With a 100 foot set-back from Wetland #2 and a 50 foot set-back surrounding Wetlands #3 and #4, there would be an approximate 50 foot wide corridor between Wetlands #2 and #3 that could be utilized for recreation, road connections or some aspect that does not include permanent fill, or an increase in the potential for surface water run-off or surface water contamination. In the area between Wetlands #3 and #4, the 50 foot set-backs would be approximately 100 feet wide. The slope from the north into the depression that contains Wetlands #2, #3, #4 and #5 is gradual and could be utilized either as golf course corridor or for residences. The west side is abrupt to near vertical and has no potential utilization because of the proximity of the wetlands in the toe of the slope, the steepness of the slope and the instability of the slope To the west, on the flat areas of Wetlands #12 and #13, the wetlands are large enough and have a center core that is wet enough, and supports surface water for long enough periods of time, that they could not and should not be filled. Wetland #13 is relatively flat up to the area surrounding the open water area. Golf course or residential development could occur within 50 feet of this wetland, with only limited effects. The potential use of the area for a golf course will increase the nitrogen and phosphorus input into the pond and probably increase the potential for algae formation. The small southeasterly finger of' Wetland #13 is formed in an old road and could be filled with no impact to the main body of th~ \) wetland. This would provide an additional 200 to 250 feet of property adjacent to the road or betwee~ Wetlands #12 and #13 for some form of development activity Wetland #12 has relatively steep slopes along the west and south sides, with gradual slopes in on the north side. The north slope collects surface water from a fairly substantial area feeding into the wetland where it is trapped for either very slow percolation or evaporation during the summer months. The wetland goes completely dry each summer Development of the crowns of the steeper slopes should have no affect on the wetland. Development on the north slope could impact water quality corning into the wetland. The effect on water quality would be dependent on the type of development. Both 26 J I .{ b ~(1-r 11 1\" S y{i~ rl' ,,r " , ~i \~) \ ~)~ \~ \, Wetlands #13 and #14 could be enhanced, both as permanent water features for residences or as a water ;.:.. /' feature at the edge of a golf course. The wetland area is two large (nearly 200 x 200 feet) to be i\ I incorporated into a golf course. / '~~ Wetlands #6, #7 and #8 are in a steep depression. The slope is steepest to the north and west, with a / ~\ \ gradual slope into the unlogged area on the adjacent property to the south. The north slope is more \' gradual, but still relatively steep. The area between Wetlands #6 and #7 has an abandoned logging road with a log landing area on the flat between the two, which could be used as an access road or crossing road through this portion of the property It could also be a part of a fairway; however, the steepness of the west side may be impractical for purposes of maintaining a golf course. All three wetlands have extensive wood waste and should be cleaned for safety purposes, as well as aesthetic purposes. The slopes on the west side of all three ponds have an extensive amount of downfall that should be removed for safety purposes. Wetland #6 and #8 could be filled if the drainage from the rest of the site was effectively channeled into Wetland #7 Wetland #7 could then be enhanced and maintained as a feature, either for residences overlooking the depression or as the edge of a golf course. Because of the slope, it would be impractical to attempt to fill all three of the wetlands in this vicinity Wetland #9 is a very small depression along the property boundary Because of the wooded nature and the fact that it is collecting surface water from an off-site slope, it should probably be left alone, or modified with the understanding that the surface water, from the adjacent property, which is Fort Lewis, would have to be addressed with the development. This is an area that has a young stand of black cottonwood over an old stand of slough sedge, indicating that the area is in the process of changing from a shaded open-water depression in a Douglas fir stand, to an exposed deciduous forested wetland It will retain its wetland character as long as the surface water run-off from off-site continues. Wetland #10 is a large Douglas spirea depression that collects surface water and extends off the property to the west. This is a Class n Wetland because of its size, water collection functions and habitat diversity A 100 foot buffer should be established around this area utilizing the existing Douglas fir growth as a barrier Some Himalayan blackberry clearing could occur in some areas, but would probably stimulate discussion in opposition and may not be necessary for the limited benefits. Wetland #11 is a small willow depression. This area is less than one-tenth of an acre and could be filled with no impact to water quality, as long as it is understood that the drainage that was collecting into this area would have to be re-routed and established at some other point on the property There are two other depressions in this area that are technically wetlands, but because of their size, are exempted under the proposed Yelm Ordinance, Thurston County Ordinance and the recommendations of the Washington Department of Ecology Model Ordinance. Wetland #14 is another small isolated depression full of Douglas spirea. This area is over 0.2 acre in size, but has limited functional and biological value This would be an area that could be filled with no impact to water quality or wildlife habitat. Wetland #16 is the largest wetland on the Thurston Highlands property and the only wetland that is technically a forested wetland. The area has a steep slope along the north side that would probably preclude development without significant grading. Residences could be established on the crown, backing on the forested area with the backyards being in the cut-over slope. The north facing slope would require a 100 foot buffer from the edge of the forest portion of the wetland. There is a small depression in the northwest comer of this wetland that is not forested. This area should be filled or modified and placed back as a buffer to allow development of the northwest end of this large wetland where the slope is less severe. The west end of the wetland is gradually sloped and collects surface water 27 The area has a fairly large area of uplands that could be incorporated into the wetland as part of mitigation to off-set the filling of the wetland on the northwest comer The south side has a Douglas fir upland area that could be opened up and utilized. One hundred feet of the forested area will be included in the wetland buffer The south side also has a relatively steep slope for a short distance that is heavily impacted by wood waste. The east end of this wetland has a U- shaped upland, however, because of buffers along both sides, much of the area will probably be excluded from development. It could, however, become an important area for mitigation to off-set development of wetlands, particularly finger sloughs, small isolated wetlands (Wetlands #6 and #8), the isolated Wetland #9, portions of the finger of Wetland #13, Wetland #11 and Wetland #14. The combined areas of these wetlands is under two acres, which would qualify them for a Nationwide 26, One to Two Acre Permit. Wetland #17 splits the property line. A major portion of this area is a meadow that is marginally wet. It could be incorporated into a summer fairway with little to no impact to the existing vegetation during the winter months. Mowing of the area should not constitute development. During the winter months, the area would be too wet to be utilized as a part of the golf course. The drainage through the system, the shallow groundwater table and the size of the over-all wetland would prevent it from being filled and utilized on a permanent basis as a part of the development. The road crossing coming into the property will require filling and culverting of the drainage and wetland that lies at the toe of the steep slope in the southeast comer of the property Mitigation and compensation will be required for this use. This again, could be incorporated into the larger forested wetland in the central portion of Section 26. The consolidation of all of the isolated pockets of wetlands throughout the site into the larger forested wetland area, which extends off the property to the northeast, would create a viable, self-sustaining, highly productive, forested, scrub/shrub, open water wetland system that would be an enhancement to that portion of the development, as well as providing a quality wildlife habitat. The proposed development scenario for th~re ~tners portion of the property would impact two wetland areas. (1) the shrub/scrub wetland~uthwest corner of the site; and (2) a portion of the degraded emergent marsh pond area east of Thompson Creek in the vicinity of the existing barns and residence. Losses associated with the development of the small wetland in the southwest comer would be the loss of a water collection depression that dries out early in the spring. Loss of this area would not impact wetland or water dependent wildlife species since the area is not utilized by these species except possibly in the winter Due to the shrub cover and lack of surface water, this use would be extremely limited. Surface water collected in this area could be relocated into grass-lined swales or constructed detention/retention systems providing the same level of functional water quality treatment value as exists under current conditions. The loss of the wet depression and intermittent pond along the east side of Thompson Creek would eliminate highly degraded emergent marsh area that has the potential of providing some biofiltration, flood desynchronization, and nutrient out-take. Removal of the cattle from the area with the filling of these wetlands could be considered to be a positive impact to the overall water quality to Thompson Creek, adjacent wetlands to Thompson Creek downstream from this area, and at times, in the flume from Thompson Creek into the Nisqually River Removal of the cattle would also decrease contamination of groundwater which has been charged with impacting shallow-water wells in the immediate vicinity It would remove causes of violation notices from the Department of Agriculture, Public Health Department and Washington Department of Ecology, for groundwater, surface water and Thompson Creek contamination. 28 ~I ,~ ) \~ ~ ~ -\ Overall, the removal of cattle, the reduction of slurry/manure mix onto the grass meadows, with the ~ proposed wetland corridor, would increase water quality values throughout this portion of the ~ property There will be a net loss in wetlands unless the area is mitigated on another portion of the ~ overall property r---_ _ \ ~~ Alternative 3: Compact Site Plan ( , . \ "'" Impacts would be largely- similar to potential development within the Proposal. \Some t;eduction of , \ \ possi~wetland impactsfJc/ where less land is used to achieve the proposed ~pment. ) Anernative 4. Village Co~ ~ Water impacts would be similar to those of the Proposal A lower density would reduce potential runoff to wetland areas and occupy less area for development. Thus some wetland areas may not be impacted under this approach. Other development impacts would resemble those of the proposal as described above. The loss or filling of this portion of the wetland would eliminate some flood desynchronization values, however, with some innovated habitat manipulation in the proposed stream corridor, these values could be reinstated. With proper design, peripheral flood detention ponds with back-flow as waters recede, would increase the biofiltration, sediment deposits that would occur with the development of the land and that does occur on the properties to the south that are not proposed to be modified. These types of structures could increase water quality in the stream as well as metered water back through the stream, thereby regulating the water level drop within the stream after each rain effect in the spring. Miti~atin~ Measures Water quality mitigation will be required for any development within the annexed area. Mitigation will include the design and construction of the following' · Subsurface and/or surface conveyance systems. Open water channel! ditches will be the preferred mitigation alternative wherever possible. · Storm drainage detention will be required in order to limit the post-development release rate for storm water to that of the pre- developed site Storm detention facilities in the form of surface, storage ponds, and/or subsurface storage vaults or pipes, will be required. · Biofiltration in the form of biofiltration swales and/or other mechanical biofiltration facilities will be required to assure water quality Water quality will be preserved and will be similar in character to the natural environment. · Storm water retention will be encouraged in order to percolate storm water directly into the ground whenever soil conditions will allow In addition to the biofiltration requirements will be effectively filtered through several layers of surface soils prior to entering the ground water system. · A wetlands mitigation plan could be prepared for potential development projects that could have impacts on wetlands within the proposed annexation area. 29 2. Groundwaterl Aquifer Recharge Areas Existin& Conditions The annexation area is part of a much larger system, mostly within the Fort Lewis area, which is a primary recharge area for groundwater, but not directly used. Two groundwater areas have been identified, the Till/Morainal Upland and the Yelm Outwash Prairie. The Till/Morainal Upland area includes the annexation area. The Till/Morainal Upland is on high ground, central to proposed project area. It receives total recharge from local rain, there appears to be no surface no and, all water falling on this terrain enters an aquifer -' system. Thus current water quality i expect 0 be ~~~. I - ~ The groundwater on the Till/Morainal Upland all originates as rainfall, and includes a total recharge area of at least fifteen square miles. In this area all surplus precipitation, above that used for evapotranspiration, infiltrates to the underlying aquifers. Discharge directions are radial, drainage j toward Eaton Creek to the north, the Deschutes River to the south and west, and the Nisqually River~(,~J to the east. Annual net recharge is estimated at 30 inches which over 15 square miles, totals 24,000 acre ~ J~ feet per year, averaging 33 cubic feet per second or 15,000 gallons per minute. ~ ~ Natural discharge from the eastern part of the Till/Morainal Upland, in which the annexation area is ~J:I\ ~ ~ located, flows eastward to join eastern aquifers which in turn flow to the Nisqually River The surplus \! ~ and uppermost part of the underflow springs out to form Thompson Creek, also tributary to the Nisqually River Farther east is Yelm Creek, and farther east yet are sprin s to the Nisqually River, the major nearby spring called Crystal Springs. ~ ~ A series of measurements were done by the U S. Geological Survey in ptember 1949 for hese streams as shown in the table below These records are the latest readily avail Ie a this f 'I h,1l Table 2. r~ v <0 Measured Streamflows ,\1;) SJ It;? /: ,vi'" 0rV Location Drainage Area (square miles) Flow (cubic feet per second) Thompson Creek - Yelm Highway 20.5 019 Yelm Creek - North edge of Yelm 19.3 040 Crystal Springs 6.66 Yelm Creek at mouth 20.6 15.7 Source: State Water Supply Bulletin No 23, United States Geological Survey The table shows that during that time Thompson Creek was nearly dry, and probably intercepting minimal baseflow from aquifer discharge. The same was true for Yelm Creek at Yelm. At Crystal Springs, an obvious aquifer discharge point, the flow was 6.66 cubic feet per second, an appreciable amount. Crystal Springs flows to Yelm Creek which gains an additional 9 cubic feet per second for a total of 15.7 before joining the Nisqually River It is reasonably assumed that the entire 15.7 cubic feet per second at that time of the year was regional aquifer discharge from a combination of the Till/Morainal Upland and the Yelm Outwash Prairie aquifer systems. More would have been discharging to the Nisqually River across even deeper discharge areas. 30 ~~(~ f \ ~, 'Z") ~ \: " "Z "';) ~ --. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action No annexation would occur and development within the proposed annexation area would not take place as indicated in the conceptual site plans for the proposal. Rural development mayor may not occur, however, the rate and extent of such development would likely be less than under the annexation proposal, and thus is expected to have little impact on groundwater conditions. Alternative 2: Annexation Proposal Since the nearest public water source for the area is from Yelm's municipal wells, which are presumed to be insufficient to m e proposed demands, ~~ from wells in the area would be needed. Surface geology, a _1' " . es ~hat a sufficient supply of groundwater would be available. rillil)g/ nd testing would . fore permanent plans for a water system could be made. A nehv~ field of three or more wells would be desirable to serve domestic units, such as from four 500 gallons per minute wells. For irrigation of potential recreation facilities, sprinkling zones of 2500 gallons per minute are desirable Where storage ponds are utilized, a constant supply of about 400 gallons per minute during a 4 month irrigation season typically meets the need. This water would likely be drawn from the same aquifer as the domestic supply The developed project should ideally utilize a well system with a pumping capacity of 2300 to 4400 gallons per minute, the range depending on availability of irrigation pond storage. these quantities are essentially peak day requirements and actual draw from the resource is expected to be less. The total average use for domestic and golf course combined would be approximately 706 gallons per minute (1.6 cubic feet per second). Two wells with pre-existing water rights are within the proposed annexation area Impacts on groundwater quality could result from plant fertilizer, especially nitrates. Since nitrate loading can be harmful to the aquifer, it is assumed that all domestic sewage would be treated offsite and there will be minimal addition of any chemicals which would be harmful to drinking water Other potential pollutants, such as road salts, unused hydrocarbons, and miscellaneous solutes, are expected to be diluted to insignificant quantities by the major amount of natural recharge, estimated at 30 inches per year The groundwater withdrawal and consumption of approximately 1.6 cubic feet per second would ultimately reduce the flow of the Nisqually River by essentially the same amount, minus any returned through sewage system outfalls to the river Howev r the overall flow impact is expected to be insignificant since low flow in the Nisqually River i many hun reds f cubic feet per second. ~ - ~ Alternative 3: Compact Site Plan Potential development under this approach would be the same as for the Proposal. Thus, the rate and density of this development is expected to have groundwater and aquifer impacts similar to the Proposal. Alternative 4. Village Concept This approach would result in an overall lower density than considered for the Proposal and Alternative 3. Impacts would be similar in that additional consumption land pollutant sources would be introduced in the area, however, proportionately lower quantities would be involved. Miti~atin~ Measures . Domestic Sewage should not be treated within the proposed annexation area. Offsite treatment and disposal is recommended. \ \ l~Y ~ . Bulk storage of hydrocarbons or most chemicals, as well as home heating oil tanks and uses such as gas stations should be prohibited to protect aquifer recharge Any application for light- industrial use should be careful processed for storage plans. 117 r\ o.,IoJ" Golf course fertilization should be manage sufficiently enou_gh 0 avoid excessive over- fertilization which could cause adverse impacts naeiIyinggr6undwater ~ l' ) .... ~ -1 L ;f'111,...rt&€~,.... t?YJV.,,Pr rfi.?/?,A 7"" , A"",tv ,.t:I"'~ ,.... " 'L' 5t//f. 1 /t?/,....;;;H6 .A "., . 32 ~ \"0 3. Frequently Flooded Areas and Water Absorption Existing conditions Frequently flooded areas of the proposed annexation include property located directly west of the Yelm Golf Course. In addition, in portion of the southeast comer of the annexation is also subject to periodic flooding. These areas provide substantial water absorption and accommodate storm drainage run off from other portions of the annexation area as well as other off-site areas not to be annexed as part of this proposal enerally, the bottom of the potholes tend to be wet in nature and under current state law som may be assified as wetlands. As such, they will be afforded wetland protection as required by law There , their ability to accept storm water and absorb a substantial amount of surface runoff into the site soils will be preserved. As a result, there will be no significant difference between the developed and undeveloped condition in these areas. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action Annexation would not occur and the area would remain in Thurston County Potential impacts associated with future development would be subject to county regulations. Alternative 2: Annexation Proposal Development would generally increase the total amount of runoff This occurs because the increase in surface area generally associated with development produces higher storm water runoff rates Additional storm drainage volume results from constructing roadways and/or rooftops, driveway, gravel areas, etc., normally associat with development. As outlined in previous sections, the post- development runoff rate 'lfbe limite .to that of the pre-developed site. In addition, water quality will be assured by utilizing seve methods of water treatment including biofiltration. However, a unmitigatable imp,act ny development is the overall increase of net runoff from a site due to thEYin rea' ous surface. Assuming that water quality and runoff rates, however, are maintafued to mimic the natural environment the additional storm drainage water can in some instances actually be a benefit to certain wetland areas and frequently flooded areas. By adding additional storm drainage to these areas the natural condition will be enhanced. L \ ~ (;~/ /\ (/~ jJ II' i', v \ Alternative 3 Compact Site Plan Impacts of this alternative would be th~\aS those identified for the Proposal. ~~~- Alternative 4. Vi~ Impacts would be' largely the -sam~ as the Proposal. l____- Mitigating Measures · Provide siltation control measures for storm drainage entering frequently flooded areas to insure that siltation does not occur This requirement could be satisfied through the use of oil/water/siltation separators in all conveyance storm drainage systems. . Design and construction of biofiltration facilities prior to discharge into discharge of storm drainage water into frequently flooded areas. Biofiltration facilities act as a natural digestive system on heavy metals and silt. 33 C Vegetation and Wildlife Existing Conditions V egeta tion A variety of vegetation types are present within the proposed annexation area. Much of the site has been logged in the past, but a large portion has been replanted with Douglas fir which is a dominant tree in the area. Other tree species include black cottonwood, red alder, western red cedar, and Oregon ash. Common understory vegetation observed included red elderberry, osoberry, red-flowering currant and some vine maple, salal, salmonberry and mahonia. Ground covers noted included false lily of the valley, solomon seal, piggyback, and bleeding heart in some areas. In addition to trees and shrubs, a variety of grasses are evident. These include orchard grass, quack grass, velvet grass, cat's ear, English plantain, sweet vernal grass, and sour dock. A partial list of plants as well as a detailed description of vegetation in the area has been included in Appendix B of this document. The greatest variation of vegetation on the site occurs in the depressions around wet pockets; however, even these are limited in species diversity The large central wetland area has a shrub border of Douglas spirea, four willow species, ninebark, osoberry and red elderberry The center core, or deepest part of the wetland, varies with portions being dominated by cattail and hardstem bulrush while the remainder is dominated by dense stands of Douglas spirea. There are open pockets of water in the pond, however, because of~gmg ;000 d~mergent vegetation is limited. What does exist, consists of slough sedge, water parsley, uttercup and smartweed with scattered reed canarygrass. Salmonberry and Douglas spirea are the dominant shrubs extending from the east end of this large wetland in the drainage-way, to the east property line. The shrubs are growing under a young black cottonwood stand with some trees as much as 6 inches in diameter There are eight depressions on the site that are principally circular, intermittently-flooded water holes surrounded by a willow mix with an inner border of Douglas spirea and/or salmonberry Douglas spirea is most prevalent in areas that were not as well shaded prior to logging with the salmonberry being present in those depressions where there is evidence that Douglas fir provided good shade cover Border willows are predominantly with Scouler's willow and Sitka willow in varying elevations surrounding the water with Pacific willow and heart-leaf willow in the deeper water areas. Where there was a steep incline into the depression, the willows were usually dominated by two species, the Sitka willow at the edge and Pacific willow in the deeper water areas. The edges surrounding these depressions have varying grass stands. Those areas that are close to logging roads have more grasses than those which were surrounded by Douglas fir prior to logging Again, the dominant grass was orchard grass with quack grass, sweet vernal grass and some velvet grass growing in patches along disturbed areas next to the roads or log handling areas. ? Wildlife . A number of animal s~pec. also use the area. wildlife use of the site has been significantly altered by the logging operation. e surrounding unlogged areas, particularly those properties on Fort Lewis, continUe~O~de t , necessary habitat to support big game species which u.ilizes this 'rp for moveme mi~d feeding. The regrowth of young plants and the invasion of a variety o,orest and new yo g s s has provided additional food for browsing species, which probably were not as prevalent prior to logging as they are under existing conditions. The entire area is criss-crossed with ani . . The stumps, deadlogs and snags have been worked by a variety of birds and what ars to be u kulIs, bone fragments, and deposited deer horns, which have been gnawed, indicate a vanety 0 predators and small mammals. 34 \ )~ 'tJ ~ ~J~ \ Jf \~ 1 ~f1 r'1. Black tail deer were the most prominent large mammals using the area. Small mammals noted included voles, meadow mice, white tail deer mice long-tail weasel and shrews. Predators included coyote, raccoon, s~ skunk and red fox. Oppossum, chickaree and some mountain beaver were also noted. . vJ '1. Many bird s i inh it utilize or inhabi the area. Bi~has also been modified by the logging activi es ilia ave occu nth te during th;~i5 years. The lost forest canopy has changed e emphasis of bird-us om deep forested, upland species, to a mix of open grass/ shrub species. Blu ird boxes have been placed around the site in an effort to increase mountain bluebird activity, which was historically present on the high plains in this area. Dominant bird use on the site were small meadow type species including grasshopper sparrows, swallows, white and golden-crowned sparrows and juncos. Red-shafted flicker, pileated woodpecker and hairy and downy woodpeckers are using the forested areas along the east side and the 40 acre tract in Section 23. These species overlap and use the forested area surrounding the site on the Fort Lewis property and in the open forest pastures to the east. ~ ~ Red-tailed and sharp-shinned hawk were obser-ld hunting the site. There is evidence 0 ow e in the large, unlogged, forested wetland. The use appeared to be in the northeastern n the large black cottonwood and cedar area. Waterfowl, including mallard, pintail, teal and gadwall, were observed using the open water pockets and forested ponds throughout the site. Wood ducks were observed in the brushy,forested wetlands in the southwest comer of the site, in the wooded wetland areas east of the site and in the open pasture wetland habitats. An off-site open pond and the pasture area to the east also supported widgeon, scaup, red-breasted and hooded mergansers and Canada geese. This is an enhanced wetland area that has been turned into a deeper water pond with grass emergent marsh buffers. ~ b~e her~ were observed hunting the areas surrounding the large emergent marsh wetland in the sout west comer where there was evidence of a number of frogs. They were also hunting a small drainage ditch in the 40 acre parcel in the center of Section 23. Common garter snake and western terrestrial garter snake were observed in varying locations throughout the site. The wet pond areas, particularly in the southern half of Section 26, in the wetland in the southwest comer of the site and in the 40 acre parcel in the center of Section 23, had high concentrations of Pacific tree frogs and red-legged frogs. Bull frogs were identified in the large, wooded wetland along the south property line, which extends off the site to the south into a heavily forested wetland with a human-made modified pond. Because of the time of the year and the duration and detail of the wildlife studies, no efforts were made to identify salamanders or other aquatic species that might be present in the larger forested wetlands along the south property line, in the southwest comer or in the large unlogged forested area in the center of Section 26. It is anticipated, because of the log downfall, that there should be a good variety and relatively high numbers of bog type salamanders, which are common to western Washington. Bird~~of the area next to the THA pro~ includes warblers, robin, swainson's thrush towhee, c. dee, bushtit and pine siskins. Bird llsylhas been modified by the extensive pasturing, the change in vegetation to a mixed native/non-native mix, and the irrigation with the manure slurry The tall grasses in the two northern pastures attracts a variety of grass nesting species such as Savannah sparrow and western meadowlark. The grass pastures in conjunction with the oak woods provides habitat for western bluebirds and Lazuli bunting. The oak tree/alder habitat attracts hardwood users such as warblers, bushtits, and vireos. Wilson's, orange-crowned and Audubon's warblers were seen or heard in the less disturbed portions of these woods. The Douglas fir stands had robin, swainson's thrush, towhee, chickadee, bushtit and pine siskins. Taller trees at the edges of meadows were used as hunting perches foe red-tailed hawk. Marsh hawk were hunting the larger un-grazed pasture areas. The forested mix coupled with open meadows and cattle feeding areas create an insect community that attracts insect-eating crevice, hole and deciduous 35 woods nesting species. flycatchers, kingbirds, tree swallow, violet green swallow,titmice and others were observed in the mixed woods and flying feeding forays over the pasture areas. Cowbirds, brewers blackbirds and starlings concentrated in and around the feedlot areas. Ruffed grouse, valley quail and ring-necked pheasants were seen or heard in the forested areas and protected areas at the edge of the pastures. During the winter, waterfowl use the creek and pond area in the east pasture below the barns. During this time the water is high and less contaminated, attracting dabbling species such as mallard, pintail and teal. There was no evidence of wood ducks or other crevice or hole nesting waterfowl. Great blue heron hunt the creek because of the abundance of aquatic life. They have also been observed with snakes and mice. Green heron may use the northern portion of the creek, however, they usually desire clearer running water than occurs on the site. The only fish identified in the area are those in Thompson Creek. Washington Department of Fisheries lists coho salmon as probable but not certain in the stream. Small unidentified fingerlings were observed north of the site but not in the reach through the proposed annexation area. A partial list of animals is included in Appendix B of this document. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action Annexation would not occur as proposed and vegetationa dn wildlife habitat would not be disturbed by the r d activities. Th ential annexation properties would remain in Thurston County and eve~ment of the area 0 'ed to 0 'E ~ I'~ &. 1'1 ? Alternative 2: Proposed Annexation Each of the development alternatives would alter existing vegetation and wildlife habitat. Potential development under the proposal would eliminate much of the native vegetation. Wildlife use of the ~J.,J" site would also be likely to diminish, especially among species that prefer little human activity"" tI1I ~ Where wildlife or plant species utilize wetlands, any development that results in impacts to wetland areas can also be expected to have an effect on these species. Landscaping and open space areas are intended to provide some habitat for native species but potential development would likely result in an overall reduction in the types and amounts of species within the proposed annexation area. Alternative 3 Compact Site Plan Impacts would be similar to the proposal except that larger open space buffers and landscaping components would be included. These areas could result in preserving more habitat for native species and allow somewhat more use by local wildlife. fYll~ ~MoOoJ Q PJvlI'I vI ,- Alternative 4. Village Concept Development would still be expected to eliminate or displace some plant and animal species within the annexation area. A reduction in the size, or the potential changes in uses of the proposed development, would not result in preserving significant amounts of wildlife or vegetation habitat within the proposed annexation area. It is possible that this alternative might result in an overall lower density of use within the area, however, the benefits to plant and animal species would not likely be great. Mitigatin~ Measures Landscaping, open space and buffers would provide some remaining habitat for wildlife and vegetation within the proposed annexation area. Native vegetation could be used wherever possible in, and around, potential development areas. If undeveloped areas could be linked to offsite areas of a similar nature, potential wildlife corridors could be established. Protection and/or buffering of significant wetland areas to avoid human activity would allow a greater opportunity for plants and animals to continue to use the area. 36 D. Environmental Health Noise In trod uction Noise may be considered the result of a physical phenomenon created primarily from mechanical vibration. The effect a noise may have on a person hearing it is deterrnirld by how lo~d the noise is, the actual source, and the frequencies of the noise:......ro,.J~ .J?>J..~Jlt;Jl}.-OI ~/Clll',~J'1 Most sound measurements are based on sound pressure levels at various frequency ranges. Since the ,. ~ t human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies, a number of frequency weighting methods have ~v 1.1\ been used in developing noise measuring instruments that approximate the way the human ear responds I( t'f \}p ~ to noise levels. The If A weighted" decibel scale is the most common scale for expressing noise levels. i ~l \}~~ Decibel scales are a logarithmic index based on a ratio of the actual pressure fluctuations generated by sound waves compared to a standard reference pressure value. Generally speaking, the human recipient of noise would consider an increase in 10 dBA in the level of noise as being an approximate doubling of that sound level. An increase of 0 to 5 dBA is considered to have a slight impact upon the receiver, an increase from 5 to 10 dBA is considered significant, and increases greater than 10 dBA can result in a serious impact on public health and welfare. Table 4 on the following page provides a comparison of typical sound levels from varying sources. '1 ~ b\V 1"" ~" ~ Duration of noise must also be considered along with noise levels when evaluating the effects of noise on people. To simplify estimates of duration, fluctuating sound is usually measured as an average sound level. The average sound level may be defined as the level of steady sound that would produce acoustical energy equivalent to the fluctuating noise over a given time period. Thus, varying noise levels are described in terms of the equivalent constant decibel level, also called the average sound level, and expressed as (Leq) Sounds from noise sources may be reduced by distance and/or barriers between the source and potential receivers. Generally, a reduction of 6 to 9 dBA may be achieved for each doubling of the distance from a point source (such as mechanical or construction equipment>, and a reduction of 3 to 4.5 dBA for each doubling of distance from a line source (such as street traffic) Topographic or human related barriers may also be used to absorb and reduce sounds. Earth berms, trees, acoustical tiles and other manufactured barriers may help reduce or block noise levels. Atmospheric absorption of sound may also become significant at distances greater than 1000 feet. Existin& Conditions Sound sources throughout most of the annexation area are rural to residential in character, produced from light residential activity and natural sounds. The Washington State Administrative Code (Chapter 173-60) establishes limits on the levels and duration of noises crossing property boundaries. Permissible sound levels depend on land use of the source and receiving property Table 3 below illustrates the limits by both the source and receiver of the noise. Table 3. Maximum Permitted Noise Levels Noise Source Receiving Property Residential'" Commercial'" Industrial'" Residential'" 55 dBA 57 dBA 60 dBa Commercial'" 57 60 65 Industrial'" 60 65 70 '" Generalized Use Designations for Noise Abatement Purposes 37 Tab I e 3 Weighted Sound Levels and Human Response SoundSourre dBA Response Criteria --150 Carrier Deck Jet Operation --140 Painfully loud --130 Limit Amplified Speech Jet Takeoff (200 feet) Discotheque --120 Maximum Vocal Effort Auto Horn (3 feet) Riveting Machine --110 Jet Takeoff (2,000 feet) Shout (0.5 feet) --100 N Y Subway Station Heavy Truck (50 feet> --90 Very Annoying Hearing Damage (8 hours) Pneumatic Drill (50 feet) --80 Annoying Freight Train (50 feet> Freeway Traffic (50 feet) --70 Telephone Use Difficult Intrusi ve Air Conditioning Unit (20 feet) --60 Light Auto Traffic (50 feet) --50 Quiet Living room Bedroom --40 Library Soft Whisper (15 feet) --30 Very quiet Broadcasting Studio --20 --10 --0 .. Typical A - Weighted sound levels taken with a sound-level meter and expressed as decibels on the scale. The II A" scale approximates the frequency response of the human ear Source: U.S. Council on Environmental Quality 1970. 38 ,~ r~ ~I ~ ~ ~l~ J1 ~~ \ ~ \~ )..:-q- o f,1 Between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am the noise limitations of the foregoing table shall be reduced by 10 dBA for receiving properties within residential areas. At any hour of the day or night the applicable noise limitations in the aforementioned provisions may be exceeded for any receiving property by no more than: 5 dBA for a total of 15 minutes in anyone hour period, or 10 dBA for a total of 5 minutes in anyone hour period, or 15 dBA for a total of 1-1/2 minutes in any one hour period, No construction, excavation, hauling or removal of fill shall be permitted before the hour of 9:00 am on Saturday or Sunday Among other provisions the following are exempt from the County's noise regula tions except during the hours between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am: 1 Sounds originating from temporary construction sites as a result of construction activity 2 Sounds created by motor vehicles when regulated by Chapter 173-62 WAC. 3 Sounds created by motor vehicles licensed or unlicensed when operated off public highways except when such sounds are received in residential areas. The primary sources of noiseyurrently affecting the site and the surrounding area are those of traffic on State Routes 507 and 510.(1'0 a lesser extent, military maneuvers from Fort Lewis Military Reservation will create intermittent noise at times. The sources of noise originating on the Fort include, but are not limited to,. ~i'r~ilft...noise, helicopter noise, machine gun fire, and heavy artillery practice. According t~a~~pom the Fort, maneuvers can occur approximately two to six days at a time and at all hours 0 e~y McChord Air Force Base in Pierce County is also a contributing source of noise for the site. Plane frequently fly directly over the site on approach to or departure from the Air Force Base. 7 ,.~1'ke _ l,..V Farming and logging activity in the area seems to generate a greater proportion of truck traffic on local roads which can result in comparatively higher noise levels than automobiles. The highest recorded sample received during the noise data gathering was from a logging truck using compression brakes on State Route 507 directly adjacent to George Road. Noise readings were taken at four separate locations on and around the site, please see the Noise Reading Location Map (Figure 11) included in this section. Location number one was near the current site access point on George Road, about 200 feet west of the highway Two internal locations were chosen to establish present background noise levels on the site as it exists prior to any development. A fourth location near the northern boundary of the annexation on Berry Road was chosen to establish a relationship between the existing land uses to the north of the site and the existing uses currently on the site at this location. A Mine Safety Appliance sound level meter, type II, was used for monitoring. At all locations, with the exception of number one, the windscreen baffle was used. The sound level meter was calibrated before and after each set of measurements. Measurements were taken for a duration of approximately ten minutes at each location, with a reading recorded once every minute. The readings, by location are shown in the following figures. 39 suO!~e~Ol 6u!peatj as!oN ~ ~ aJn !:J NOI.l\fX3NN\f ~13^ .lS3MH.lnOS p"~ ; '-"'~1' t ' "",:.1: : ' '0' I I R'-'J') I,',', ),.1 ,j' t~ "I , 'C I I"., :}'.[1' l1':"I!:~ ,j, t, '. I 1 ~". '..'.'" . ..' :~.. . !..-. ' : j;, I " \ I . . /. . I , .. I I~~ J.f ,i . . ~ .' I : . .i. 'A I ~ - ~! .! ' .1 . I I 1 I .........1 . .._Jl....I. ..t..epu.,. .........101II. .u~ t[Q (iOl) HI^Uaal...~")U'f I"U.-S ~86 .... '''U.es .......^V pu(: <;(,II ,~ ~ Ill.. .OUI 'sale!oossv ~ adJ04.1 .M.~ " ~ ----'-_- ,---1.., "~I I , j ~ I j .. . i I, ~ I ',; "h.l i . I' I , I . -~ T _,U__ r~~-l I / I r -fi i II ! : I ,. ;,T- l' II .: :::1 .J , oj .' , . I . CI 0' 'rl i I :.::-..- ...~ ..... I . ...1 : .~ , . .; , ----t ... .., -: ' I I _.~._---_.,.._.._/ - ca o o ....J ..., . . I . .' I . - . . I r , J , . . . . ~I t I I : S' I I I, . I , \ \ \ " '- '" ... "'... ~.. "" ",-. ; I '--...." '"- -.. -c:- o ... ':, , ........ .... ''.....:' - ~CII) o ....J \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~-------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C o I ~~.- o ....J ..---..----..... C\I en IQ C\I C") U -= iii III 'Iii u 0 III III 01( 011 III Q. ~ 0 ~ .- UJ ~ (.) cr cr ::l 0 CIl Figure 12. PREUMINARY SUBJeCT TO REVISION 70 - III .I:J 60 ~ -- ca 50 CII .I:J 40 u CII Q 30 20 :::E :::E :::E :::E a.. a.. a.. a.. 0 N M N N N N 65 68 :::E a.. v :::E a.. ll) :::E a.. \0 :::E a.. I'- :::E a.. co :::E a.. en N N N N N N TIme Noise Reading Location #1 George Road and State Route 507 Figure 13. 70 - III .I:J 60 ~ -- ca 50 CI) 40 39 39 40 41 39 39 .I:J 40 u CI) c 30 20 :::E :::E :::E :::E :::E :::E :::E :::E :::E :::E a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. 0 ..... N M v ll) \0 I'- co en ~ ~ ~ ~ s> s> ~ 0 ~ 0 M M M M M M M M M M Time Noise Reading Location #2 Southern Portion of Site 41 Figure 14. 70 ...... III 57 ,Q 60 " ...... II) 50 Gl 40 ,Q 40 u Gl C 30 20 :::::E :::::E :::::E :::::E :::::E :::::E :::::E :::::E :::::E :::::E a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. 0 ..... C\J (I) '<t 1.0 to "- <Xl 01 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C') (I) C') C') C') (I) C') C') C') C') Time Noise Reading Location #3 Northern Portion of Site Figure 15. 70 ...... III ,Q 60 ~ II) 50 45 44 46 45 Gl ,Q 40 u Gl C 30 20 :::::E :::::E :::::E :::::E :::::E :::::E :::::E :::::E :::::E :::::E a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. lO to ,... <Xl 01 0 C\J C') '<t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '<t '<t '<t '<t '<t '<t '<t '<t '<t '<t Time Noise Reading Location #4 Berry Valley Road and Dairy Farm 42 Table 5 Summary of Results of Sound Measurements (in dBA) l.oo1tion Hi&hest (UO) Lowest (L90) Median (50) #1 (George Rd. & SR 507) 65 52 57.9 #2 (on site, south portion) 41 37 39 #3 (on site, north portion) 57 38 41.6 #4 (Berry Valley Rd. & Dairy Farm) 42 39 42.5 Noise measurements were taken for LlO, L50 and L90 levels, where the UO represents the highest noise levels that occur 10 percent of the time, the L50 represents the median noise level, and the L90 represents background noise in the absence of local noise events. Noise Levels recorded for the annexation area are typical of rural and residential land uses, primarily originating from automobiles, trucks, aircraft and residential activities. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1. No Action Under this alternative, the noise levels for the sit~ and surrounding areas would continue to stay as they are with very little change anticipated in the immediate future. Future development on site would be expected to be consistent with the existing zoning regulations, and the noise that results from this potential future development would be consistent with current noises. Alternative 2: The Proposal Noise levels associated with the Proposal are dependent on the extent of development that occurs after annexation. There will be short term impacts from construction equipment and activities related to the development of the site. Based on preliminary development concepts, approximately 4,800 to 5,000 multifamily and single family residential units could be built. This total is preliminary and represents a maximum build-out amount for consideration in the environmental impact statement. The proposed development would include roads, landscaping, landscape buffers and open space within the annexation area. Development around sensitive areas such as wetlands and steep slopes would be limited as much as possible. The long term noise impacts would be those associated with automobiles and typical residential activities. Site specific development proposals would be subject to detailed environmental review at the time such projects are presented to the city That review may include project-level environmental impact statements that could include additional noise impact analysis as specified by SEPA under WAC 197- 11-704 (2) (a) Alternative 3: Compact Site Plan This alternative would modify the proposed land uses to lower the area to be built upon. Under this approach additional open space would be provided around environmentally sensitive areas, productive natural resource lands and adjacent to the Fort Lewis Military Reservation. Proposed residential areas would have higher densities of development. Under this alternative there would be more intensive uses of urban space resulting in increased noise levels. The noise levels associated with the 43 ~!I (JV...'b 111,1 J I pf1 I;1f} 1/ \: ~1 f!'" _ .1)'- ~~~ 9t" '(?.) ~ &'='.o~ ~~ , ..:. development of this alternative would be typical of middle to high density single family residential developments. This alternative would also include greater areas of open space, resulting in areas of decreased noise levels. Alternative 4. The Villa~e Concept This option would incorporate some features of the Compact Alternative but would include more extensive commercial development and higher levels of on-site employment than the Proposal. Commercial lands on the site would provide additional employment opportunities and would focus on providing commercial and government offices and similar non-industrial land uses. Noise levels and impacts associated with this alternative would be consistent with mixed residential and commercial activities. Primary sources of noise would be automobiles and activities associated with commercial and residential land uses This alternative allows for additional non-automobile modes of transportation, potentially lowering the impacts from automobile noises. Mitigating Measures 1 Short term impacts associated with construction could be reduced through the following measures. · Equipment to be used on the site should have noise reduction devices such as exhaust mufflers, shrouds, engine covers, etc. and these devices should be regularly inspected and maintained, · Operating hours for construction equipment could be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Friday; · The need for quiet equipment could be specified, for example, requiring hydraulic jackhammers instead of louder pneumatic (air powered) units, · Construction equipment should be located as far as possible from sensitive areas and site boundaries; · Scheduling construction to avoid concurrent operation of the loudest equipment and/or to allow the noisiest operations to coincide with the highest ambient noise levels. 2 i' ~~ Long term impacts could be reduced as follows: · Landscaping with trees and shrubs could be utilized to help absorb noise from the site; · Acoustical design measures could be implemented for buildings associated with loud, or potential high noise level, uses, · Earth berms or barriers could be used where necessary to block the progression of noise. 44 II. BUILT ENVIRONMENT Existing Conditions Electric power would provide the primary energy source for the pr served by Puget Sound Power and Light Company (Puget Power). According to information received from Puget Power, there are no current facilities in the proposed annexation area. Puget Power does have facilities on the perimeter of the proposal in the form of underground and aerial electrical lines. The current demand for electrical services in southwest Yelm has been relatively low, due to current land use and the proximity of Fort Lewis in that area. A. ENERGY Centralia Light Department does not provide service to Yelm, however, Centralia does High voltage transmission line that runs along a 150 foot wide right-of-wa almost diagonall through section 27 of the proposed development. That line transports the electrical at Centralia's hydroelectric facility along the NisquaIly River northwest of Yelm, to the City of Centralia in Lewis County That right-of-way must be accessible at all times for maintenance by Centralia crews. No permanent structure, tall trees or other obstructions, that in any way would threaten the line or prevent, or inhibit Centralia's crews from constructing operating or maintaining that line is allowed. f~/ T /ft;~? Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action The site would not be annexed and no changes to the provision of current electrical utility services would occur Alternative 2. Proposed Annexation The annexation itself will have no affect on Puget Power's facilities, but the development of land in this area will have a significant impact on their facilities. If development occurs as planned,~ Power ~'ll required to upgrade and construct additional 12.5 kV and 115 kV lines and construc~ possibl wo ew substations to serve the projected load. Puget Power estimates demands for its services at appr . ately 8kw per single family residence and 4 kw per multi-family living unit. Commercial load estimates are made on a case-b -case basis. These estimated loads are affected by several factors including the following: vailability of natura , size of homes, apartment sizes, and types of heating and water heater utI IZ e proposed development. The high-voltage transmission line that is owned and operated by Centralia Light Department is proposed to be relocated in all of the three development alternatives. Relocation of the line would involve the acquisition of a new 150' wide right-of-way with similar restrictions, engineering and construction of approximately two miles of new transmission line, a shutdown of Centralia's hydroelectric plant while the old line is cut over to the new one and the removal of the old section of line. If. reason relocation of the power line would not be desirableground burial I~ conSidered. - \'rufi,J Alternative 3. Compact Site Plan This alternative, a Compact Site Plan, would include the same number of housing units and the same size commercial area as the Proposed Alternative and would occur at the same rate of development. Therefore, energy consumption and impacts to the utility providers would be similar to those of the proposal. Relocation or burial of the high voltage power lines would still be necessary to achieve the desired land uses and densities under this alternative and Alternative 4 45 Alternative 4. Village Concept This option would incorporate some features of the Compact Alternative but would include more extensive commercial development. Energy consumption levels would depend greatly on the types of commercial development that would be taking place on site. Miti&atin& Measures To mitigate the impact of the development on Puget Power's services, they have requested that the developer provide them with details of the development as soon as possible. This should include types of development (residential! commercial), road systems, landscape designs, other utility services (telephone, CATV, gas) and actual locations and timing of phases of development within the overall development. Puget Power does not have impact fees, but costs would be imposed as dictated in the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Tariffs which are in effect at the time of <; development. All costs of relocating the high-voltage power line that is owned and operated by ( Centralia Light Department would need to be paid for by the developer The City would also require, according to Centralia Light Department, that the developer agree to defend and hold harmless the City from any and all claims from persons or entities adjacent to or in the vicinity of the relocated power line who allege damages caused by the power lines being near their property or person. Additionally, in the event said claim or claims result in an order from any court or agency requiring additional relocation of the power lines, or the addition of protective devices to the power lines, such relocation, modification or addition shall be at the sole cost and expense of the developer, according to Centralia Light Department. 46 B. LAND USE 1. Population Growth/Housing Demand 7 Existing Conditions Information presented here is derived from a Housing Unit Demand stud~repared by Mundy and Associates. The complete study is included as Appendix C of this documen~~urston County has been one of the state's fastest growing locations in the last decade. Between 1980 and 1990 the county experienced a greater annual percentage of population gain than other neighboring counties and had almost twice the state--wide growth rate. While most of the previous population growth has centered around th lar er incorporated areas of Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater, the incorporated areas have bee osin their s of total population as growth in the unincorporated areas has increased in recent ears. Lacey lead the county in rate of increase with 4 1 % a~ compounded annually The unincorporated portion of the county was the next fastest growin~t 2.7% annually from 1980 to 1990. The county's total population in 1990 was 161,238. rJ. A number of population forecasts have been made for Thurston County The Washington Office of Financial Mana ement and Thurston County Regional Planning Council have prepared forecasts, as shown in able belo In addition to these studies, projections from Mundy and Associates were prepared for t' cument. Population information discussed here includes material from each of these sources and the complete text of the report from Mundy and Associates is included in the appendix of this document. Population Growth in Washington state during the 1980s was concentrated in the state's western metropolitan counties, especially in its largest metropolitan area, the Seattle-Tacoma SMSA. King, Snohomish and , Pierce Counties accounted for 62% of the persons added to the state's population between 1980 and 1990, compared to only 36% in the previous decade. Table 6 (Population Growth, Puget Sound's Fastest Growing Counties) shows population growth from 1980 to 1990 in the state's five fastest growing counties which make up the Puget Sound Corridor These five counties accounted for 74% of the state's population growth since 1980. A total of 493,399 people were added to the five-county region during the la-year period. Economic Base Industries and business that form the economic base of the community are those which export goods and services outside the community and bring dollars into the community In Thurston County, state government is the major base of the economy providing or exporting services to the entire state. In 1989, state government provided 30% of the employment in Thurston County (Table 7, Covered Employment and Resident Civilian Labor Force), contributing 40% to the total payroll received by local wage earners (Table 8, Employment Wages, Thurston County) The proportion of people employed by government in Thurston County is more than double the percentage for the entire state. In addition to state government, the other economic base industries involve the manufacturing and agriculture/forestry/fishing sectors. Combined, these sectors account for 9% of local employment -less than half the state-wide percentage, which is approximately ~ Thi=ates the county's lack of diversity in its economic base. Thurston County has probabl ired be n its county neighbors, given the relative stability of income in state government. Federal, state and local government provide a total of 42% of the employment in Thurston County Between 1980 and 1990 government employment grew at an annual average rate of 3.7%. The trade and service sectors of the county economy combined provide 39% of the employment. These two sectors have experienced the largest percentage growth in employment over the last decade, but have the lowest average income in wages. Between 1980 and 47 ~ fir q\ )\l 1990, wholesale and retail trade employment increased by an annual average rate of 44%, and the service sector by 6.2% annually Unemployment The unemployment rate in the county, state and nation rose slightly over the decade of the 1970s. Thurston County and Washington State's unemployment rates have been traditionally higher than the national unemployment rates. This is due partially to the lack of a diverse industrial base in both the state and the county The state is highly dependent on two main manufacturing industries, lumber and aerospace, while Thurston County's main source of employment is government. The unemployment rate, while fairly steady from 1970 to 1980, increased dramatically in 1980, 1981 and 1982 in Thurston County and Washington State During this period, unemployment in Thurston County increased by over 4%, peaking in 1982 at 12.2%, more than double the 1974 rate. In 1983, the unemployment rate declined, reflecting a slightly improved economic climate locally and nationally Unemployment rates continued to drop from a high in 1982 of 12.2% to a low of 5 4% in 1990 (See Table 9, Resident Civilian Labor Force, Employment, Unemployment Estimates, Thurston County) County Table 6 Population Growth Puget Sound's Fastest Growing Counties 1980-1990 1980-1990 Change 1989-1990 1980 1990 Number Ann.Cmpd. % Number 1,269,898 1,482,800 212,902 1.6% 36,800 485,667 574,500 88,833 17% 13 ,600 337,720 450,200 112,480 29% 19,800 147,152 188,800 41,648 2.5% 7,300 124,264 161,800 37,536 2.7% 6,700 2,364,701 2,858,100 493,399 19% 84,200 4,132,353 4,798,100 665,747 1.5% King Pierce Snohomish Kitsap Thurston Total Region Washington Total Region as % of State 57.2% 59.6% 741% 48 Table 7 Covered Employment and Resident Civilian Labor Force Thurston County 1980-1989 Ann. Avg. 1980 1985 1987 1988 1989 1990 Change Total Employment 50,200 60,800 68.100 70,800 74,200 79,600 47% % Covered Employment. 84.8% 78.6% 79.6% 80.2% 814% 81.0% Total COVeted Employment. 42,568 47.762 54.236 56,796 60,390 64,449 4.2% ~ Total Manufacrunng 3,381 3,202 3,759 3.591 3,683 4.241 2.3% Total Nonmanufacrunng 39,187 44.560 50,4 77 53,205 56,707 60,208 44% Mirung 26 39 57 52 44 36 3.3% COnstruction 1,636 1,767 2,202 2,467 2,618 2,982 6.2% Transp., Comm. & Uli\. 1,276 1,196 1,339 1,461 1,815 1.720 3.0% Wholesale & Retail Trade 8.607 9,998 10,956 11,666 12,580 13,201 44% Finance, Ins. & R.E. 1.637 1.974 2,058 2,009 2,063 2,125 2.6% Services 6,273 7.860 9.529 10,037 10,713 11.699 6.4% Government 18,594 20.560 22,898 24,135 25,319 26.813 37% Ag.. Forest. & Fish. 1,138 1,166 1,438 1,378 1,555 1,632 3.7% . Includes only those covered by Employment Security ACL Estunated lo include 80 to 85% of total employment of workers within Thurston COWllY Source: Washington Slale Departmenl of Employment Security, Thurston RegIOnal Planmng Council, and Mundy & Associalcs. Table 8 Employment Wages Thurston County 1988 and 1989 Total Employment Wages Number of Employees Wagcs pcr Employee Percent 1988 1989 1988 1989 1988 1989 of Toml Government $576,426,542 $632,948,348 24,135 25,319 $23,883 $24,999 52.3% Federal $22,582,295 $24,769,351 786 827 $28,731 $29,951 2.0% Stale $441,280,208 $482,275,011 17,170 17,974 $25,701 $26,832 39.8% Local $112,564,039 $125,903,986 6,179 6,518 $18,217 $19,316 10.4% Wholesale Trade $29,583,804 $35,284,882 1,286 1,533 $23,005 $23,017 2.9% ~ Retail Trade $110,064,694 $121,547,727 10,380 11,047 $10,604 $11 ,003 10.0% Services $154,852,864 $176,150,898 10,037 10,713 $15,428 $16,443 14.6% Manufactunng $86,579,052 $88,569,941 3,591 3,683 $24,110 $24,048 7.3% Fin. Ins. & Real Est. $37,939,967 $40,166,126 2,009 2,063 $18,885 $19,470 3.3% Contruction $45,648,373 $50,372,458 2,467 2,618 $18,504 $19,241 4.2% Transp. & Utilities $37,266,215 $45,778,314 1 ,461 1,815 $25,507 $25,222 3.8% Agr., Forcst & Fish. $16,195,414 $18,964,730 1,378 1,555 $11,753 $12,196 1.6% Mining $1,012,615 $844,536 57 44 $17,765 $19,194 0.1% Total $1,095,569,540 $1,210,627,960 56,801 60,390 $19,288 $20,047 100.0% Source: Washington StaLe DepartmenL of Employment SccunLy, Thurston RegIOnal Planning CounCil, and Mundy & AssociaLes. 1ab\e 9 Res,dent CMlian LabOr Force, EmpIOy",."t, and u"emptOyment Estimates 'Thurston County 1910-1990 ~ \980 1985 \986 1981 1983 1939 199Q t-\ut1\bef ,~ 1910 1915 ResiQcnt Ci'lilian 69 ,cy.:/J 13,500 15,cy.:/J 13,100 PA,l00 29,300 53.41% LabOr force 32,990 40,230 54 ,300 65,(JYJ ~ 64 ,300 68,100 10,800 14,200 19,(JYJ 29,400 58.51% Et1\p\Oyt1\Ct\t 30,520 31,240 50,200 (/.),400 5,&:fJ 5,400 5,100 4,500 4,500 _\00 -2.\1% Unemp\oyment 2,410 2,990 4,&:fJ 5,200 'PercCt\t of 1.93% 8.01% 1.35% 6.12% 5.12% 5.35% LabOr force 1.49% 1 4'3% 8.39% s_e: VI ",bing",n S\>lC Dep"""""'l nr Emplnyment S<GnnlY ( ., 'u"~ aIId "",nn populatinn ",b<> reside in Th"- C()IlI\\Y ExP-"on. IlIClndeS all y/o<,<CIS ",cCP\ nr u.e ml -, ' · k~ ~ ~(", I~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ "~ ~ l ~ rJ\. tJ I,. o Employment Projections / Since housing demand is population and household driven, which in turn are driven by employment, the housing demand model begins with employment forecasts for Thurston County Estimated employment in Thurston County in 1990 was 79,176 which represented an annual average increase of 4.7% over 1980. The fastest growing sector during the 1980s was Services, with an average annual increase of 6.4% Construction was second with 6.2% and Trade was third with 44% Total employment is made up of two components: Total covered employment which includes workers covered by the Employment Security Act and those workers that are self employed or otherwise not covered. Covered employment is estimated to include 80% to 85% of total employment in Thurston County Total covered. employment in 1990 was 64,446, which was a 4.2% annual average increase over the 1980 figure . of 42,568. Based on historic trends and on opinion of what is likely to occur in the future, employment forecasts for Thurston County through the year 2010 have been developed. (See Tables 10 and 11, Employment Forecasts, Thurston County) Total employment is projected to increase by 2.9% annually through 2000 for total employment of 106,277 From 2000 to 2010, employment is projected to increase by 2.8%, for a 2010 total of 140,151 ~, r Employment forecasts were done by Thurston Regional Planning Counci~989 through the year 2010. When Mundy and Associates' forecast is compared. with the forecasts prepared by Thurston County, which were done for medium, low and high growth scenarios, it can be seen that in 1990, actual total employment at 79,176 is 15% higher than what was forecast under the high growth scenario Consequently, Mundy and ~es forecast tends to be higher than the county's forecasts through 2005. From 2005 through 201~recast falls between the county's medium and high forecasts. Population Population change and migration in Thurston County are influenced by national, state and regional factors. At the turn of the century, as large numbers of immigrants arrived from the east and Europe to homestead and work in the forests, the population began to increase dramatically Population growth continued over the next several decades, but at a slower pace, for both Thurston County and the state. In the late 1940s Puget Sound counties experienced a rapid increase from the post-war industrial expansion. Population change was fairly constant for Thurston County throughout most of this period, about 20% per decade. In the 1960s, with the growth of state government and the opening of The Evergreen State College, Thurston County's population increased very rapidly Population increases during the 1960-t~1970 and 1970-to-1980 periods were 40% and 62%, respectively This by far exceeded the 29% increase in Washington State's population for the same periods. Thurston County continued to show a greater annual percentage of population gain than other neighboring counties and almost twice the state-wide growth rate between 1980 and 1990. Olympia is the largest city in Thurston County, containing 21.0% of the county's population (Table 12, Population Trends) Lacey is the second largest city with 12.0% and Tumwater is third with 6.2%. The incorporated areas have been losing their share of total population as growth in the unincorporated areas has increased in recent years. In terms of rate of increase, Tumwater and Lacey lead the county with 4 1 % and 3.3% compounded annually The unincorporated portion of the county was the next fastest growing area at 2.7% annually from 1980 to 1990. 52 Table 10 Employment Forecasts Thurston County 1990-2000 Ann. Avg. 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Change Tolal Employment 79,600 82,059 84.565 87.117 89,716 92,360 95,048 97,780 100.555 103,371 106,227 2.9% % Covered Employment. 81.0% 81.0% 811% 81.2% 813% 814% 81.5% 81.5% 81.6% 817% 81.8% 0.1% Tolal Covered Employment. 64,449 66.506 68.606 70.747 72.930 75.155 77,420 79.725 82,069 84,452 ;;';.872 3.0% Tolal Manufactunng 4.241 4,313 4.385 4,457 4.530 4,603 4.675 4,748 4,821 4,894 4.~ri; 1.6% Tolal Nonmanufacturing 60,208 62.193 64.221 66.290 68,400 70.552 72,744 74,976 77 ,248 79.557 81.905 3.1% Mining 36 37 38 39 40 40 41 42 43 44 45 2.3% G1 Construction 2,982 3,119 3.259 3,405 3,554 3,708 3,866 4,029 4,196 4,367 4,543 4.3% Transp.. Corum. & Util. 1,720 1,759 1,797 1.837 1.876 1.916 1.956 1,996 2,037 2.078 2,119 2.1% Wholesale & Retail Trade 13,201 13,628 14,063 14.505 14,955 15.413 15,877 16,349 16,828 17,313 17 ,805 3.0% Finance, bu. & R.E. 2,125 2.167 2.208 2,250 2,293 2,335 2,378 2.420 2.463 2.506 2.549 1.8% Services 11,699 12,256 12.831 13.425 14.038 14.670 15,321 15.991 16.680 17,388 18.115 4.5% Government 26,813 27.553 28,303 29.062 29,832 30.610 31,398 32.194 32,998 33,810 34,629 2.6% Ag.. Forest. & Fish. 1,632 1,676 1,721 1,767 1.813 1,859 1,906 1.954 2,002 2,051 2.100 2.6% Thunton County Local Employment Forecasts, Thurston Regional Planrung Council. Medium Growth Scenano 67.064 76.237 85,923 2.5% High Growth Scenario 68,969 82.133 97.358 3.5% Low Growth Scenano 64.769 70,668 78,027 1.9% . Includes only those covered by Employment Sccurlly Act. Estimated to mclude 80 to 85% of total employment of workers within Thurston County Source: Mundy & Associates Forecast. Table 11 Employment Forecasts Thurston County 2000-2010 Ann. Avg. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Change Total Employment 106,227 109.169 112,200 115.323 118,540 121.855 125.271 128,791 132,418 136,157 140,151 2.8% % Covered Employment. 81.8% 81.9% 81.9% 82.0% 82.1 % 82.2% 82.3% 82.4% 82.4% 82.5% 82.5% 0.1% Total Covered Employment. 86,872 89,367 91,940 94.594 97,330 100,152 103,062 106,064 109,160 112.355 115,650 2.9% Total Manufacturing 4,967 5,041 5.116 5.192 5,270 5,348 5.428 5.509 5,591 5,674 5.759 1.5% Total Nonmanufactunng 81.905 84,326 86,824 89.401 92,060 94,803 97,634 100,555 103,569 106,680 109.891 3.0% Mining 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 54 55 56 2.2% :c Construction 4.543 4,726 4,916 5.114 5,319 5,533 5.756 5,987 6,228 6,478 6,739 4.0% Transp., Comrn. & Util. 2,119 2,160 2,203 2.246 2.291 2.336 2,382 2.429 2,477 2.525 2.575 2.0% Wholesale & Retail Trade 17.805 18,311 18,83 1 19,366 19,916 20.481 21.063 21.662 22.277 22,910 23.5 60 2.8% Finance. Ins. & R.E. 2,549 2,593 2,638 2,683 2,729 2,776 2,824 2,872 2,922 2,972 3,023 17% Services 18,115 18,872 19,661 20,483 21,339 22,231 23,160 24,128 25,137 26,187 27.282 4.2% Government 34,629 35.468 36,328 37,208 38,110 39,034 39,980 40,948 41,941 42.957 43,998 2.4% Ag., ForesL & Fish. 2,100 2,150 2,201 2,254 2,307 2,362 2,419 2,476 2.536 2.596 2,658 2.4% Thurston County Local Employment Forecasts, Thurston RegIOnal Plannmg Council. 85.923 98,070 112.493 2.7% 97,358 121.238 140,998 3.8% 78,027 86,184 96,106 2.1% . Includes only those covered by Employment SecurIty Act. Esumatoo to include 80 to 85% of total employment of workers wilhm Thurston County Source: Mundy & Associates Forecast. Table 12 Population Trends Thurston County by Incorporated and Unincorporated Areas 1970-1990 Year Bllcoda Laccy Olympia Ramlcr Tenmo Tumwalcr Yclm Inc. Uninc. County 1970 421 9,296 23,296 382 962 5,373 628 40,358 36,132 76,490 1980 519 13,940 27,44 7 891 1,280 6,705 1,294 52,076 72,188 124,264 1981 520 14,200 27,600 1,020 1,310 6,690 1,440 52,780 76,320 129,100 1982 520 14,175 27,700 990 1,340 7,000 1,420 53,145 78,155 131,300 1983 540 14,030 28,000 992 1,400 7,050 1,390 53,402 80,098 133,500 1984 535 14,520 28,790 1,010 1,375 7,240 1,385 54,855 81,345 136,200 1985 535 15,200 28,560 995 1,390 7,380 1,370 55,430 84,070 139,500 1986 530 15,270 28,990 995 1,390 7,890 1,385 56,450 85,750 142,200 1987 525 15,840 29,600 985 1,340 8,070 1,370 57,730 87,770 145,500 ~ 1988 535 16,380 30,270 1,000 1,285 8,100 1,400 58,970 90,330 149,300 1989 525 16,940 31,020 1,020 1,290 8,200 1,425 60,420 94,630 155,050 1990 536 19,279 33,840 991 1,292 9,976 1,337 67,251 93,987 161,238 Annual Percentage Change: 1970-1980 2.1% 41% 17% 8.8% 2.9% 2.2% 7.5% 2.6% 7.2% 5.0% 1980-1990 0.3% 3.3% 2.1% 11% 0.1% 41% 0.3% 2.6% 2.7% 2.6% u Percentage Distribution of !he PopulaLlon by Area Year B IIco<!a Lacey Olympia Ramler Tenino TumwaLer Yelm Inc. Uninc. County 1970 0.6% 12.2% 30.5% 0.5% 1.3% 7.0% 0.8% 52.8% 47.2% 100.0% 1980 0.4% 11.2% 22.1% 0.7% 1.0% 5.4% 1.0% 41.9% 58.1% 100.0% 1990 0.3% 12.0% 21.0% 0.6% 0.8% 6.2% 0.8% 417% 58.3% 100.0% Source: WashinglOn StaLe Office of Financial ManagemenL, ThurslOn Regional Plannmg Council, and Mundy & Associates. Housing Demand Housing demand for Thurston County is based on the assumption that new housing units will need to be added to the stock as the economy of the area grows. Economic growth is measured in terms of employment. Therefore, an analysis is made of the relationship between employment and population, and population and housing This analysis is shown in Table 13 (Historic Demographic Trends, Thurston County) and Tables 14 and 15 (Projected Demographic Trends, Thurston County) Important relationships involved with the estimate of housing demand are: . Covered-to-total employment. This ratio accounts for people who are self-employed and who do not have to report employment activities to the State Employment Security Department. The number of uncovered employees for most areas has been slowly declining with time. This trend is projected to continue as the state continues efforts to include a higher proportion of the labor force as employment covered by Social Security . Commuting factor Estimates by Thurston County indicate that approximately 7% of the county's residents work outside the county and, for this reason, the total labor force is actually greater than total employment located within the county It has been estimated that this factor will continue to increase as employment centers outside the county grow (such as Ft. Lewis) and housing for those workers is provided in Thurston County ~o ~ 1~~ i"~.;il · 'fI Percent unemployment. The unemployment rate for Thurston County has been decreasing over time. It currently is approximately 54%. It is forecast that the rate will decrease in 1992 and level off through the year 2000. . Labor force participation rate. This rate reflects the proportion of the population that is in the labor force. This rate has been increasing with time, principally because of a higher proportion of women entering the labor force. Demographers project that this trend will continue, therefore, the labor force participation rate increases as a part of our forecast. . Population per occupied dwelling unit. For the United States and for Thurston County, this statistic has been decreasing with time. The reason is that as economic conditions improve, a higher proportion of households seek independent housing. This trend is forecast to continue for the United States a~use of the healthy economic conditions of Thurston County, it is also forecast to continu~ Vacancy rate. The overall rate for housing in Thurston County has been declining and is forecast to continue t ecline slo y during the forecast period. One fact decline is the relatively 1 rate of growth for the area and another. which make construction financing more difficult to obtain. . 7 5-<L. 56 Table 13 Historic Demographic Trends Employment, Population & Housing Thurston County, Washington 1980-1990 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Avg. Employment Tol.1l Employment 50,200 49,800 49,600 55,800 57,300 60,800 64.300 68,100 70,800 74,200 79,176 4.7% Unemployment 4,603 5,595 6,828 6,826 5,875 5,215 5,591 5.363 5,084 4.485 4,520 -0.2% % Unemployment 8.4% 10.1% 12.1% 10.9% 9.3% 7.9% 8.0% 7.3% 6.7% 5.7% 5.4% -4.3% Local Labor Force 54,803 55.395 56,428 62,626 63,175 66,015 69,891 73.463 75,884 78,685 83,696 4.3% Commuting Factor 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.oifo 7.0% Tol.1l Labor Force 58,928 59,564 60,675 67.340 67,930 70,984 75,152 78,992 81,596 84,608 89,995 4.3% Population Tolal 124,264 129,100 131,300 133,500 136,200 139,500 142,200 145,500 149.300 155,100 161,238 2.6% Labor Corcc/Population 0.474 0.461 0.462 0.504 0.499 0.509 0.528 0.543 0.547 0.546 0.558 1.6% ~ Housing Dwelling Units 49,734 55.301 56,487 57,576 58,698 59,666 60,749 62.391 64,055 65,844 66.464 2.9% Occupied D.U 46.375 48,471 49,594 50,730 52,068 53,651 55,020 56,637 58.467 61,104 62,150 3.0% Vacant U.U. 3,359 6,830 6,893 6,846 6,630 6,015 5,729 5,754 5,588 4,740 4,314 2.5% Vacaney Rate 6.8% 12.4% 12.2% 11.9% 11.3% 101% 94% 9.2% 8.7% 7.2% 6.5% -0.4% PopJOccup.DU 2.680 2.663 2.647 2.632 2.616 2.600 2.585 2.569 2.554 2.538 2.594 -0.3% Starts/WOO Pop. 12.78 919 8.29 8.40 711 776 11.55 1144 11.98 16.36 17.24 3.0% Housing Starts (1) 1,588 1.186 1.089 1.122 968 1,083 1,642 1,664 1,789 2,538 2,780 5.8% 1,586 Thurston County Population Projections 1990 Actual: 161,238 Medium Growth Scenario 139.500 157,618 2.5% High Growth Scc:tlario 139,500 160,844 2.9% Low Growth Scenario 139,500 , 154,910 2.1% Source: Thurston Regional Plaruung Council and Mundy & Associates. Table 14 Projected Demographic Trends: Employment, populahon & Uuusing Thurston County, Washington 1990.2000 1990 \99\ 1997- 1993 1994 1995 1~ 1991 \998 1999 2000 Av~. - Employment ToW Employment 19.600 82.059 84.565 81.\\1 89.116 92.360 95.048 91.180 100.555 103,371 106.227 2.9'10 Unemployment 4.('/)6 4,593 4.133 4.816 5.021 5.169 5.319 5,4'12 5.628 5.185 5.945 3.8'10 % Unemployment 5.4% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% Local Labor Fotce 83.696 86.651 89.191 91.993 94.731 91.519 100,368 103,253 106.182 109.156 112.112 3.0% commuting Factor 1.0% 71% 7.2% 74% 1.5% 77% 7.8% 8.0% 8.1% 8.3% 8.4% Tolal Labor Force 89.995 93.244 96,238 99,297 102,421 105.6\\ 108.866 112.185 115.568 119.015 122,525 3.1% population Tolal 161.238 165.897 170.033 174.219 178,452 182.730 187.052 191,415 195.817 200.255 204.128 2.4% Labor rorccIPopulalion 0.558 0.562 0.566 0.570 0.574 0.518 0.582 0.586 0.590 0.594 0.598 ('1 U) Housing Dwelling Units 66,464 68.664 70.754 72,476 74.226 76.005 77.811 79.645 81,505 83,391 85.303 25% Qc.cupicd D.U 62.150 64.153 65.965 67.808 69.680 71,582 13.5 12 15,470 77,455 79,467 81,505 2.7% Vacant D.U 4,314 4,5\\ 4.189 4.668 4.546 4,423 4,300 4.175 4.050 3.924 3.798 -l.:W" V ac&ncy Rate 6.5% 6.6% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.3% Pop./OCGup. D.U 2.594 2.586 2.578 2.5 69 2.561 2.553 2.545 2.536 1.518 2.520 2.512 swu/lOOO Pop. 17.24 13.26 10.66 10.58 10.49 1041 10.32 10.23 10.14 10.05 9.95 11.21 Housmg Demand 2.780 2.200 1.812 1.843 1.8'12 1.902 1.930 1.958 1.985 2.012 2.038 2.030 ThurslOll County population projCGtions Medium Growth Sccnano 157,618 176.899 197.760 23% High (Jrowlh Sccnano 160.844 188,314 TlO.672 3.1% 'Low Growth Scenario 154.9\0 169.191 \86,487 1.9% Source: Thurston Regional planning Council and Mundy & AssoclatCS. No~' B oilding """,it d'" [0' 1991 " .",<un'" ",,01 on 1.731,,,,,,,,'0 i"uol wough 3," q",,~' Table 15 Projected Demographic Trends: Employment, Population & Housing Thurston County, Washington 2000-2010 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Avg. Employment Total Employment 106,227 109,169 112.200 115.323 118.540 121.855 125,271 128,791 132,418 136.157 140,151 2.8% Unanploymcnt 5,945 6,110 6,279 6.454 6,634 6,820 7,011 7,208 7,411 7,620 7.844 2.8% % Unanployment 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% Local Labor Force llU72 115,279 118.480 121.777 125,175 128.675 132.282 135.999 139,829 143.777 147.994 2.8% Commuting Factor 8.4% 8.6% 8.8% 9.0% 91% 9.3% 9.5% 97% 9.9% 10.1% 10.3% Total Labor Force 122.525 126,151 129,899 133,772 137.775 141.914 146,193 150.617 155,193 159,926 164.988 3.0% Population Total 204,728 209,322 214,042 218,892 223,875 228,997 234.262 239,674 245.239 250.962 257.105 2.3% Labor forcc/Population 0.598 0.603 0.607 0.611 0.615 0.620 0.624 0.628 0.633 0.637 0.642 ~ Housing Dwelling Units 85.303 87.239 89.233 91.287 93,403 95.582 97.829 100.144 102.530 104.990 107.526 2.3% Occupied D.U 81.505 83,604 85,766 87,993 90.288 92,652 95,089 97,601 100,191 102,860 105.719 2.6% Vacant D U 3.798 3,635 3.467 3.294 3.115 2,930 2,739 2.543 2,339 2,130 1,807 -7.2% Vacancy Rate 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% Pop./Occup. D U 2.512 2.504 2.496 2.488 2.480 2.472 2.464 2.456 2.448 2.440 2.432 StarU/l000 Pop. 9.95 10.03 10.1 0 10.17 10.25 10.33 10040 10048 10.56 10.64 11.12 10.37 Housmg Demand 2.038 2,099 2,162 2.227 2.295 2.365 2,437 2.512 2.589 2.670 2.859 2.387 Thurston County Population Projections Mcdiwn Growth Scenario 197,7fIJ 226.319 262,062 2.9% High Growth Scenario 220.672 272.750 , 320.984 3.8% Low Growth Scenario 186.487 207,001 . 233.356 2.3% Source: Thurston Regional Plaruung Council and Mundy & ASSOCiates. " SJP 'fV.1 u1 f . New housing starts per 1,000 population. This ratio is an important part of our forecasting model since it tends to keep all of the above ratios in a proper synchronization. For the United States, on a historical basis, the starts per 1,000 population have ranged between 10 and 15, and for high growth areas between 15 and 20 As can be seen in Tables 14 and 15 (Projected Demo r hic Trends, Thurston County), the starts r 1,000 number is in the 8 to 17 ran tis lrtually impossl e ra e more t n starts per 1, population due to supply pipeline constraints such as permitting, lack of available sites, labor shortages, matic price increases, supply shortages and so forth. Demand on an annual basis is shown in the last row of Table 8 (Historic Demographic Trends, Thurston County) Thurston County has been producing housing in the 1,600 dwelling-per-year range. In 1990, over 2,700 housing units were constructed The forecast shown in Tables 9a and 9b (Projected Demographic Trends, Thurston County) is a demand forecast. In reflects what the area should be producing, rather than what it is producing. Therefore, the model could be labeled as "idealistic" in the sense that it reflects the quantity of housing which should be constructed to adequately provide for households in Thurston County Housing demand is forecast to average 1,673 units per year from 1990 to 2000, ranging from a high of 2,780 in 1990 to a low of 1,449 in 1992. Housing Demand by Area Table 16, (Housing Unit Distribution, Thurston County), shows that Olympia, the largest jurisdiction in Thurston County, is losing its share of total dwelling units, having accounted for 24.8% of the total in 1980 and dropping to 23.7% in 1990. Lacey has maintained its share of county housing at 11.5% The Lacey Environs, on the other hand, increased from 20.2% in 1980 to 21.0% in 1990. Tumwater increased its share from 5.8% in 1980 to 6.7% in 1990. Tumwater experienced the strongest rate of growth at 64.6% for the decade. The Yelm unincorporated area was second with a 53.8% growth rate. During the 19805, the overall county growth rate in housing units was 41.5%, with the unincorporated area growing at a faster rate (434%) than the unincorporated areas (39 1 %). The Yelm area (including the City of Yelm and the unincorporated Yelm area) accounted for approximately 71% of the total increase in housing units in the county from 1980 to 1990. The Yelm area contained 6.0% of total housing units in 1980 and increased that share to 6.4% by 1990. Projections by the county are for the Yelm area to continue to increase its share of new housing in the county, particularly as other areas in the north become more built-out. The Yelm area is located within commuting distance of Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater, and Fort Lewis, as well as other employment and activity centers in Thurston and Pierce counties, making it the next logical expansion area for housing development. In addition to housing demand generated by growth within Thurston County, there will be a substantial increase in personnel at Fort Lewis and McChord bases in Pierce County The impact of "'- these increases is discussed in a latter section of this report. Another important factor affecting future . growth in Yelm is the provision of services. Yelm is, at the present time, the only city in south Thurston ~ County that has received grants for a sewage treatment plant. The availability of a broader range of ~ housing options than is currently available in the Yelm area will also increase housing demand in the ~ area since it will appeal to a broader spectrum of households. '4 ~~ ~~ ~1\ ~~ '1\ ~ ~ ~~ ,,'\ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ \" ~\J~'~ Competitive~ idential Development ber of residential developments currently proposed for development in Thurston County and south Pierc county, ranging in size from under 100 dwelling units to several thousand dwelling units. (See Figure Map of Competitive Projects.) 1 ~( yJr?' 60 lable 16 llousmg Unit DlStribubon Thurston County by Jurisdiction and Subarea 1980 and 1990 - Toml HouSlDg Units 1980-1990 Change Change as Perccnt of Total Jurisdiction 19RO 1990 Number Perccnt % of ToU\\ 1980 1990 Bucoda 213 227 14 6.6% 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% Lacey 5,838 8,225 2,387 40.9% 114% 11.5% 11.5% Olympia 12,560 16,963 4,403 35.1% 21.0% 24.8% 23.7% Ralmcr 305 409 104 34 1 % 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% Tcmno 502 549 47 94% 0.2% 1.0% 0.8% Tumwatcr 2,920 4,807 1,887 64.6% 9.0% 5.8% 6.7% Ye1m 470 555 85 18.1% 0.4% 0.9% 0.8% ~ Incorporalcd Sublotal 22,808 31,735 8,927 391% 42.5% 45.0% 44.3% GnfflD 1,415 1,888 473 33.4% 2.3% 2.8% 2.6% Cooper poinl 1,826 2,436 610 33.4% 2.9% 3.6% 3.4% Northeast ThursLOn 3,655 5,092 1,437 39.3% 6.8% 7.2% 7.1% Laccy Environs 10,225 15,043 4,818 471% 23.0% 20.2% 21.0% Black Lakc/Lltucrock 4,502 6,476 1,974 43.8% 94% 8.9% 9.0% Rochestcr 2,313 3,189 876 37.9% 4.2% 4.6% 4.5% TCOlno 878 1,198 320 36.4 0/0 1.5% 17% 1.7% Yc1m 2,605 4,007 1,402 53.8% 6.7% 51% 5.6% Summit Lake 408 563 . 155 38.0% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% Umncorporatcd Subtotal 27,827 39,892 12,065 431+% 57.5% 55.0% 55.7% Total County 50,635 71.627 20,992 41.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% - Source. Thu,,,on Reg>onal Planmng Couned. 1991. and Mundy & AssoC..\CS. Figure 16 ... ~I/J .;f ,f,r- ? KEY Indian Summer Meridian Campus Hawks Prairie Planned Comm Silver Hawk Golf & C.C. . Deschutes Ridge Golf Course Northwest Landino/p p fi Nl' ~ ~ ".<' ('0 (/1- ;.>)- 1" '. , --. 62 Meridian Campus, a 1,15G-acre property was annexed into the City of Lacey on April 6, 1992. The proposed plan includes approximately 2,500 dwelling units, as well as commercial, light industrial, and retail development. The property is being developed by Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company and the first phase of residential and light industrial will be ready for development by fall of 1992. The first phase of residential will include 132 single family lots at 9,000 to 10,000 square feet each. The project also includes plans for a golf course which will be developed in 1993. Plans include single family home lots on the golf course. Further north along 1-5 in south Pierce County, near Dupont, Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company is developing the 3,OOO-acre Northwest Landing which will include approximately 5,500 dwelling units, 431 acres of mixed use office, residential and retail, 958 acres of industrial and 110 acres of town center Hawks Prairie Planned Community is adjacent to Meridian Campus, just north of Lacey, and is in Thurston County The project was approved almost five years ago by the county for a horse racing facility and residential development on 1,100 acres. The project is currently on hold because the horse racing facility was never approved and the property it was to be built on is in bankruptcy court. The Vicwood Group has purchased the remainder of the property with the intent of developing residentially and are currently negotiating with the county for approval to begin development in 1993 The county will review the master plan in August 1992, and the current permit expires in October Indian Summer Golf Course and Country Club is located south of Lacey in Thurston County The project will include approximately 250 single family homes, many of them located on the golf course, and 150 multifamily homes, some of which will be located on the fairways. The lots at Indian Summer are in the upper price ranges and are not seen as direct competition with the subject project. Deschutes Ridge Golf Club and Estates was being proposed south of Tumwater, next to the Deschutes River near 79th Avenue Southeast. Plans for the project included 121 single-family homes. Portions of the property, however, are outside the urban growth boundary and within the river shore conservation area. The developers are going forward with Phase I for 40-50 residential units, but the remainder of the project is on hold. Silver Hawk Country Club was proposed as a public golf course with 320 homes. The project, which was being proposed by Fortune Development Company, is currently on hold since the property has reverted to the original owner Military Demand for Housing During the next several years, the military and civilian personnel stationed at Fort Lewis and McChord is projected to increase by approximately 8,800 people through transfers from Fort Ord in California and other personnel moves and changes. During 1992, an estimated 500 additional personnel will be employed at the tw~. . ary bases. In 1993 another 7,000 will be added and in 1994, 1,200 new personnel will be added. e have estimated that appro' tel 5% of the new personnel will find housing in the Yelm area in 92 and 1993 and that th aemand I increase to 7% in 1994 and 10% in 1995, as housing becomes less available and more expe ve' eas located closer to the bases. As a result of the additional military demand for housing in the are~stimate demand for housing in Yelm from military sources to be 25 units in 1992,350 units in 1993,~ 1994, and 10 dwelling units in 1995, for a total of 469 units of demand generated by new military personnel over the next four years. Retirement Housing The number of people in the 60-and-above age category will increase by 16,343 in Thurston County between 1990 an 10, or approximately 817 per year (See Table 17, 'Aie Distribution, Thurston County.) additio there are military personnel stationed at Fort Lewis and McChord who retire each year . g to information from the Public Services Office, they are having approximately 25 retirement ce emonies per month for people retiring from the post. This translates into approximately ~~ !iP111111,; ? 63 5P LO- ",.1 f~ 300 people per year Of these numbers, not all will remain in Thurston County Some will move to warmer climates or to areas that are closer to their children or other family members. It is estimated that a well designed retirement golf-course community in Yelm can attract a segment of the retirement housing market for Thurston County As of the 19 there were 16,534 people in the 65-and- ~ above age category residing in Thurston Coun dition, ere are currently 16,000 retired military yJ i'4 \ personnel living within 50 miles of the bases SOm retired people residing in Thurston County 1I'D ",tJ ~ ay be retired military personnel so there may some overlap in th~ figt}res. 1 tI oJ' ~ II, ~t\ 1-tA/fllt. )g ~ r" ')\~ I is esti . itially approximatel~~~,letirement housing could be absorbed per year -J.~~ at th Thurston Highlan s course communIty in Yelm. This de~nd will increase to~ units per Ji' 't year fro 000 Its per year from 2000 to 2005, and 94 uruts per year through the year 2010. ~~ This estimate is based on the assumption that the retirement community will be well designed with ~s Y senior activity centers, golf course clubhouse, lots adjacent to or near the golf course, and units that cover a broad price range, including a large proportion in the moderate price range. - J ,.\I~ Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action The proposed annexation would not occur and the properties within this area would remain in Thurston County It is expected that population growth would continue to occur, however the rate of growth would likely be less than if annexation were to take place. In a similar manner, housing demand under the rural county zoning would also lik~IY less than if the area were annexed to the city and the \.. proposed development scenarios review for is docunment were initiated. \ . q,l Alternative 2: Proposed Annexation ~ Table 18 (Housing Demand Summary, Yelm Area), shows estimated housing demand for Thurston \~ County and for the Yelm are rough the year 2013. Beginning in 1993, when the first of the .~\ lots e s uled tome on lin t the subject property, there will be estimated demand for some ~ dwelling uni n the Ye m area. Demand will decrease to 336 in 1994, 273 in 1995, and 272 in 1996. A ter 1, nd is estimated to increase each year through the forecast period to 602 units in 2013 During the 2G-year period 1993 through 2013, an estimated 8,732 units could be absorbed in the Yelm area. These projections are based on the assumption that a broad range of housing will be offered in the Yelm area during the forecast period, in terms of price, housing type and size, lot size, and amenities. !~''l ,t \' Table 9 (Population Projections, Yelm Area, Thurston County) shows population increases by year in the Yelm Area through the year 2013. The Yelm area includes Census Tract 124 (see Figure 17, Thurston County Census Tract Map) County projections are for the Yelm area to account for approximately 10% of the county population growth through 20 O. Mundy and Associates projections are for the area to capture 13 4% of the county population growth from 1993 through 2013, based on several major factors. . The provision of expanded sewer acilities in the Yelm area will allow the area to accommodate higher density developm t. . Expansion of personnel at Fort Lewis an McChord Air Force Base will add to Yelm's share of county population growth. 1Q) O\~~ o 64 Table 17 Age DlStnbution Thurston County 1980-2010 Age 19RO 19R5 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Change % of Total Ann.% 4 and under 9,680 10,471 11,582 12,556 13,418 14,655 16,860 5,278 5.1% 1.9% 5to9 9,628 10,511 11,532 12,730 13,848 15,400 17,208 5,676 54% 2.0% 10 to 14 10,460 10,382 11 ,468 12,569 13,895 15,618 17,672 6,204 5.9% 2.2% 15 10 19 11,109 11,310 II ,462 12,638 13 ,883 15,885 18,170 6,708 6.4% 2.3% 20 to 24 10,759 12,605 13,215 13,531 14,963 17,415 20,417 7,202 6.9% 2.2% 25 10 29 11,473 12,253 14,499 15,271 15,850 18,502 21,958 7,459 71% 2.1% 30 10 34 11,028 12,577 13,663 16,016 16,981 18,480 21,881 8,218 7.9% 2.4% 35 10 39 8,734 11,678 13,408 14,563 17,021 18,548 20,510 7,102 6.8% 2.1% 40 10 44 6,582 9,085 12,115 13,875 15,090 17,865 19,663 7,548 7.2% 2.5% 45 10 49 5,853 6,787 9,332 12,348 14,133 15,569 18,499 9,167 8.8% 3.5% ~ 50 to 54 5,860 5,975 6,956 9,464 12,450 14,402 15,976 9,020 8.6% 4.2% 55 to 59 5,762 5,882 6,057 7,025 9,477 12,544 14,585 8,528 8.2% 4.5% 601064 5,106 5,630 5,796 5,981 6,924 9,391 12,415 6,619 6.3% 3.9% 65 to 69 4,197 4,827 5,354 5,522 5,716 6,705 9,067 3,713 3.6% 2.7% 70 to 74 3,209 3,754 4,327 4,803 4,966 5,218 6,145 1,818 17% 1.8% 75 and over 4,824 5,773 6,853 8,007 9,147 10,120 11,036 4,183 4.0% 2.4% T olal 124,264 139,500 157,619 176,899 197,762 226,317 262,062 104,443 100.0% 2.6% Source: Thurston Counly Population ProJccuons and Mundy & Assoclales. ft.;YU f t:/.f~~!;1~f;1 Ii ($ )(J.f Table 18 I rfl /"I., Housing Demand Summary Yclm Area, Thurston County, Washington c: (pI'" Cu;';J~ 1993-2013 I "';.rf"~t:"p ~ /-{~~( , pP~.r1i"/r'P /;(.~....,; "y,$-9R! LC.> . e;,.., Total % Yelm Yelm Arca MihlMy % Yc1m Yclm Area % Yc1m Yclm Area Total Yelm Cumulal1ve". ,o~ Year Count Area Demand IncrC<lsc. Arca Demand Arca Demand Arca Demand ~.,) .i) @2) ---- 1993 1,843 10.0% 184 7,000 5.0% 350 5.0% 592 592 ~ 1994 1,872 10.3% 194 1,200 7.0% 84 1,159 5.0% 336 928 1995 1,902 10.7% 203 100 10.0% 10 1,196 5.0% 273 1,201 "'" - 1996 1,930 11.0% 213 1,196 5.0% 272 1,473 ~ 1997 1,958 114% 222 1,196 5.0% 282 1,755 1998 1,985 11 7% 232 1,196 5.0% 292 2,048 >-' ...:) ... 1999 2,012 12.0% 242 1,196 5.0% 302 2,350 ~ 2000 2,038 12.4% 252 1,385 5.0% 322 2,671 ~ 2001 2,099 12.7% 267 1,385 5.0% 336 3,007 "'" 2002 2,162 13.1% 282 1,385 5.0% - 352 3,359 ~ 2003 2,227 13.4% 298 1,385 5.0% 368 3,727 ~ 2004 2,295 13.7% 315 1,385 5.0% 385 4,111 ." 2005 2,365 14.1% 333 1,878 5.0% 427 4,538 2006 2,437 14.4% 351 1,878 5.0% 445 4,983 2007 2,512 14.8% 371 1,878 5.0% 465 5,448 2008 2,589 15.1% 391 1,878 5.0% 485 5,933 2009 2,670 15.4% 412 1,878 5.0% 506 6,439 2010 2,859 15.8% 451 1,878 50% 545 6,984 2011 2,913 16.1% 470 1,878 50% 564 7,548 2012 2,969 16.5% 489 1,878 5.0% 583 P 2013 3,025 16.8% 508 1,878 5.0% 602 8,732 Totals 39,755 131% 5,216 8,300 5.3% 444 26,493 5.0% 1,325 ~ · Includes Fl Lewis and McChord. Source: Mundy & ASSOCIates Forecasts. '. (J'v4 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ~3 MY t' Table 19 ~ I. S(' '/ Population Projections ..i Iv / Yelm Area, Thurston County r- 1993-2013 County Population · 184,206 192,124 198,359 204,393 210,455 216,546 222,667 229,005 235,454 242,023 248,718 255,547 262,945 270,481 278,162 285,997 293,996 302,424 310,954 319,590 328,335 Annual Average Increase: 2.9% County Increase Yelm Area Capture Rate of County Yelm Area.. Pop. Increase ~ 6,033 6,062 6,091 6,121 6,337 6,450 6,569 6,695 6,829 7,398 7,535 7,682 7,835 7,999 8,428 8,530 8,636 8,745 100% 10.3% 10.7% 11.0% 114% 117% 12.0% 12.4% 12.7% 13.1% 134% 137% 141% 144% 14.8% 151% 154% 15.8% 16.1% 16.5% 16.8% 7,551 134% 1,445 819 666 665 689 713 737 785 820 858 897 938 1,042 1,087 1,134 1,183 1,235 1,330 1,375 1,421 1,469 1,015 ~ ~f tI}t;' t/tctft / I Yelm Area.. Population 9,~04 10,323 10,989 11,654 12,342 13,055 13,792 14,576 15,397 16,255 17,152 18,090 19,132 20,218 21,352 22,535 23,770 25,100 26,475 ~ ~ 5.8% m outside the county as well as the w/u!tP-' Jurt. · 67 Yelm Area" Housing Units 3,895 4,231 4,503 4,776 5,058 5,350 5,652 5,974 6,310 6,662 7,029 7,414 7,841 8,286 8,751 9,236 9,742 10,287 10,850 ~ ~ 5.8% ,I ii '\ i I I , I \\ ;\ '\ I Ii 11 ~\ 1 I I \~ d O:I<,\\'S ~\ II.\IIIIOR \ .UI'''T\' r I \ r I ~ ~ " .. L\U I. I r, \._1' I'. \ t ' I) II' . . h.ll.-- .T > 1- :0 ,:- ~ , - ---- '"': ;.- j ... ~,- -~, THURSTON COCNTY WASHINGTON (",3 n ~ _I."; - ~ .I ..; rOl"n' -' .... ~i 1990 CENSUS TRACTS ! ' I :T 11 \~} :'\ ! ' i I \ ~...i , , " 'I."~O~ ;-~.- ._~ , " COl',VO" \ ....,;.~ LONG TERM UGM BOUNDARY G t-1 ::r c:: "1 Vl l'IWr.t: \ .... 0 ::l n 11 l"ot"'\TY " 0 -. \ c:: to ::l c: .... ... '< CD ~ n -" ttl "" ::l CIl c:: Vl ~ ~~pl0<\,<\ t-1 "1 CI) r') .... ~ ~ CI) 'e It \{il ;\i i I ' I J;,( \ \ I I 'T; t\ \n'~I' _ ' , '1-- '~-' - II \1\ ." . ,>, " ,~ ' ,.. " . ,~ ' " ' ' ,-"'- "' ~ " I ' -" ,,' - , , " " ,~ " , c I ;, _ ~;r-- --c' _/ '\ -'C/ "- - ."" / ,,- - .- ~ · \\ ! I : ~." ""~ ~" ""n --.,.' . I(.!II : "CI' ; I:" ; ,,[ \I : -::lUl. ; [;cr, : 1<:1" :~. 1<1' : F,' I '. rl[RC( ? (1v: :m be the first town in the south county area to have a 20-year comprehensive 0'/ .' A sportation plan for local traffic improvements. / 1'I~j The growth management act will restrict growth in areas outside designated urban areas ;", tl' thereby increasing the share of population growth that is captured by urban areas. ( . The development of a wider variety of housing by quality, price range and style, will attract a greater share of the population to the Yelm Area. Alternative 3 Compact Site Plan Impacts would be largely the same as the Proposal. Alternative 4. The Village Concept Population growth and housing demand would take place at a slightly lower level than that of the Proposal. Since the potential mix of uses within the annexation area would involve less residential and more commercial uses, th9ate of growJ!l would be expected to decrease accordingly - IA,.." '" J ItJt /1' 6p Miti&atin& Measures PI,), I#.~ The proposed development would occur in phases and is expected to take place over a twenty year time I.,.. ;~; period. Future market co' . 'ne the exact number of housing units that would result y.a:.... from annexation. e Urban Growth Area ignation should be coordinated with population /1 p projections to accommo a r consistent with projected needs within the city /71~- ~;~ ~ 11/IAC1J ) --;-- . /J u,/A ~.:t.,.. 7> (gJI_1 ,,:;4 · , If r71V' n , J ,.dI~ I.J . r;~ rtvl" ~ 69 2. Natura! Resource Lands ~~\ f} jl J' ' .f -., I bi' Existing Conditions Natural Resource Lands are areas in Thurston County identified for existing uses involving agricultural, forestry, and minerall'ro . ctivities such as farming, timber growing and mineral extraction occur in these areas, all in rural of the county The Thurston County Comprehensive Plan (June 1988) has identified locati 0 important resource lands. There are some farm and forestry lands near the site and these are discussed below No significant mineral lands are present. Agricultural Land Thurston County contains a variety of land in agricultural use Dairy and poultry farms comprise the largest operations and som~n=~rops (com, oats, wheat and peas) are also grown locally However, agricultural land use as n declining as urban development has increased in the county Land in farms decreased by 16.1 percent between 1982 and 1987 in Thurston County, compared to a state- wide average decline of 2.2 percent during the same period. Much of the remaining farmland has been reduced in size to smaller parcels, often isolated by other land uses. This is similar to trends experienced by King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties recently The Washington Institute for Public Policy has indicated that the decrease in land in farms has been greatest where population growth is high. As population numbers indicate, Thurston County confirms this trend. Figure 18 shows areas of Class II and III soils within and adjacent to the proposed annexation area. A portion of the proposed annexation site is currently in agricultural use, as is some of the adjacent and surrounding land. Large, contiguous agricultural areas are no longer prevalent although smaller pockets I of farmland are still present. Thurston County is currently attempting to define important resource lands in order to comply with the 1990 Growth Management Act. The Act requires counties to identify resource lands of long-term significance and to formulate plans that would protect these areas. The 1988 Thurston County Comprehensive Plan also contains the goal of preserving agricultural land "in order to I ensure an adequate base for long-term farm use." =n of proposals are presently being studied by the County and local agricultural interests to prot rime arrnland. These include wning measures, a right to farm ordinance, a farmland protection distri a possible purchase of development rights or use of conservation easements. Forest Land Historically, forestry has played an important part in Thurston County's development. Timber harvesting and management has occurred throughout the county According to the Thurston County /} Comprehensive Plan "approximately 58 percent of the county's land area is managed for long-term I { forestry production." This amount includes private commercial timber land (41 percent), Department of I_ Natural Resources managed land (12 percent), and federally owned forest land including Fort Lewis (5 I percent) Although significant holdings still exist, forest land is also threatened by urban development. Smaller forestry areas are particularly vulnerable to potential conversion as a result of urban growth pressures. ( As with agricultural land, the Growth Management Act also requires Thursion County io identify and \ protect forest land. The proposed annexation area was once used for timber growth, last harvested in I the early 1980s. Some replanting has occurred~~nsistent with Forest Practices Act requirements, but future forest use is not anticipated if the annexa \ proposal is approv . \ ~ u;'7l ::r N\~ itx , \ . "to t 1'\', t .)It (): 70 ; "l T\ , ~ rft S '" It ~ rft ("l rft c- ~ ::l It ... II) II) o o , ~ -. ~ .. ~ ;; ~ 1\ ~ c; . .. ~-------------------' , ' , I , ' , ' , ' , ' , ' , ' , ' , ' , ' , ' , ' , ' , ' , , , , , R:;N. "thorpe,.. !-,~SS<l!?~~t!!' Inc. ... ..... ~ ~f\ON So\.rf\-\WESi '(E\..M />.NNE)(J'( 1\ S .. c; . ;;; . -. ,-' I , "- 1 \, \ \ , " -~\'1\, \. ~\ '---'I'~' \\ \ . ". ~;\:',\'~ . .' --- \ , \ \ .. \ \ ~ . .' '\ " '\ ' ~"". , ,,',' "- \ ", " ,., \ it \ i '~'" \ ,j\, \ r..... I", I > . \ : 1-" \ '" \ drft \l.E -- ~ \0..2 F\Qute "\ 8 1 \ \ . I I, \ \ , I , , I \ \ , \ \ .' \ \ . I \ I , I.' I I \ 1 8' fl Q ~ III 1/1 1/1 ~ III ::) 0. ;s f/l <b 1/1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , ,-~ ~ ..... ,..... .,................ \ .::.- '., ~"t---~ " ~-...,. I " 0 " ~""_ \ ,_ . . .--"' , t \ . ...------ ..... '~ ~ ;--r-. \ ." \ \ . '1 ' 1 , I \ .' \ .. \ \ \ L'-..:..... \:: ,,--_----- \ ' "'0 ~.. '. \ I ~ \ I \ f7 , I II \: 1/ " . ..\ I'" i , , \ .1 , \ '\ \ , I .-' \ 'I , I \ I . '. . . sea""/~ I\)eTl'oJer \2(6) 62".6239 "'~' ot'I,ec'\lfe , \,..lftdell"- ..:'., ",...", -'. , ~">flrOf""\,..1ftd ~Cl~. ~9f\Cu'tufa\ SO\\S t.^aP Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action The site would not be annexed and future land u det Comprehensive Plan identifies the site as Rural (ou ae Growth Areas 90 Draft Yelm/Thurston County Joint Plan shows much of the annexation area (a portion does not appear within the joint plan boundary) as having a proposed zoning of RR 1/5 (Rural Residential, one unit per five acres) The Joint Plan defines Rural areas as areas "to be free of urban land uses. Accordingly, farming, forestry, and housing on lots of one acre or larger are appropriate land uses. Housing densities will depend upon site-specific conditions and vicinity development." Similarly, the Thurston County Zoning Ordinance (1980) defines the intent of the RR 1/5 zone as "to assist in maintaining the commercial timber industry and to protect the public health in areas with severe soil limitations for septic systems, severely limited water supply, aquifer recharge and flood plains (Chapter 20.09)" These designations indicate that this alternative would likely result in less development of the proposed annexation area than the proposal and this would tend to preserve the present rural character of the site. This would also allow existing uses to contin . ding the current farm activity, and could allow forest use on that portion of the site present Intended r conversion. Alternab ve 2: Proposed Annexation Under the proposed annexation the site would be added to the Oty of Yelm and could be developed as a part of the city Potential densities vary within the site boundaries, but would be greater than the one unit per five acres designation identified in Alternative 1 above. Development of the site would displace current farm use on the northeast portion of the site, and it would preclude future forest use of the southwestem annexation area. Annexation would also lead to future development adjacent to agricultural activity near the site. Farmland immediately southeast, and possibly to the north, may experience conflicts associated with encroachment of urban land uses. As Yelm expands its jurisdiction, changing land uses will continue and potential differences may arise. Therefore, the proposed annexation is expected to contribute to these changes, however, other annexations and boundary changes may also influence land uses within the city Thurston County is presently exploring ways to protect farmland and/or reduce potential conflicts that ~ may develop when growth occurs. The Thurston County Planning Commission's Subcommittee on Agriculture is studying a variety of measures to protect farmland toward achieving an overall goal "to ~ I.. maintain, enhance, and conserve productive agricultural lands and to discourage incompatible uses." "/"1,-/ The City of Yelm has expressed a similar desire in the Comprehensive Plan (1985) where a goal under ) 'I-,'1~ the Residential Agricultural Element is stated "To protect the rights of those who desire to engage in ~. agricultural endeavors." The city does not presently have a program or regulations that would appear to achieve this goal specifically Thus preservation of agricultural uses in and around the proposed annexation area may be more difficult to achieve under this alternative. Alternative 3. Compact Site Plan Annexation would occur as proposed, however, development of the site is expected to be achieved through a different design approach than the Proposal would include. Potential buffer areas and open space would be increased to provide greater transition between uses within the annexation boundary and surrounding uses. Residential uses would be encouraged to use cluster design techniques more in this approach, which would allow for creation of the larger transition areas. This may help reduce )- potential conflicts between development and farm activity in the area. This alternative would still ~ result in displacement of the current farm use and preclude future forest use within the proposed annexation site 72 Alternative 4. The Village Concept This approach would involve annexation and fewer residential units than the proposal. It would also include more area devoted to commercial use within the annexation boundaries. Commercial use may be less suited to farm activity than potential residential development. This alternative would also displace and discourage rural uses in the same manner as the Proposal, since potential development could be incompatible with farm uses. Mitigating Measures Conflicts between urban and rural uses can be decreased by pursuing measures to identify important agricultural lands and protect them. Mitigation may include agricultural zoning, right-to-farm ordinances, and incentive programs designed to maintain agricultural activity Design features like those associated with Alternative 3 could help to form a transition between developed and open areas. 73 3. Open Space Corridors Existin& Conditions One of the goals of the 1990 Growth Management Act is to "Encourage the retention of open space and development of recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to r natural resource lands and water, and develop parks." Corridors and other types of open space areas ~6 /- would be preserved under this direction. Open space can be provided in a wide range of features ~ t j:: if including parks and other active recreational areas, farmland and rural areas, undeveloped hillsides, -1 f/-fr;, steep slopes and wetlands, bicycle paths, jogging trails and wildlife corridors, and even such urban uses flt.S ;'" (11l0/ as street rights of way and landscaped parking islands. Open space is important to the local quality of f./." .J. life because it may add recreational opportunities, provide buffers between incompatible land uses, or ~~'I st" ~( protect environmentally sensitive areas. It also provides light and air and an open feeling in urban v f f'~ areas and helps control overall densities within local or regional areas. p 'I ~ fer. L~lI\ If MucEe current use within the proposed tion area is rural, including areas of undeveloped land ,No orrnal open space corridor st in the area, wever, this lack of development allows the site to tribute to the open setting of mu n around Yelm. No specific wildlife corridors are provided onsite, but because development is sparse, a number of plant and animal species are found within the proposed annexation boundaries (see Plants and Animals element of this document). The Thurstn , County Comprehensive Plan indicates there are a number of parcels on or near the site participating in the State Open Space Taxation Land program. More parcels in this program are located south of the city No specific recreation trails or parks have been identified in the proposed annexation area. Park space and recreation areas within the City of Yelm are discussed in the Parks and Recreation element of this document. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action Annexation would not take place and open space around the site would not change. The parcels within the annexation area could be developed at lower densities than the Proposal and this may retain existing rural uses that contribute to the area's present undeveloped state. Retention of undeveloped areas of land associated with the lower density would provide the potential for large open space corridor r eenbelts surrounding the city if permanent reservation is lanned ow nce much o this land is private pr lIes to acquire public open space may be limited ,1 v e J)e c..~ ;. ~ ? v-- ,.. ,(J tAl, v pI' G t ,., 1M P v;~ Alternative 2. Proposed Annexation ~t' ~ O"t) The proposed annexation would result in a large addition to the city's land base. Much of the annexed ? land is intended for development and this development would likel eater densi envision rese County zoning regulatio m much of this developmen ou d occu - as part of ster p an pro~s open space corridors within t e annexation area Plannedl "" ""." ~ w Id be appropriate. If cluster designs are encouraged, open space features may be iI" included as part of potential development proposals. Public park space could also be provided by this alternative in connection with recreation and other open space areas. Additional open space areas surrounding Yelm would have to come from the remaining land base around the new city limits. Tw~nd areas not presently proposed for annexation exist, one to the northwest between Fort _ 7 Le~ity limits, and another on the east between the city and the Nisqually River Most of the . land south of the proposed city limits would remain under rural zoning and could provide a large tract of potential open land. Planning within these areas could include consideration of their potential open ;Y) space values. Opportunities for incorporating open space corridors designed within the annexation (I area, into possible trails or wildlife corridors in the remaining rural areas, could also be explored. 74 Alternative 3. Compact Site Plan Under this approach, potential open space corridors larger than those resulting from the Proposal could be achieved, since more land within the annexation area would be available. Potential development designs using clustering techniques would be encouraged by this alternative in order to provide the same development density on less land area. Depending upon the exact nature of development under this alternative, any corridors or trails proposed could be wider or cover a greater area if master planned communities include such areas. Open space planned for available land surrounding the proposed city limits would not change under this option. 7 <1ternative 4. The Village Concept The proposed city limits would not change under this approach, however the overall density of the proposed development would be lower Therefore, this option would provide the greatest amount of v land potentially available for open space within the proposed annexation area. The form of open space areas may be different than that resulting under Alternatives 1 and 2 since less residential development is envisioned on the proposed annexation lands. For example, whereas open space associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 might be primarily related to trails adjacent to homes and recreation areas, open space for Alternative 3 could be more related to office or business park settings. Since the size of the proposed annexation area would not change under this option, open space opportunities surrounding the new Yelm city limits would remain as discussed for the Proposal. Mitigating Measures Development within the proposed annexation area should include open space corridors wherever possible. Opportunities to connect to existing or planned open space trails should be explored. Where logical wildlife corridors could be provided and maintained they should be included within the annexation proposal. Land surrounding the city should be considered for preservation of open space corridors wherever these values are appropriate. The city should coordinate with Thurston County to plan for open space areas. 75 4. Urban Area Boundary , ~ Existin~ Conditions / Currently Yelm's urban area is comprised of all land within the city limits. The city encompasses a total land area approximately 740 acres in size. The city's present boundaries are irregular with the northernmost limit stretching to a point just south of the Centra . the furthest eastern limit extending to a point near Grove Road, the southernmost limi ear SR 507: d the westernmost limit occurring just east of Thompson Creek. Figure 19 identifies eXtStin and uses within and around the proposed annexation area. 7111'+ T1 V~'V~ The 1990 Growth Management Act (GMA) requires counties, and municipalities within those counties, to map urban growth areas where future expansion is to occur Spedfically, Section 11 (1) of the GMA defines these places as "areas within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature." A key definition within the Act is that of urban growth, which is defined as "intensive use of land for the location of buildings, structures and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with the primary use of such land for the production of food, other agricultural products, or fiber, or the extraction of mineral resources, When allowed to spread over wide areas, urban growth typically requires urban governmental services, Section 3 (4)." _ ---- ? According to the Act the following criteria is applied to the designation of an urban growth area. 1) each city is automatically considered an urban growth area, 2) one urban growth area may include more than one city; 3) urban growth areas may include territory outside a city limit only if it is already characterized by urban growth, or if it is adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth, Section 11(1) It further states that" .Based upon the population forecast made for the county by the office of financial management, the urban growth areas in the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county for the succeeding twenty- year period. Each urban growth area shall permit urban densities and shall include greenbelt and open space areas, Section 11 (2) " CvT ~ v... A.- Finally, the Act specifies that "Urban growth should be located first in areas already characterized by urban growth that have existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development, and second in areas already characterized by urban growth that will be served by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additionally needed public facilities and services that are provided by either public or private sources. Further, it is appropriate that urban government services be provided by cities, and urban government services should not be provided in rural areas, Section 11 (3) " Designation of urban growth are shoul ollow this Criteri@hese areas are to be designed to allow for future population growth employment while also protecting important environmental features. Growth area boundari ca reviewed at ten year intervals to ensure that growth is being directed in the manner intended. e Growth Management Act also encourages cooperation between cities and counties in developing urban area boundaries. In July 1991, Thurston County and the City of Yelm agreed on an urban growth boundary for the land surrounding Yelm. An approximately ten square mile (6400 acres) a a has been approved for future growth. Figure 20 shows this area in relationship to the current city II 'ts and the proposed annexation. Presently, this proposal is being~onsidered by the Yelm Planning Commission and will then be forwarded to the Urban Growth Management Subcommittee of the urston Regional Planning Council for review and comment. A final urban growth boundary is not e ed to be adopted until early fall. .M · ..,rfr' I 76 ~ S3Sn ONVl ~IlSIX3 NOIIVX3NNV ~13A lS3MHlnOS 6~ am !::I eOlwou0031 pu., I I,IAIIUY IIIUIWUOJIAU3I I Id8:>8PU8, I lluluu81d 6C~9-"~9 (90~) Ja ^uaO/e6eJ<Mj:NY ,emeltS ~~96 VIII "IU8es enueAV pu~ SOL ulpl!na a O~6 .~UI 'Sale!~OSS" 1B adJOlll .M.~ l6/6ll. l6i 0\ L ..-p qof l"'~ ~D plp wP i C\l ~ - o · j Ij ,/<1':, I u-:-r--r:' i C~ ~ [ < .." ,; ',' '-,'--.1 ~', : rl il (I d I l I I , I II '/~ ,,<l '. : i: I L J ~ I'~ :'" ~ ,1/~Y '" i ",' ~ ,: i,,' . ,T~ ~._) I-"'h 'I' ".' ~, I' " ~.j '- I '7' ~ffi 1 1 " }~~ li~, : r i, '_ ~, It. , >~,.// ' , -., , ' .., "('fk~~~~,,!..- ~ _ ,,;,l,' ,/,' '.\ I ' 'I ,-+;-'--/-1'-1';... / (' --.......... .Jill"; I Fl' I / , ,I 'l~. \i' '\ r __~: V j1', ~,jtf . ,I I, "1 ~ I , ".I', I ' I ,~, ~\ T ~ ,.~ . I ," 111 II I .fv'}!,.... 11/, l //r/,r-.:' -7-1f--- \:--.:: ~ \. ~, I I I " I # I \ '1" { ...iii~' -- ~ \ j 1./ I t lit .. 'f , I , I I . ~ _ ,~ .# :"'--,~L,'__..::::::--~'irll', ' 'I'" " '1,1..;, oI,;,:,l I "".' '; ; "I" i \ '"" liO., _ ~~- - - '~ \~\ lHI'/-'r~ j':\,jii " '1'1'" ,/ "IIJ,I,'Uj,,\' JJf. ~~ ~- -- -..: I '^.' \~\ \~\ "' ~/ ~ r ' I ...-1' I , \J-::-;Jl_ , 11 r(';~ '/" "', l ~"\ . \ \ 'I ....,' '" ',,- ~ " ,,' )!,' , ,,' I ~ _ - ;... r.t; I - jl" , ~?t \;<- ' ~, ' '" '", " I tL~ ' -- I ~ t i: ~ ,,~ .-'fI~' ~..... '! I 7-. J \ ~r ~ T I I ~ ' I I /~\ J ~ '.rD:~~:<~' ,~t.:;< I~ ~'~ ~'t\'.,-''-r~, --~ , + T~- '~' "r- ~ " I' j,:,j'l: ,,1. /~/4 ifti~~,1I ~ ;):."1 \'Y":,(:I~:~,'\ ' ~:'~~~<, II~I~. ' "\.,,,,......iy,', , : I 1"11' ,! ~s. I '\ ",',' l/~ ,I {~ ' 'I~ " , ,~ 'i ~:;~ ': "I' :'iu~ ~1", r~ ~ 'II ';/"1" '" , ....._-~ ,'~ ' ~W~.,'~I ~ "1~"..~""'I, ,I" " ,J~~..,:It', ,,^ "t~ ~,' I, - ~ I" .~.---~__"'_--'>i-:I -J' X. -'I. ~" a: j II 1'.Ilil I !J.Ht ,'!~',,: '. ,I' I Y,/I '........ J .' ''.I. ,,' .f-~ ~--~- I . l'~~, I' ~ ' , I, ."l' ( 'T ' ... -- .."Nf,i)' ~."W !i'll",'!)' _rO' ,\. I) I ~ ' , 0~ ' I' , -- "', I ,:.l~i]~~, ~'rf{~, '~ ~l~~':' , I ~~,..', .' 'J j .trrr ~ k~ 4.:.;' I ,-=--~ , , "!"- " I '. J ,I : ",1 - , I '-'i, 'I. I il' I ". , '.' ", ! T I) , '4 j.;~ . It' I. , lL, "~,~~, ~/~ I I iill ~;'i 'j'- ' t R 'I 1 1 ", ,<(~I i (/') -- > ----,--'l"rt,~!,~'I~~~k,l,'!II:!!( , I' ";~ ~I_,' ~ ,'. ~f~~~'l-~--~ ';~~h-11."'---:-I"~~~"~~:'~;'I, I ~ " ,I."~ ,:;;'f:il~,,-I' I 'I '. ' ",i'I':, " I'", I, "1'" i ',,' n, ' " ,I, I~' k, .. ~ ' ,_':' '"l,j, :' I , "" \ I.; ,I, ',,~: =1'; '..... --,- ",' . 1 , 'h ' " i ' , '\~ ~l ~ I' ~'~(-,~,:r/~/.~J 'I ,.' j 'i~':','.!'',o>'!'~ '~"I' ,'~'}, "n' 111'11ii:, 'f ~ 1-., 'l'i,/'j,' il M. , \, lL ,,! I ii, ' "',,'~ ,'". , I , : ~ '" -or :t ' ,I, ' j T--- ~ _, ~-4 1 ,~ ' : I': 1__ ~ 'I '~fi-I' t '-,: / . /M. ~t~:;>", .l:~';YIJ ,'f I' I I,' c llr,~ ' " ~ I ' :', "I ~~~'I :~ (1 1}."I:"~J "/",1,1 II! I I'.".... I:'!! ,"iolf'l'-II ' (5 -f ,'" , J1 I itl'~ll! i! I i\ -,...~l- __~ i___~_. I I" ,)i I' ~ I jf I! i i' "Ii' I: I "- 8 r.~~-,/ r?i:j'" ~r;~"""""ltt1;'~! i I d ~ S k/: :': :',~ .i",~~r' ',.d - ._~_ "~, LT;1.-:a W .? /1, j/,' j", ~, ',":Jr.. 11~ ~ ii' 'I ,~'~.. I -tj '--J:1 ' ~ ~'/;r. !' y" t' ~;Ti .- , i " I ~ ,.,~~ ~f~ ' p.. //z"!/:,;1t7" ',;:;:,";O,(Li i, -f:'~,/,- .-"- j '~~-: irtll:'I;:"i ~/f", ~ I}L~- I! ' ~\ I'~ It~',,~ I'" I 1'1111' A" '~~-~~~I I : \11 ~ \ ~ 'IJ -.- ~~,"":;" "';~'i ; I I ../~, llz-;:j;,j I I I ~ g f/ ".. ,''(''j' """ ~--~' ' ~ ~~~:' :~I:! I!, "'--/ NOlln_YO.80dO.d ----- ""~:~,, 'T:~ ...-- _ a: I' , !, "i,1 -........ ~'''' ~ ~ "I" ' , '__" ... I ! i j I " ,~~ '-l. ,70_ , I; ~ ~:~-0i~t- ~_ ~! ~ I' ~'~- -'~ ~ .. '-...~~ / ~i ~ C>J,-t- H i ~! - 5~ a ~ ~~ ~ f l5 c: z __, f d~ ~ .. ~ E--< Z W U ~ W ~ 0... ~ o u ~ ::> a: l/Il.ll ~llI ~> ..~ ~j ~ ~ ~ IT> IT> : : ~ ~ - IT> ~ ~ ; ~ ~ .=: ~ ~ ~ i ti a: ~ ~ f t i :; $ 0 ~ co Ul U u L3 !! ~ ~ ~ ~ ii :; 0 0 ~i~~ > ..... u (,) oj U a: :J o Ul ~ seartf l.JlMOJ8 ueqJn pue uonexauuV' NOIlV'X3NNV' V'J13A lS3MHlnos eOllllouoo3. le...-wuoAf"u3. edeoepue,. Ovtuue.... 6CZ9."'Z9 (90Z) tloO~86 '11M 'elnUS 3nu3^"I pUl l;OL U!Pl!nS.3 OH. O~ 6 J,Mueo/e68JO'f:xlY/91U89S .OUI' sate!ooss" ~ adJ04.l M ~ / II I // ,... o I() ". e" "" "-. .. ". "" "" .. ". .. ". ., . . . . . . ~ I I I I I : I l I I e ~ ~ ". I ................. .................. ~..........~ ..........~~.Ti I -:, I o =1 I ~ =, -1 : ______ _ I UJ '- '-" '" '-, "" s... "'~~""or:-. I ~.............rw 11 >- : I z :'1 I o ~ I 3:;::::; ~ I Cf) <J:. :'1 I x :-...: I a LU :-1 UJZ t1 I Cf)Z ~ I 0<( . n. ~ :" ,I ~uj ~~.~~~~.~.~.~~.. .' n.>- (/1 J Q) -I .... ~ o U- (/1 J Q) -I .... ~ o U- ~ ...J UJ >- - Z<( OUJ I-CI: Cf)<( CI:I :::::>1- ~3: 00 UJCI: Cf)C!J Oz n.<( Oce CI:CI: n.:::::> Ol am !:I l6/6/9 03SI^3H l6/. l6l0ll, 9J8P qo, . e Plt:> UJp (@i o Q. a. <: Q) < en .~ :;; ~ c: ::;) o a:l ;( - o ~ (0 C\l II ~ Q) CO U (/) ~ en Q) ... III t.l o III en <: en ~ c: III r. E ,~ Qi:r: >- c: - 0 0... UJ>.~ u...::;) cr: ,- r. ::lUf- o (/) Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives b fI"'~PX -#N:r ~ tv' .__.- ,_~ ~~~~-- /7 Alternative 1 No Action The proposed annexation would not occur and urban growth would be directed by the present urban area boundary Under this approach, most npm :@Yel~pmen...uvould occur between the present city limits and the NisqualIy River to the east. A:nnexa ons eyond the designated urban growth areas would be prolm>Ited under the proVIsions of Section 30 of the Growth Management Act. Because less area suitable for large residential development would be available under this approach, new residential subdivisions would likely be smaller than would occur through the proposed annexation (for more discussion of potential impacts on price, see the Affordable Housing section analysis in this document) Land outside the urban area could be developed only at rural densities (1 dwelling unit per five acres) 8~LI.! The concept of urban growth areas is relativel~ ne~nd their effectiveness is not com letel documented. This approach would depend on an e fective urban area to provide adequate an for a potential land uses in Yelm over the next twenty years. This would mean that new residential homes would compete with other urban uses, including those that provide additional areas of employment locally Competition among uses would likely be greater simply because less area would be provided for low and medium density housing if the proposed annexation does not take place. If an adequate supply of land is not provided by the current boundary, or if the price of that land is too high, it could lead to sprawl through movement outside the urban growth area. Alternative 2: Proposed Annexation The annexation would proceed as proposed and Yelm city limits would be extended. The urban growth area would remain, however the annexation would allow some development to the west not anticipated by the adopted growth area. The NisqualIy River forms a logical boundary to development north and east of Yelm and the urban area boundary takes advantage of this natural constraint. The proposed annexation would also be restricted since much of the land west of the site belongs to the Fort Lewis Military Reservation. Jt-t1#,., ~ Wbp~ v/..~IIIV~ ~ bP ~ .(!f'.....~,jIIJ' City of Yelm staff have indicat the ro QSPd annexatioA-Site is e only area '!.djacenLto the city "!J.I'v;~ ~/' suitable frIar SIn The urban 0 area gnation is intended to limit urban (; development next to the city e ado oundary would leave a large area south of the city for 7 rural use. The proposed annexation would remove a portion of this area, but a large block of nIralland would remain south of the city On the north, Fort Lewis land adjoins a part of the urban growth area, however to the northwest another area of rural land remains. It should also be noted that an additional 400 acres located between the proposed annexation site and Highway 507 south of Yelm is - also likely to be annexed. Whether this annexation occurs or not, the current proposal would provide more area for housing and would likely result in allowing the adopted growth area being left to absorb other urban land uses. ? As mentioned above, effectiveness of urban growth areas has not been determined. The proposed annexation would allow additional area for growth adjacent to the city It would also require some extension of urban services to the site (see Public Services element in this document). Since housing availability has been a hindrance to growth in the past, the proposal would create a larger area for urban type development than the urban growth area alone. Population forecasts indicate that Thurston County in general, and Yelm in particular, will continue to grow and the proposed annexation site would be the best area available for such growth. :::> Regarding the type of development that may occur, the erooosal w~require developers in the annexation area to plan and pay for amenities such as roads and open space inaavance. Studies have shown that large planned developments are better able to pay for such services than separate smaller sulxiivisions, where open space and infrastructure may not be given adequate consideration early in the development process. Because of the efficiency that can result when large developments are planned at - C /:r..c= '-- 79 I iPt~ i~ff , ~t< once, the proposed annexation is intended to provide an attractive mix of uses that may not be achieved as easily as what could result from relying solely on the urban growth area. _ ffp~rr.. I+--II The GMA requires Yelm accommodate e population as projected by the State Office of Financial Management. Each community mu e ermine the best method for establishing and distributing local densities in order to achieve sufficient area for future populations. This process is on-going in Yelm and information regarding land availability or suitability for specific land use densities was unavailable for inclusion in this document. It is expected that this assessment will be part of Yelm's planning efforts under the Growth Management Act. ? Alternative 3 The Compact Site Plan ./ .. Under this approach the same land area as the proposal would be ann6'ed. Densities would be higher to achieve a greater area for open space. Other uses would not differ greatly from the proposal. The influence on the urban growth area would be the same as expected for the proposal in that more space within the urban growth area would be available for uses other than housing. Larger green areas or buffers would create a better transition to surrounding rural land uses and could help to make this approach less intrusive than the proposal. If these buffers result in a better transition they may also help lessen any negative influence on rural areas that could invite more urban uses adjacent to the proposed annexation. Alternative 4. The Village Concept The mix of densities and land uses would change under this option to allow for more commercial use and less residential use. The area of annexation would not change. This approach may result in more mixed uses which could better resemble the mix found in the city presently, and result in a more overall urban perception of the annexation site. However, if it also results in greater clustering of residential areas and lowers their density, it may soften the impact of the large number of homes that could be located there Miti~atin& Measures The GMA allows for review of Urban Growth Boundaries approximately every ten years. The City could elect to review its boundary determinations after five years and make provisions for adjustments as to where the line is located if such revisions are deemed appropriate Those provisions should include clear instructions regarding criteria that would allow changes to any boundary adopted and would be expected to be subject to review by Thurston County and state officials responsible for GMA compliance. 80 5. Mfordable Housing Existin& Conditions Yelm has experienced growth in the overall number of housing units within the city In 1980 there was a total of 470 housing units in the city, by 1990 that figure had grown to 510 and in 1991 there were 520 units in the city limits. Thurston County has also shown growth in total housing units. In 1980 there were 27,899 units in the unincorporated county and by 1990 this figure had increased to 37,425 units. In 1991 a total of 38,045 units were located in unincorporated Thurston County Housing types also reflect these increases. Yelm had 349 single unit structures, and 105 structures with two or more units, in 1980 By 1990, single unit structures had increased to 417, and two or more unit structures had increased to 125 Mobile homes, trailers and other units increased from 16 to 27 between 1980 and 1990. Overall, Thurston County also had increases in housing units in the same categories between 1980 and 1990. These increases are shown in the table below Table 20. Local Housing Units and Types April 1, 1980 April 1, 1990 One Two + Mobile Total One Two + Mobile Total Unit Units Homesotlt Units Unit Units Homes.... Units Thurston Co. 33,972 11,112 5,628 50,712 42,319 15,142 10,153 67,614 Unincorp. 19,674 3,350 4,675 27,899 25,068 3,972 8,385 37,425 Incorp. 14,298 7:;62 953 22,813 17,251 11,170 1,768 30,189 Yelm 349 HE 16 470 417 125 27 569 ....Includes mobile homes, trailers and other special units. Source: 1990 Population Trends for Washington State, Office of Financial Management, Forecasting Division, August 1990. Most residents of Yelm reside in single family homes, as is true of the surrounding area, therefore, apartment units are not as prevalent. Much of Yelm's housing stock is comprised of older-aged single family homes. In the past the town has had an image as a low-income community that was partly influenced by locallow-cost manufactured home developments. Yelm has had the lowest family and per capita income in Thurston County and most homes in the city have reflected local income levels. The city also suffers from a lack of developed neighborhoods or covenanted residential areas. The 1991 Economic Development Summit report found that "there are no moderate density residential areas with middle income, family housing including both single-family and multi-family units." The same document also notes that some local individuals in the community have expressed a need for housing for the homeless, victims of domestic violence and for lower income persons. The need to upgrade existing low-income facilities was mentioned, since many are poorly maintained. The Economic Development Summit indicated that among Yelm's strengths were the large amount of undeveloped land available for housing and the current availability of moderate price housing in the town. However, weaknesses included the lack of development within the town offering middle income housing. Rainier housing is similar to that of Yelm, although a recent housing development was completed in 1991 that provided a new neighborhood with newer amenities than found in other areas of the town. Because of the number of low-income residents locally, almost one quarter of Rainier's housing stock is in manufactured homes. Rental housing, including multifamily apartments, is in short supply in Yelm and 81 fl. ~ \ ,L /5. Rainier In Rainier there is a shortage of middle-income apartments and there appears to be demand ~' ~ J for additional residences of this type in the area. \ -' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Sf l' ~ Housing in South Thurston County generally resembles that found in Yelm. Many of the homes surrounding the Yelm city limits are older, rural-character residences. Generally, housing in unincorporated Thurston County has been more expensive than within the City of Yelm. According to the 1991 Thurston County Profile, the median value of a single family home in the unincorporated county was $58,700 in 1980. The median value of a home in Yelm was $44,300 at the same time. The Washington Office of Financial Management estimates the median value of owner-occupied housing for the entire county at $79,700 in 1991, and the median rent was $382.00 per month. Census data indicates the median income in Thurston County in 1990 was $30,967 and the median income in Yelm was $19,053. A further indication of the need for additional affordable housing opportunities in Yelm is provided by poverty level information in the 1990 Census. According to the Census, 10.1% of all people in Thurston County were below the poverty level, whereas 20.2% of all people in Yelm were below that level. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action Annexation would not occur under this option and future housing supplies would have to be located in current city limits or the urban growth area. Opportunities for affordable housing would still exist within the town, including upgrading of existing facilities. Since land area for residential use is p limited in Yelm, new housing would have to locate within the urban area boundary The urban growth V \ area is also limited, however Because growth controls may have a tendency to reduce land supply, '" V '1~ they may also result in raising housing costs, making the price of a new home less affordable. When --1'\ 1- land is scarce, the number of homes that can be built is limited, and prices increase. Housing supply " ~ t;~ may also be less than demand overall, and an imbalance in type (high, medium or low income) can , ~t!';~' result. ? It should also be noted that urban growth boundaries are not precise since they are dependent upon an ~ --accurate interpretation of the variables that influence where they are placed. If the boundaries of the growth area are drawn too tightly, they may also result in higher prices by restricting land supply This may also cause movement to places outside the urban boundary where land is more affordable and potential dev~ment restrictions may be less stringent. - - r Alternative 2: The Proposal The proposed annexation would provide additional area for growth in Yelm. The exact nature of development on the proposed annexation land is not known, however, additional residential construction is expected. There are no present plans specifically including low-income housing for the annexation area. Some of the potential residential development there could include middle-income residences and a portion of the area may include multi-family apartments. Annexation approval could provide Yelm with an opportunity to explore new development of affordable housing, either within the annexation area, or in the town if development of the annexation area results in middle to upper . 'd ' Income resl ences. ~~15 ~ Annexation would result in more area for housing It i~hat medium to upper income homes would be provided within this area. However, this w~~e more area adjacent to the city for affordable housing, and through increasing the total land area for residential use, help keep prices down. Because demand for medium to high income homes in Yelm has been strong, the proposed annexation would be expected to accommodate this demand while being less restrictive than the urban growth area, or infill in current city limits. It would also provide an opportunity for current homeowners to "trade up" to more expensive homes, which in turn would provide a new supply of older, more affordable homes, to first time buyers and/or those with lower incomes. 82 The 1990 Growth Management Act requires comprehensive plans prepared under the GMA to include a housing element, which in part, would include "adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community" However, it doess:. a~;d:~ ~ s~~or implied by the GMA that ~ individual development project provide I I. mg. Thus hOUSing) developed under the annexation proposal may not contribute to the goal of providing affordable housing in Yelm, but it is expected to contribute toward the GMA intent to provide for the needs of all economic segments of the population. ) Alternative 3: The Compact Site Plan This alternative would also provide additional land for residential development, but would involve less area for buildings. Thus densities would be higher than the Proposal and open space areas would be greater This may mean greater opportunities for multifamily residences and/or cluster designs. Since this approach does not specifically propose low-income housing, the impact on affordable housing would likely resemble the Proposal, in that land would be available within the town and urban growth area for future growth. If fewer single family residences result, prices for those homes may be higher than under the proposal. Alternative 4. The Village Concept This approach would allow annexation with future development centering on development that is more commercial in nature. It is intended, in part, to provide higher levels of on-site employment than might occur under the Proposal and Alternative 2. While residential units would be reduced in number, they could be more suited to meet the needs of affordable housing. This is so because this alternative would be more oriented toward a cluster design, where residents live and work within the annexation area. This approach would reduce the overall number of residential units and may result in higher prices for those units provided. Mitigating Measures A number of programs exist to allow affordable housing. Many provide funds for capital advances and rental assistance. Others, such as the Farmers Home Administration Program, are designed to provide assistance for construction or rehabilitation of rental housing in rural communities. The City could encourage developers to provide affordable housing in the annexation area, or it could require developer contributions to low-income assistance programs within the city ~I1/JJ.,6 , j) p.J ~'f41 , . J ,.,t , p f V Jt' L / rr' t~ jv'v '} ~ t ~ ~p1 ~(.~f /-, 11 r:;~ JJ i' '^ \IV ~fv III 'It V'I \J fl~ ff"yJIJ ft'" 1J y . 5fV 83 C Transportation ,'> Existing Conditions A traffic study for the Southwest Yelm Annexation was prepared by Skillings d Chamberlain, Inc. in conjunction with their work on the City of Yelm Comprehensive Trans rtation Plan EIS. The information below is taken from the complete traffi'h study which Appendix D of this document. The transportation network in the iRmledttle vicinity of the Southwest Annexation parcels includes the following major rq~dways: '" T h !-} Yelm Avenu R-510 an R-507 is the primary principal arterial in the Yelm UGA. To the west of ~he . , ~R-510 por on of Yelm A enue becomes )'f'lrn Uigkw.yand connects Yelm through Fort ewis and the Nisqu ly Indian l' nds to the m~j(\" '}:ftl:lFSt8R Ce...ttty Cities of Olympia, f Tumwater, and Lace East of the C1 , Yelm Avenue is known as SR-507 and connects Yelm with Pierce County and the major urban areas of Tacoma, Spanaway, and the i . . Yelm Avenue is a two-lane roadway with a post t between 35 mp and 25-mp. nunor roadways intersecting Yelm Avenue are und ST contro y signalized intersection along Yelm Avenue is at SR-507/First Street, wher eparat e -turn lanes are provided. The roadway is under the maintenance jurisdiction of the Washi n State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 1>" uw. SR-507 iS~ aner principal arterial in the Yelm UGA. This two-lane roadway is under WSDOT maintenance 'sdiction and connects Yelm with the South Thurston County communities of Rainier, Tenino, and the unincorporated Grand Mound area near Interstate 5 All minor roadways intersecting with SR-507 are under STOP control. The only signalized intersection along SR-507 is at Yelm Avenue/First Street, where separate left-turn lanes are provided. 93rd Avenue SE is a two-lane roadway with a posted 35-mph speed limit providing access for residences along the Fort Lewis boundary to Yelm Avenue. The roadway's approach to Yelm Avenue is under STOP control. Longmire Street is a local two-lane roadway with a posted 25-mph speed limit providing access for residences north and south of Yelm A venue. At its intersection with Yelm A venue, both north and south approaches are under STOP control. To the south, Longmire Street extends approximately 1 and 1/2 miles to a dead-end. North of Yelm Avenue, the roadway extends four blocks 0/2 mile) to its terminus with Coates Street. Berry Valley Road is a local two-lane roadway with a posted 25-mph speed limit providing access to Yelm Avenue for residences south of the Yelm High School campus. The roadway has several curves throughout its 3/4 mile length before its terminus at Thompson Creek. """rAcKenzie Street is a local two-lane roadway servicing southwest residences within the Yelm City , f Umits. It currently extends from Longmire Street to Railroad Avenue and has a posted 25-mph speed limit ^ .~~'* fiua~ G e,.n~ ~~5- - "'"- Existing Traffic Volumes and Capacity Arullyses Figure 21 illustrates existing peak hour travel volumes on the major roadways throughout the Yelm UGA. AI' wer llected fr DOT data sources and s_urveys by Skillings & Chamberlain, Inc. in preparation of the comprehensive transportation pan. - -- Major intersections were analyzed to assess existing capacity deficiencies. The analyses were completed using procedures outlined by the current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual for unsignalized intersections, and the planning analyses of Transportation Research Circular 212, entitled 84 Interim Materials on Highway Capacity Results from the analyses are recorded in a Level of Service (LOS) six-letter scale ranging from A to F LOS A represents free-flowing travel conditions, and LOS F represents congested travel. Analyses were also completed using the guidelines of th~Yelm Concurrency Management System (CMS) program. The CMS identifies fifteen major ~ns for monitoring traffic impacts. These intersections are identified in Figure 22. LOS results were compared to the City's LOS standards to determine deficiency or concurrency The City has adopted two LOS standards for the UCA. · LOS D for all intersections along Yelm Avenue between 93rd Avenue SE and the Five-Corners junction, and · LOS C for all remaining roadways in the UCA. In h'~r~ sixteenth intersection was identified for "~lysiS. the Annexation.~ ~ ~tersection. LOS results for the existing CMS intersections are summarized i~ Jw AIC ..,S / }'-I Table 21 Base Year Capacity Analysis Results A System Peak Hour Volumes Intersection LOS Concurrency LOS~sult \ ""' Standard - 'f 2. 93rd Ave, and SR-510 D B 4. Yelm Ave. and Edwards Street D ~ 5. ~osman Ave. and SR-507 C B ~~rth intersec., B - u th intersec. 7 elm Avenue and l03rd Avenue D -:!1" 8. ive-Comers D I Er- \ 9 prove and SR-507 C ~) 10 3rd Street and Yelm A venue D -rr 12 Yelm Avenue and First Street D I C...) 13. First St. and Canal Rd-Wilkensen Rd. C A ~ Existing travel conditions throughout the Yelm UCA are consistent with the expectations of rural LOS: within the A-C range. However, segments of Yelm Avenue exceed the LOS standard established by the City In addition, field observations revealed severe congestion occurs during other times of the day and is associated with brief traffic bursts related to school dismissals (near Edwards Street and the High School Campus area) and post office operations (near 3rd Street) Traffic Accidents A comprehensive accident analysis was conducted for the UCA as part of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan project. The four intersections having the highest accident rates include: · Five-Comers (jct. of SR-507/Morris Road/Creek Street/Bald Hills Road) · 93rd Avenue SE/Yelm Avenue · 3rd Street/Yelm Avenue · First Street/Yelm A venue The transportation plan improvements include mitigating safety deficiencies of these intersections. Public Transportation Presently, the Yelm UGA is not served by public transpor/'j-1 ~ 85 ~ O\..UtAES ~ ttOUR "\992 pE~ '''s ~ j.QS. 8\~ (t.lPH) A-a 24> ----- 18-2-' C 10~ ~ 20 D ~\ ' -- ,....11 - E -- '0-'3 oS - f' ;?; -- 0-9 -- 2~ l~ \ :V: A -n ~b' -' &.., <0 9Jr~ ~ \ \ ~e ~~ <..'0 ~ c: ? .... r< ,;) .. <0 !';) ~ 5 ~ onl'" is''''' n~ ------ t6' X-t .0"",0_-....." 40 ~ ts~ ..~'So ~~ '\ ~ ~Qs\'li{\qton _ ~ ~ city of '(e\n'\rehenS\'Je plan 265 Comp rtation 0.1'0 2"..... \"'-. , ~-<9n It'ansPo \\ ~ \ @\'$.Il\b\b\\~~:\b:\1ro. u~ ~ll @f$J&.~@. ~ ~' ~~ 10 {>% "".s. "i ,- -- c: ~ to 8 -- f\gute 22 0- ~~\ CDC: (!j)'@ ~O ~~~ (1)-- ~c:"'" ~~ ~ --a. to C!) en .~ CD ..,. ~~ -; z -'j, .s:: .... 0 Q ~CDO \" a: l- . .... 0- 0 <.) ~o.(I) <.) u.l ~eC: u.l C/) a: a: 'OotO 0.\ u.l ;.. .... ~--~ cf) l- 50r- ~ ~ <.) I '6 t, c ?, w .,; ~ '" c5 '" o \ ~ u . > t;'. '" -~I\' I f, ~ ~ l ~ ~ ... f, =. .!. Pedestrian and Bicycles The City of Yelm and Thurston County do not maintain separate trail facilities for pedestrians or bicyclists within the Yelm UGA. Currently, the City has a partial sidewalk system along major roadways in the area including segments of Yelm Avenue (between the High School Campus and the City Center) and SR-507 (between the City Park and the City Center) Planned and Programmed Improvements A summary of the City's Comprehensive Transportation Plan is provided in Figure 23 Significant improvements affecting the Southwest Annexation parcels include: . Y-l. SR-510/SR-507 Connector. relocating SR-510~S ernate route around the Ci!)' Center through the Southwest Annexatio parc . Initial construction .a.29ms for three-lanes with major intersections a 8th A venue SE (the Y-3 proposal), 93rd Avenue SE-Yelm Avenue, the Southwest Access roadway, and existing SR-507 Twenty-year forecast volumes indicate the need for a five- lane facility (included in the comprehensive transportation plan) . Y-2. SR-507/Five-Corners Connector. relocating SR-507 as an alternate route around the City Center to the south. Y-2 begins at the Y-1 intersection with existing SR-507 and continues along a due-east alignment to the present Five- Comers intersection. Improvements planned at this intersections includes elimiqeting the fifth- and sixth-legs and signalization. Initial construction ~s for three-lanes, ultimate construction (twenty-year) is for five-lanes. Y-5. Yelm Avenue Improvements include widening the roadway to allow for a bi-directional center left turn lane between 93rd Avenue SE and Five Corners. Edwards Street, 3rd Street, and Jayhawks Shopping Center access intersections are recommended for signals. Improvements to this facility are dependent upon construction of Y -1 and Y -2. If these roadways are not constructed, then Y -5 is recommended for a five-lane cross-section between 93rd A venue and Five- Comers. . . Y-7. Southwest Access is a collect ~ to the City Center. Longmire Street or Berry Valley The comprehensive transportation plan mmen gn study to determine the route of this facility (For planning purposes, it was assumed the facility is south of 93rd Avenue. It would intersect Yelm Avenue near the intersections of Longmire Street or Berry Valley Road.) · 'scontinuous r adways. are inten ed to "fill- better rculation in ; \l{L\'V /ri The City'sJ\six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), part of th~ol Facilities P~ (CFP), incTude Y-5 and Y-8 constructioEa sign studies for Y-l, Y-2, and Y-7 as immediate priorities. Funding for these improvements are ted rom DOT for existing deficiencies mitigation of Y -5, a combination of City/state Transportatio provement Board (TIB) funding for Y -8, and developer mitigation for the Y-1, Y-2 and Y-7 design studies. Public $1ansportation in Yelm is expected ~] 1993 through InterCity Transit. The actual services plans are not available.at tl\e '...TitiA8 of th"i~ I!I~ '14-1' 88 4th, A...., s,[, 1l CD \Q ~ ,; 0: :i 1091., A,,~. S.E:. RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAtJ RECOMMENDATIONS Y-l SJI-507 ,ISR-alo 0llNIt[C'IQR Y- 2 SR-507 /FIVE CQIlH[Il$ CXlIlN€CIllR Y-3 CNlAL lIOAD NORlH LOCP Y-4 COA1B-~I03nS. CONNECTllIl v-a "lIUl All€. ~ Y'" CR'/STAL SPIIItQS lIOAD ElCl!IaIClN Y-7 .:MY VAUEY-SW 'l'DJI NMXA1ION ACCESS Y-8 QTY COf1Ul CQIN[ClI(lHS Y-II IlAIJ) ~ ROAD Il(AUCHIDfl' Y-IO VA/lCL ROAD CXlNN[C1I(lN Y-ll 110t1L All€. SL ClIEEJ( CROSSING Y-12 IISQUAU. Y PINES S[CCNlI ACCESS ." CO C ... CD I\) W City of Yelm Washington Comprehensive Transportation Plan t , @(::!:0I1110~@@ ~ 4fr @!Xl&~m@OOI1&O~. O~@ CNC/INff1t!-""'~- s.-\.('l'tW$ t.MOSCAPI' AII04rr,~ N. T.S. 'l,-JJ; ft."d/ Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative I No Action ? J. No annexation would occur and traffic levels would continue to grow at or near their present rates. f(l ~ \ J-: it .,/ r' ) Alternative 2: Annexation Proposal (ILl f \) -(fpf ~ " Assumptions , Two alternatives and a no-action alternative were studied. As indicated in a previous section, three ,h alternatives are proposed, however, the preferred and compact densities do not differ and have (I rrllr f identical traffic impacts. The alternatives include varying residential and commercial development densities over a twenty-year (2012) build out. Two interim phase years are included in this EIS analysis. five-year and ten-year horizons (1997 and 2002) The following table summarizes the planned densities for the parcels over the three horizon years and alternatives. Table 22 Assumed Development Densities Southwest Annexation EIS Preferred and Compact Village Alternative Land Use Alternatives 1997 2002 2012 1997 2002 2012 Single Family 360 1420 1780 320 1270 1590 Dwellings Multi-Family 260 1000 1260 220 910 1310 Dwellings Retail Employment 100 400 SOO 100 400 500 Non-retail 190 790 980 Employment (Office) Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment Forecasting travel growth consi three components Trip Generation is applying trip rates, developed from previou studie r national surveys by the Institute of Transportation Engineers UTE), to the forecasted Ian use to determine the traffic volume associated with the development. In Trip Distribution, a study is conducted to determine where the development traffic is either destined or originated. The final component, Trip Assignment, applies the results from the trip distribution study to the trip generation values to develop a site trav . affic is then combined with existing volumes and traffic generated by ot r planned developments t produce a total site travel forecast for the study area. All travel forecasting was completed with the assistance of the Yelm Transportation Planning Model. This model, based on the software package TMODEL2, was developed for the Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan project and for the City to use in assessing impacts created by development. The process used to develop this model included: , _,J rl-rr · Identifying the model area (Yelm UGA), · Collecting base year road~y alld travel characteristics data including land use data for a Traffic Analysis Zone (T AZ) system, · Converting the land use data into traffic volumes an calibrating a gravity model for trip distribution a pacity-restraint auto asslgnrn . Developing forecast volumes from r uildout of the Yelm UGA. 90 Traffic generated by the parcel alternatives was ve 0 23 below summarizes the estimated traffic generat Table Table 23 Estimated Traffic Generation Southwest Annexation Horizon Year Destination Preferred/ Compact Village Alternative Alternative 1997 Origin 260 230 Destination 350 285 Total 610 515 2002 Origin ( 515..) \.~ ~15 ") Destination ~ ~' 1,140 Total I 1,215 ~ ~ ( 2,055 ""') 2012 Origin 1,030 .x. 1,140 Destination lAOll pi. 1,420 Total ( 2,430) ( 2,560 "") --- A/z> ~ (".1"- / ~ "'--- ~ Trip distribution and assignment for the parcel alternatives was generated by the transportation planning model. Included in the model are calibrated distribution and assignment representative of existing Yelm traffic patterns. Figures 24 and 25 illustrate the parcel traffic assigned to the roadway network as generated by the transportation planning model for the preferred/compact and village alternatives, respectively Figures 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 summarize the forecasting traffic volumes, including parcel and other future land use traffic, by 1997, 2002, and 2012 horizon years, and preferred/ compact and village alternatives respectively lJ1/YC (II r-pJ r,l;IlI Traffic Impacts Table 24 summarizes the LOS-capacity analyses completed on the fifteen recording intersections of the pending CMS. A sixteenth intersection, the south site drive and SR-507, was added because of a direct relation to parcel-generated traffic volumes. In summary, the capacity analysis results indicate traffic generated by the planned action is accommodated at most locations by the improvements of the comprehensive transportation plan. However, there are locations requiring mitigation to bring the LOS back to the City standards as a direct result of the proposed action. These locations need signalization and are identified in following section. Accidents Many improvements in the comprehensive transportation plan are meant to mitigate safety deficiencies over the next twenty years. In addition, City standards are upgraded in the comprehensive plan process to improve the system's safety and reliability Accidents will continue into the future and may be the direct result of traffic generated by the proposed action. However, the transportati01 plan's enhanced design and safety standards for the UGA should decrease, but not diminish, the ,/}J ) ') likelihood of accident occurrences throughout the study area. . ,/ I ~,\ 91 IV BUILT ENVIRONMENT 6 Public Services. G ------"solid Waste Collection/Recycling Systems. I ,~1 ~c. ,.t 1f, -f1 v \If' ~~ ~ ~~ C~ 3 ~ 4 3687 006 ~- Existing Conditions Solid waste is collected my LeMay Garbage Service. According to the Thurston County Solid Waste Management System, the solid waste collection franchise held by Harold LeMay Enterprises, includes the entire city limits of Yelm a sed 2,OOO-acre annexation area Material collected om the city limi is deposited at the Thurston landfill located northeast n Field in Pierce County, another sanitary landfill, is also open to residents of the Yelm area The Thurston County 1992 Solid Waste Management Plan currently estimates county waste generation to be approximately 6-7 pounds per person per day This plan estimates that for the 20-year period from 1992 to 2011, the county will require solid waste disposal capacity for between 4 9 million and 5 4 million cubic yards to accommodate 2 4 million to 2.7 million tons of solid waste Currently, the county is discussing a goal of diverting 60% of solid waste generated countywide through waste reduction and recycling programs. These efforts may reduce the corresponding amount of solid waste directed into the Thun Field and Hawks Prairie Landfil City of Yelm and the annexation area At thiS tim , no waste' ing generated by the '1IiJ~ annexation area, which is large undeveloped. vPJ Impacts of the Proposal With an estimated 5,000 reSidential uruts and a potential residential population of 12,500 persons, the amount of residential wastt;f generated by the annexatIon is 75,000 to 87,500 pounds per day, or 77 cubic yards to 90 cubic yards per day Impacts of the Alternatives. The proposal alternatives are anticipated to have the same impacts as the proposal, as the residential population is anticipated to be approximately the same Mitigating Measures t Vp.Jv A. Waste ction efforts an n effor ill be provided in the annex on area in conjunction WIth the solid waste pickup service -1- June 3, 1992 IV BUILT ENVIRONMENT (;,11 6 Public Services ------' C. Fire. KJ wi 3687 004 1 Existin on . The proposed 2,OOO-acre annexation site is served by th Pierce Coun ire District No 2, City of Yelm. The headquarter station, Ma' tation No 21, is located on Yelm Avenue in downtown Yelm TH City of Yelm placing before the voters in November, approval to UI a new main station on Mill Road and l04th Avenue S E. If approved by the voters, the facility may be bUilt in 1993 The new Station No 21 would likely include four drive- through bays to provide storage for 8 fire department vehicles. In addition to the headquarter station, there are two substations within Fire .,District No 2. Substation No 22 is located at 123rd Avenue and pt,fLindsay Road. Substation No 23 is located at Vail Loop and Hannus Pl~ Road. At this time, th(gty of Y~s aW vol~re department. The personnel COnsiSts ot one fire chle~ two assistant chiefs, one captain, five lieutenants, and approximately 25 voluntee!.iir~ ~s In addition to the main station and the two substations, ~ Ci__ Yelm has a mutual aid agreement with Fire District No 4 in Rainier, Fire District No 17 in the Bald Hills, and a county-wide mutual tIf- i / agreement. h j'/ ~~~~ ,.c /I.) Vehil'lIhr e~pmem consists of four Class A pumpers, four tankers supplying 1,500 gallons, 2,500 gallons, 1,800 gallons, and 13,000 gallons, respectively, one rescue vehicle, two brush rigs, one aid vehicle and one utility rig The average response time to calls is six minutes from the time call is received to the time of the arrival at the scene. During the three-year period from 1989 through 1991, the Yelm Fire Department responded to an average of 688 calls per year and an averalle of 233 fire calls, for a averalle total of 913 fire and aid calls per year Of the total calls, approximately 80 percent of these calls are emer edical service calls >~ ~~;.I 'V I !he project i !self, !he City of Yelm has not r~ any aid or fire . g the past year with the exception of few rush fire calls. -1- June 3, 1992 ~l.t ~f)f (J. ()~ 'ivi ~f " ~tr IS 0\ t.,,,, I) 2 f approximately 5,000 residential tel co cted within the 2,OOO-acre annexation area rOJect ould create immediate needs upon the Fire Department. The a -volunteer fire department serves a population of 8,445 according to Thurston Regional Planning Council estimates. The additional 5,000 residential units could tentiall' se their served population by up to 12,5 ssuming an average of 2 5 perso per household.;~--~ 7l u" S .,,, ..1,11 At present, the number of personnel responding to fire calls from the project area would be approximately 6 to 8 volunteer fire fighters depending upon the structure and the time of day Types of vehicles responding would depend on the emergency requirements. At this time, the Yelm Fire Department has no fire equipment capable of suppression or rescue above a two-story construction. -is 7 t I. Many factors contribute to additional cost factors that the fire department must try to meet to maintain its current level of service These factors include needs for additional equipment, suitable to the type of construction within the project area, an increase in the responses for both fire and medical aid responses within both the commercial and residential areas of the project Site, man hours for routine fire inspections, responses to vehicular aCCidents related to an increase in traffic In the roject area and other related fire department service im ac ormally, new construction offsets negatIve c actors for fire services throu such as ro r ou revenues are collected in the form of property taxes by the fire district, these revenues are not received for use by the fire department for approXimately two years after completion of the project. In essence, the tax revenues (property taxes) collected do not offset the immediate impact demand created in additional equipment and/or manpower required for such a project. 3687 004 3 Impacts of the Alternatives Same as the proposal I -;L ~,:I 6ft! " I ~I ftl~ IV' 7 l.J'fl J I" 1 # ,.,. 'i ~ -2- June 3, 1992 4 Mitigation. Fire service impact mitigation will be required for the development within the 2,OOO-acre annexation area Mitigation will include the design andJor provision of the following: A. B. BC/jp 3687004 3687 004 . eluding utilities, will be built on one of the public land use nodes hown on the proposal ;) h cJt . V" The property owners within the annexation area will contribute'" ~ ? toward the purchase of fire su . les and/or other capital I~#/,.,r" equipme as deemed necessary by the Cit)'. Water facilities will be constructe@te annexation area to provide adequate fire flow and to maintain adequate fire pressure duri re A minimum pressure of 20 PSI during fire flow i desired 'th 30 PSI provided under domestic flow conditions ee water supply conditions.) -r"... ';19(.;- F t;: :? -3- June 3, 1992 IV BUILT ENVIRONMENT 6 Public Services E. Water Supply Systems. 1 JI~~ 9 rV' I 3687005 Existing Conditions The city's water supply system consists of two wells located near the city center, and a newer well located in the eastern part of the City Wells I and 2, the downtown wells, are located in the block bounded by Washington and MacKenzie Streets, 2nd and 3rd Avenues. Well No 3, the Casavante well, is located east of Yelm between 100th Wa 103rd Avenue. Well No. I is 63-feet deep and will deli GPM. Well No 2 is 55-feet deep and will deliver. PM The City s distribution system consists of pipe from 4-8 inches in diameter A lO-inch water main connects the southern 5oo,OOO-gallon tank: to the downtown system. Newer lines at the perimeter of the system are generally 6 to 8-inch PVC pipes. Existing service lines closest to the annexation area include the 8-inch service line in Berry Valley Road and a 6-inch main in Longmire Street. Hydrant flow tests conducted in the city and reported in the 1989 comprehensive plan indicate that measured flows vary considerably throu out" e tanks. alculated flow at 20 PSI ranged from 700 GPM to 1,752 GP There is no public water supply system in place to serve the entire 2,OOO-acre annexation. Furthermore, the site is not within the city water service area and the city service maps would need to be amended to include the annexatlOn. The City of Yelm 1989 comprehensive water plan provides gUidelines for service area extension. The criteria include the requirement to annex to the city limits, provide capacity to serve the property, and not unduly burden the citizens of the CIty Additionally, the city requires that all systems be deSigned and built to meet city design standards. The maximum instantaneous demand, MID, for the Yelm Water System ~ based on the State Health Department "Sizing Guidelines for Public --Water Supplies" The City of Yelm Comprehensive Water Plan indicates that in January 1989, there were 646 single-family or equivalent residential unit connections e MID for the lJ.89-system, which does not include well #3, i estima 535 GPMC~rdingJo the State Health Department gu a . eak ily demana=rorthe 646 connections is 516,800 ga ells I and 2 can supply a total of 785 GPM produclOg 1,130,400 gallo of water during a 24- -1- ~ June 3, 1992 3687 005 o ~,~ ~(<< hour period. The State Health Department requires a public water system to be capable of providing 800 gallons per residential connection per day Thus, the actual supply greatly exceeds the state mandated source capacity State regulations also require equalizing storage. This must be at least equal to 150 times the difference between the MID and the source production rate For 1989 conditions, this source, 785 GPM, greatly exceeds the MID, 535 GPM Therefore, no equalizing storage is required under 1989 conditions. \ To determine the required standby storage, the regulations state that the largest well must be assumed out of service Under current conditions, this leaves a source supply of 385 GPM, for a total of 554,400 gallons per day For the current system, this results in 858 gallons per connection per day Therefore, no standby storage is required for the 1989 system. With a storage capacity of 550,000 gallons, the system is anticipated to provide adequate storage for projected demands over the next 20 years, with an estimated 1,130 connections, and a peak daily demand of 904,000 gallons. This 1989 forecast did not account for the projected growth of the 2,000-acre annexation, which is discussed below 2. Impacts of the Proposal Complete buildout of the 5,000 residential housing units, commercial and public buildings will exceed the current storage and source capacities of the city's existmg system. The ultimate average demand of the fully developed annexation an~a is ") anticipated to be a total of 2,800 GPM for a total of 5,000 single-famil~ or equivalent residential connections. Based on the State Health Department minimum source supply of 800 gallons per residenual connection per day, the peak daily demand for the 5,000 new connections is 4 million gallons. The maximum instantaneous demand MID, for the 5,000 connections, is 3,583 GPM r (, / J r 1-' ^< , "r- /' (' "- ,J.. "1 - Preliminary well soutce evaluations' indicates that four wells within the annexation area can produce a total of 2,000 GPM This estimated supply is equal to 0 4 GPM per connection.., The amount of equalizing storage required must equal 150 times the difference between the MID and the source production rate Thus, 238,000 gallons of equalizing storage is required . f ,. fo" t l To determine the standby storage, the regulations state that the largest well must be assumed to be out of service With the largest of the forecasted wells out of service, the source supply of 1,500 GPM or 2,160,000 gallons per day is calculated For the buildout condition, this results in 432 gallons per connectIOn per day This is less than the { r-.J.~. ~ l \ l 1" ol.. ~ '1'" '" -2- r ,,' ~~-l 1'"<. ,lc t. I ~ L yec ~') }_ ;r~ ~r~ "~~~ 3, 1992 L ~.I ~) j,<- .;~" &.~v~ y"",- i-"J~)-:::'d~l t~ h,\c_",--( _ t l"- Therefore, the required equalizing storage of 23 required standby storage of 1,840,000 total 2,078,000 allons As t) noted above, this far exceeds the current rage of 550,000 : gallons. Practically speaking, it will be necessary to build storage -J. ~ capacity to provide both standby and equalizing storage to meet city and -.l ) J ~ state requirements The size of the facility is currently projected to be ~ J 1.5 million gallons in size -:; J J .\ t .... required 800 gallons per day per connection. Therefore 1,840,000 gallons of equalizing storage will be required. The annexation area's water system supply will also need to be designed to accommodate actual fire flow requirements to adequately provide fire flow and to satisfy ISO fire flow requirements, City of Yelm and Washington State rules and regulations, depending upon the final building contiguratlOn and fire rating. ~ 3 Impacts of the Alternatives Impacts of both the compact and village alternatives are largely the same as the proposal Extended phasing would provide additional time to mitigate potential impacts. No action 0 would not increase water demand ) I , .... ~"'"'- _ l '- I \-( l L '- <--'~,,- r 4 M.. . M Th ne,,~JJ6'7.. . & I ltIgatlOg easures e ~dlhl1tIgat1On lor comp ete development of the annexation area is as follows. A. Construct one water reservoir with a 1 5 million gallon capacity - within the annexation area to serve complete buildout conditions 1- J i _' l ~ I '-../ r:' {t_': L L c; Ct:- ~ -:: Sc i:> C_ Ill'--( B Construct a loop water system throughout the entire annexation site with connections to the existing 8-inch main and Berry Valley Road and Longmire Road _ ... l _w._ r~-l~ - .-" ~ ~l' _ , J t-: ~- ...~ ~ r;-- , ,...-0; "'-_ , v (; ( 1-) I'-( Provide onsite tire hydrants and fire protectIOn devices as required by city regulations. C ) ~l~ i,,\,.\--:e".. -<-~ - 1_ ' \ {-.:: (~-f-+ 1- '- '- ./-< I) <-<<f"- rrt=.C t'i1 1\\9 J d\ \ ~IJ ~ /,- r b Lrl-1r /~ J"jl {1 \ 1 ~~ (l \ ~ ( J({/,- - h' ~ ; ~ l..; c_ , /<-. l-J!,-,L ~ ( ~) -') t-" ) 'f I t.. --t'~l +r,>> (... t Co '-- ') '-'\~( ~ June 3, 1992 -L ~ r ,~ ,J. I.,.. "- t I , - o t-r- -I <': / · '-~<"{7 ( c c r: ~ 't (. C.J .,.L' ~ I 3687 005 If c-~ ~<- Llclr/~ '. c- 7-''''' ;-_~-f~:' ':;> ,-.- C /- jj- ) , ~/~ i1~'/ /'. (I D I 1; (.. ,~ -r-~-- _ ,~' U - - ~ if .<-,. <_?_,'- -j,:; - -/(1 J I-I, ." >-t.~ ," l f t' l.~_ L, '~fl S w..: -~ ("'- ('L- iter-' -3- ~ :'-'L .s _>-, ~) _ --I~I .'. -I ~-f/.:2 H"-I,,",- /f - "-o..l ~ (" ~'c(, c t y )' ,:--- oJ .~ ::. ! j" 1. '"",, i "I.t \ It..... ~ ,/ ,I ; J .., 1 " ~ '- , '. '- --- .I --< ) '. -1 1"- '-' - " 1 : - l '- : / .. ~ ~ " -.. ) " ~ , -;: "J .... >< , " '. ~ -..... "- 'ie. , , ~ 1" j "\ \, ~ ~ '-' -L J , '-L xl [ _/--I: Y,,; - '-" , '., "--- 1 - - ,I .' ('" ( '-r ~ r'c-~_. \~ \~,\ ~\J,j' , '(" (, c./ ~ c:::_ ~ Lit"-( /'""'0 )I ~ c ((\ ~ I Ii""" I'()~ . off \ I 1(6 \. ~ ~~ ~ r"\ t -....) ~ lP \ ~ f\ '1~ \~ tJ '-.. '- ~ ~? ~~ ~~ 'JO .-;"'2 ?;'" qq~-P r: - C4:t~.:JG '3:::7.J Cs?OJ( 0-- "g-SD ( o ,p'\ / ~ V h(" ') /,"17 oJ'! J" Iv 0~ p~ p(2A~ Hr V~/vc.""'S ( X?) ~4Md XX - 199+ ("I. Yo) - za::e [xx] - 2012- ~ _ 1e-">5 ~5M~ 92 Figure 24 12VILL LLX YL217 NDE !1I00EL T( Site lraffic Assignment P.e~/~ Village Alternative SKILLINGS Eo CHA.MBERLAIN. IN<: LACEY ""A LL; 13382/7191 UR; 21203/1:1091 06-23-1992 4'1 ;:-,Q"7,/ /,~ I if} \j '\f) E ~ ~~ ~* '=>'=J lOr;-:'\ ~~ ~~ . \.v ~~) >- , 0:::::: 6~:5, _ <$.. '0 f)I/ L/ .r "t'-' :\~ {) ~ % tf? /Y" Qb'5JU"Sj y~ ~ #3 ~t;) 2;lI~~1.'/~ ~ ~ \)-P r o {J /11 .p) 1/ (j ~/'y" Q/#i 0<11 ~ ~ o I7i ~ Ffv1 peo.t:- Hou y- V t:J I LA"""es '?\ r-: a.. '..J Q \[I I ~ ~ " ~~ 'lii'~ ~ u ~ t ~ ACC2SS _ =to (35)f5=;J C~~)"fo- ~ b5[Js r;J C1 t;J(Zo)55 -- Q:,J ~ - s:7-t (e... f') 93 ~-e v-cI X x: - 199-=t- 6<>c) - 2COZ ~J-10IZ Figure 25 12VILL LLX YL217 NDE flfOOEL r( SIte T~affic Assignment V~/I~ ~rcfcrrcd/Compac~ Alternative SKILLINGS & CHAMBERLAIN, INC LACEY "A LL_ 133B2/7191 UR: 21203/1!l091 06-23-1992 /l~'V fi I" (;I ~ ~ r-s- ~L- ~, ~ ~/. '?J r V\ fev"Ia! AVlV\e.><<:;t-t-,OVl __ PVO~r-, Ac= s s / J / ? /qq'1 . 94 Figure 26 !1I00[L 'I 1997 Peak Heur Volumes Preferred/Compact Alternative SKILLINGS & CHAMBERLAIN. INC LACEY ~A 97PRP LLX YL950A NDE LL: 13382/ 7191 UR: 21203/ 1~091 06-23-1992 TNOOEL ? ~~<- ANN~M1o,.J P~ez:.T-/ I\c.~~~--1 ( Figure 27 95 1997 Peak Hour Volumes Village Alternative c::.. Tl I .,...t":C' r r.... "DCDI A"'" .,...,.. 97VILL LLX YL950A NDE LL. 133SZ/7191 uR"" 21203/1~091 nf:;_::>lI_iao':l I VI kyV\o I A Y1V1 eYOl-+,'(JV'I pyO~ kces~ ~ \ ~ , 93....d A-.e Q l/) I J ? C{N<r J t /6nC: S \IV ,Axe ss. 51<- SO-,z ;l Jj~ ~ <~ !1I0IJ[L r( 96 2002 Peak Hour Volumes Preferred/Compact Alternative SKILLINGS & CHAMBERLAIN, INC LACEY WA Figure 28 02PRP LLX YL300A NDE LL. 13382/7191 UR: 21203/15091 06-23-1992 ~ ~~~ ~lS '--' NIl ~ THOOEL r? rn 2002 Peak Hour Volumes Village Alternative SKILLINGS & CHAMBERLAIN, INC LACEY WA Figure 29 02VILL LLX VL300A NDE LL: 133B2/7191 UR: 21203/1~091 06-23-1992 ub If \TG::~;:'-'l..- ,A.,~~~~N ~ PEC~T'1 /' I-~~ "g ~ '3 '3 ~ b ,A.v e.. 98 Figure 30 !#OOEL Ti 2012 Peak Hour Volumes Preferred/Compact Alternative SKILLINGS &: CHAMBERLAIN. INC LACEY WA 12PRP LLX YL217 NDE LL. 13382/7191 UR: 21203/1~091 06-23-1992 ~~~ AlG "L..J~t-\A-L ~ ANN&',l~O~J p~ ~ Ac..c:-tss / ff/)( ~ / cY ~ \ !J c~ ,,'>7 j ~ ,~;,~ ~~ ~ -sW ss~ $,~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ I.t ~ ~~~ <ld ~ ~.. ~1~~"' ~~~ ~ ~ ~ g 0- 99 Figure 31 12V!LL LLX YL217 NOE T#OfJEL Ti 2012 Peak Hour Volumes Village Alternative SKILLINGS & CHAMBERLAIN, INC LACEY WA LL. \3382/7\91 UR: 21203/I!:\091 06-23-1992 Tab\e 24 Level of Service Analysis Southwest Yelm Annexation Environmentallmpact Study Hori'Zon Year 1997 2002 2012 Preferred Preferred Preferred ConcurrenCY Alternative Alternative Alternative Level of No-Action and Compact Village No_Action and Compact Village No-Action and Compact Village Intersection Service Alternative Alternative Alternlltive Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative 1 88th Ave & SR-510 C N/A D; A (sig.) A (sig.) A (sig.) A A A 2 93rd Ave &. SR.510 D C C C D E. A (sig.) E. A (sig.) A A A 3 sW Access &. SR.510 C N/A N/A D' A (sig.) D' A (sig.) N/A A A 4 Yelm Ave &. Edwards St D D E. A (sig.) E. A (sig.) A A A A A A 5 Mosman &. SR.507 C A B B A A A B B B 6 SR-510 &. SR.507 C N/A A B B A C C 7 Yelm Ave &. l03rd Ave D C D D A A A B A A 8 SR.5Q7 &. Morris Av-Yelm Av D C D D D F, A (sig.) F. A (sig.) A A A (Five Corners) 9 Grove Rd.Bald Hills Rd C F. A (sig.) A (sig) A (sig.) A B B A A A &. SR.5Q7 10 YelmAve &. 3rd St D D D D A A A A A A 11 Coates.Stevens &. C B B B A A A B B B First St 12 Yelm Ave & First St D A B B A A A A A A 13 First St &. Canal Rd C A A A A A A B A A 14 Yelm Ave & sW AccesS 0 D E. B (sig.) E. B (sig.) A A A A A A 15 Canal Rd & Crystal Spgs C N/A A A A D' A (sig.) A A 16 S Site Dr &. SR.507 C NIA N/A F A (silt.) F. A (sig.) N/A C C KEY N I A. Not apphcable to thi3 alternative. X. X (...., Pi'" X "p""nU LOS ...ign,''''; ""ond}' "p""nU LOS wilh ,ign"" 8 6/23/92 Skillings & Chamberlain. Inc. ~/l r\t:'.1 { '7 1 .<( 'A:~ ~ '1 Public Transportation Presently, the Yelm area does not have regularly-scheduled transit service. InterCity Transit, is in the process of developing service to Yelm in 1993. The exact service operation is undefined at this time. The Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan calls for peak period service to accommodate a 5% modal split along the SR-510 corridor However, this service level ~s discussion with InterCity Transit before implementation. ( Demographics show many residents commuting to the Olympia-Tumwater-Lacey area for employment, ( shopping, and recreational opportunities. It is likely residents will use transit service for these activities. However, the impact is not assessable until the service level is defined by InterCity Transit and the City of Yelm. As the planning process continue r th~hwest Annexation parcels, additional project-specific studies may be required which ti true pact assessment to public transportation can be made. F~ residents ~ also participate in van pooling opportunities. The City is al.<(( working with InterCity Transit to establish frequent vanpool service to help employers meet ~-Commuter Trip Reduction (CTR) legislation. .:The py"ct imp"rt is not measurable at this time. ~. ---- ~ I""'~ Pedestrians and Bicycles :::.,......--- All improvements from the Y omprehensive Transportation plan include provisions for sidewalks and b~'C cle lanes. It i nticipated most travel by this mode related to the Southwest Annexation parcel is recreational. ur , nce most residents will wor . he Olympia-Tumwater-Lacey area, it is v unlikely many will commute by either bicycle walkin ue to the distance and lack of separate trail facilities. Therefore, the impact to these facilities minimal. ~) J;J Alternative 3. Compact Site Pia As indicated above, since th would be the same as those ide 1 1 ~ ~l Alternative 4. Village Concept f ~ t Traffic impacts under this alternative would be greater than those of the Proposal. Since a different U p~ tt mix of uses is expected, lowering the residential densities alone would not offset potential traffic ~1 ~ increases. The traffic impacts for Alternative 4 are summarized in the tables included in analysis of 71~ impacts of the Proposal above. Mitigating Measures Af ~'ons /''' { h major Comprehensive Transportation Plan improvements are related to activities proposed for the uthwest Annexation parcels. These improvements are identified as SR-510 and SR-507 relocation (Y- 1 and Y-2) and the Southwest Access roadway (Y-7) As indicated in the capacity analysis results, most intersections remain within the City's LOS standard. Therefore, the options for .more mitigation related to the direct impacts are very limited. "'- The Prima~hen, is to determine responsibility for improvements. Traffic generated by the Southwest on parcels account for 50% of traffic volumes on the SR-510 relocation, 35% on the SR-507 relocation, and 100% on the Southwest Access roadway In addition, the capacity analysis results indicate responsibility for traffic signals and intersection improvements at the following-locations by horizon year' 101 ~ear Yel v e and Southwest Access Roadway 2002 Horizon Year 93rd Avenue SE-Yelm Avenue and SR-510 Southwest Access Roadway and SR-510 SR-507 and the South Site Drive .!) Jet I ,..). /A. '7 . r' 2012 Horizon Year ~o ..r.l 6 No Direc~-- c1 ThGrimary~figation option is the design of the South Site Drive/SR-507 intersection. By the first horizon year, forecasted intersection volumes and the high-speed of SR-507 require separate left- and right-turn lanes along SR-507 to safely and efficiently accommodate site traffic. Signalization is needed by the final horizon year 2012. Effectiveness of Options ~tiOnal capacity analyses with signals and improvements show the above intersections' LOS raise t A This is well within the City's LOS standard. J Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The following unavoidable adverse impacts on the transportation syste . Increased vehicular activity on the City's transportation network. . More lqs:ationuor vehicular accidents, despite the increased safety design standards. ". II"'" .. e ~ I J e vi} . More locations for vehicular-pedestrian and vehicular-bicycle accidents, despite increased safety design standards. . Construction of improvements, as direct result of this action, may delay travel in the Yelm UGA. /) /) I? .J r /k VV nA -1J~tJ j/>/ r s-II.I~ ) . Jt rG"JfM 102 I i~ ~\ . ~f)l UBLIC SERVICES /~ l}11V, -.1" , tf~ 1l'~ ~- Existing Conditions The Southwest Yelm Annexation site is located within the boundaries of two school districts, Yelm Commu 'ty School District #2, and Rainier School District #307 Currently, there are eig~~ 10' . .. the proposed project. These schools are Yelm High School ~ time students), . igh School (174 full time students), Yelm Middle School (883 full time students), Rainier Junior High School (108 full time students), Fort Stevens Elementary (409 full time students), Rainier Elementary (348 full time students), Prairie EI (42 full time students), and Southworth Elementary (344 full time students) schools. The a 30 full time students in the Rainier School District and 3,007 full time students' School District. Present trends indicate that both districts are experiencin mcrease in enrollment 19 at all grade levels. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action The proposed annexation would not occur OHI) tRQ&8 Ilfell3 J"Pe'l.'i8Y6~' ;Q:R~~H~d iUT tllulleJl~a annexation" in as~()('i;ltinn '.\'itR the pmpel'l€a yo!", ITh1lr"t9R C8Hld~ Jv:..' 1(1J~ Id bt: LUll:tidelt:J CUI a1UleXa-tion. Under this option, the enrollment in local schools would not be affected by any development on the site and would continue to increase at the same rate as present (I( I.!... .t1.r ) a It. /. c ~ T, t I, Alternative 2. Proposed Annexation ~ The Proposed- Action is for the annexation of approximatel 2,00 acres sou est of the City ~Yelm. Under the Proposa variety of land es ould occuf This s a non- roject action und:~\ State Environmental P Icy A WAC 197-1 -704 (2 (b) (iv)jThe anneytion propertie include two\large ownerships an a numbe of smaller arcels. velopment plans for th~se parcel~ are not complete, however, a ' of residen ial, recre tional, and commercial uses a e pla,hned. Ba~ed on prelimipary development concepts, ap roxima ly 4,800 to ,000 multifamily $d sjngle family residential 4nits could be bui . This total is reli . ary and rep sen,is a maximum Build-out amount for d>nsidedpon in the envir nmental impact tate ent. The pro;1 development yoJld include r~ds/landscapi!,g, landscape b ffers and open s within the anne a on area. Develop,rrJ,nt around seIlsirive areas such as wetlands d steep slopes would be limited as m ch as possible. U- It is expect d that development within the proposed annexation area would occur in phases. Thus potential impacts in the form of increased enrollment to the school districts would not e time of initial construction and would be spread out over a number of years. This woul possibly . e the districts the necessary time needed to accommodate the expected enrollment increases. II "'-'IT!, /1- I. A/ ..y J. With a potential expansion of over 4,000 dwelling units in the area over the next 13 years, the greatest l potential impact of the proposed project on the School Districts relates to the amount of additional ~ 0' f- students and the ability of the districts to provide additional facilities to accommodate the increased ... \t llment. The Rainier School District could handle an increase of approximately 150 additional r r-Il' 's dents before crowding conditions begin to exist. The Yelm School District has more facilities and t\ f- W could potentially absorb a greater number of students before overcrowding becomes a serious issue. It is \ 'I clear that there will be the need for additional schools in both districts to handle the increase in enrollment. 3n+h ~eRool Di.5'.id:. expressed that the tJl:mary impact aRa main concelll i:. uf manClal nature. State facility support is only available for current enrollments. If additional facilities are Ul m 103 anticipation of growth, the local districts will bear the bulk of all costs. Based on the proposed action, the enrollment by district, is expected to significantly increase over the next 13 years. Transportation will also be a concern in the future. Both school districts have noted that there is already a shortage of school buses to adequately ensure that transportation is available to all students needing a ride to and from school. Currently a portion of the proposed ann . in the Rainier School District (all of Section 27) If the annexation is completed, there is some concern hat this portion of the Rainier School District would be transferred to the Yelm school e Rainier School District is on record as oppos' the loss of any portion of their existing jurisdiction. The loss, according to the Rainier District, would reduce the size of the district substantially, thus reducing the assessed valuation of the district. It is the position of the Rainier School District to oppose this loss of;rrrts"diction. Alternative 4. The Village Concept / ..1 This option would incorporate some fea es of th Compact Alternative but would include Ip.ore extensive commercial development a9 higher Ie Is of on-site e loy ent than the Proposal. . Commercial lands on the site would Er6vide addition employment pportu~ties and would focus on ; providing commercial and govern~nt offices and s ilar non-' dustrial land uses. The proposed commercial uses would be expectesi40 meet the needs of -site r Idents for dailr and convenience goods and services, but would general(y be limited to a size a e that would I rgely serve only these residents. The number of potet\tial residential units would be reduced by appr ximately ~n percent to accommodate commercial ~s. Additional opportunities for non-automobile des 0 transportation would also be incl~ded ~n the proposed land use pattern of this alternative. This alternative w~reate less impacts to the school districts than the proposal would. This is because of the reduced enrollment numbers based on the reduction of residential dwelling units and an increase in commercial developments on the annexation site. L GS $ i''' (p.r. ~ Miti&atin& Measures · The Southwest Yelm Annexation proponen~assist the School Districts in the planning for and siting of school facilities and bus stops 0 e annexation site. The conceptual land use plan for the annexation has allocated space for a future school facility Additional school bus~e purchased, with some financial help in the form of impact and development fees, to h~viate the impacts to current school transportation systems. . 104 '1 2. Police Protection ; Existin& Conditions The proposed annexation area would be served by the Yelm Police Department. The police d;:ont was contacted but was not able to respond regarding current staff, equipment and response tim_~ 7 Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives vv /JYJ' Alternative 1 No Action No annexation would occur and the area would remain in Thurston County and would be served by County personnel. ( Alternative 2: Proposed Annexation It is expected that the proposed annexation would increase demands on Yelm police services. New development could result in additional calls for service in the area and could generate new demands for security services. Significant impacts have not been identified by the City of Yelm. .f\ Alternative 3. Compact Site Plan .w --- fI if ~7 < ~ ' Impacts would be similar to the Proposal. _________ ~t 't~ .J \r Alternative 4, The Village Concept .- . t\ The lower density under this approach might reduce s e calls for service, but differences are not \ expected to be great. A different land use mix could resu t in different calls for service where security related concerns might occur more than domestic calls. s The City has not identified a potential impacts on police ervices from the proposed annexation. No . easures have been identified to mitig te impacts that could occur Potential new development coul be designed to provide safety measures uch as lighting and alarms to help prevent / crime within the p posed annexation area. \ IJJl~ ,,1"1..- \ f / \ (11 tf< tf- . \ '- 1 ~ 0 r ~.~ 1\!~;;fO~: ~J~~/ {0' / ' / / 105 3. Fire Protection Existin& conditions ~ The proposed 2,OOO-acre annexation site is served by th~ce Coun ire District No.2, City of Yelm. The headquarter station, Main Station No. 21, is located elm Avenue in downtown Yelm. The City of Yelm is placing before the voters in November, approval to build a new main station on Mill Road and l04th Avenue S.E.. If approved by the voters, the facility may be built in 1993. The new Station No. 21 would likely include four drive- through bays to provide storage for 8 fire department vehicles. In addition to the headquarter station, there are two substations within Fire District No 2. Substation No. 22 is located at 123rd Avenue and Lindsay Road. Substation No. 23 is located at Vail Loop and Hannus Road. At this time, the City of Yelm has an all volunteer fire department. The personnel consists of one fire chief, two assistant chiefs, one captain, five lieutenants, and approximately 25 volunteer fire fighters. In addition to the main station and the two substations, the City of Yelm has a mutual aid agreement with Fire District No.4 in Rainier, Fire District No 17 in the Bald Hills, and a county-wide mutual agreement. Vehicular equipment consists of four Class A pumpers, four tankers supplying 1,500 gallons, 2,500 gallons, 1,800 gallons, and 13,000 gallons, respectively, one rescue vehicle, two brush rigs, one aid vehicle and one utility rig. The average response time to calls is six minutes from the time call is received to the time of the arrival at the scene. During the three-year period from 1989 through 1991, the Yelm Fire Department responded to an average of 688 calls per year and an average of 233 fire calls, for a average total of 913 fire and aid calls per year Of the total calls, approximately 80 percent of these calls are emergency medical service calls. e project sit itself, the City of Yelm has not received any aid or fire calls during the past year on of a few brush fire calls. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action The proposed annexation would not occur and the area would remain in Thurston County Because less growth is expected under this alternative, demands for services would not be as great, and the county would continue to provide fire protection service to the area. Alternative 2: Annexation Proposal A total of approximately 5,000 residential units would or could be ultimately be constructed within the 2,OOO-acre annexation area. The project would create immediate needs upon the Fire Department. The all-volunteer fire department serves a population of 8,445 according to Thurston Regional Planning Council estimates. The additional 5,000 residential units could potentially increase their served population by up to 12,500 assuming an average of 2.5 persons per household. At present, the number of personnel responding to fire calls from the project area would be approximately 6 to 8 volunteer fire fighters depending upon the structure and the time of day Types of vehicles responding would depend on the emergency requirements. At this time, the Yelm Fire Department has no fire equipment capable of suppression or rescue above a two-story construction. Many factors contribute to additional cost factors that the fire department must try to meet to maintain its current level of service. These factors include needs for additional equipment, suitable to the type of construction within the project area, an increase in the responses for both fire and medical aid responses within both the commercial and residential areas of the project site; man hours for routine fire 106 inspections, responses to vehicular accidents related to an increase in traffic in the project area and other related fire department service impacts. Normally, new construction offsets negative cost factors for fire services through tax revenues such as property taxes. Although revenues are collected in the form of property taxes by the fire district, these revenues are not received for use by the fire department for approximately two years after completion of the project. In essence, the tax revenues (property taxes) collected do not offset the immediate impact demand created in additional equipment and/or manpower required for such a project. Alternative 3. Compact Site Plan Impacts would be the same as those identified for the Proposal. Alternative 4. Village Concept Impacts would be largely the same as those identified for the Proposal. The lower density under this alternative might result in somewhat fewer calls for service to the area. Mitigating Measures Fire service impact mitigation will be required for the development within the 2,000-acre annexation area. Mitigation will include the design and/or provision of the following: · A satellite station, including utilities, will be built on one of the public land use nodes shown on the proposal. · The property owners within the annexation area will contribute toward the purchase of fire support vehicles and/or other capital equipment as deemed necessary by the City · Water facilities will be constructed on the annexation area to provide adequate fire flow and to maintain adequate fire pressure during a fire. A minimum pressure of 20 PSI during fire flow is desired with 30 PSI provided under domestic flow conditions. (See water supply conditions.) 107 4. Parks and Recreation 'l'/II1i f)f&Vl1J1E YL:j,wtJ~t,j ? '1 1'< . " Existin& Conditions Park facilities in the Yelm area provide a wide range of passive and acti e recreational opportunities to local residents. While aU facilities receive a great deal of use, sport fields and facilities (softball, football, soccer fields, and tennis courts) in the Yelm area receive parti larly heavy use by orga~ athletic leagues and teams, high school teams, and the general public. e City owns and operate one Cu4. public park. In addition, there are recreational facilities at both t Junior High School and Se r ;,,~ High School that are available for the use of the general publi. Recreational am hes Co' ~ facilities include softball/baseball fields, football/soccer fields ., tennis courts swimming pools activity centers, and play areas. U tJ.61.1)~ ....'n..."4ltAI-<. ? The surrounding area contains many r;leational opportunities. There\an (SQBL.~etgftt@eft l;u~le gll'lf 9 -eet.l<<:, Nisqually Valley Golf Course,~ated directly south of the City There are also fishing and picnic facilities located at the Deschutes River Falls, and fishing and boating are availtle at Clear Lake, Bald Hill Lake, Elbow Lake, and Lawrence Lakes, as well as along the Deschutes, Sk okumchuck and Nisqually Rivers ( 1'; €A c. L c,./ r4",...,.,. n ~.. ~ ) , . / j;) f ' ~ /1' ...i;' ... Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action No annexation would occur and the land would remain in Thurston County d ent would occur under this alternative, potential impacts on pa would be less han those of the other alternatives. Alt tive 2: The Proposed Annexation ~-'9. Population growth in the Yelm area will increase the demand for new parks and recreational facilities. -1-.0 Use of existing County, State and City facilities would also increase, as would park maintenance &~ requirements. The need for specific facilities, such as neighborhood and community parks is, in part ~""l. etermined by population density; a low density dispersed development pattern would not create a~ ~~ great a demand for neighborhood parks as would a higher density development. With the completion . of the PJoposed Action, a significant number of the total population of Yelm will be concentrated in the \ ,;u southern portion of town, there would be a greater need for neighborhood and community recreational ,,,~ facilitiesJo serve this area. f fUll A e,71o k I / I .,.,n~TG~ r IV' q r' ,,~ 0/1 / The Proposed Action and the alternatives (n mcfuding the No Action Alternative), include provisions for up to three ei hteen-hole nd other recreational facilities such as parks and play .4~ grounds WI sports fie s an an open space system with a linked loop trail ~--r",~~. ,~~ Plan ~ the Proposal since the same density of units would be ex,p;cted. ~ ''s4''~ a, JUr/;e",wrl1 ~ItAI ~: lhe Vll~ept ~~ecreational :";"7rOU1d be expected to be less since residential units would be decreased. '? .7 It "," ,'<tt' ~ ~ ree Miti atin Meas The propose a xation developme ould include golf course recreation faciliti Potential open space areas cou me ude walking trails and/or bicycling areas. The City 0 also require developer contributions in the form of payments to help provide additional parks and recreation improvements. ? " L {ve- ;:;:.- ince it is ex~ted that les and recreation services 108 Unavoida i nifi an Adverse 1m act re population growth will place demands on existing parks and recreational facilities, and will contribute to the demand for additional parks and recreational programs. If additional acquisitions are not made, existing deficiencies will be exacerbated. Additional costs for development improvements, and operation and maintenance would be needed. Future development in the annexation area could be required to pay impact fees to help cover costs of new facilities. 109 5. Water Supply Systems Existing Conditions The city's water supply system consists of two wells located near the city center, and a newer well located in the eastern part of the city Wells 1 and 2, the downtown wells, are located in the block bounded by Washington and MacKenzie Streets, 2nd and 3rd Avenues. Well No.3, the Casavante well, is located east of Yelm between l00th Way and 103rd Avenue. Well No.1 is 63-feet deep and will deliver 385 G M. Well No.2 is 55-feet deep and will deliver 400 G M. The city's distribution system consists of pipe from 4-8 inches in diameter A lO-inch water main connects the southern 5oo,ODO-gallon tank to the downtown system. Newer lines at the perimeter of the system are generally 6 to 8-inch PVC pipes. Existing service lines closest to the annexation area include the 8-inch service line in Berry Valley Road and a 6-inch main in Longmire Street. Hydrant flow tests conducted in the city and reported in the 1989 comprehensive plan indicate that measured flows vary considerably throughout the city, depending upon the proximity to the storage tanks. Calculated flow at 20 SI ranged from 700 G M to 1,752 G M. There is no public water supply system in place to serve the entire 2,OOO-acre annexation. Furthermore, the site is not within the city water service area and the city service maps would need to be amended to include the annexation. The City of Yelm 1989 comprehensive water plan provides guidelines for service area extension. The criteria include the requirement to annex to the city limits, provide capacity to serve the property, and not unduly burden the citizens of the city Additionally, the city requires that all systems be designed and built to meet city design standards. The maximum instantaneous demand, MID, for the Yelm Water System is based on the State Health Department "Sizing Guidelines for public Water Supplies" The City of Yelm Comprehensive Water Plan indicates that in January 1989, there were 646 single-family or equivalent residential unit connections. The MID for the 1989 system, which does not include well #3, is estimated at 535 G M, according to the State Health Department regulations. Peak daily demand for the 646 connections is 516,800 gallons. Wells No.1 and 2 can supply a total of 785 G M producing 1,130,400 gallons of water during a 24- hour period. The State Health Department requires a public water system to be capable of providing 800 gallons per residential connection per day Thus, the actual supply greatly exceeds the state mandated source capacity State regulations also require equalizing storage. This must be at least equal to 150 times the difference between the MID and the source production rate. For 1989 conditions, this source, 785 G M, greatly exceeds the MID, 535 G M. Therefore, no equalizing storage is required under 1989 conditions. To determine the required standby storage, the regulations state that the largest well must be assumed out of service. Under current conditions, this leaves a source supply of 385 G M, for a total of 554,400 gallons per day For the current system, this results in 858 gallons per connection per day Therefore, no standby storage is required for the 1989 system. With a storage capacity of 550,000 gallons, the system is anticipated to provide adequate storage for projected demands over the next 20 years, with an estimated 1,130 connections, and a peak daily demand of 904,000 gallons. This 1989 forecast did not account for the projected growth of the 2,OOO-acre annexation, which is discussed below Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action Annexation would not occur and the area would continue to be served by Thurston County 110 Alternative 2: Annexation Proposal Complete buildout of the 5,000 residential housing units, commercial and public buildings will exceed the current storage and source capacities of the city's existing system. The ultimate average demand of the fully developed annexation area is anticipated to be a total of 2,800 G M for a total of 5,000 single- family or equivalent residential connections. Based on the State Health Department minimum source supply of 800 gallons per residential connection per day, the peak daily demand for the 5,000 new connections is 4 million gallons. The maximum instantaneous demand MID, for the 5,000 connections, is 3,583 G M. Preliminary well source evaluations indicates that four wells within the annexation area can readily produce a total of 2,000 GPM without adversely affecting the subsurface aquifer This estimated supply is equal to 0.4 GPM per connection. Calculations prepared by Robinson & Noble indicate that the rainfall recharge capacity of the aquifer greatly exceeds the project well demand The amount of equalizing storage required must equal 150 times the difference between the MID and the source production rate. Thus, 238,000 gallons of equalizing storage is required. To determine the standby storage, the regulations state that the largest well must be assumed to be out of service. With the largest of the forecasted wells out of service, the source supply of 1,500 G M or 2,160,000 gallons per day is calculated. For the buildout condition, this results in 432 gallons per connection per day This is less than the required 800 gallons per day per connection. Therefore 1,840,000 gallons of equalizing storage will be required. Therefore, the required equalizing storage of 238,000 gallons and the required standby storage of 1,840,000 totals 2,078,000 gallons. As noted above, this far exceeds the current city storage of 550,000 gallons. Practically speaking, it will be necessary to build storage capacity to provide both standby and equalizing storage to meet city and state requirements. The size of the facility is currently projected to be 1.5 million gallons in size. The annexation area's water system supply will also need to be designed to accommodate actual fire flow requirements to adequately provide fire flow and to satisfy ISO fire flow requirements, City of Yelm and Washington State rules and regulations, depending upon the final building configuration and fire rating. In addition, irrigation water will be required for up to 45 golf course holes. Up to 2500 GPM would be required without storage or as little as 400 GPM if storage is made available. The latter will be the preferred design. Storage could be supplied by constructing several surface reservoir ponds strategically spaced around the golf course holes. One separate 500 GPM well could provide the necessary irrigation water for this type of design. Otherwise, several additional wells would be required to produce up to 2500 GPM. It should be noted that the calculations for water demand (domestic, fire and irrigation) assure that there will be no water recharge after withdrawal even though there clearly will be. Therefore, the calculations presented herein are a worst case scenario relative to aquifer demand. Alternative 3' Compact Site Plan Impacts of both the compact and village alternatives are largely the same as the proposal. Extended phasing would provide additional time to mitigate potential impacts. No action would not increase water demand. Alternative 4. Village Concept Impacts of both the compact and village alternatives are largely the same as the proposal. Extended phasing would provide additional time to mitigate potential impacts. No action would not increase water demand. 111 Mitigatinj; Measures The proposed mitigation for complete developm~nt of the annexation area is as follows. · Construct one water reservoir with a 1.5 million gallon capacity within the annexation area to serve complete buildout conditions. · Construct a loop water system throughout the entire annexation site with connections to the existing 8-inch main and Berry Valley Road and Longmire Road. · Provide onsite fire hydrants and fire protection devices as required by city regulations. 112 L r~~'" i l' : R~ \y Q Q. ~ \ " \ \8 ~~ Existing conditions The City of Yelm is n currently s rved by sewage treatment facilities. Areas within the c' well as the outlying are ed by individual or community septic tanks and septi percolation i syste owever, in 1991 the City of Yelm was awarded funds from the state and feder government , on a matching basIs 0 construct a treatment plant. This plant is in the process of bein designed by ~ G 7- . e waste water facilities plan has been approved by all local and stat agencies. 'II'''' w^-v IS new propo cility will be sized to serve approxim~ly 2,600 people within the City of Yelm . . 0 ons pyon;?it-';~t is using a number of 2,600 people who will be served in t e orm of approx y 92 connections by-lhe year 2010. The city consultant, Parametrix, has assume 3.3 rsons per connection which is conservative. A figure of 2 4 persons per household would be more COnslS ent WI popu ation Jec 0 Z Thurston Counly- 6. Wastewater Facilities This new system will be a sewage treatment effluent pump system (S T.E.P.) with a small diameter force main system which incorporates individual private treatment septic tanks at each point discharge (residence or business) The septic tank provides primary sewage treatment and removes solids from primary effluent. Effluent is pumped from each septic tank under pressure into the small diameter pressure line. This pressure line will conv . to the secondary sewage treatment facility which is scheduled to be constructed pproximate e Centralia Power canal & Wilkinson Street. Proposed primary outfall from the s ment facility will be into the Centralia Power canal (as authorized by a DOE NPDES, . C erage daily flo@3 MGD) with a secondary discharge directly into the Nisqually River ocated east of the primary discharge point. It ~iciP~ . new sewage treatment syste~' fully operational in the next two years, and tnerefor , will theoretically available to serv a port' Of:(h annexation area. ,4 L' ~~n~ vV'7 I The city is anticipating using all of the available connections to serve' s current city customers. The design of the sewage treatment plan~" w1t.l:1.-expansi.QJi)the connec 0 . y 357 additional units to this system by the y O. It is anticipated that the city would ~ connection I rights to the system on a first-come-first-serve basis. The fees associated with connecting"tO the system would be directly proportional to the cost of providing sanitary sewer service to each individual user per connection basis. ~vernment funds which have been allocated for the construction of the sewage treatment ~~r rage daily flow of 0.14 million gallons per day (MGD) when the lant becomes o . . 199 This i~ximately eqUl;al~ to 435 connections. e plant u timate y, as onstruct , WI have an expansion capability 0 u to 0.3 MGD for approxim con s w IC will be used to serve only areas withi rre . ty limits. The 1994 projected service area will , be for 1,430 people (0.14 MGD). The 2010 future ser 'ce area will be for 2,600 people (0.30 MGD) ~ ~ 'J'~} The city fully intends to construct the plant as provid~r the adopted 1991 waste water facilities .li~ # plan prepared by Parametrix. Based on the projected population of the city in Yelm and including the ~} ~ annexation area of 2,000 acres (approximately 5,000 additional units) substantial expansion of the ~'\' " proposed new sewage treatment with facility would be required. \) Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action No annexation would occur thus demands associated with potential development under the Proposal would not take place. The site would remain in Thurston County and development would be expected to occur at a lesser level, resulting in less need for services. -- \ ')-fe ~:j~ 113 ~ fV1 I I I G A f J o ~ Alternative 2: Annexation Proposal Because th u . ate build-out of the annexation would require approximately a 5-fold increase of the . curren y an cIpat ewage flows a significant expansion of the plant will be required. o eve expansI s type is feasible as long as a long-range expansion plan is developed to ase sewage treatment capacity on an incremental basis. For purposes 01 sewage treatment design, the 101l0wi@ebeen used. · Eighty gallons per capita per day is assumed for domestic sewage flow · ("i;enty-five gallons ~ita per day is assumed for commercial sewage flow ~ "' .JIi V,p ? \ P. It ,f .. f" I") fs"" '1 /.,......" '( ".. / ~.. /' · A total of 105 gallons per capita per day is assumed for a gravity sewage flow for the proposed annexation area. The proposed total sewage that would be generated by ultimate build- out of the annexation area summarizes as follows. 5,000 units Qapita per dwelling unit ~allons per capita per day X 1 day = 1,260,000 total gallons per ~~ual to 1.260 MGD . C/ Because the NPDES permit allows for an average daily discharge into the Centralia Power Canal of 1.3 MGD (2.0 CFS), once this allowance has been utilized, a new NPDES permit will be required. At ultimate build-out, a flow of 1.260 MGD from the annexed area plus 0.3 MGD from the existing deferred service area would produce an average daily flow of 1.56 MGD , f~~~ 1 I( I , ;j 1: Individual peaking factors for various neighborhoods would b on the order of 2.5 eaking ].5' {; factors in main trunk lines designed and constructed which woul ave from t e neI hborh to the V J E sewage treatment plant would be approximately 1.5 However, r purposes of calculation the I r maximum sewage flow to the sewage treatment plant, the total as noted above should be used. Clearly, substantial expansion to the proposed sanitary sew~reatment plant would be requir~ ation area. According to the city, ste ystem will be provided for th~ S~" J,v' s as currently propos . ther areas and particularly ose areas within the annexation area A E . only' . residential development woul~~ be cost-effectively served by graVIty sewer systems. -- The city has purchased approximately 12 acres of property to construct the current sewage treatment plant. Parametrix has completed preliminary calculations which indicate that the existing 12-acre site of the proposed sanitary sewer treatment plant would be sufficient to accommodate the ultimate additional build-out of the annexation area. If additional area is needed, however, the city could purchase (or condemn to purchase) adjacent property in order to expand the sewage treatment plant. Once the proposed system has been constructed, it is likely that the city would provide additional sanitary sewage treatment on a per development basis based on mitigation fees collected at the time of development approval by the city Once a specific development has been defined and a land use application has been submitted to the city for review a full analysis of the sewage treatment requirements would be made. The ci~ eeft8tlltlll\t, Pm/u.,<:L. 'x, IR~, would then analyze the specific expansion requirements which would be necessary within the current City of Yelm sewage treatment plant system. Fees would then be levied directly to the property owner and/or developer in order to pay fo~expansion capacity Fees would then be paid by the developer prior to any connections being made within the development. Once the sanitary sewer system has been expanded, individual housing 114 ) \ ? /J''''l,./ ~',.)" ~ A"'V, / y.~~ ,h,t( , units and/or business would be allowed to connect to the sewer based upon the additional capacity available at that time. Alternative 3. Compact Site Plan Impacts would be the same as the Proposal. Alternative 4. Village Concept Impacts would be the same as the Proposal. Miti&ation Measures · The city is in the process of having its consultant, Parametrix, provide a sewage comprehensive plan for the city This comprehensive plan would outline the general expansion requirements of the existing sewage treatment facility on a per development basis. Funding for this study should be contributed on an area basis by each property owner within the annexation. · Additional sanitary sewage treatment plant expansion costs will be passed on directly to each development on a direct cost basis. ...... ~ . On-site sanitary sewer systems will be required to service each development individually · Trunk lines will be constructed as necessary in order to serve each individual development as it connects to the existing city system. 115 7. Storm Water Drainage Systems --r tv It /} J34 1J;r T t3' ./ .~--- --------------- Existing Conditions Very few storm water tion systems have been constructed or maintained within the annexation area. The Yelm Golf Coarse d a few of the farms in the area incorporate primarily open ditches and culverts to collect an onvey storm drainage away from buildings and developed areas. Storm draina llection systems within streets located within the annexation area are non-existent. Water pparently eet flows toward streams in these areas. ~ Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action The proposed annexation would not take place and impacts associated with the development alternatives und~r the Proposal ~ould..not occur ~ h,..tJ.V'''A? Alterna ive 2: exation Proposal Upo ve 0 men omplete storm drainage collection and conveyance facilities will be required. Thif./"' will inc u e~ open water channels (ditches) and/or subsurface piping systems to convey storm drainage away from building areas and into storm water collection and storm water treatment 11/1 facilities. In addition, storm drainage catch basins with oil/water separator sumps would be provided / V I within roadways and all paved areas. Construction of these areas would assure that the storm ___ drainage conveyance system is operated and maintained to a level consistent with current water quality requirements. Alternative 3. Compact Site Plan Impacts would be the sam~ as for the Proposal. - Alternative 4. Village Concept Impacts would be largely the same as for the Proposal. Mitigation Measures · Surface conveyance systems in the form of open ditches and/ or conveyance channels will be required wherever practical within each development. . Subsurface storm drainage collection systems incorporating the design and construction of subsurface storm drainage pipe will be an alternative to open ditches. [. The design and construction of storm drainage catch basins with oil/water separator sumps to collect oil, heavy metals, and silt from runoff areas will be required in all paved areas. . Surface or subsurface storm water retention/detention systems will be required. 116 veri t /f- ~D Vi; ~ ~ :~ /.D~ ./ 5 / i'll ry !/VI.,1 Existin& nuiuO~- Naturally occurring storm water drainage infiltration systems are provided by the existing pothole/depressions located throughout the annexation area. Man-made detention systems including open surface water ponds and/or underground pipes have not been constructed within the existing developments (primarily the Yelm Golf Course and farms) within the annexation area. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action No annexation would occur and storm water drainage impacts would be those associated with future development in the county Alternative 2: Annexation Proposal Developed areas will produce additional storm water runoff due to the construction of impervious surfaces including asphalt, rooftops, and gravel and lawn areas. The additional storm water runoff will require the construction of storm drainage detention and/or retention systems. Storm drainage detention will be provided either in the form of surface ponds and/or subsurface vaults and/or pipes. Surface ponds can be arranged to accommodate drainage for each drainage basin separately (one pond per basin) or on a regional basis (one pond per several drainage basins) Multiple use ponds can be designed to combine storm detention, golf course irrigation and aesthetic N\ purposes. These ponds could be constructed both within and outside of the defined golf course areas. These facilities will be sized in order to limit the post-development storm drainage flows to that of the \ pre-developed site. These types of systems are commonly used within western Washington in order to mitigate the impacts of what would otherwise be higher runoff rates than in the natural condition. By constructing these facilities, off-site storm drainage flows are reduced to that of the pre-developed f\ site ~ · The existing significant depression/pothole/retentiO~located primarily on the western portion of t~ the annexation area will be utilized to percolate surface water into the subsurface aquifer However, rr t"tt some changes will be required within these pothole areas in order to accommodate the additional storm '" drainage runoff flows and volumes produced by development. Three types of specific designs are \ ~ proposed within the drainage basin for each depression/pothole. The three design alternatives for the . ~~ retention systems are outlined in the attached figures. Although it has not been specifically ~~ determined which alternative would work best in each pothole/depression/percolation area located ....~ within the annexation area, one of the three alternatives would generally be used depending on '\- requirements of the city These alternatives are explained as follows. Utilize the existing configuration of each depression/pothole and discharge more storm drainage volume into each pothole. This would result in higher average water levels within the bottom of each pothole. Several of the existing potholes located on the westerly portion of the annexation area have standing water of up to several feet deep during the wet portions of the year A few of the larger depressions appear to pond water year-round. Many of the smaller potholes appear to be dry most of the year Each pothole has its own storm drainage infiltration characteristics. Naturally occurring potholes receive storm drainage water of varying amounts depending on the amount of rainfall within a given year As rainfall provides an environment for the growth of various vegetative species, these species flourish in the bottom of the potholes. When the vegetation dies each autumn and regrows each spring, naturally occurring silt and/or organics are deposited on the bottom of each pothole. This process, 117 generally referred to the eutrophication process, eventually makes the bottom of each pothole impervious. Once this occurs, the primary infiltration area of a pothole is along its side walls. As silt creates an impervious pothole bottom storm water would pond to a depth higher than the silt and then percolate through the sides of the pothole, rather than its bottom. This alternative assumes that storm drainage is discharged directly into each pothole. As a result, the water level within each pothole would increase to either a smaller or larger degree depending on the amount of water in the pothole. Dredging and/or cleaning out the bottom of each pothole would be required to assure that the required amount of infiltration is provided on an on-going basis. In this retrospect, the pothole would serve as both a detention area (holding the water in a temporarily ponded state), as well as infiltration facility percolating water into the ground water table. A separate detention system could be provided near the top of each pothole which would provide a restriction for storm drainage water into each pothole. These facilities would be constructed in the form of a surface pond of subsurface storm drainage vault or underground pipe. Primary advantage in this type of facility would be to slow the rate of storm water discharging into each pothole. This type of facility could be used within smaller potholes which could be more sensitive to storm water volume than larger potholes. Separate retention facilities which would not discharge into the existing storm drainage systems could also be developed. These facilities could be constructed in the form of open retention ponds or subsurface percolation system with no outlet. Subsurface percolation systems are similar to sewer septic systems except that they are much larger An important requirement for any retention system is proper maintenance. All retention systems should incorporate silt removing facilities prior to discharge into the retention area. Alternative 3. ~~ Plan Impacts would ~s the Proposal. Alternative 4. Villa Impacts would argely the same Biofiltration facilities mayor may not be required for the infiltration systems. Typically, depending on the gradation of soils within a given discharge area, subsurface filtering of storm water is satisfactory and in many cases, separate biofiltration facilities are not required. Any development within the annexation area with substantial developed area would require the mitigation of storm water discharge volume and rate. This would necessitate the design and construction of storm water detention facilities and/or detention facilities as noted above. The satisfactory operation of these facilities is dependant upon the ability of the soils to percolate water Mitigation for the increase of p storm water is proposed below ,.fA (,e . . .I;'" r )lV~ J I~ 5 ,""." /~ t" __________~-=-- Miti&ation Measures · Provide storm drainage detention in areas where a viable downstream channel or open body of water exists to accept additional storm drainage flow ? s the Proposal. · Provide surface retention in areas without any viable means of surface discharge. · Provide retention facilities in areas where retention does not occur naturally but can be created due to good soil conditions. 118 · Provide de-siltation facilities to ensure that both retention and detention systems operate as designed. 119 9. Solid Waste CollectionlRecycling Systems Existing conditions Solid waste is collected by LeMay Garbage Service. According to the Thurston County Solid Waste Management System, the solid waste collection franchise held by Harold LeMay Enterprises, includes the entire city limits of Yelm and the proposed 2,DOO-acre annexation area. Material collected from the city limits is deposited at the Thurston landfill located northeast of Lacey Thun Field in Pierce County, another sanitary landfill, is also open to residents of the Yelm area. The Thurston County 1992 Solid Waste Management Plan currently estimates county waste generation to be approximately 6-7 pounds per person per day This plan estimates that for the 2D-year period from 1992 to 2011, the county will require solid waste disposal capacity for between 4.9 million and 54 million cubic yards to accommodate 2.4 million to 2.7 million tons of solid waste. Currently, the county is discussing a goal of diverting 60% of solid waste generated county-wide through waste reduction and recycling programs. These efforts may reduce the corresponding amount of solid waste directed into the Thun Field and Hawks Prairie Landfill from the City of Yelm and the annexation area. At this time, no waste is being generated by the annexation area, which is largely undeveloped. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action Annexation would not occur and the area would continue to be served by Thurston County Alternative 2: Annexation Proposal With an estimated 5,000 residential units and a potential residential population of 12,500 persons, the amount of residential waster generated by the annexation is 75,000 to 87,500 pounds per day, or 77 cubic yards to 90 cubic yards per day Alternative 3: Compact Site Plan The proposal alternatives are anticipated to have the same impacts as the proposal, as the residential population is anticipated to be approximately the same. Alternative 4. Village Concept The proposal alternatives are anticipated to have the same impacts as the proposal, as the residential population is anticipated to be approximately the same. Mitigating Measures · Waste reduction efforts and recycling efforts will be provided in the annexation area in conjunction with the solid waste pickup service. f' V' L J 11f 1 ? ~fU~P ,;1 () I 'ill 1111~ 120 ~ ,,,,,,,,.. ""~" ; f fll' IL 1'7 IJt'1. ct511.'" (. '&.1".~1 10. Concurren9f: Element .11 :A Existing Conditions One of the key elements of the 1990 Growth Management Act involves the issue of concurrency, or concurrent delivery of public services. The main idea expressed by concurrency is that the infrastructure necessary to support new development should be in place by the time development is completed, in order to prevent reducing the present services to local residents. This may require development impact fees based on the level of proposed facilities and existing service availability The language of the GMA requires counties and cities to prepare regulations which would prohibit development if it results in traffic level of service standards that would fall below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan. If transportation improvements or strategies were, however, made concurrent with development then an exception to this rule would be granted. Concurrency is defined two ways. a) in place at the time of the development or, b) a financial commitment is put into place to complete the needed improvements within 6 years time. This concept has been further extended to include other facilities and services associated with development. Section 2 of the GMA states that public facilities and services must be "adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards." Section 3 of the GMA defines public facilities as including transportation-related facilities, water, storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreation facilities, and schools. Section 3 defines public services as including fire protection and suppression, law enforcement, public health, education, recreation, environmental protection, and other governmental services. Typically, densities of two to four units per acre or higher would require urban levels of facilities and services according to the State Department of Community Development. The designation of Urban Growth Areas is designed, in part, to help jurisdictions achieve concurrency By concentrating the location of development, resources such as utilities and services can be provided in a more tightly defined area. Thurston County has a goal of achieving orderly, efficient, and cost effective extension of services. This goal recognizes that the greatest efficiency can be achieved where growth can be guided to existing developed areas or land where an excess of service capacity already exists. Under this concept it is believed that the costs of creating new infrastructure can be lowered, the extent of service areas can be reduced, and service costs for residences and businesses can also be lowered by greater utilization of facilities that may currently be under-utilized. Presently, the annexation area is not well served by public services or utilities. Annexation would require expansion of wastewater, storm drainage, and water supply systems. It would also require roadway improvements and additions to police and fire services in order to serve the new development within this area. Impacts to individual facilities and services, along with potential mitigating measures, are discussed under specific elements of this document. Impacts of the Proposal and Alternatives Alternative 1 No Action The area would not be annexed and no immediate new demands on the provision of local services would occur New development would take place under Thurston County regulations and, under provisions of the Growth Management Act, would still be required to locate only in those areas where services could be provided. Since it is expected that growth without annexation would be less than under the other alternatives, this approach would not be expected to result in great changes to the local utility providers ability to meet service needs. 121 Alternative 2: Annexation - The Proposal Annexation would require additional services, and provisions for establishing those services would be needed prior to development. This would require future development to secure facility extensions, or assure payment for such extensions, prior to completion of project construction. Services and utilities would be available locally, however, some have not contemplated service to the proposed annexation area. While this alternative would provide area for new development, the ability of prospective developers to meet concurrency requirements would help determine the rate at which growth occurs within that area. Alternative 3. Compact Approach Impacts would be similar to the Proposal, in that a similar density of development is expected. If the Compact Approach results in more economic use of space, it could achieve some cost efficiency in providing services within the proposed annexation area. Alternative 4. The Village Concept The lower density expected under this approach could result in the need for fewer service facilities. It would still require that infrastructure be in place prior to opening new buildings. The growth rate could be different than the Proposal and Alternative 2, in that this approach may also lower costs for some utilities if they are not as large, or more efficiently provided, through the village concept. Miti&atin& Measures Developer impact fees could be assessed for providing some service or facility extensions, and/or improvements to the proposed annexation area. -L L) i VIr. / A p51 ~tA v!1rJ: 1 j/fl ,~ (! J1" \ (R ~Q~~~Lc_:~: .--.;.~....; ...... _r .r~ .-- 122 ? VIP DISTRIBUTION LIST FEDERAL AGENCIES Federal Communications Commission Region 10, Environmental Protection Agency Soil Conservation Service U.s. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region 10 U.S Department of Interior U.S Fish and Wildlife Service ST ATE AGENCIES Department of Agricul ture Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Department of Commerce & Economic Development Department of Community Development Department of Ecology (2) Department of Emergency Services Department of Fisheries Department of Natural Resources Department of Social and Health Services Department of Transportation Department of Wildlife Office of Governor Washington Environmental Council Washington State Energy Office Washington State Patrol THURSTON COUNTY DEPARTMENTS Thurston County Department of Health Thurston County Department of Public Works Thurston County Department of Water Quality and Resource Management urston County Fire District No.2 Thurston County Parks and Recreation Department Thurston County Planning Department Thurston County Sheriffs Department LOCAL AGENCIES AND MUNICIPALITIES Army Corps of Engineers ) Centralia Power and Light lv/I! 1 CP,if/,U/,v Economic Development Council of Puget Sound Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority Puget Power Puget Sound Regional Council Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Rainier School District Thurston County Economic Development Council Thurston Regional Planning Council Town of Rainier Yelm School District .J /, Q;\ ! ( I I /" I r ~l~V 123 MISCELLANEOUS ORGANIZATIONS Audubon Society City of Yelm Public Library Fort Lewis Military Reservation Nisqually Indian Tribe Nisqually River Council Nisqually Valley News South Thurston County Chamber of Commerce The Olympian Thurston County Public Library - Olympia ~f!l~/NARY o REVISION CITIZENS J .Z. Knight - Ramtha Dialogues ---wfl r ? U4 APPENDICES Appendix A Surface Water and Public Utilities Prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Kent, Washington III NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 2 Water B Surface Water Existing Conditions. The area within the 2,OOO-acre annexation boundary is located generally directly south and west of the downtown Yelm area. The topography of the land within the boundary annexation area is generally rollmg in nature with grades ranging between 0% to over 40% in a few areas. However, the average grade could be more accurately described as between 5 % and 15 % (percent grade defined as the number of the expressed grade in 100 feet, therefore, 15% grade is equal to 15 feet vertically in 100 feet horizontally) It is not uncommon in western Washington to find topography inside urban areas which is rolling in nature. However, the westerly 1,000 acres of the annexation are somewhat unusual Due to a slowly receding glacier during the ice age, several potholes (enclosed drainage areas or depressions) exist within this part of the annexation area Normally water quality WIthin urban areas is a function of storm water treatment prior to discharge into major draining channels The amount of paved surfaces or industrial pollution points which discharge directly mto streams also slgruficantly affects water quality For the easterly portion of the annexation area, these general water quality principles apply However, approximately half of the area to be annexed does not drain to an open water channel but it percolated directly into the ground via potholes. The depressions collect and pond water Water is then allowed to slowly percolate into the ground and is essentially filtered by surface and/or wetland vegetation and then is further filtered through the ground percolation process. There does not appear to be a substantial amount of pollutant discharges into these pothole areas and the water quality entering the ground water system is probably excellent. For the remaining easterly 1,000 acres of the proposed annexation which is more urban in nature, water quality is a function of pollutant discharges from developed areas. These can occur in the form of farm animal waste discharge as well as oil and heavy metal run off from paved surfaces. In either case, these pomted discharges appear to be minimal and therefore water quality for the natural environment would be considered to be very good. M 025 -1- DM/jp 2. Impacts to the Proposal A total of approximately 5,000 residential units would or could ultimately be constructed within the annexation area. Based on current storm drainage conveyance and retention/detention requirements, as well as the State of Washington Department of Ecology and State of Washington Fisheries Department biofiltration requirements, water quality from the developed areas can be anticipated to be as good as the natural environment. Land use controls, regulations and ordinances requiring the design and construction of extensive biofiltration facilities prior to the discharge of storm drainage from developed areas into open channels will assure that the water quality similar to the natural environment is maintained. In addition, the preservation of significant wetlands on portions of the annexed area as well as the incorporation of retention systems utilizing the existing pothole areas for natural biofiltration and percolation will also assure water qualIty similar to the natural environment for the proposal 3 Impacts of the alternatives. Same as the proposal 4 Mitigation. Water quality mitigation will be required for any development within the annexed area Mitigation WIll include the design and construction of the following' A. Subsurface and/or surface conveyance systems Open water channel/dItches WIll be the preferred mitigation alternative wherever possible B Storm drainage detention WIll be required in order to lImit the post-development release rate for storm water to that of the pre- developed site Storm detention faCIlIties in the form of surface, storage ponds, and/or subsurface storage vaults or pipes, will be required. C Biofiltration in the form of biofiltration swales and/or other mechanical biotiltration facilities will be required to assure water quality Water quality will be preserved and will be similar in character to the natural environment. D Storm water retention will be encouraged in order to percolate storm water dIrectly into the ground whenever soil conditIons will allow In addition to the biofiltration requirements will be effectively filtered through several layers of surface soils prior to entering the ground water system. M 025 -2- DM/jp E. Frequently flooded areas and water absorption. Existing conditions Frequently flooded areas of the proposed annexation include property located directly west of the Yelm Golf Course. In addition, in portion of the southeast corner of the annexation is also subject to periodic flooding. These areas provide substantial water absorption and accommodate storm drainage run off from other portions of the annexation area as well as other off-site areas not to be annexed as part of this proposal Generally, the bottom of the potholes tend to be wet in nature and under current state law some may be classified as wetlands. As such, they will be afforded wetland protection as required by law Therefore, their ability to accept storm water and absorb a substantial amount of surface runoff into the site soils will be preserved. As a result, there will be no significant difference between the developed and undeveloped condition in these areas. 2 Impacts of the proposal Development would generally increase the total amount of runoff This occurs because the increase in surface area generally associated with development produces higher storm water runoff rates. Additional storm drainage volume results from constructing roadways and/or rooftops, driveway, gravel areas, etc , normally associated WIth development. As outlIned in previous sections, the post-development runoff rate will be limited to that of the pre-developed site In addition, water quality will be assured by utilizing several methods of water treaUTIent including biofiltration. However, an unrnitigatable impact of any development is the overall increase of net runoff from a site due to the increase in pervious surface. Assuming that water quality and runoff rates, however, are maintained to mimic the natural environment the addItional storm drainage water can in some instances actually be a benefit to certain wetland areas and frequently flooded areas. By adding additional storm drainage to these areas the natural condition will be enhanced. 3 Impacts of the alternatives Same as for the proposal 4 Mitigation. A. Provide siltation control measures for storm drainage entering frequently flooded areas to insure that siltation does not occur This requirement could be satisfied through the use of oil/water/sIltation separators in all conveyance storm drainage systems. M 025 -3- DM/jp B. Design and construction of biofiltration facilities prior to discharge into discharge of storm drainage water into frequently flooded areas. Biofiltration facilities act as a natural digestive system on heavy metals and silt. F. Storm water drainage systems. I Existing conditions. Very few storm water collection systems have been constructed or maintained within the annexation area. The Yelm Golf Coarse and a few of the farms in the area incorporate primarily open ditches and culverts to collect and convey storm drainage away from buildings and developed areas. Storm drainage collection systems within streets located within the annexation area are non-existent. Water apparently sheet flows toward streams in these areas. 2 Impacts of the proposal Upon development, complete storm drainage collection and conveyance facilities will be required This will include providing open water channels (ditches) and/or subsurface piping systems to convey storm drainage away from building areas and into storm water collection and storm water treabnent facilities. In addition, storm drainage catch basins with oil/water separator sumps would be provided within roadways and all paved areas. Construction of these areas would assure that the storm drainage conveyance system is operated and maintained to a level consistent with current water quality requirements. Impacts of the alternatives same as for the proposal 4 Mitigation. A. Surface conveyance systems in the form of open ditches and/or conveyance channels will be reqUIred wherever practical Within each development. B Subsurface storm drainage collection systems incorporating the design and construction of subsurface storm drainage pipe will be an alternative to open ditches. C The design and constructIon of storm drainage catch basins with oil/water separator sumps to collect oil, heavy metals, and silt from runoff areas will be required in all paved areas. D Surface or subsurface storm water retention/detention systems will be required. 6. Public Services M 025 -4- DM/jp F Storm Collection Systems M 025 Impacts of the proposal Developed areas will produce additional storm water runoff due to the construction of impervious surfaces including asphalt, rooftops, and gravel and lawn areas. The additional storm water runoff will require the construction of storm drainage detention . and/or retention systems / .. '-' \, (.:':: (' '-' ",,-k ',. l .-~~ Storm drainage detention will be provided eker ~:'--th~)f~;: c~~u~a~~'- . w;:(..L ponds and/or subsurface vaults and/or pipesr These facilities will be , c ~ .,,-,~. .. sized in order to limit the post-development storm drainage flows to l r l"" '"'-- J"- that of the pre-developed site These types of systems are commonly __ ,/ used within western Washington in order to mitigate the impacts of what would otherwise be higher runoff rates than in the natural condition. By constructing these facilities, off-site storm drainage flows I" I are reduced to that of the pre-developed site (C"." .(L "c' r... /~:.' ~ ) i i Utilize the existmg configuration of each depression/pothole and ( " r \ I " discharge more storm drainage volume into each pothole This L ..,~ would result in higher average water levels Within the bottom of /' ( "1 r.....-I each pothole Several of the existing potholes located on the westerly portIon of the annexation area have standing water of () e up to several feet deep during the wet portions of the year A -r(,:..<.. 1 Existing conditions Naturally occurring storm water drainage infiltration systems are provided by the existing pothole/depressions located throughout the annexation area. Man-made detention systems including open surface water ponds and/or underground pipes have not been constructed within the existing developments (primarily the Yelm Golf Course and farms) within the annexation area. -" .. t 1,1 J j'C' ! ._,1- ;. \ .; r 'c=.. ~ ....t / i 1 , , , , ,/ 't' ...... .... l .)c ") t-{ :; \~\ (~ \<:. ! 2 The existing slgmficant depression/pothole/retention areas located primarily on the western portion of the annexation area will be utilized to percolate surface water into the subsurface aquifer However, some ~ changes will be required within these pothole areas in order to accommodate the additional storm drainage runoff flows and volumes produced by development. Three types of specific deSigns are proposed within the drainage basin for each depression/pothole. The three design alternatives for the retention systems are outlined in the attached figures. Although it has not been specifically determmed wluch alternatIve would work best in each pothole/depression/percolation area located within the annexation area, one of the three alternatIves would generally be used depending on requirements of the city These alternatives are explained as follows JI+~ ...- , ~l""1:'''+-l~ " '. --- I'~' ~'l:::- '- '-L_ ~ 'L J t,_J.... ....,1 , . ~~ l ~........ .- A. I)' ",...J 0L-LIG: ~'L c- \"1,... -5- ",-'" L" t- ~ ..J.. t... c) -1--<:__ L,,- L...J...t....'........... ~ '--- ~~ t -k..... 1-. f-.. -__ ~ '- '- L DM/jp )_ l'+- (. . '-- <c re ,~.5:> few of the larger depressions appear to pond water year-round. Many of the smaller potholes appear to be dry most of the year Each pothole has its own storm drainage infiltration characteristics. Naturally occurring potholes receive storm drainage water of varying amounts depending on the amount of rainfall within a given year As rainfall provides an environment for the growth of various vegetative species, these species flourish in the bottom of the potholes. When the vegetation dies each autumn and regrows each spring, naturally occurring silt and/or organics are deposited on the bottom of each pothole This process, generally referred to the eutrophicatIon process, eventually makes the bottom of each pothole impervious. Once this occurs, the primary infiltration area of a pothole is along its side walls. As silt creates an impervious pothole bottom storm water would pond to a depth higher than the silt and then percolate through the sides of the pothole, rather than its bottom This alternative assumes that storm drainage is discharged directly into each pothole As a result, the water level within each pothole would increase to either a smaller or larger degree depending on the amount of water in the pothole Dredgmg and/or cleaning out the bottom of each pothole would be required to assure that the required amount of infiltration is provided on an on-going basis. In this retrospect, the pothole would serve as both a detention area (holding the water in a temporarily ponded state), as well as infiltration facility percolating water into the ground water table. B A separate detention system could be provided near the top of each pothole which would provide a restriction for storm drainage water IOto each pothole These facilities would be constructed in the form of a surface pond of subsurface storm drainage vault or underground pipe Primary advantage in this type of facility would be to slow the rate of storm water discharging into each pothole This type of facility could be used within smaller potholes wIuch could be more sensitive to storm water volume than larger potholes. C Separate retention facilities which would not discharge into the existing storm drainage systems could also be developed. These facilities could be constructed in the form of open M025 -6- DM/jp retention ponds or subsurface percolation system with no outlet. Subsurface percolation systems are similar to sewer septic systems except that they are much larger An important requirement for any retention system is proper maintenance All retention systems should incorporate silt removing facilities prior to discharge into the retention area Biofiltration facilities mayor may not be required for the infiltration systems. Typically, depending on the gradation of soils within a given discharge area, subsurface filtering of storm water is satisfactory and in many cases, separate biofiltration facilities are not required. Any development within the annexation area with substantIal developed area would require the mitigation of storm water discharge volume and rate This would necessitate the design and construction of storm water detention facilities and/or detention facilities as noted above The satisfactory operation of these facilities is dependant upon the ability of the soils to percolate water Mitigation for the increase of storm water is proposed as follows A. Provide storm drainage detention in areas where a viable downstream channel or open body of water exists to accept additional storm drainage flow B Provide surface retention in areas without any viable means of surface discharge C Provide retention facilities in areas where retention does not occur naturally but can be created due to good soil conditions D Provide desiltation facilities to ensure that both retention and detention systems operate as designed 3 Wastewater Facilities The City of Yelm is not currently served by sewage treatment facilities Areas within the city limits as well as the outlying areas are served by individual or community septic tanks and septic percolation systems However, in 1991 the City of Yelm was awarded funds from the state and federal government on a matching basis to construct a treatment plant. This plant is in the process of being designed by Parametrix, Inc The waste water facilities plan has been approved by all local and state agencies. This new proposed faCility will be sized to serve approximately 2,600 people within the City of Yelm city limIts by 1995, in the form of 435 connections. A total of 2,600 people will be served in the form of M025 -7- DM/jp approximately 792 connections by the year 2010 The city engineer, Parametrix, has assumed 3 3 persons per connection which is conservative. A figure of 2 4 persons per household would be more consistent with population projections used by Thurston County This new system will be a sewage treatment effluent pump system (S T E.P ) which a small diameter force main system which incorporates individual private treatment septic tanks at each point discharge (residence or business) The septic tank provides primary sewage treatment and removes solids from primary effluent. Effluent is pumped from each septic tank under pressure into the small diameter pressure line. This pressure line will convey sewage into the secondary sewage treatment facility which is scheduled to be constructed at approximately the City of Centralia power canal & Wilkinson Street. Proposed primary outfall from the sewage treatment facility will be into the City of Centralia power canal (as authorized by a DOE NPDES, 2 0 CFS average daily tlow or I 3 MGD) with a secondary discharge directly into the Nisqually River located east of the primary discharge point. It is anticipated that this new sewage treatment system will be fully operational in the next two years, and therefore, will theoretically be available to serve a portion of the annexation area The city, however, is anticipating using all of the available connections to serve its current city customers. The design of the sewage treatment plant will allow with expansion the connection of approximately 357 additional uruts to this system by the year 2010 It is anticipated that the city would sell connection rights to the system on a first-come-first- serve basis. The fees associated with connecting to the system would be directly proportional to the cost of providing sanitary sewer service to each individual user per connection basis. The funds which have been allocated for the construction of the sewage treatment plant allow for an average daily tlow of 0 14 nullion gallons per day (MGD) when the plant becomes operational in 1994 This is approximately eqUIvalent to 435 connections The plant ultimately, as constructed, will have an expansion capabIlity of up to 0 3 MGD for approximately 972 connections. The 1994 projected service area will be for 1,430 people (0 14 MGD) The 2010 future service area will be for 2,600 people (0 30 MGD) M025 -8- DM/jp The city fully intends to construct the plant as provided under the adopted 1991 waste water facilities plan. Based on the projected population of the city in Yelm and including the annexation area of 2,000 acres (approximately 5,000 additional units) substantial expansion of the proposed new sewage treatment with facility would be required. 2. Impacts of proposal Because the ultimate buildout of the annexation would require approximately a 5-fold increase of the maximum currently anticipated sewage flows a significant expansion of the plant will be required. However, an expansion of this type is feasible as long as a long-range expansion plan is developed to increase sewage treatment capacity on an incremented basis. For purposes of sewage treatment design, the follOWIng criteria has been used. . Eighty gallons per capita per day is assumed for domestic sewage flow . Twenty-five gallons per capita per day is assumed for commercial sewage flow . A total of 105 gallons per capita per day is assumed for a gravIty sewage flow for the proposed annexatIOn area. The proposed total sewage that would be generated by ultImate buildout of the annexation area summarizes as follows 5,000 units X 2 4 capita per dwelling unit X 105 gallons per capita per day X I day = 1,260,000 total gallons per day is equal to I.26<tMGD i . '2(. ( ~ ,") Because the NPDES permit allows for an average daily.....? discharge into the Centralia Power Canal of I 3 MG'l (2 0 CFS), once this allowance has been utilIzed, a new NPDES permit will be required. At ultimate buildout, a flow of I 260 MGD from the annexed area plus 0 3 MGD from the existing deferred service area would produce an average daily flow of I 56 MGD Individual peaking factors for various neighborhoods would be on the order of 2 5 Lower peaking factors in main trunk lines designed and constructed which would leave from the neighborhoods to the sewage treatment plant would be approximately I 5 However, for purposes of calculation the M 025 -9- DM/jp maximum sewage flow to the sewage treatment plant, the total as noted above should be used. Clearly, substantial expansion to the proposed sanitary sewage treatment plant would be required in order to serve the annexation area According the city, a step system will be provided for the city system as currently proposed. Other areas and particularly those areas within the annexation area with only medium density residential development would most likely be cost-effectively served by gravity sewer systems. The city has purchased approximately 12 acres of property to construct the current sewage treatment plant. It is anticipated that the city could acquire additional adjacent property if necessary in order to expand the sewage treatment plant beyond the existing 12-acre boundaries. Parametrix has completed preliminary calculations which indicate that the existing 12-acre site of the proposed sanitary sewer treatment plant would be sufficient to accommodate the ultimate additional buildout of the annexation area. If additional area is needed, however, the city could purchase (or condemn to purchase) adjacent property in order to expand the sewage treatment plant. Once the proposed system has been constructed, it is hkely that the city would provide additional sanitary sewage treatment on a per development basis based on mitigation fees collected at the time of development approval by the city Once a specific development has been defined and a land use application has been submitted to the city for review a full analysis of the sewage treatment requirements would be made The city's engineer, Parametrix, Inc , would then analyze the specific expansion requirements which would be necessary within the current City of Yelm sewage treatment plant system. Fees would then be levied directly to the property owner and/or developer in order to pay for the expansion capacity Fees would then be paid by the developer prior to any connections being made Within the development. Once the sanitary sewer system has been expanded, individual housing units and/or business would be allowed to connect to the sewer based upon the additional capacity available at that time M.025 -10- DM/jp 3 Impacts of alternatives. Same as above. 4 Mitigation. A. The city is in the process of having its consultant, Parametrix, provide a sewage comprehensive plan for the city This comprehensive plan would outline the general expansion requirements of the existing sewage treatment facility on a per development basis. Funding for this study should be contributed on an area basis by each property owner within the annexation. B Additional sarutary sewage treatment plant expansion costs will be passed on directly to each development on a direct cost basis. C On-site sanitary sewer systems will be requIred to service each development individually D Trunklines will be constructed as necessary in order to serve each individual development as it connects to the existing city system. M 025 -11- DM/jp Appendix B Wetlands Report Prepared by Independent Ecological Services Olympia, Washington Wetlands Delineation Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Report of the Thurston Highlands Property Yelm, Thurston County, Washington for Kramer, Chin and Mayo 1917 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 by IES Associates 1514 Muirhead Avenue Olympia, WA 98902 (206) 943-0127 June 22, 1992 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Table of Contents Introduction . ~ . . . . . . . 1.1 Scope of Services. . . . . 1.2 Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Background Data Analysis. . . . . . . 1.2.2 Field Evaluation Procedures . . . Site Description. . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Unit 1 - Thurston Highlands Property 2.2 Unit 2 - Venture Partners Properties Evaluation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Thurston Highlands Property. 3.1.1 Vegetation.. .... 3.1.2 Animals . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2.1 Mammals. . . . . 3.1.2.2 Birds. . ... 3.1.2.3 Reptiles and Amphibians 3.2 Venture Partners Property. . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Vegetation. . . ......... 3.2.2 Animals . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2.1 Mammals. ... 3.2.2.2 Birds . . . 3.2.2.3 Reptiles and Amphibians 3.2.2.4 Fish . . . . . . . Wetlands . . . . . 4.1 Soils. . . . 4.1.1 Alderwood .... . . . . 4.1.2 Everett . . . . . 4.1.3 Indiano1a . . . . . . . 4.1.4 McKenna . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.5 Muki1 teo . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.6 Nisqually . . . . . .. ... 4. 1 . 7 Tenino. . . . . 4.1.8 Spanaway. . . . . . . . 4 . 1 . 9 Tisch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.10 Yelm . . . . . . . . .. ... 4.2 Hydrology. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Wetland Classification . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 US Fish & Wildlife Service Classification . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Ye1m Resource Lands and Critical Areas Ordinance . . . . . . . . . 4.4 On-Site Wetlands . . . 4.4.1 Wetland #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.2 Wetland #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.3 Wetland #3 . . . .. ... 4.4.4 Wetland #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . i 1 1 2 2 2 6 6 6 9 9 9 15 15 16 18 19 20 26 27 27 29 30 31 32 32 33 34 34 35 36 36 37 37 38 39 42 42 43 45 45 46 48 49 4.4.5 Wetland #5 . . . . . . . . 4.4.5 Wetland #6 . . . . . . 4.4.7 Wetland #7 . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.8 Wetland #8 . . . . 4.4.9 Wetland #9 . . . . . . . . 4.4.10 Wetland #10 . . . 4.4.11 Wetland #11 . . . . . 4.4.11 Wetland #12 . . . . . . . 4.4.13 Wetland #13 . . . . . . . . . 4.4.14 Wetland #14 . . . 4.4.15 Wetland #15 . . . . . . . . . 4.4.16 Wetland #16 . . . 4.4.17 Wetland #17 . . . . . . . . . 4.4.18 Wetland #18 . . . . . . . . . 4.4.19 Wetland #19 . . . . . . . 4.4.20 Wetland #20 . . . 4.5 Off-Site Wetlands . . . 4.6 Wetland Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 Impact Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A - Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 1 - Location Map Figure 2 - Site Map Figure 3 - USFWS NWI Map ......... Figure 4 - WA Dept of Fisheries Map . . . . . Figure 5 - Vegetation Communities Map . . . . Figure 6 - Soils Map . . . . . . . Figure 7 - Soil Core Location Map . . . . . . Figure 8 - Wetlands Map . . . . Appendix B - Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 1 - Definitions of Indicator Status Table 2 - Hydric Soil Indicators . . . . . . . Table 3 - Hydrologic Regimes and Wetland Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 4 - Partial List of Known or Expected Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5 - Partial List of Mammals . . . . . . . Table 6 - Partial List of Birds . . . . . . . . Table 7 - Partial List of Expected Reptiles and Alnphibians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 8 - Summary of Wetland Classifications Appendix C - Field Forms .............. ii 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 59 60 61 64 64 66 67 69 71 73 76 86 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 104 105 107 108 109 Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 1.0 Introduction Jl. '1 {\ 'fO,'JD (l (j lES Associates conducted a site evaluation of the Welcome Construction Company property identified as Thurston Highlands and the Venture Partners properties located west of Yelm. The properties start north of Highway 507, run north and northeast to Durant Street SE, with an extension going to Berry Valley Rd. SE (Figure 1). The purpose of the evaluation was to (1) determine the presence or absence of wetlands; (2) define, delineate, classify and evaluate all wetlands found; (3) generate plant community profiles, identifying the dominant, subdominant and seasonal plants present on the site; and (4) identify wildlife use, including the presence of critical wildlife habitats for sensitive species as identified by the Washington State Department of Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1.1 Scope of Services Work preformed by lES Associates consisted of three elements. These elements were (1) to locate, identify, delineate and classify all wetlands on the property; (2) to identify, classify, record and map all plant and animal use on the site; and (3) to develop a conceptual impacts analysis of different levels of development on different wildlife and plant communities, wildlife species and wetlands on the property. -1- oJ ~ 1" c, \.. ,L ~ ~)~ . ~, "G' 'I Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 1.2 Procedures 1.2.1 Background Data Analysis An initial site evaluation was conducted utilizing aerial photographs, orthotopographic maps, oblique color photographs, a preliminary wetlands delineation report prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc., Coot Company wetland map, - - - US Geological Survey 7.5 Quadrangle topographic maps, 5 foot contour topographic maps, US Fish and Wildlife Service NWI wetland maps, Thurston County wetland maps, Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of Thurston County, Washington Department of Fisheries Cataloo of Washinoton Streams and the City of Yelm "Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance." These documents were used to generate a working field map that was used to locate vegetative communities, approximate wetland boundaries, determine soil core location areas, provide other information to assist in the determination of wetland values and functions and to identify significant animal habitats. 1.2.2 Field Evaluation Procedures The Thurston Highlands' portion of the property was surveyed with Kramer, Chin and Mayo and Bud Welcome to -- identify its physical characteristics, Le., depressions, high areas and drainages and to get an understanding of the over- all project site through a review of the location of roads, powerline corridor and property boundaries. The site was -2- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 evaluated based on the relationship between Earth Consultants maps and the soils maps. The Venture Partners' portion of the property was surveyed with Mr. Cants of the Cants Dairy Farm. The property ~....., - boundaries, stream, culvert locations, and grazing practices were explained during this site visit. Depressions and wooded areas with evidence of wetlands or wet tolerant trees and apparent drainage ways were walked and photographed. Plants were identified and recorded with their wetland classification (Table 1, Appendix B). A vegetative community profile map, identifying each community as to density, age and location in relationship to drainage ways, slopes and roads, was generated. Areas where wetlands or streams were identified on either the US Fish and Wildlife National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps (Figure 3, Appendix A) the Thurston County wetlands maps or the Catalog of Washinaton Streams were examined. If wetlands were present, the outside boundaries of the wetlands were delineated and marked with 3 X 3 foot florescent orange bulls- eye ground flags or orange flags. These were located at the approximate boundaries for aerial surveying and aerial photography or ground truthing, which will be used to define the location and boundaries of the wetlands in relationship to contours, roads and the over-all site. Soil cores were taken in transitional areas between predominantly upland and predominantly hydric vegetation. -3- Wet1anas De11neat1on, P1ant C1ass1r1cat1on ana W11a11re Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 These cores were used to define the effect of intermittent high waters on the soil (Table 2, Appendix B). Cores were dug to 24 inches to evaluate surface water or the presence of ground water at 14 to 18 inches during March 1992, to determine if positive hydrology existed and to determine whether certain wetlands were connected hydrologically for a long enough or frequent enough period to create hydric conditions (Table 3, Appendix B). Wetland boundaries were delineated and flagged with sequentially numbered flags. Each separate wetland was numbered for identification and discussion. The wetland number was included on the wetland flags to assist regulatory authorities in comparing the on-site wetland conditions with the report and with the impacts analysis and development recommendations. A detailed plant survey was conducted to identify plants wi thin the wetlands and other sensi ti ve areas, including slopes. Different vegetative communities were mapped to be used in the over-all site evaluation and for inclusion into the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A list of plants using both botanical and common names their frequency and distribution are incorporated as tables to be included in the EIS ( Table 4, Appendix B). Plant community maps were completed for the entire site (Figure 5, Appendix A). Wildlife surveys were conducted during the vegetative survey and while locating and delineating the wetlands. Bird and mammal sign, including trails, whi tewash, nests and -4- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 indicators of feeding, such as chip piles, barking of trees, clipping of shrubs, woodpecker borings, the destruction of rotten logs and digging of mole or mole borrows, were noted and recorded. Skulls or other skeletal remains were noted, identified when possible and recorded. Vole runs, mole mounds and other indicators of subterranean or surface gnawing mammals was also recorded. If there was an exaggerated evidence of their presence, the area was marked and mapped for future review and utilization during the drafting of the animal section of the EIS. All bird and mammal observations made during site visits were noted. Recurrences of species on different days were noted. Hunting areas that appeared to be utilized routinely or daily by different species were identified and marked. Fish data was obtained from the Washington Department of Fisheries Cataloq of Washinqton Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1 (Figure 4, Appendix A) . Animal and plant data were drafted into this report in a manner to allow extraction for inclusion into the EIS. All figures, maps and tables are included as Appendices to allow the EIS writers flexibility without demanding complete rewrites of the narrative portions of this report. -5- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 2.0 Site Description The evaluation site consists of two evaluation units: ( 1 ) the Thurston Highlands property, and ( 2 ) the Venture Partners properties (Cants Dairy Farm). 2.1 Unit 1 - Thurston Highlands Property The Thurston Highlands property consists of approximately 1,236 acres of land located west of Yelm, northwest of Highway 507 and southeast of Fort Lewis (Figure 2, Appendix A). Road access is through two private properties off of George Road SEe The evaluation area consists of the west half of Section 26, Section 27, the southwest quarter of Section 23, and a 40- acre tract in the center of Section 23, Township 17N, RIE. 2.2 Unit 2 - Venture Partners Properties The Venture Partners properties consists of the Mt. View Dairy Farm area located west and south of Durant Street SE in Yelm. The farm is a heavily used dairy farm area with the upper reaches of Thompson Creek running through a portion of the property. The eastern half of the site includes the residence, barns, heavily grazed farm areas, a depression with ponds that have been badly degraded by cattle use and the Thompson Creek drainage, which has been ditched and bermed along both sides through a maj ori ty of the property. The western half is a mixed series of open meadows, Douglas fir and red alder woods that extend to the eastern property boundary of the Thurston Highlands property in this area and -6- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 to the eastern edge of the 40-acre portion of the Thurston Highlands property. The high areas adj acent to Thompson Creek have a mixed Gary oak/alder stand with areas along the west side of the creek blending into a Douglas fir/big leaf maple/ alder mix. At the top of the slope to the west, the vegetation gives way to a large Douglas fir meadow that extends through the center of the property to the logged-over eastern border of the Thurston Highlands. The meadow extends south into a wet depression in the southwest corner of the property. The overall property is located in the southwest corner of section 24 and along the east edge of section 23. The area is basically a high plain with numerous depressions and mounds throughout the site, with the greatest variations in elevation being in the south half of Sections 26 and 27 where the difference between wet potholes at the bottom of the depressions and the road elevation at the top of the depression slope may vary as much as 110 feet. The north and west boundaries in Section 27 and the west boundary of the southwest quarter of Section 23 abut Fort Lewis. A powerline corridor extends across Section 27 from the southwest corner of the property to a point near the northeast corner of Section 27. The powerline corridor extends north across Fort Lewis. A network of logging roads on the site has been maintained through brushing. This allows ready access to most areas on the site. Major drainage ways have been culverted -7- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 under these roads to allow normal movement of water throughout the system. All of the property has been logged with different sections of the property logged at different times. Sections 26 and 27 were the most recently logged. The southwest quarter of Section 23 was logged at an earlier date. All of the property has been reforested with Douglas fir plantings. The size of the Douglas fir connotates the approximate cutting date and creates the major difference in vegetative canopy composition on the property. An access easement extends from the southeast corner of that portion of the property in Section 26, east to a railroad right-of-way and SR 507. This area and the northeast 40-acre parcel have been managed differently than the large blocks of lands in Sections 23, 26 and 27, thus creating a variation in physical conditions, vegetation and wildlife habitats. r/t.Q ~ \! ,,'I~ ~ -8- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 3.0 Evaluation Results 3.1 Thurston Highlands Property A majority of this portion of the project site consists of recently logged areas with portions having been slash- burned while larger portions are littered with downed timber, limbs and waste material from the Douglas fir, undersized alder and other trees which were knocked down during the process of removing the Douglas fir trees. There are a series of depressions on the site which collect surface water. Water stands in portions of these depressions for long enough periods of time to create wetlands. The wetlands on the site are variable, including one large forested wetland, shrub/scrub and emergent marsh wetlands and open water potholes. There are 18 delineated jurisdictional wetlands on the site. There is a reforested Douglas fir area, approximately 120 acres in size, in Section 23 and an unlogged deciduous/coniferous forested area, approximately 40 acres in size, along the east boundary of the site. 3.1.1 Vegetation All of the site, with the exception of two small areas along the east property line, have been logged. A major portion of the site has been logged wi thin the past five years. All of the area was revegetated with seedling Douglas fir per normal reforestation practices. The differences in -9- Wet~ands De~ineation, P~ant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, ~992 the ages of the initial logging and replanting have generated variations in the height and age class of Douglas Fir over different portions of the property. Two small stands of deciduous/coniferous trees were left standing in the eastern portion of the site. Dominant trees in the southern most of these two areas are Douglas fir with two large black cottonwood and a small cluster of red alder along a drainage way that extends to the east property line. The area to the north, which is the largest of the two stands, is a mixed forested community with the species composition and distribution regulated by the amount and duration of standing water or hydric soil conditions. The western end is vegetated with a mix of red alder, western red cedar and an occasional black cottonwood. The center of the area is dominated by mixed Oregon ash and alder with scattered red cedar. There are three islands of Douglas fir in this area, one mixed with red cedar along the north edge of the unharvested area, a second along the south edge of the unharvested area and the third being a larger U-shaped area that extends from the east property line, wester~y (Figure 5, Appendix A). Understory vegetation in this large, unharvested area also varies with the soi~ conditions and duration and depth of standing water. The high canopy shrub mix in the drier areas consist of red elderberry, osoberry, red-flowering currant and ninebark with scattered salmonberry. In the center core, the high shrubs change to a predominantly salmonberry stand with scattered Douglas spirea with osoberry on hummocks and logs. -~o- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Red elderberry grows on stumps, both at the edge and in portions of the deeper water area. Ground cover changes between these two areas from a false-lily of the valley mat in the drier areas under the mixed shrubs, to a buttercup area in the moderately wet areas and to water parsley and skunk cabbage in the deeper areas. False solomon-seal grow in clusters in the midst of the false- lily of the valley and on the hummocks with the osoberry in the wetter portion of the site. Scattered open areas throughout the deepwater portion has dense mixed stands of water hemlock and skunk cabbage. These areas do not have dense stands of salmonberry, which allows sufficient light to reach the ground floor to provide the habitat necessary for their survival. The three Douglas fir and Douglas fir and cedar islands have variable under stories. The northern Douglas fir and cedar stand is typical of the remainder of the borderline wet area with the red elderberry, osoberry, red-flowering currant and red huckleberry with Sitka and Scouler's willow growing along the open edges adjacent to the recently logged area. The ground cover was predominantly false-lily of the valley, solomon seal, false-solomon seal and piggyback in areas where the sun could reach the ground. The southern Douglas fir area was dominated by a high canopy of osoberry, red elderberry and salmon berry with scattered patches of red-flowering currant, and thimbleberry plus a low canopy of mixed salal and mahonia with a ground cover of false-lily of the valley, false solomon seal, piggyback and bleeding heart. -11- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 The large U-shaped wetland in the eastern portion of this unharvested stand has a mixed Douglas fir and red alder dominated over story, which included big-leaf maple, cascara, western red cedar and black cottonwood. The black cottonwood were concentrated around the center slough that extends from the eastern property line, westerly into the site and along the northern edge where the Oregon ash and slough sedge marsh swamp continues to the east property line. The high canopy under story consists of osoberry, red elderberry, ocean spray, red-flowering currant, prickly currant and vine maple. The low cover varies with a salal and mahonia mix in the drier areas g1v1ng way to a ground cover in the wetter or fringe areas. Ground cover varied, being limited in some areas by the density of the salal and mahonia. Where present, it consisted of sword fern, false-lily of the valley, false- solomon seal and piggyback with mixed grasses in certain areas. Where light penetrated, there were open pockets allowing grass growth. Grasses were dominated by orchard grass, quack grass, velvet grass, eat's ear, English plantain and sour dock. The drainage swale in the center grows mats of green algae, which dries forming a dense algae mat that precludes vegetative cover over most of this area. That which does occur, is a mix of slough sedge, skunk cabbage and water parsley. The logged upland area and remainder of the site have varying sized Douglas fir, ranging from 3 to 30 feet. The oldest growth stands on the southwest quarter of Section 23 and in the southwest corner of the project site (Section 27). Secondary trees growing with the Douglas fir are dominated by -12- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 black cottonwood, with the average tree size being 1/4 to 1/2 inch in diameter and 10 to 12 feet tall. Red alder are also scattered over the recently logged portion of the site, with larger trees reaching from 1 to 2 inch diameter and 15 to 20 feet tall along the edges of the logging roads. There are two areas on the site where the dominant shrub is Scot's broom. Shrubs vary on the remainder of the site wi th red elderberry being the most common in some areas and osoberry the most common in other areas. Throughout the recently harvested area, the dominant ground cover was trailing blackberry. Grasses growing throughout the recently logged areas were dominated by orchard grass, with a normal pasture mix of non-nati ve species being scattered throughout the remainder of the site. The understory in the older growth Douglas fir areas in the northeast and the southwest corners have mixed himalayan blackberry, salal, mahonia, bracken fern and sword fern. Due to the density of the low-limb cover, the brush and ground cover in these areas are sparse and scattered. The greatest variation of vegetation on the site occurs in the depressions around wet pockets; however, even these are limited in species diversity. The large central wetland area has a shrub border of Douglas spirea, four willow species, ninebark, osoberry and red elderberry. The center core, or deepest part of the wetland, varies with portions being dominated by cattail and hardstem bulrush while the remainder is dominated by dense stands of Douglas spirea. There are -13- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 open pockets of water in the pond; however, because of logging wood debris, emergent vegetation is limited. What does exist, consists of slough sedge, water parsley, buttercup and smart weed with scattered reed canarygrass. Salmonberry and Douglas spirea are the dominant shrubs extending from the east end of this large wetland in the drainage-way, to the east property line. The shrubs are growing under a young black cottonwood stand with some trees as much as 6 inches in diameter. There are eight depressions on the site that are principally circular, intermittently-flooded water holes surrounded by a willow mix with an inner border of Douglas spirea and/or salmonberry. Douglas spirea is most prevalent in areas that were not as well shaded prior to logging with the salmonberry being present in those depressions where there is evidence that Douglas fir provided good shade cover. Border willows are predominantly with Scouler's willow and Sitka willow in varying elevations surrounding the water with Pacific willow and heart-leaf willow in the deeper water areas. Where there was a steep incline into the depression, the willows were usually dominated by two species, the Sitka willow at the edge and Pacific willow in the deeper water areas. The edges surrounding these depressions have varying grass stands. Those areas that are close to logging roads have more grasses than those which were surrounded by Douglas fir prior to logging. Again, the dominant grass was orchard grass with quack grass, sweet vernal grass and some velvet grass growing in patches along disturbed areas next to the roads or log handling areas. -14- we~1anas De11nea~10n, P1an~ C1ass1r1ca~10n ana W11a11re Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 A partial list of plants is included as Table 5, Appendix B. 3.1.2 Animals Wildlife use of the site has been significantly altered by the logging operation. The surrounding unlogged areas, particularly those properties on Fort Lewis, continue to provide the necessary habitat to support big game species which utilizes this area for movement, migration and feeding. The regrowth of young plants and the invasion of a variety of forest and new young shrubs has provided additional food for browsing species, which probably were not as prevalent prior to logging as they are under existing conditions. The entire area is criss-crossed with animal trails. The stumps, dead logs and snags have been worked by a variety of birds and what appears to be mammal use. Skulls, bone fragments, and deposi ted deer horns, which have been gnawed, indicate a variety of predators and small mammals. 3.1.2.1 Mammals Mammal identification was limited almost entirely to sign, including trails, rubbings, browsing or clipping, stump destruction, chip piles and droppings. Black tail deer are the most predominant large mammals. There was also evidence of some black bear use. There is known elk in the general vicinity; however, there was no sign on the site indicating that elk were using the property -15- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 proper. Due to the density of the forest surrounding the area and the past history of the site having limited amounts of grasses, this was to be expected. Small mammals noted on the site included cottontail and brush rabbit, at least 2 species of voles, meadow mice, whi te- tail deer mice, 2 species of moles, long-tail weasel and 1 or 2 species of shrews. Predators using the area included coyote, raccoon, striped skunk and red fox. Opossum also use the site. Mountain beaver were found on the wooded slope banks in the southeast corner next to the larger draw and the wetland along the west property line. Chickaree were still present in the unharvested portions along the east property line, with extended use in the properties to the east and evidence of the presence in the forested areas on Fort Lewis surrounding the north and west side. A partial list of mammals is included as Table 6, Appendix B. 3.1.2.2 Birds Bird utilization has also been modified by the logging activities that have occurred on the site during the past 10 to 15 years. The lost forest canopy has changed the emphasis of bird use from deep forested, upland species, to a mix of open grass/shrub species. Bluebird boxes have been placed around the site in an effort to increase mountain bluebird activity, which was historically present on the high plains in this area. -16- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Dominant bird use on the site were small meadow type species including grasshopper sparrows, swallows, white and golden-crowned sparrows and juncos. Red-shafted flicker, pileated woodpecker and hairy and downy woodpeckers are using the forested areas along the east side and the 40 acre tract in Section 23. These species overlap and use the forested area surrounding the site on the Fort Lewis property and in the open forest pastures to the east. Red-tailed hawk, marsh hawk and sharp-shinned hawk were observed hunting the site. There is evidence of great-horned owl use in the large, unlogged, forested wetland. The use appeared to be in the northeastern corner in the large black cottonwood and cedar area. Waterfowl, including mallard, pintail, teal and gadwall, were observed using the open water pockets and forested ponds throughout the site. Wood ducks were observed in the brushy, forested wetlands in the southwest corner of the site, in the wooded wetland areas east of the site and in the open pasture wetland habitats. An off-site open pond and the pasture area to the east also supported widgeon, scaup, red-breasted and hooded mergansers and Canada geese. This is an enhanced wetland area that has been turned into a deeper water pond with grass emergent marsh buffers. Great blue heron were observed hunting the areas surrounding the large emergent marsh wetland in the southwest corner where there was evidence of a number of frogs. They -17- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 were also hunting a small drainage ditch in the 40 acre parcel in the center of Section 23. A partial list of known or expected birds is included as Table 6, Appendix B. 3.1.2.3 Reptiles and Amphibians Common garter snake and western terrestrial garter snake were observed in varying locations throughout the site. The wet pond areas, particularly in the southern half of Section 26, in the wetland in the southwest corner of the site and in the 40 acre parcel in the center of Section 23, had high concentrations of Pacific tree frogs and red-legged frogs. Bull frogs were identified in the large, wooded wetland along the south property line, which extends off the site to the south into a heavily forested wetland with a man-made modified pond. Because of the time of the year and the duration and detail of the wildlife studies, no efforts were made to identify salamanders or other aquatic species that might be present in the larger forested wetlands along the south property line, in the southwest corner or in the large unlogged forested area in the center of Section 26. It is anticipated, because of the log downfall, that there should be a good variety and relatively high numbers of bog type salamanders, which are common to western Washington. A partial list of reptiles and amphibians is contained in Table 7, Appendix B. -18- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 3.2 Venture Partners Property The Venture Partners portion of the project site is the property lying east of the Thurston Highlands property and has been re-evaluated independently of the Thurston Highlands because of the variation use, which effected both vegetation and soils. The area starts as a flat pasture-land along the east side abutting the golf course and partially developed residential areas along Berry Valley Road and Durant Street southeast. The property slopes gradually from the east to the draw that supports Thompson Creek. From Thompson Creek the area slopes up to the west creating a linear hogback from the south property line to near the north property line. To the west, this hogback drops to a second depression that is diagonal from running northeast to southwest in the northwest corner of the property, while remaining relatively high throughout the center of the property. To the southwest corner of the property, the depression drops into an isolated draw that supports intermittent standing water. The area bordering both sides of the creek have linear depressions that collect surface water which runs from south to north and into the creek before it's discharged off-site. The area west of the barn and east of Thompson creek is heavily impacted by cattle use. In this area the soils has been heavily pocked in the depression where water stands in -19- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 the winter. The pond in the south end of this meadow is a heavy silt and fecal contamination load. To the north as the depression becomes shallower, the water is intermittent flowing from south to north, through an impacted depression. West of the creek there is a high meadow in the central area that is irrigated with a water/manure mix, which increases the fecal coliform/nitrogen content in the soil. The two larger meadows on the northeast in the extreme north portions of the property are also fertilized with the water/manure slurry mix. Water quality in the stream is poor due to blockages created by undersized culverts in Berry Valley Road and by crossings in the vegetation where cattle are allowed to cross and wade through the stream and stand in the stream at any part of the day. The areas around the barns and fenced feedlot areas and congregation areas for the yearling calves and adult cows being milked, the residence and barns where the formal landscaping. Portions of the area are forested with a Douglas fir mix that is an extension of the Thurston Highlands property to the west, while the remainder of the forested area is a mix of alder and Garry oak, which is typical of the ridge that runs southeasterly off the site towards the Yelm highway. 3.2.1 Vegetation The wooded portion of the depression extends to the west and is vegetated with a dense Douglas fir forested area. The dominate canopy cover in the lower area is red alder with a -20- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 high shrub canopy being a mix of filbert, twinberry, with service berry, ocean spray, and scattered pockets of hardhack and areas of Himalayan blackberry around openings or along cattle trails. The ground cover varies with the density of the canopy and the density of the shrub vegetation. In the higher areas where the sun reaches the ground, there is a mix of grass, piggyback, with some creeping blackberry. In the denser canopied areas the piggyback gives way to buttercup and mixed grasses. These areas still have filbert as the dominant shrub vegetation. The depression rises both to the east and west, giving way to a Douglas fir canopy with some alder, big-leaf maple and cascara. The understory is predominantly ocean spray, filbert with some red huckleberry and a ground cover of salal, mixed stands of Indian plum and snowberry. Nettle is growing in the open areas where the sun reaches the ground. Underneath the dense Douglas fir canopy, there is wild ginger. There is a high pasture in this area that has been managed and maintained; has a mix of grasses dominated by quackgrass, western wheat grass, sweet vernal grass, orchard grass tall fescue. South of this meadow, the area drops into a wet meadow that extends southerly to near the south property line. There are scattered western red cedar in this area, a portion of which are dead, indicating that the area is wetter than it was under historic conditions. South of this depression the area slopes back up to another Douglas fir stand, typical of the Douglas fir on the remainder of the si te. There is a deciduous shrub area in the southwest -21- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 corner of this Douglas fir stand. The shrubs are dominated by filbert, Himalayan blackberry with mixed salal, sword fern and other species which extend off the property to the south. The western edge of the property slopes up to a higher ridge that runs the length of the property between the western component and Thompson Creek. The central portion is a dense Douglas fir stand with a filbert/ocean spray dominated understory that is so dense that is precludes ground cover in much of the area. Ground cover that is present includes piggyback and snowberry. Himalayan blackberry dominates the edge between the forested area and open meadows throughout this site. Under the denser canopy, false-lily-of-the-valley and ginger are mixed with occasional buttercup and piggyback. The northern end of this portion has a number of trails made by people either on foot or on trail bikes. Big-leaf maple and western red cedar are mixed in along the north and east edges of the forested component. The meadow in the south central portion of this ridge is a mix of introduced meadow grass/ pasture mix with sweet vernal grass, quackgrass, orchard grass, timothy, Kentucky bluegrass, annual ryegrass, tall fescue, white and alsike clover. Thistle, plantain, tansy, dandelion, and cat's ear are scattered throughout the pasture area. This portion of pasture is irrigated with a slurry made of water and barnyard waste that leaves a sediment of partially digested grass and straw from the cleaning of the barns as a residue for mixed- length periods of time after the spraying. To the south the meadow gives way to a Douglas fir stand that gives way along -22- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 the east side to mixed alder/Gary oak stand which extends down to the edge of Thompson Creek. In the north and north central portions of the si te, Thompson Creek is a narrow, linear ditch (vertical sided) that has been dredged with the spoil deposited as a berm along portions of both sides. The dominant vegetation on the dredged spoils throughout the length is western crabapple with ninebark. Oregon ash grow at the waters edge with the crabapple, but is less dominant. In areas where the native crabapple has been disturbed, either for fencing or road crossing, the Oregon ash and alder have become established. To the south the stream opens up into depressed, paralleling drainage ways along the west side creating a intermittently, flooded meadow wetland that varies from 20 - 50 ft. wide until it reaches an area close to the south property line. At this pOint there is a large buttercup emergent marsh overflow area along the west side of the creek. Near the center of the property there is a spur channel that collects drainage and interacts with the larger wetland to the south. The area along both sides of the creek is wet, having a dense stand of nootka rose along the east side of the creek mixed with salmonberry and twinberry. As the area raises in elevation to the east, the vegetation changes to a mixed grass meadow dominated by cat's ear which is taking over this small pasture area because of heavy grazing. The pasture gives way to a dense Garry oak stand with a thick Oregon grape/osoberry ground cover with scattered grasses and snowberry in the open fringe areas. This area abuts the golf course along the east. -23- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 The flat to the east of the creek varies in vegetation wi th the elevation. The area that is low stands surface water for extended periods of time and is dominated by scattered Oregon ash trees, which replace the oak. Alder are mixed with the Oregon ash, with the ash being more dominant in the wetter areas. In the central portion of the site, just west of the barns there is a depression that has standing water with Oregon ash up to the edge. As the water drops during the summer, the edge becomes vegetated with a dominant smart weed- hemlock-water parsley mix with the smart weed gradually taking over as the area dries out during the summer. This area extends as a linear swale to the north where it interacts with the mainstream channel. It is evident that waters from this area collect and run to the north and enter into Thompson Creek during the winter months. The ground vegetation in this area is trampled into obscurity by the cattle. There is algae mixed in the open water portion of the pond at the south end of this depression. This gives way to a buttercup/smart weed/water parsley mix in the wetter areas that give way to smart weed dominated intermittently flooded swale. The depression in the center of the property raises in elevation to the east into a feed yard area directly behind the barns and a heavily grazed pasture north and west of the barns. There is a high pasture area directly north and west of the barns and residence that is dominated by a non-native/ -24- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 native grass mix, which was planted into the area in the past as cattle graze and hay. The mix is the same as in the meadow to the south being dominated by tall fescue, sweet vernal grass, and orchard grass. This area is also irrigated with water/manure slurry mix. At the north end of the property, where the Creek crosses north of the wooded area, there is a wet depression with softrush, slough sedge, with an island of hard hack, twinberry and Himalayan blackberry, wi th an occasional individual Oregon ash and alder. The meadow area surrounding this is dominated by buttercup and wet grasses. The creek crosses under Berry Valley Road SE. in an undersized culvert. The restriction of the culvert back- floods this lower area during heavy rains when run-off exceeds the capacity of the channel and the culvert. The back- flooding has increased the width and wetness of the wetland in this portion of the site. The northeasterly finger of this area has a grass pasture area, again dominated by the same introduced non-native/native mix as is designated in other areas. A portion of this pasture has a higher density of thistle. The heavily pastured areas have been invaded by a mix of grasses and forbs that are typical of heavily impacted lands. In the drier portions of the pastured areas dominant vegetation is pineapple weed. As the area becomes wetter, the disturbed ground cover changes to a mix of smart weed, willow weed, and toad rush. The soils in the wetter portions -25- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 adjacent to depressions and the creek are pocked with cattle marks showing the effects of grazing during the wet season when the soil is saturated down to the harder sub-soil. Dog fennel replaces the willow weed and pineapple weed in higher elevations where the ground is drier and the area is over-grazed. Black mustard is present throughout the drier portions of the site, particularly along fence lines and under open tree canopies. The stream channel itself is vegetated throughout most of its length because of its slow stagnant condition. The edges in the areas where the water moves the fastest have water plantain and burr reed along the edges. Reaches where the water slows, have floating mats of duck weed, water weed, water parsley, water hemlock, and duck potato. Alodea is appearing in some of the stagnant water areas. Slough sedge, small fruited bulrush, and softrush grow in the fringe area in the overflow areas with buttercup and redtop. At the south end of the property in the depression under the heavy trees, there is pockets with skunk cabbage mixed with water hemlock and water parsley. 3.2.2 Animals Fish and wildlife in this portion of the site vary with the vegetation and wetness more than on the Thurston Highlands portion of the site. The mix of oak with Douglas fir provide habitat for a variety of small birds and mammals that utilize -26- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 hardwoods. Deer use the woods and stream bottom area, even with the heavy cattle use. Deer horns, tracks and a skull were evidence of some use. Tracks, spore and other indicators, similar to those used on Thurston Highlands portion of the site were used in this area. 3.2.2.1 Mammals Deer continue to be the dominant, and possibly the only, large mammal to use this portion of the site. The extensive grazing and young animal raising without any evidence of predation or carrion eating is indication that the limited black bear population does not use this area. Small mammal included eastern cottontail rabbit, brush rabbit, long and possibly short-tailed weasels, meadow mice, white-tailed mice, moles, voles and shrews. Predators using the area included coyote, raccoon, striped skunk and possibly red fox. Chickaree were present in the larger stands of Douglas fir but only in limited numbers. No grey squirrel, either eastern or western were observed. According to the residents in this area, the squirrels are not in the area. A partial list of mammals in included as Table 5, Appendix B. 3.2.2.2 Birds Bird utilization has been modified by the extensive pasturing, the change in vegetation to a mixed native/ -27- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 non-native mix, and the irrigation with the manure slurry. The tall grasses in the two northern pastures attracts a variety of grass nesting species such as Savannah sparrow and western meadowlark. The grass pastures in conjunction with the oak woods provides habitat for western bluebirds and Lazuli bunting. The oak tree/alder habitat attracts hardwood users such as warblers, bushtits, and vireos. Wilson's, orange-crowned and Audubon's warblers were seen or heard in the less disturbed portions of these woods. The Douglas fir stands had robin, swainson's thrush, towhee, chickadee, bushtit and pine siskins. Taller trees at the edges of meadows were used as hunting perches foe red-tailed hawk. Marsh hawk were hunting the larger un-grazed pasture areas. The forested mix coupled with open meadows and cattle feeding areas create an insect community that attracts insect eating crevice, hole and deciduous woods nesting species. Flycatchers, kingbirds, tree swallow, violet green swallow, titmice and others were observed in the mixed woods and flying feeding forays over the pasture areas. Cowbirds, brewers blackbirds and starlings concentrated in and around the feed lot areas. Ruffed grouse, valley quail and ring-necked pheasants were seen or heard in the forested areas and protected areas at the edge of the pastures. -28- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 During the winter, waterfowl use the creek and pond area in the east pasture below the barns. During this time the water is high and less contaminated, attracting dabbling species such as mallard, pintail and teal. There was no evidence of wood ducks or other crevice or hole nesting waterfowl. Great blue heron hunt the creek because of the abundance of aquatic life. They have also been observed with snakes and mice. Green heron may use the northern portion of the creek, however, they usually desire clearer running water than occurs on the site. A partial list of birds is included on Table 6, Appendix B. 3.2.2.3 Reptiles and Amphibians Snakes were more prevalent in the forested/pasture edge areas than on Thurston Highlands. Both garter snakes use the wet pasture areas feeding off mice, insects, and frogs. The stream, wet areas and the open water pond had dense populations of bullfrogs, good populations of red-legged frogs and a mixed distribution of Pacific tree frogs. Unidentified sa1amanders-skinks were observed in the standing or slow moving waters in the creek. A partial list of species is included in Table 7, Appendix B. -29- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 3.2.2.4 Fish The only fish identified on the site or indicated on the property, through discussions with local residence, are the fish in Thompson Creek. Washington Department of Fisheries lists coho salmon as probable but not certain in the stream (~ Cataloo of Washinoton Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1). Small unidentified fingerlings were observed north of the property but not in the reach through the project site. -30- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 4.0 Wetlands Wetlands on the site were defined using the triple parameter procedure as outlined in the Federal Manual for the Identification and Delineation of Jurisdictional Wetlands ( 1989) . The procedures require identification of the presence of all three hydric parameters, Le., hydric vegetation, hydric soils and water at the surface, or within 18 inches of surface, for seven continuous days during any portion of the growing season (Tables 1, 2 and 3, Appendix B). The evaluation procedures, identified in Section 2.0 of the Manual, were utilized to identify and delineate the wetlands. Areas with posi ti ve hydrology, i. e., standing water or saturation at the surface, and hydric vegetation were delineated and classified as wetlands with no further evaluation procedures conducted. Soil evaluations, including color, texture, approximate moisture content, presence or absence of mottling, friability and other hydric conditions which separate hydric from non-hydric soils, were conducted through the placement of 24 inch soil cores in areas where the soils were marginally wet or there were transitional vegetative communities that included a variety of facultative upland or upland plants. The A horizon was measured for depth, texture and color and recorded on routine evaluation field forms. The B horizon was also identified, unless there was surface water wi thin 14 inches of the surface. If moisture was present, the B horizon was analyzed, but not recorded. -31- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 4.1 Soils Based on the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey of Thurston County Washington (1990), there are 10 soil types on the site. The principal soil series mapped by the SCS as being present on the subject site include three mapping units in the Alderwood series (2, 3, and 4 on the SCS map) occurring on three to 50 percent slopes, four mapping uni ts in the Everett series (32, 33, 34, and 35 on the SCS map) occurring on zero to 50 percent slopes, two mapping uni ts in the Indianola series (47 and 48 on the SCS map) occurring on three to 30 percent slopes, McKenna gravelly silt loam (65 on the SCS map) occurring on zero to five percent slopes, both undrained and drained Mukil teo muck (69 and 70 on the SCS map), Nisqually loamy sand ( 74 on the SCS map), two mapping units in Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, (110 and III on the SCS map),two mapping units in the Tenino series (116 and 117 on the SCS map) occurring on three to 30 percent slopes and two mapping units in the Yelm series (126 and 127 on the SCS map) occurring on zero to 15 percent slopes (Figure 6, Appendix A). 4.1.1 Alderwood Alderwood series consists of moderately deep, moderately well drained gravelly sandy loam soils on glacial till plains. The soils were formed in ablation till overlying basal till. The mapping units located on the subject site are described as typically having a surface layer that is a very dark brown gravelly sandy loam about six inches thick. The upper nine inches of the subsoil is described as being a dark brown -32- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 gravelly sandy loam. The lower 15 inches of subsoil is described as being a dark brown gravelly sandy loam. A weakly cemented, strongly compacted hardpan is at a depth of about 30 inches. The depth to this hardpan ranges from 20 to 40 inches. Permeability is moderately rapid above the hardpan and is very slow in the area of the hardpan. The available water holding capacity within this soil is low. A perched seasonal high water table is present at a depth of 18 to 36 inches from November to March. Water flows along the hardpan and may seep at the bottom of slopes. Surface runoff is slow and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. This soil is not included on the hydric soil list for Thurston County. 4.1.2 Everett The Everett series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained, very gravelly sandy loam soils on terraces, outwash plains and terrace escarpments. These soils were formed in glacial outwash. The mapping units located on the subject site are described as typically having a surface layer that is dark reddish brown very gravelly sandy loam about three inches thick. The subsoil is described as being dark brown and dark yellowish brown extremely gravelly sandy loam and extremely gravelly loamy sand about 17 inches thick. The substratum, to a depth of 60 inches or more, is olive brown extremely gravelly loamy sand and dark grayish brown extremely gravelly sand. Permeabili ty is rapid and the available water holding capacity wi thin this soil is low. Rates of surface runoff range from slow to rapid and hazard of erosion ranges from slight to severe depending upon slope. -33- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 This soil is not included on the hydric soil list for Thurston County. 4.1.3 lndianola The Indianola series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained loamy sand soils. These soils were formed in sandy glacial drift. The mapping units located on the subject site are described as typically having a surface layer that is dark reddish brown loamy sand about 6 inches thick. The upper 7 inches of the subsoil is dark reddish brown loamy sand. The lower 12 inches of subsoil is dark brown loamy sand. The upper 10 inches of the substratum is dark yellowish brown sand and the lower part, to a depth of 60 inches or more, is olive brown sand. Permeabi1i ty is rapid and the available water holding capacity is moderate. Surface runoff is medium and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. The soil is not included on the hydric soil list for Thurston County. 4.1.4 McKenna The McKenna series consists of moderately deep, poorly drained gravelly silt loam soils in depressions and drainage ways. These soils were formed in glacial drift. The mapping unit located on the subject site is described as typically having a surface layer that is black gravelly silt loam about nine inches thick. The upper 4 inches of subsoil is very dark grayish gravelly silt loam, the next 8 inches is dark brown very gravelly silt loam and the lower 15 inches is dark brown -34- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 and dark yellowish brown, mottled very gravelly loam. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches or more is grayish brown, dense glacial till. Depth to the glacial till ranges from 20 to 40 inches. Permeabili ty is moderate above the dense glacial till and very slow through the till. The available water holding capacity wi thin this soil is moderate. A perched seasonal high water table is present near or above the surface from November to April. Surface runoff is ponded or very slow and the hazard of water erosion is slight. This soil is included on the hydric soil list for Thurston County. Areas of Bellingham and Norma soils have been included in the mapping of this soil series. Both of these soils are on the hydric soil list for Thurston County. 4.1.5 Mukilteo The Mukilteo series is described as consisting of very deep, very poorly drained muck soils in upland depressions. These soils formed in organic materials derived from sedges. In drained Mukil teo soils, drainage has been altered by subsurface drains and open ditches. The mapping units located on the subj ect site are described as typically having a surface layer that is dark yellowish brown and dark reddish brown muck about 6 inches thick. Below this layer, to a depth of 60 inches or more, is dark reddish brown mucky peat. Permeabili ty is moderate and the available water holding capacity within this soil is high. A seasonal high water table is present at or above the surface from October to April. Surface runoff is ponded and water erosion is not a -35- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 hazard. Both the drained and undrained Mukil teo muck are included on the hydric soil list for Thurston County. 4.1.6 Nisqually The Nisqually series consists of very deep somewhat excessively drained soils on terraces; soils formed in sandy glacial outwash. The soils area a sandy mixed Pachic Xerumbrepts, and a typical cross-section in the top 0 - 5" is a loam fine sand, very friable, non-sticky, with many medium and fine roots. From 5 - 18" the soil is loamy fine sand. It is very friable non-sticky and non-plastic. It is medium and fine roots are common. From 18 - 31" the soil is loamy fine sand. It is very friable, non-sticky and non-plastic. Nisqually soils are not classified as hydric soils by the Soil Conservation Service. 4.1.7 Tenino The Tenino series is described as consisting of moderately deep, moderately well drained gravelly loam soils on terminal moraines. These soils were formed in glacial till over glacial outwash. The mapping units located on the subject site are described as typically having a surface layer that is dark reddish brown gravelly loam about 11 inches thick. The upper 10 inches of the subsoil is gravelly loam, the next 15 inches is dark yellowish brown gravelly loam and the lower 4 inches is a weakly cemented, strongly compacted, yellowish brown hardpan. The depth to this hardpan ranges from 20 to 40 inches. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches -36- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 or more is dark yellowish brown extremely gravelly sandy loam. Permeability is moderate above the hardpan, very slow in the area of the hardpan and very rapid below the hardpan. The available water holding capacity wi thin this soil is moderate. Surface runoff is slow and the hazard of water erosion is slight. This soil is not included on the hydric soil list for Thurston County. 4.1.8 Spanaway Spanaway series consists of very deep somewhat excessively drained soils on terraces. These soils form a glacial outwash and volcanic ash. Soils are a sandy-skeletal, mixed, mesic Andic Xerumbrepts. In a typical profile the top 15 inches is a gravelly sandy loam. It is loose, very friable, non-sticky and non-plastic and strongly acid. From 15 to 20 inches, the soil is a very gravelly sandy loam with fine sub-angular blocky structure that is very friable, non- sticky and non-plastic. It has course roots, 55% pebbles and is medium acid. From 20 - 60" the soil is extremely gravelly sand with a few fine roots; 80% pebbles and 10% cobbles. The soil is not classified as a hydric soil by the Soil Conservation Service. 4.1.9 Tisch Tisch silt loam is a very poorly drained soil in upland depressions and drainage ways. Typically, the upper part of the surface layer is very dark brown silt loam about 6 inches thick and the lower part is very dark grayish brown silt about -37- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 5 inches thick. The substratum, to a depth of 60 inches or more, is stratified black, very dark brown, dark grayish brown and dark brown silt and muck. Included in this unit are small areas of Dupont, Everson, McKenna and Norma soils in depressions and Giles and Yelm soils on terraces. Permeability is moderately slow. Available water capacity is high. Effective rooting depth is limited by a seasonal high water table that is at or near the surface from December to April. The main limitation affecting the utilization of the soil is extreme muddiness caused by seasonal wetlands. 4.1.10 Yelm The Yelm series is described as consisting of deep, moderately well drained fine sandy loam soils on terraces. These soils were formed in volcanic ash and glacial outwash. The mapping units located on the subject site are described as typically having a surface layer that is dark brown fine sandy loam about 8 inches thick. The upper 9 inches of the subsoil is dark yellowish brown fine sandy loam and the lower 29 inches is dark grayish brown and olive brown, mottled fine sandy loam. The substratum, to a depth of 60 inches or more, is light olive brown loamy sand. Permeability is moderately rapid and the available water holding capacity wi thin this soil is high. A seasonal high water table fluctuates between depths of 18 to 36 inches from December to March. Surface runoff is slow and the hazard of water erosion is slight. -38- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 This soil is not included on the hydric soil list for Thurston County. 4.2 Hydrology The dominant hydrological activity on the site includes (1) the collection and containment of surface water runoff from the area, with entrapment in the isolated depression and (2) the collection of on-site and off-site surface water into depressions that include linear drainages that flow off-site to the east, west and north, depending on the individual wetland, (3) Thompson Creek and Thompson Creek drainage and ( 4) the agricultural irrigation on the pasture portions of the Venture Partners property in the northeast corner of the evaluation site. Dominant collection points of the Thurston Highlands property are in the southern half of Sections 27 and 26, with the greatest concentrations of collected water being in the northwest one-quarter of Section 26 or the southeast portion of the proposed development site. Waters in these areas collect into a series of depressions which were identified as Wetlands #1 and #2 by IES Associates and Wetland "L" by Earth Consultants, Inc. The water runs northeasterly through a culvert under a logging road to a depression along the east property line, where it ends in a blind sump that does not extend off the property. -39- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 The second is the collection of surface water and apparent seep water in the larger forested, unlogged forested area identified as Wetland #15 by IES Associates Wetland "M" by Earth Consultants. The water in this area runs easterly off the site to connect with a series of surface water runoff areas and the pastured area to the east. Portions of these off-site collection points are included within the proposed annexation area. The drainage in these areas runs north and east off the site. Additional drainages are in the southeast corner of the proposed development site and in the easement between the identified Weyerhauser property and SR 507. Wetlands in this area form into a stream that runs to the south and east, to collect in a borrow ditch along the railroad right-of-way and along SR 507. Because of the amounts and depths of water in the larger wetland depressions, portions of the project site have year around standing water. However, the majority of the site, including the smaller, deep depressions and some of the larger flat plains wetlands, dry up in early to late spring, depending on the amount of winter rain and the wetness of March and April. Waters feeding Thompson Creek start in a series of springs, seeps and surface run-off areas south of the Venture Partners portion of the project site. The waters flow the length of this portion of the property through the heavily used agricultural area. Throughout most of the southern -40- we~1anas De11nea~1on, P1an~ C1ass1r1ca~1on ana W11a11re Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 portion of this portion of the site, the channel has been dredged with a berm placed along the east side of the channel, restricting flooding from the creek onto the east portion of the property, but allowing water to flood into a narrow corridor along the west portion of the creek. Surface water and flooding backwater from the north end of the creek collect in depression in the pasture immediately east of the creek channel to form a near permanent pond and an intermi ttently flooded drainage way leading from the pond north to Thompson Creek. Thompson Creek partially blocked with vegetation and by unsized culverts under Berry Valley Road, reducing the flow to where it appears as near standing water throughout most of the reach through the property. During winter, flood waters extent to the toe of the steeper slope to the west and cover a major portion of the low pasture area to the east. Irrigation water from deep wells is mixed with the manure from the barns and dairy feeding areas to form a slurry which is pumped onto the western meadow near the center of the property and the two meadows in the north and northeast portions of the site. The use of irrigation influences the vegetative character of the site and introduces high fecal coliform bacteria, nitrogen, phosphate, BOD, COD and viruses and other bacteria that are typically associated with animal waste into the ground and the shallow ground water table. -41- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 4.3 Wetland Classification Wetlands were classified on the site using two procedures: (1) US Fish & Wildlife Service Wetland Classification System, Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Cowardin and (2) the proposed Yelm Resource Lands and Critical Areas Ordinance. 4.3.1 US Fish & Wildlife Service Classification Under the US Fish and Wildlife Service, there were four classes of wetlands identified: (1) Palustrine Emergent Marsh, (2) Palustrine Scrub/Shrub, (3) Palustrine Forested and (4) Riverine Lower Perennial Emergent (non-persistent). There are variations in the hydrologic regime, persistent to non- persistent emergent marsh species and the soil type within each of the Palustrine classes. The persistent wetland type on the site is seasonally flooded Palustrine Shrub/Scrub. The US Fish and& Wildlife Service failed to identify any of the areas on the Thurston Highlands property as Palustrine Open Water units, indicating that the wetlands all dry up during the summer months. Those portions which do not dry up are so heavily vegetated with either shrubs or trees that there are no open water components. Based on our on-site evaluation, we have changed some of the wetlands to Palustrine Open Water and have modified the -42- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 hydrologic classification of the US Fish and Wildlife Service on others. 4.3.2 Yelm Resource Lands and Critical Areas Ordinance The Yelm Resource Land and Critical Areas Ordinance utilizes the four category classification system created by the Washington Department of Ecology in their Model Wetlands Protection Ordinance, page 11, a. "Washington State Four-Tier Wetlands Rating System, Categories I, II, III, and IV," September 1990. 1) Category I Criteria. A. Documented habitat for endangered or threatened fish or animal species or for potentially extirpated plant species recognized by state or federal agencies; or B. High quality native wetland communities, including documented category I or II quality Natural Heritage wetland sites and sites which qualify as a category I or II quality natural Heritage wetland; or c. High quality, regionally communities with irreplaceable functions, including sphagnum bogs estuarine, wetlands, or mature forested rare wetland ecological and fens, swaps; or D. Wetlands of exceptional local significance. the criteria for such a designation shall be developed and adopted by the local jurisdiction under appropriate public review and administrative appeal procedures. The criteria may include, but not be limited to, rarity, groundwater recharge areas, significant habitats, unique educational sites or other specific functional -43- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 values within a watershed or other regional boundary. 2) Category II Criteria. A. Regulated wetlands that do not contain features outlined in category I; and B. documented habitats for sensitive plant, fish or animal species recognized by federal or state agencies; or C. Rare wetland communi ties listed in subsection l)C which are not high quality; or D. Wetland types with significant functions which may not be adequately replicated through creation or restoration. E. Regulated wetlands with significant habitat value based on diversity and size. F. Regulated wetlands salmonid fish-bearing waters, where flow is intermittent~ or contiguous with including streams G. Regulated wetlands with significant use by fish and wildlife. 3) Category III Criteria. A. Regulated wetlands that do not contain features outlined in category I, II or IV. -44- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 4) Category IV Criteria. A. Regulated wetlands which do not meet the criteria of a category I or II wetland; and B. Isolated wetlands that are less than or equal, to one acre in size; and have only one wetland class; and have only one dominant plant species (monotypic vegetation); or C. Isolated wetlands that are less than or equal to two acres in size, and have only one wetland class and a predominance of exotic species. Areas identified as wetlands were delineated using sequentially numbered 2 color flagging with each wetland assigned a number. Florescent orange bull-eyes, 3 X 3 feet, were also placed at the perimeters of each wetland to allow for aerial photography needed for general development and evaluation needs. 4.4 On-Site Wetlands 4.4.1 Wetland #1 This wetland is the southern most wetland on the property. It lies along the south property line in the southeast corner of the project site (SW corner, Section 26). It is a linear, forested wetland dominated by red alder, Oregon ash and black cottonwood with a mixed dense salmonberry shrub understory and a dense Pacific, Sitka and heart-leaf willow border along the north edge. It extends off-site to -45- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 the south into a larger forested wetland swamp with semi- permanent water that is seasonally flooded into late summer. The soils on the site are mixed saturated and unsaturated Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with Everett gravelly sandy loam along the northern edge next to the logging road. Under the US Fish and Wildlife system, this wetland would be classified as Palustrine Forested, Deciduous, Broad-leaf Wetland (PFOW). Slough sedge and small-fruited bulrush is the dominant emergent marsh species, growing under the dense forested canopy. Under the Yelm system, the area would be classified as a Category II Wetland because of its size, diversity, forest and plant species and hydrology. This wetland is connected through a culvert to the north to Wetland #2. 4.4.2 Wetland #2 Wetland #2 is the second largest wetland on the property. It consists of a large depression that collects surface water from the south, through the culvert from Wetland #1. It drains northeasterly through a wetland drainage into a blind slough, where the water collects in a small depression and is then percolated into the ground or evaporated into the air. The wetland is formed in a steep-sided depression where the water is trapped, except for high water out-flows to the east. -46- we~~anas De~~nea~~on, p~an~ c~ass~r~ca~~on ana w~~a~~re Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Since the water does not leave the site or connect to any larger wetlands, it can be assumed that the entire site is a perched entrapment area. Vegetation varies, but is dominated in part by Douglas spirea and in other parts by cattail. The Douglas spirea forms a dense mat across portions of the bottom, leaving little open water, whereas the cattail areas have permanent open water pockets that are used by mallards and other water fowl species and hunted by heron and hawks. The area has been logged down to the edge, leaving a narrow fringe of trees. The dominant trees recovering in the area are black cottonwood, Pacific willow and scattered red alder. Douglas fir have been planted up to the edge of the wetland, and if left alone, would become the dominant forest species in time. Soils in this area are Mukilteo muck, fringed by Everett gravelly sandy loam. Under the US Fish and Wildlife system, this wetland would be classified as a mixed Palustrine Scrub/Shrub, Emergent, Semi-Permanent/Seasonal Flooded Wetland (PSS/EMY) . Under the Yelm system, the wetland is classified as a Category II Wetland because of its size, diversity of species and the presence of at least two classes of wetlands under the US Fish and Wildlife classification system. -47- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 4.4.3 Wetland #3 This wetland lies north and west of Wetland #2 in the same long linear depression. The two wetlands are separated by a high saddle, approximately 200 feet wide at the narrowest point and 400 feet wide at the widest. From a distance, the wetlands appear to be connected. Wetland #3 is also formed in a depression with relatively steep slopes, particularly to the west. There is an open water component in the southeast portion of the wetland that remains open throughout the year, with the remainder of the site being a dense Douglas spirea stand with mixed willow growing on high points within the body of the wetland. Mukilteo muck is the dominant soil in the area where the water has stood and there has been an accumulation of organic debris over the years. Everett gravelly sandy loam borders this area. Under the US Fish and Wildlife system, it is classified as a Palustrine, Emergent, Semipermanent/Seasonal Wetland (PEMY). However, it is our opinion that the wetland can be classified into two groups: (1) Scrub/Shrub in the north half and (2) Palustrine and Open Water, Semipermanently to Permanent Flooded Wetland (POWY). Under the Yelm system, the area would be classified as Category III Wetland because of its size, isolation from other wetlands and only two habitat types. -48- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 4.4.4 Wetland #4 Wetland #4 is the third of four wetlands located in the same north-south running depression that ends with the large Wetland #2 in the south. It is separated from Wetland #3 by another land bridge. The land bridge in this area is approximately 400 feet long and has an increase in elevation of approximately five feet. There is an over-water hydrological connection between Wetlands #3 and #4: however, the soils, hydrology and vegetation do not support a classification of this connection as a "jurisdictional wetland. " Wetland #4 is a small circular depression with steep sloped sides on three sides and a low saddle connection to the south. The vegetation around the edge is Douglas spirea with Pacific and Sitka willow. Willow, black cottonwood and alder are beginning to grow around the fringe as the area recovers from the effects of logging. Douglas fir have been planted to the edge of the wetland and will become the dominant forest species in time, if left alone. The edges are heavily impacted by log debris. Soils in the center core are Mukilteo muck surrounded by Everett gravelly sandy loam. Under the US Fish and Wildlife classification system, the area was classified as a Palustrine, Emergent Marsh wetland. However, we feel that the area should be classified as Palustrine, Open Water, Permanently Flooded Wetland (POWW). -49- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Under the Ye1m system, the area would be classified as Category III Wetland because of its size and limited diversity of habitat and its lack of a permanent physical connection to a larger wetland. 4.4.5 Wetland #5 This wetland is the northern most wetland located within the long linear depression in the southeast corner of the project site. It is located in the extreme east central portion of Section 27. It is abutted by an extremely steep slope on the west, marginally steep slopes on the north and east, with a hummock separating the depression from Wetland #4. Soils around the fringe of the area are Everett gravelly sandy loam. Because of the water depth and steepness of the slope, no soil cores were taken in the center of this site. The US Fish and Wildlife Service classified the area as Palustrine, Emergent Marsh. The area has little to no emergent marsh vegetation. It is dominated by a fringe area of Sitka and Pacific willow with no vegetation in the center. The dominant feature is semi-permanent open water. We have classified the area as a Palustrine, Open Water, Semipermanent/ Seasonal Flooded Wetland (POWY). Under the Yelm system, the area would be classified as a Category III Wetland because of its size and the presence of vegetation and open water. -50- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 There are three small isolated depressions in the south edge of the wetland (south central portion of Section 27). They are surrounded on all four sides by steep slopes. The area has been logged to the south property boundary. 4.4.5 Wetland #6 Wetland #6 is the northern most wetland and is the smallest of the three wetlands in the depression. It is surrounded by steep slopes and separated from Wetland #7 by a saddle that has a logging road and log landing. The wetland is a small (less than one-tenth of an acre) depression with a willow and Douglas spirea around the edge. Because of the steepness of the slope and the duration of standing water, there is no ground cover or emergent marsh vegetation identified in this area. The dominant feature was open water. Soils in the area, down to the edge of the standing water, were unsaturated Everett gravelly sandy loam. Because of the depth of the water, soil sampling was not completed wi thin the wetter portions of the area; however, it was assumed that the soils would be a saturated Everett gravelly sandy loam. The wetland contains large amounts of logging debris, which is effecting water quality later in the spring from decaying wood. There is evidence of algae growth in the shallower portioned fringe areas, indicating the water does go anaerobic. -51- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Under the US Fish & Wildlife Service classification system, the area was classified as a Palustrine, Scrub/Shrub, Seasonal Flooded Wetland ( PSSY) . Based on the lack of vegetation, it is our opinion the area should be classified as a Palustrine, Open Water, Seasonal Flooded Wetland (POWY). Under the Yelm classification system, the area would be classified as a Category IV Wetland because of its lack of diversity, size, isolation and single dominant plant group, i . e., willow. 4.4.7 Wetland #7 This wetland is the largest of the three wetlands in the depression, being approximately 0.25 acre in size. These area is also heavily impacted with logging debris. It has extremely steep slopes covered with a heavy concentration of downed alder logs and Douglas fir limbs along the west side. The dominant vegetation within the wetlands is Douglas spirea wi th a narrow willow fringe. Trees recovering around the edge are dominated by black cottonwood and the transplanted Douglas fir. Red alder are scattered, but are not as persistent as in other areas. Soil in the site was an Everett gravelly sandy loam. The area is isolated from all other wetlands and, by all appearances of the soil conditions and the elevation between Wetlands #6 and #7, it probably always has been. This is also reflected in Douglas fir stumpage between the two wetlands. -52- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Under the US Fish and Wildlife Service classification system, this area is classified as a Palustrine, Scrub/Shrub, Semipermanent/Seasonal Wetland (PSSY). For the most part we concur, although there are some areas within the site that could be classified as Palustrine, Open Water. Under the Yelm system, the area would be classified as a Category IV Wetland because of its size, lack of diversity, amount of logging debris and sediment degradation. 4.4.8 Wetland #8 Wetland #8 is the southern most wetland of the three wetlands. It has a severe slope on the west that extends to the edge of the wetland. There is a linear flat depression on the south end that extends off-site into an unharvested forested area. It is evident that water comes from this portion of the unlogged off-site area during heavy rains and sheet flows across the flat into Wetland #8. The dominant vegetation is Douglas spirea with some salmonberry around the edge reflecting the forested canopy that surrounded the area prior to the logging. Based on log stumpage, it is apparent there was a non-forested connection to the south, up through a small draw, into the off-site Douglas fir stand. Under the US Fish and Wildlife Service system, it was classified as a Palustrine, Scrub/Shrub, Semipermanent/ Seasonal Wetland (PSSY). The dominant recovering tree around -53- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property Juoa 22. 1002 the periphery is black cottonwood and alder mixed with the planted Douglas fir. The slopes to the east have a good mixed shrub community on the upland, including one of the larger stands of filbert on the site. Under the Yelm system, the area would be classified as a Category IV Wetland because of its size, lack of diversity, and isolation. 4.4.9 Wetland #9 Wetland No. 9 is a small isolated depression lying on the south property line at the top of the plateau to the west of the Wetlands #6 and #8. It consists of a half-moon shaped depression vegetated with a dense stand of young black cottonwood with a solid slough sledge understory. There are two small isolated depressions adjacent to this depression that are marginally wet black cottonwood areas; however, they did not have water at 18 inches during the month of March 1992 and were considered to not have all three parameters necessary to constitute a jurisdictional wetland. The soils in the area are Everett gravelly sandy loam with a dark soil accumulation in the bottom reflecting the impact of the intermittent standing water and organic accumulation on the surface of the Everett soil. Under the US Fish and Wildlife Service system, the area would be classified as Palustrine, Forested, Intermittently Flooded wetland (PFOY). This area was not identified as a -54- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 wetland in the US Fish and Wildlife Service or Thurston County wetland maps. Under the Yelm system, the area would be classified as a Category IV Wetland because of size and isolation. 4.4.10 Wetland #10 Wetland #10 is a large Scrub/Shrub Wetland that extends southwesterly off the property into a forested, scrub/shrub swamp. It is located in the southwest corner of the project si te (southwest corner of Section 29). The dominant tree surrounding the edge of the wetland is red alder with an occasional black cottonwood. The area turns into an Oregon ash, alder and black cottonwood swamp on the property to the southwest. Dominant vegetation is Douglas spirea, which creates a dense impenetrable cover across the entire bottom of the wetland. The area slopes gradually in all four directions into 10 to 20 year old Douglas fir that has been logged in the past. The understory along the edge is mixed, depending on the cover and wetness, with salmonberry dominating the wetter areas and salal and mahonia dominating the higher areas. Soils on the site surrounding the wetland are Everett gravelly sandy loam with deep peat, Mukilteo muck pockets in the center that extends off the property to the southwest. The area is a water collection retention/detention area that, with its off-site connection, collects substantial amounts of surface water run-off, which is trapped in the depression -55- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 creating the hydrological conditions and the wetland characteristics of the area. Under US Fish and Wildlife Service system, the area would be classified as a Palustrine, Scrub/Shrub, Semipermanent/ Seasonal Flooded Wetland (PSSY). The fringe area, with the wooded wetlands, is not sufficient in size or dominant enough to be classified as a Forested Wetland. There are no open water pockets within the area that remain wet throughout the year. As the wetland extends off-site to the south, it changes to a Palustrine, Forest Wetland (PFOY). Under the Yelm system, the area would be classified as a Category II Wetland because of its size, continuity to an off- site forested wetland, its hydrological regime and functional values. 4.4.11 Wetland #11 Wetland #11 is a small isolated depression north and east of Wetland #10 that appears to have been partially created by road excavation. There are three areas in this general vicinity that have wetland characteristics; however, 2 were so small and intermittent that they were not considered, while the third (the largest wetland) was identified and classified because of its forested wetland characteristics. The wetland consists of a dense willow swamp bordered on the east side by a logging road and on the west side by a steep slope covered with 10 to 15 year old Douglas fir trees. -56- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Water is trapped in the area and stands for long enough periods of time to provide the habitat for slough sedge, which is the dominant ground cover under the Pacific willow. The willow are 20 to 25 feet tall and exceed the necessary classification for Forest Wetland under the US Fish and Wildlife Service system. The soils were Everett gravelly sandy loam. The area was classified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as a Palustrine, Emergent Marsh, Semipermanent/ Seasonal Flooded Wetland (PEMY). The functional value of the area is that it collects and traps surface water, where it percolates into the groundwater table. The area that we have classified as a wetland is a Palustrine Forested, Intermittently/Seasonal Flooded Wetland ( PFOY) . Under the Yelm system, the area would be classified as a Category IV Wetland because of the single species, size and isolation. 4.4.11 Wetland #12 Wetlands #12 and #13 are located in the south central portion of Section 29. Wetland #12 is in a gradually sloped depression with the steepest slopes being on the south and west sides with a gradual drainage collection slope to the north. It has a narrow border of willow and Douglas spirea around the periphery with a small Douglas spirea component -57- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 along the north end. The majority of the site is open water that is semi-permanently flooded with permanent year round water during rainy years. The center of the pond depth is variable. Some of the deeper water components remain wet to having standing water every year. The soils surrounding the area are Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with dark surface soils in the north drainage feed, in area below the high-water line. Due to the water depth, no additional soil cores were taken waterward of the high-water mark. Under the US Fish and Wildlife Service system, it was classified as Palustrine, Emergent Marsh, Semipermanent/ Seasonal Flooded Wetland (PEMY). We have classified the area, based on the lack of vegetation, water depth and evidence of the duration of standing water, as a Palustrine, Open Water, Intermittent to Permanent Flooded Wetland (POWY/W). Under the Yelm system, the wetland would be classified as a Category III Wetland because of its size and lack of persistent vegetation, except in the periphery. The wetland functions as a water collection and detention area with the water either percolating slowly into the groundwater table or evaporating into the air. It is isolated from any other wetlands and provides no flood desyncronization or other values. -58- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 4.4.13 Wetland #13 Wetland #13 is perched on a high flat plain in a small depression with very little elevational difference between the wetland boundary and the surrounding uplands. The area has been logged up to the edge of the wetland with some logging roads cutting through portions of the wetland. The action of vehicles, i.e., log trucks and heavy equipment, has created deeper holes along the south side of the wetland closest to the logging road. The wetland is predominantly a Douglas spirea swamp with black cottonwoods and red alder around the periphery. The area has been planted with seedling Douglas fir up to the edge. Young Sitka willow are growing throughout the disturbed areas, particularly in the graded-out roadways. Soils in the area are Alderwood gravelly sandy loam with no mottles, even in saturated portions of the area. The south side of the area is a dark red 5Y 5/4 soil, typical of Tenino soils that are present on the site, but were not mapped in this area by the Soil Conservation Service. The wetland serves as a water collection basin with no connection to any other wetland. Water is trapped in the depression where it either percolates into the ground slowly or evaporates into the air. Under the US Fish and Wildlife Service system, the wetland would be classified as Palustrine, Scrub/Shrub, Semipermanent/ Seasonally Flooded Wetland (PSSY). -59- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Under the Yelm system, the area would be classified as a Category III Wetland because of its size, function and the predominance of a single plant species and a single wetland class. 4.4.14 Wetland #14 Wetland #14 is a small isolated depression along the northwest edge of Section 26. The area is bounded on the north, south and west by steep slopes with a gradual drainage slope to the east. The area to the east has a mixed facultative wet plant species dominated by alder, regrowth black cottonwood and planted Douglas fir with an understory of red elderberry and a ground cover including creeping blackberry and mixed grasses. The wetland has a dense Douglas spirea shrub area that dominates all but the fringe of the wetland. The fringe has a mix of two willow species, red alder and black cottonwood. Douglas fir seedlings have been planted down to the edge of the wetland and in the drainage way between the north end of the wetland and the logging road. Under the US Fish and Wildlife Service classification system, Wetland #14 would be classified as a Palustrine, Scrub/Shrub, Semipermanent/Seasonal Flooded Wetland (PSSY). Under the proposed Yelm ordinance, the wetland would be classified as a Category IV Wetland. -60- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 4.4.15 Wetland #15 Wetland #15 is a large unharvested mixed forested area along the east side of the property (center of Section 26) that extends easterly off the property to the north and east. The wetland is initiated along the west side with seeps and the collection of surface water from the north. These form in a flat in the northwest corner of the overall wetland area. A road has been graded through this area, which has lowered the natural ground level creating an emergent marsh/standing water area along the north side of the wetland. A small area to the north of this graded area is a mixed Scrub/Shrub Wetland dominated by Douglas spirea, young red alder and black cottonwood with emergent plants in logging road ruts that extend throughout this area. The center core of the wetland has a mix of black cottonwood, red alder and Oregon ash with an understory that is dominated by salmonberry and scattered Douglas spirea. The open spaces in the center, where light can penetrate to the ground, have mixed stands of water parsley and skunk cabbage. The area along the fringe of the forested area on the west side has a dense stand of slough sedge that extends to the east property boundary under a mixed alder and Oregon ash stand. Towards the east end, the wetland splits into two components, one being the willow/sedge drainage along the south side and the second being the slough sedge area along the east side. The center portion at this point is a Douglas fir and alder upland that extends to near the east property border. From the east property border, there is a finger of -61- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 wetlands that is mostly unvegetated with a algae drift line that extends west through the center of the Douglas fir area. The overs tory in this area is alder and scattered western red cedar with vine maple up to the edge of the wetland. The soils in this area were classified as Everett gravelly sandy loam around the edge with a large area of Mukil teo muck in the center. Soil colors along the north side were not consistent with Everett, being redder in the upland portions of the property with a variable depth dark soil layer in the outer fringes of the wetland area. The peat dark soils extend through the center up to the west end of the wetlands into a small spring that forms its western-most end. The center Douglas fir area was a dark brown Everett soil with moderate drainage. The functional values of the wetland is as a headwater drainage way which collects and holds surface water run-off, metering it into the off-site wetlands to the south and north where portions of the water eventually reach the Thompson Creek drainage way. Biologically, the area supports a variety of upland and wet edge species, but does not have the open water to provide habitat for true wetland or water-dependent wildlife species. The shrub edges along the drainage ways and the graded depressions where emergent marsh plants survi ve and where there is evidence of surface water for longer periods of time, provide nesting habitat for marsh edge species such as yellow throa t winter wren and Buick's wren. The intermittent flooded -62- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 condi tions in the wetland have killed some small alder in areas creating dead snags that are providing habitat for a variety of woodpeckers, including pileated woodpeckers and western flicker. Under the US Fish and Wildlife Service classification, all but a small portion of the northwest corner of the area would be classified as Palustrine, Forested, Semipermanent/ Seasonal Flooded Wetland (PFOY). A small area, approximately 0.3 of an acre in size in its northwest corner, would be classified as a Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland. Under the Yelm system, the area would be classified as a Category II Wetland because of its size, biological value, hydrology and types of diversity. It does not qualify as a Category I because it is not unique, has no sensitive plants or animals and does not support managed wildlife, particularly fish. -63- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 4.4.16 Wetland #16 Wetland #16 is a small isolated wetland on the east property line that extends off the property to the east in the southeast corner of the site. This wetland is a small intermittently wetted, but never flooded, Douglas spirea and willow stand that gives way to the east to a cedar, black cottonwood and alder stand with scattered Douglas fir. Portions of the wetland area to the east have been logged and graded, exposing dark soils to a depth of 14 inches with an underlying hardpan. Water runs into the wetland depression from the west and north off steep slopes, where it is captured in the deeper portions of the small depression, thus creating the necessary hydric conditions to support the willow and Douglas spirea community. Under the US Fish and Wildlife Service wetland would be classified as a Palustrine, Intermittently Flooded Wetland (PSSY). system, this Scrub/Shrub, Under the Yelm system, it would be classi f ied as a Category III Wetland because of its connection to a larger off-site wetland. 4.4.17 Wetland #17 Wetland #17 is a long linear wetland located in the north central portion of Section 26 in the north edge of the -64- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Weyerhauser property and along the east side of the 40 acre Thurston Highlands additional property. The wetland splits the property line on a small drainage ditch that extends from a Scrub/Shrub Wetland at the north edge of the Weyerhauser logged area, into a managed pasture area that extends to the center of the 40 acre parcel. At the north edge of the meadow, there is a man-made farm pond. The farm pond is separated from the remainder of the pasture and wetlands by a farm road that runs east to west into the high meadow along the west side of this 40 acre parcel. The wet meadow is a mixed grass, slough sledge, softrush and small-fruited bulrush area with buttercup at the upper fringes. The northwestern portion of the wetland area has a small mixed alder and black cottonwood stand that extends to the farm road to the north. This wetland functions is a biofil tration area for waters collected from the south and east slopes of the forested area to the south, with the water moving gradually through the grassy meadow area. Under existing circumstances, the pasture area is being grazed, which contributes fecal coliform virus and other contaminates to the water system within the wetland. Under US Fish and Wildlife Service system, the southern end of the wetland would be classified as a Palustrine Scrub/ Shrub, Intermittently/Seasonal Flooded Wetland (PSSY). The major portion of the wetland to the north would be classified as a Palustrine, Emergent, Seasonal Flooded Wetland (PEMY). The small pond at the north end of the wetland would be classified as a Palustrine, Open Water, Unconsolidated Bottom Wetland (POWH). -65- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Under the Yelm system, the wetlands would be classified as a Category III Wetland because of its size, isolation from other wetlands, and presence of more than one class of wetlands. 4.4.18 Wetland #18 Wetland # 18 is a meadow-western red cedar depression in the southwest corner of the Venture Partners property that abuts Douglas fir forested areas on the north, south and west and a high sloped meadow on the east. Waters collect from the four slopes into this isolated depression where it percolates into the ground water table or is evaporated during the summer. Vegetation in the depression is predominately hard hack shrub with softrush, slough sedge and buttercup in open areas. Red cedar and alder grow in the bottom and around the fringe. Dead or dying cedar are an indication that the amount and/or duration of standing water has increased in recent years. Since no surrounding slopes that have been logged recently, we can only assume that the logging on the property to the west increased the rate of runoff for a long enough period to initiate this reaction. Because it is dead ended the depressions isolates all sediments or other materials in the surface water from interacting with others waters or wetlands. Currently the area is exposed to grazing cattle which contribute fecal coliform to the surface and ground waters. Due to the infil tration process these are probably removed when the ..66- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 ground water is more than 3 meters below the surface of the soil. Under the Us Fish and Wildlife classification system the wetland would be classified as a palustrine Scrub/Shrub, Intermittently/Seasonal Flooded Wetland (PSSY). Under the Yelm system, the wetland would be classified as a Category III wetland because of its size, isolation from other wetlands and the presence of more than one dominant vegetative species. 4.4.19 Wetland #19 Wetland #19 consists of the emergent marsh/open pond areas west of the barn and east of Thompson Creek. It encompasses the area influenced by surface water runoff, stream back water flooding and winter ground water influence but not those areas directly dependent on the creek for function and survival. Vegetation in this wetland is predominately disturbed area invader species under a loose canopy of Oregon ash and occasional scattered willow and alder. As the water recede in the summer the dominant ground cover in the wetland is a willow weed/water smartweed mix with pineapple weed at the upper fringes. The open water area has islands with ash, willow and hard hack. The water has a flooding bed of algae with some duckweed. Duckweed in the fringe areas indicates that the waters retain more oxygen in the winter when there is an influx of surface water which increases the pond depth to a level which limits cattle use. -67- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 During the summer the water level drops, the temperature increases and cattle use the shallow water for drinking and cooling. The open water portion supports a high population of bull frogs and red-legged frogs. Water collects in this area during the winter when the stream floods and the surface runoff accumulates. As the water drops this area becomes isolated, trapping sediments and nutrients in the pond area. As water moves to the north it is filtered in the smartweed community. Technically the area acts as a biofiltration chamber settling sediments and collecting nutrients as the water slows. However, the active cattle use of the area increases the sediments in the water, defeating the functions of the vegetation. In addition they deposit large volumes of waste with the coliform bacteria, nutrients and other bacteria that are common to animal waste in the water. When the water is on the surface these factors become integrated into the water and flow directly into Thompson Creek. Under the US Fish and Wildlife Service classification system the wetland would be classified as a Palustrine non- persistent Semipermanent/Seasonally Flooded Emergent Wetland ( PEMY ) . Under the Yelm system, it would be classified as a Category III Wetland because of its size. It is and will continue to be degraded by the agricultural activity of the -68- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 dairy farm which decreases its functional and biological value to less than a Category IV wetland, however, the system does not allow us to downgrade wetlands based on artificial conditions. 4.4.20 Wetland '20 Wetland #20 is Thompson Creek and the associated wetlands. It is dominated by a narrow riverine channel that has been channelized through a major portion of the reach through the project property. It has a narrow border of western crabapple-alder along both banks with a mixed understory varying from ninebark to ninebark mixed with twinberry in the south end to hard hack mixed with Himalayan blackberry in the north. There are two paralleling emergent marsh grass overflow channels that border the creek which are directly influenced by the creeks waters. These areas are vegetated with buttercup and mixed grasses bordered by a alder stand with blackberry and nettle as the dominant understory. The stream channel has a mixed emergent marsh community that varies depending on the velocity of the water and the canopy cover. Fringe vegetation includes the shrub community and a water plantain/water parsley mix. In slower waters with a dense canopy the vegetation is limited to duckweed. In slower waters with no canopy the emergent community includes burr reed, small fruited bulrush, water parsley, water weed, alodea and duckweed. The stream acts as a water corridor, fish and amphibian habi tat, and a limited biofi1 tration chamber. Due to the slow -69- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 movement there is significant sediment drop in the creek which has generated a deep unconsolidated mud bottom. During the growing season the plant utilize a limited amount of the nutrient load and create a positive oxygen demand. In the winter the increased water spreads and is slowed by vegetation and restrictive culverts. This combination acts as a flood desynchronization chamber, metering the water to the Nisqually river downstream. Water quality in the stream is degraded throughout the year with the level on contamination and lowered overall water quali ty being worst during the summer when the dilatation rates are lowest. Under the US Fish and Wildlife wetland classification system the stream would be classified as a Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom/Emergent Wetland (nonpersistent). Under the Yelm system, it would be classified as a Category II wetland because of the functional values, size, class of wetland, and biological value to fish and wildlife and its interaction with the Nisqually River. This classification recognizes the potential for restoration of the overall stream values with the alteration of uses away from heavy agricultural. -70- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 4.5 Off-Site Wetlands There are five off-site wetlands that are directly connected or associated with the on-site wetlands. One includes the easement from the Thurston Highlands property to Yelm Highway. The easement from the southeast corner of the property, between the east corner of the property and Yelm Highway (SR 507), contains wetlands along the south edge of Section 26 just outside the property boundary. They extend southerly and easterly along the wetland corridor and onto the properties to the south. The wetland loops to the north and extends into the pastured areas. The combined wetlands to the north of the right-of-way, south of the right-of-way and through the right-of-way, form a U-shaped drainage corridor with the maximum water collection area at the toe of the slope within the right-of-way. Portions of the upland right-of -way area has been cleared of ground cover and most small trees. The wetland area where the road proposes to cross is in its natural state. The dominant overstory vegetation is a mix of larger red alder, western red cedar with Douglas fir, alder and big leaf maple on the upland slope to the east. The ground cover in the wetland is a mix of water parsley, skunk cabbage, tall buttercup, geum and burr reed. In June 1992 there was still running and standing water in this area. The slope and the eastern extent of the right-of-way are Everett gravelly sandy loam soils with the major portion of the corner where the easement abuts the property being dominated by Tisch silt loam. -71- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Based on the US Fish and Wildlife Service classification system, the wetlands would have been classified as a Palustrine, Scrub/Shrub, Intermittent/Seasonal Flooded Wetland (PSSY). Under the Yelm system, the wetland would be classified as a Category II Wetland because of its size and interconnection to larger wetlands to the north, east and south, the presence and predominance of Tisch soils and the vegetative mix which consists of a scrub/shrub community with a scattered forested wetland overstory and an emergent marsh ground cover. The remaining four off-site wetlands are: 1. A wetland in the southwest corner that is associated with Wetland #10 and discussion of the off-site conditions were discussed under Wetland #10. Water runs into the site and surrounding areas where it is collected into the depression. The water crosses the maintenance work road in its southwest corner through a drainage draw that extends for a minimum of 200 feet off-site to the southwest. The overall size of the off-site wetland was not calculated, but it has been identified on aerial photographs as linear drainage swale and as an elongated extension of Wetland #10. The combined wetlands are connected through a south drainage into a continuing series of depressions in the northeast corner of Section 33. 2. The second off-site wetland is a wetland that extends easterly and northeasterly from Wetland #15 where it connects to a series of man-made modified drainages in the -72- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 northeast quarter of Section 26. The forested wetland continues to the east with a predominantly alder, black cottonwood and Oregon ash mixed wetland community, giving way to a Douglas fir, cedar and alder slope to the east. 3. The third wetland is the eastern 1/2 of Wetland #17 located in the northern 40 acre portion of the property in the center of Section 23. A small portion of the off-site wetland is included in the scrub/shrub non-meadow area along the south end of the wetland, with the major portion being incorporated in the pastured meadow area. The northern end of the wetland includes half of the pond identified in the discussion of Wetland #16. 4. The fourth and last off-site wetland, is a continuation of the Oregon ash, alder and red cedar wetland (Wetland #1) along the south property line. There are man modified open water areas and emergent marsh depressions. This area is the start of the drainage that extends through Wetlands #1 and #2. 4.6 Wetland Summary There are 17 on-site wetlands and one off-site wetland that will impact or be impacted by the development of the Thurston Highlands property with an additional wetlands area, including Thompson Creek, which will be impacted by the development of the Venture Property portion of the annexation to the north and east of the Thurston Highlands site. There are four additional areas on the site that have hydric -73- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 indicators and may be classified as wetlands, but because of their size, i.e., less than 10,000 square feet, none of these wetlands were classified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service or Thurston County as wetlands. Five of the 17 on-site wetlands were classified as Category IV wetlands under the Yelm Wetlands Classification System. All of these were either Palustrine, Scrub/Shrub or Open Water, Intermittent areas that dry up early in the spring. Seven of the wetlands are Category III Wetlands under the Yelm system. They are classified as Category III because of their size; isolation, or lack of interaction with other wetland areas; predominance of one wetland indicator species, usually Douglas spirea and the depth and duration of standing or surface water during late spring to early summer months. The remaining five wetlands, three which are located in the southeast corner of the project, are Category II Wetlands under the Yelm system. Three of the four provide high functional values, extensive wildlife habitat values and are interconnected through surface drainage with off-site wetlands. Activities associated with these three wetlands could have off-site impacts. Under the Model Ordinance Classification, there would be no Category I Wetlands on the site, since none provide habitat for endangered or threatened plant or animal species. The site has no high quality native wetland communities, which are identified as Category I or Category II quality Natural Heritage wetland sites, do not have regionally rare wetland -74- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 communities, nor are the wetlands of exceptional local significance. A summary of the wetlands to include size, classification (using both US Fish & Wildlife Service methodology as identified by the Fish & Wildlife Service and by IES Associations and the classification using the Yelm system) are included as Table 8, Appendix B. -75- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 5.0 Impact Scenarios There are two areas in the Thurston Highlands portion of the development site where significant impacts could occur to wetlands, surface water drainage, or undisturbed climax vegetation. These are the southeast corner of the site and in the 40 acre inset in the center of Section 23. The major drainage from off-site through the project site starts in an off-site wetland and properties to the south and runs through Wetlands #1 and #2, where the water is isolated in a lying depression. The drainage way is currently culverted between Wetlands #1 and #2 on the southern-most logging road and north and east of Wetland #2 under the northern entrance logging road. Restricting the drainage through the blockage of the eastern drainage corridor would increase the depth and duration of flooding of Wetland #2 and in all probability, create a intermittent water connection between Wetlands #2, #3 and #4. This would provide an area, approximately 1,000 to 1200 feet, by the width of the drainage way plus the width of the buffer, which could be utilized for development or a golf course. It would eliminate the potential to create fairways between Wetlands #2 and #3 and #3 and #4. Presently, the separation between these three wetlands is approximately 200 to 250 feet each. With a 100 foot set-back from Wetland #2 and a 50 foot set-back surrounding Wetlands #3 and #4, there would be an approximate 50 foot wide corridor between Wetlands #2 and #3 that could be utilized for recreation, road connections or some aspect that does not include permanent fill or an -76- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 increase in the potential for surface water run-off or surface water contamination. In the area between Wetlands #3 and #4, the 50 foot set- backs would be approximately 100 feet wide. The slope from the north into the depression that contains Wetlands #2, #3, #4 and #5 is gradual and could be utilized either as golf course corridor or for residences. The west side is abrupt to near vertical and has no potential utilization because of the proximi ty of the wetlands in the toe of the slope, the steepness of the slope and the instability of the slope. To the west, on the flat areas of Wetlands #12 and #13, the wetlands are large enough and have a center core that is wet enough and supports surface water for long enough periods of time that they could not and should not be filled. Wetland #13 is relatively flat up to the area surrounding the open water area. Golf course or residential development could occur wi thin 50 feet of this wetland, with only limited effects. The use of the area for a golf course will increase the ni trogen and phosphorus input into the pond and probably increase the potential for algae formation. The small southeasterly finger of Wetland #13 is formed in an old road and could be filled with no impact to the main body of the wetland. This would provide an additional 200 to 250 feet of property adjacent to the road or between Wetlands #12 and #l3 for some form of development activity. -77- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Wetland #12 has relatively steep slopes along the west and south sides, with gradual slopes in on the north side. The north slope collects surface water from a fairly substantial area feeding into the wetland where it is trapped for either very slow percolation or evaporation during the summer months. The wetland goes completely dry each summer. Development of the crowns of the steeper slopes should have no affect on the wetland. Development on the north slope could impact water quality coming into the wetland. The effect on water quality would be dependent on the type of development. Both Wetlands #13 and #14 could be enhanced, both as permanent water features for residences or as a water feature at the edge of a golf course. The wetland area is two large (nearly 200 x 200 feet) to be incorporated into a golf course. Wetlands #6, #7 and #8 are in a steep depression. The slope is steepest to the north and west, with a gradual slope into the unlogged area on the adjacent property to the south. The north slope is more gradual, but still relatively steep. The area between Wetlands #6 and #7 has an abandoned logging road with a log landing area on the flat between the two, which could be used as an access road or crossing road through this portion of the property. It could also be a part of a fairway; however, the steepness of the west side maybe impractical for purposes of maintaining a golf course. All three wetlands have extensive wood waste and should be cleaned -78- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 for safety purposes, as well as aesthetic purposes. The slopes on the west side of all three ponds have an extensive amount of downfall that should be removed for safety purposes. Wetland #6 and #8 could be filled if the drainage from the rest of the site was affectively channeled into Wetland #7. Wetland #7 could then be enhanced and maintained as a feature, either for residences overlooking the depression or as the edge of a golf course. Because of the slope, I believe it would be impractical to attempt to fill all three of the wetlands in this vicinity. Wetland #9 is a very small depression along the property boundary. Because of the wooded nature and the fact that it is collecting surface water from an off-site slope, it should probably be left or modified with the understanding that the surface water from the adj acent properties, which is Fort Lewis, would have to be addressed with the development. This is an area that has a young stand of black cottonwood over an old stand of slough sedge, indicating that the area is in the process of changing from a shaded open-water depression in a Douglas fir stand, to an exposed deciduous forested wetland. It will retain its wetland character as long as the surface water run-off from off-site continues. Wetland #10 is a large Douglas spirea depression that collects surface water and extends off the property to the west. This is a Class II Wetland because of its size, water collection functions and habitat diversity. A 100 foot buffer -79- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 should be established around this area utilizing the existing Douglas fir growth as a barrier. Some Himalayan blackberry clearing could occur in some areas, but would probably stimulate discussion in opposition and may not be necessary for the limited benefits. Wetland #11 is a small willow depression. This area is less than one-tenth of an acre and could be filled with no impact to water quality, as long as it is understood that the drainage that was collecting into this area would have to be rerouted and established at some other point on the property. There are two other depressions in this area that are technically wetlands, but because of their size, are exempted under the proposed Yelm Ordinance, Thurston County Ordinance and the recommendations of the Washington Department of Ecology Model Ordinance. Wetland #l4 is another small isolated depression full of Douglas spirea. This area is over 0.2 acre in size, but has limited functional and biological value. This would be an area we suggest could be filled with no impact to water quality or wildlife habitat. Wetland #16 is the largest wetland on the property and the only wetland that is technically a forested wetland. The area has a steep slope along the north side that would probably preclude development without significant grading. Residences could be established on the crown backing on the forested area with the backyards being in the cut-over slope. The north facing slope would require a 100 foot buffer from -80- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 the edge of the forest portion of the wetland. There is a small depression in the northwest corner of this wetland that is not forested. It would be our recommendation that this area be filled or modified and placed back as a buffer to allow development of the northwest end of this large wetland where the slope is less severe. The west end of the wetland is gradually sloped and collects surface water. The area has a fairly large area of uplands that could be incorporated into the wetland as part of a mitigation to off-set the filling of the wetland on the northwest corner. The south side has a Douglas fir upland area that could be either opened up and utilized. One hundred feet of the forested area will be included in the wetland buffer. The south side also has a relatively steep slope for a short distance that is heavily impacted by wood waste. The east end of this wetland has a U- shaped upland: however, because of buffers along both sides, much of the area will probably be excluded from development. It could: however, become an important area for mitigation to off-set development of wetlands, particularly finger sloughs, small isolated wetlands (Wetlands #6 and #8), the isolated Wetland #9, portions of the finger of Wetland #l3, Wetland #ll and Wetland #14. The combined areas of these wetlands is under two acres, which would qualify them for a Nationwide 26, One to Two Acre Permit. Wetland #17 splits the property line. A major portion of this area is a meadow that is marginally wet. It could be incorporated into a summer fairway with little to no impact to the existing vegetation during the winter months. Mowing of the area should not constitute development. During the winter -81- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 months, the area would be too wet to be utilized as a part of the golf course. The drainage through the system, the shallow groundwater table and the size of the over-all wetland would prevent it from being filled and utilized on a permanent basis as a part of the development. The road crossing coming into the property will require filling and culverting of the drainage and wetland that lies at the toe of the steep slope in the southeast corner of the property. Mitigation and compensation will be required for this use. This again, could be incorporated into the larger forested wetland in the central portion of Section 26. The consolidation of all of the isolated pockets of wetlands throughout the site into the larger forested wetland area, which extends off the property to the northeast, would create a viable, self-sustaining, highly productive, forested, scrub/shrub, open water wetland system that would be an enhancement to that portion of the development, as well as providing a quality wildlife habitat. The proposed development scenario for the Venture Partners portion of the property would impact two wetland areas: (1) the shrub/scrub wetland in the southwest corner of the site: and (2) a portion of the degraded emergent marsh pond area east of Thompson Creek in the vicini ty of the existing barns and residence. Losses associated with the development of the small wetland in the southwest corner would be the loss of a water -82- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 collection depression that dries out early in the spring. Loss of this area would not impact wetland or water dependent wildlife species since the area is not utilized by these species except possibly in the winter. Due to the shrub cover and lack of surface water, this use would be extremely limi ted. Surface water collected in this area could be relocated into grass-lined swales or constructed detention/ retention systems providing the same level of functional water quality treatment value as exists under current conditions. The loss of the wet depression and intermittent pond along the east side of Thompson Creek would eliminate highly degraded emergent marsh area that has the potential of providing some biofil tration, flood desynchronization, and nutrient out-take. Removal of the cattle from the area with the filling of these wetlands could be considered to be a positive impact to the overall water quality to Thompson Creek, adjacent wetlands to Thompson Creek downstream from this area, and at times, in the flume from Thompson Creek into the Nisqually Ri ver. Removal of the cattle would also decrease contamination of groundwater which has been charged with impacting shallow-water wells in the immediate vicinity. It would remove causes of violation notices from the Department of Agriculture, Public Health Department and Washington Department of Ecology, for groundwater, surface water and Thompson Creek contamination. The loss or filling of this portion of the wetland would eliminate some flood desynchronization values, however, with some innovated habitat manipulation in the proposed stream -83- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 corridor, these values could be reinstated. Wi th proper design, peripheral flood detention ponds with back-flow as waters recede, would increase the biofil tration, sediment deposits that would occur with the development of the land and that does occur on the properties to the south that are not proposed to be modified. These types of structures could increase water quality in the stream as well as metered water back through the stream, thereby regulating the water level drop within the stream after each rain effect in the spring. Overall, the removal of cattle, the reduction of slurry/manure mix onto the grass meadows, with the proposed wetland corridor, would increase water quality values throughout this portion of the property. There will be a net loss in wetlands unless the area is mitigated on another portion of the overall property. The conceptual impacts are based on a one month analysis of the site, review of other documents in the immediate area, discussions with the Washington Department of Wildlife, conservation officers and waterfowl biologists and our knowledge and understanding of values of different types of wetlands to different wildlife species, and the three development scenarios provided by R. W. Thorpe and Associates for the southwest Yelm annexation. -84- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 This constitutes the IES Associates wetlands delineation, plant classification and wildlife evaluation report on the Yelm annexation properties, Yelm, Thurston County, Washington, for the Yelm annexation drafted environmental impact statement. R. L. Van Wormer Senior Biologist IES Associates -85- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Bibliography 1. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golat and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication FWS/OBS-79/31. 2. An Interagency Cooperative Publication:, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service. Federal Manual for Identifyino and De1ineatina Jurisdictional Wetlands, January 1989, Washington D.C. 3. Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1969. Veaetation of Oreaon and Washinaton. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. 4. Greeson, P.E., J.R. Clark and J.E. Clark, eds. 1978. Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understandina. Proceedings of the National Symposium on Wetlands, American Water Resources Association. Technical Publication Series TPS 79-2. 5. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 6. Soil Survey Staff. 1988. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. Cornell University. 7. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1986. Wetland Plants of the State of Washinaton. 1986 u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication. WELUT-86/WI2.47. 8. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Reoion 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication. WELUT-88 (26.9). 9. Robbins, C.S., B. Brunn and H.S. Zim. North America. Golden Press, New York. 1966. Birds of 10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Enaineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech. Rep. Y-87-1. -86- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 ll. u.s. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1983. Soil Survey : Pierce County. Washinoton. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 12. U.S.D.A, SCS, 1991, Hydric Soils of the United States. 13. U.S.D.A., SCS, Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Makino and Interoretino Soil Survey, Agriculture Handbook No. 436. l4. Washington Natural Heritage Program. 1987. Endanoered. Threatened and Sensitive Vascular Plants of Washinoton. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. l5. Washington Natural Heritage Program. 1989. Heritaoe Plan. Washington State Department of Resources, Olympia. Natural Natural 16. Washington Department of Wildlife, Washinoton Treatened and Endanoered wildlife. 17. Williams, R.W., Laramie, R.M., Ames, J.J., A Cataloo of Washinoton Streams and Salmon Utilization, Vol. 1, Washington Department of Fisheries, puget Sound Region, 11/75. -87- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Appendix A - Figures -88- 1 I \.--' 1 T I I I~---~ " I ] 1 I . I I I I I 18 -:- 9 10 i 12 ~ I I I I - 0..: ! I I G 0 t.AKE~ --I ro-.J r--- I I . ... -~j ..... ... c ..... 17 16 15 "" 14 c I z "" => co I X I I 0- 0( '" 9] AV S[ I FTANDER ' I i ~LAKE SIT~ LOCATION i I 20 ~ " 21 FORT . LEWIS 2lj 18 6 oJ / oJ i' 09 AV 5 .- - ~ I ~ "" I ... ... '" z o.J ... "" ~ I .... ... ]1 I 118 AV Sf :a J4 r-C; ... "" ..... I Z I ~ , ~ ! ,." .u rr ~ I "T1 IES ASSOCIATES c; i 1514 Mulrh.ad Ave. m Olympia. W..hlngton - i8502 (206) 943-0127 THURSTON HIGHLANDS YELM, THURSTON COUNTY, W LOCATION MAP .Legend m Thurston Higt'>lan~s Associales ~~ 0:.': . . f5D1 tulJ ~ lEE3 Venture ?ar~ners Indi.,idual Ownersl'lips (8oseQ",ette, Doyle Stea,~man) Nisqua1ly 'Jalle:t GoII Course IC, Bro...n) M",II,ple Sma" Ownerships &r~&:a 'Scor......r !o(c& s.,r..","" Carl Horwk MAry L.:>=e C.",.~.a David Baker M;.lIOft Bullet E'.r1'-\ B=--c!1 'Rorr !-4w~be:\ E..._t HCZ\~..;u."" llc~.~ ~.~~l;:\ C.f Burgt:WI ""r Ca-.on C_ ~.....ll,. The~ort 'Forcid J.a. Ha.'''''''' V::~ !lAker JOM Sl-r.!e,. Will~ P.rlr.-or ~ WUl--"",cit I I i ." / t ,.'/ I, - , ! -------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .~ " Thurston Highlands AssocIates J ., /11 , I /J, /1 -~. --- - 1/ / I , : Jerr - -- , - N - .--- f/) 0 Q) -0 lO ..... a:s co ~ Q) 0) t-- .- s:. N 0 ... <( ..... .- 0 0 :J ~ I f/) ~ (") f/) .. .. <( ~ co 0) .- ~ 0. - C/) lO E U) ~ 0 UJ ~ N - ..., 0 --- -~.~ :~t.\ en\u~~.p~;\ners. ..- ... \ -. . .. ... . . .~; ~~-- . I ........- ~ (:~ I \ - ~- \. , I ., -- \ -' .. ...~ ~f. . ., I'" , t~~:"4 . .' . .. ...,.;--- ...... . i 1 I I --.. ~- - - . :f ..~: I .-.. t . \ / .. , , aVid OOYI1' B"osequet -' t ---.- ---- 0- .:( 2 UJ ..... - en en o z .:( ..J :s: ~ - :s: % o ~ a: :;:) :s: ..... FIGURE 2 dV" 31\S $ONV,\-IQI\-I NO.1.$llO\-l.1. , "\\~~'l" ~~.\ ','- , . '\' \ L ,,'j . ~ . -.... --.. . , . 'to I . . l .' ' . i l't' .. ~ .1l-~' (j'" . \ ' . . l ~. i I . \" ~ . .\ " , '\' .:.-- \ \ . \ . . . . \ ~ en -- (1) C ...- .(U , 0.., .' (1)' -- , =" C\ (1)' -- , ~" . , . . " , \ \ ,"-. -... .... . \ . '. ..... ... \ ... '.. ~:~, ..... ...." ,,~ \ I ...........: o ~ \ ........,, \ "- ~~. .. ...." -..... ~ ,... G '" E ..' .;, .. Vi ':! " ).a i.:f\ 1 \l i ~1~{~ \J; ,'~ OJ.:J "'1.";,,I.!;.a Ii ... iO \I_'~u." 1),.1 \l f.1 ~ ~ ll... ~I '3 '" " ,~pt.ll<....t-'>;t 0- j;. on J! ,. o o -c ~ ib ~ ~ '5 o u ~ l') ,.. ~ iO ';> ,.. ~ ';) t1 >II Z t}. \ ,,~ ~ ~lr. l c ~ 'V ,. \.>tllf:"'J;''l-} o ,J.~'1.1% 1.fl\';' ....0 _:l,;j~a '" \l~~ I til>l ~"';t J, l36SJ1ti~11~ " 2: ~ .. .. -..; ';:' o on ... 0( ; ... 6- '" .. o tp, '" 0- 'j;. .... 4i <' J o ;;; ;;l '? :- V oS " C G) en 6) ..a '" ~ C '" :t '" i t: ~ .... '5 &. ... ... ~ ~':, :0 n. " 'S c: ... :> mfjoe\l Lt\.O-t\16 (90t) C'l uJ 0: ::> o - u. . C;0996 VM '1lIdUl^'O p-e9ltJ\nV'l v\.9\. Sal-e\~OSS" S3\ -------. t \ I \ \ \ \ \ " .. I .\' . \ \ I, ,,' ,\ .. \ :' . ' \ . . . .. ,;, . . \ t \ \ \ i \ \ I I \ .---- \ \ \ ..~_. -' -_..- -s' \' \ ~ . . . \ : ~.._ ~_.__ L----- I \ \ ----- \ \ I I ~~\ ;0-. (\) o 6- o (1) "0 tf) _ 0 \ ~ tD r...... . .. , , , , , , , I I , , , , , I , , 1 1 , l0- G) -') (/l (1) -- ~ '0 o tf) tf) a: (/l "0 C ~ 1: (J) :r. c o -- (/l :J .r:. .- ------------------ , l. ~\ ._1 ..A '_ ~ -.. FeW:- ~a 5 IES ASSOCIATES c: ~ 1514 Muirhead Ave. w Olympia. Wa.hlngton t8502 T H U R STO N HI G H LA N OS u.s. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WETLAND CLASSIFICATION 206) 943-0127 ~ -' i - [ Ii ... , ;;! ~ " , il L r1 ; I .. u u. ~ -, , J '" a: <> e l1. ) - ..._f, , 0:: \ w '" > 0 al } ~ - .. 11 0:: Q) III ~ f III ~, ... L- .. ';f II. v <:r :I u ... 0 >- ... c '" 0; . ....J III III .. E '" r: .. .. 0 II: '" E -J . 0 E u '" 0 Q. 0 ... '" a C. '" 0 0 ....J 0 M Cl :I CD II: 0 0 .... E l: . .. - Z II: ... " ~ 0 0 u <[ Q) '" ~ '" 0 c Q. E E c ~ <l 0 0 0 0 .. ~>- III CD U a ... E 0 .. r: . .. ~ "0 !' III III in t. .. a ... ... ... ~ t -J ~ t (f) CD ~ .. i 0 III t - III Z it /' . ~ > a ES ASSOCIATES c ~ 1514 Muirhead Ave. "" Olympla, Wlluhanglon '8502 206) 943-0127 THURSTON HIGHLANDS WASHINGTON DEPT FISH STREAM MAP :As UMaJO :8'-0 VM .,(Iuno:) uOISJnllJ. .wlaA den a^!le~a6a^ SPU81Q61H uo~sJnQJ. l~L.O-t"6 (90~) ~O~Q6 VM '8,dw,(JO enU8AV p'8l1J!nW ~~s~ sa~el:)oss\1 S31 Lf) QI ~ :J en .- LL. ~ 41'0 C -= QI o .....!E I/) CD o'jij . 5:= Q,fr& Olllnl '0 ~OEIVCD amJ!!s'g C~>'nl Oc 0 :) QI ;:2 :O::U8~41 .J!I '- .,. ::2 ~ c'5: 1Il'O 41 .~ ~ IV Ql .~ :J 0 CI o'-eECI ....... 0 co .2.2c(J:/J: .!!! '041 ui =s ~ 41 - 5r~~~o E'Ee-co .!!! :.: a ~ ~ (3.gCl~~ I/)'~ c iJ ai .- &:: nl -,,&::;:2'0 Oc:nl4lC: ZIVn.~~ LI.I ~ w '" b tr ;), l ~ .. 1 ~ ~ &0 ~ ~ '0 41 GI c: tit .0 GI :s '0 e .. 0 III 0 UI 0 :s c:: III a: z "0 ~ en 0 " .. '0 1Il c:: ... c: C Q. t: .! CD cO e .. a. en ::: (J,) GI 0 en 41 0 en ~ ... 0 ~ J:. c.. ..J ... (J,) ....J I I J co II ...... I ...... - ...... ....... ....... I I I ~ --------... - ( ---~ \ \ \ I 1 ( J l \ ..~ ... . .. ." JD .. ;(f 41 .. u -r 0 ~ .. o Z \ \ \ \ " "- , , -- ",.. '. ~B.. .'-'b - I c \ 0 \. ... '" ... ... 'tl II " 0 ... e .. " ~ 0 :2 "' .. ... I .. II II e .<: .. .. .. II (II .. > II III .. "- co >- II 0 .<: to "- \ II: >- ,. (II II 31 S 0 .. 0 .. N 0 .. '" . ... '" co \. ... ... C 1/ 0 110 " ~ .. .. .. 10. . .. 0 (II .. .. .. .. 0 .. .. lI: '" ... II (II .. III II 1/ III II .. III .. II ... III Ill; e II '" II :- 0 '" ... II ... C lI: ,. II 01 .. ... bI II c: '8 =' ~ 0 =' ... .. .. .lC 0 0 8 110 1/ 0. III 0 !:l ~ (II ~ :J 0 0 :J > 00~li DO ; ;0 - ...... ) \ I -l \ a.. I"'" .. . '-/ CD ,... .. lD"~ "0 tilt " - '- ..... )_ J / .,I ~ 'U -- ~ -.. -' .."' , . ~. - ~.....,Q. ~ .... .. ,." _ l' '.. ;!Of ....... _ J. 112. . .. ,. ~~ J4>lu.' ..~~ It : ~ -L <'. t . ..I+, .."~ ".~. ...... '. .~" ..." - '~"""v, ''';.1' ,... . ',. .~~, -~ ..C"".,.~."...."... :,-.... . .. ow,.~ ... ".i~j . ' .~ ':t,:?/~;", ~'/ ,no "~" .rt / '. .. .' 111' ::i- ce z 0. \ I co ~ fn - .- 0 en <( G) ~ ~ .- . en > .... fn C " :I C 0 co () - .c c 0) 0 .- .... :J: fn ... C :I 0 J:. ~ to- fn ... . :J E .c - .... ~ ,~,.' ;~:~-fi. ~,.~~~. . , ,r;~#t . . ., ~'\l'~.~~I~'~-;; . .' _' 4..~ ~ -. i:1 . ~/.!. .~~. ~.. "~! 1J:;\'tIJ':: L,t .;t:'.. ) ~. .."..- ~ '..-r.. ....~ ... :.;..( .."". .-1!'"'i: ..;"~ "_~",,,...lt # 3 33 34 47 65 69 70 118 120 127 Soil Type A1derwood Gravely Sandy Loam Everett Very Gravelly Sandy Everett Gravelly Sandy Loam Indianola Loamy Sand McKenna Gravelly Silt Loam Muki1teo Muck Mukilteo Muck - Drained Tenino Gravelly Loam Tisch Silt Loam Yelm Fine Sandy Loam Loam" C\J (/) 0 Q) -0 l{) +-' CO CO ('\3 Q) en ,... .- J::. N () '- c:! ..... .- 0 0 :J ~ , (/) ~ C') (/) . -.t <! ~ CO O'l .- ,.... 0. - CJ) l{) E <0 ,.... 0 UJ >- N - - 0 Soil Types ~~- 126..'. . ~... c+--. ' \. (. ~ ""~...~.. -.j ..: _ 4:- ..... ~ . ..... to c! .:.a-___ . '..... . ,- ?/it l~~." ..,~ ~r5" . . . } c,'" ~...., '...~'l'~,~~~~~'1;~ .~r .~. . ~~~:..[f'e;,:,_~. :~:.' 'iI-~'.'. ~- ~ "1' /! 'ti-~.... -;"f:.#' ... ~.. _ .....-...r. ~:J~"t,~~:'" - .!. ". FIGURE 6 -.. WETlAND" 13 C[l (~~1 r'\",- / 1 (...~..., .~ . ...~ :.",.......;=/ ~.... --I. .\. ~ - -." ,..~~..,.~~ '_, J':"~~'::' .. .~"'*''''''''' : "",,;.,y ...;~... ...-( .\0 : 17 .....- "-:..:. .... ..., '.. .., @-.., ", ~ - ~~l . .1ffi' .'\. . ~ W " 15 . .' EnAND _ 3 : ", . .. / \ .,.@ / .,<;""-'" ( I -.' ~ ............ ".. . ("' · 4",,~.~'ll.1 .... "..... -",.. --. '2i" / IiS~~:m>-::':" \.. if '" , '" ~ .. .......N'..."....1\, ./ '.= 1111 _" >' r ~.~, """,..VY-"'c.,~ I · /J · .'l~~t~$l ',.- '-f ......~iI.(;~l... li.:...:...'.'....:..::..:...:...:..:...."1p. .- .. r .-/' .-'/ ~~r,./<'~;~l-t;>.. ":JI ~ ~ WETLAND" 2 ../l~ I ~ .., .. .. ~:.,., j.q I :... .'. ......- ,'.". ~ .;i \. "'. . ... .-.,/', < f.. . ~.~.. .~ I , ',. .......----. . . '" .', .. .~ .,., . '. .... :(:-............, 1:\ ~ " . .,.,....., . .... ".- '- ~ . <0. . ....~ ...... I.'} . . ../1"- . ,.~ ...,.. (.. .. .....,.,;;r. . ..-..- ..' 4. I ~, .::::-. .~, 0::, \ . . ) \ t {,.-. -,..... I \'1 { f' /.. ./ --- -.:- / ( . // - '-- \ ," . .:. // - ~ (~....~/.f//~QJ ......y><: ~ ]'/"".. ......-_"" WETLAND ,,/. ::.::-/ 'f ~ :'l3.J - 1 ~~ '. 1 ~-9 r-'~ :~ .. l f.. 28 .', ~l\t I' ~ .. .... ./' \. .r . e' t :\~ ..t =!-. WETLAND. 15 /.' ..' ).. .:~:- 1"" ~.. ~ .I .-t' ~. I . ~ . 'i9'.~.~.,.,.,...,.,.,.,...,......J/. J ~-::.~ r..................,...~II::. -;' .' .. '--';"';;" ..' ..~ .~ }. -;. .:/~ 1 (ill /~~ / @\.-_. _./ WETLAND" 4 ,,~ (';. /.'. '. mtfl 1 ,. - ~ "\' ':~. " ":1 ..., .....-....... )';., .:. ~ L~: .~~~~~::- ----"::::: - - :;~':;';':. ~~""1\'" - @- ~r.":,,,:.. .'. .3J .:' . =. . .:..... V . ....~ WETLAND _ 17 /. . .". @)l t "j t. "':'. .., .. . ;:,. ".' / .I .. oj ....: . . IMJ/'liiL,... .;.":~",- t.~ -L- ~~ .., ....~~~. ')" . .. . ........ .:.., ..,/' r: A:.;'" ~....w.;P.f' Q) Q. ~ ca 2 c o .- ~ ca (,) o -' Q) ... o o ....t'" 1 ...;F. / U.....+.!":.. ~ : .... ......." ~.. ", ..,./ Ofl-Site Wetland I~ . ; .:.:. 1-'~..~::::..:~~ - - ......,.. "'::.. .,. tW. ..,~. ~ -- 2 '. "~ ...... .....i.~ en o "C C ca - J:. 0) .- X c o ~ o ... =' J:. I- - .- o en < ~ .. ~ ... C =' o o c o ... en ... =' .&: t- .. e - (1) ~>- , ~ d #20 0 Wetlan en "0 1.0 Q) as CO ~ ..... .... tU Q) 0) N .s::. ..- .- ... < 0 0 .- 3: , 0 :J to) en ~ . .. (J) en ~ to <( .- - -- 0. U) Il) E 0 en N -- > - W - - 0 See Figure 8 (Wetland Map) for location of wetlands. FIGURE 7 I I '- - '" t \ ./ --- j' S ?:- <<.0 ...-- -- ( \ _J /' I { \. I '- { ;, / 'I / . I . \ I " '\ . I . I . I . #10 "ole: 11>" ",a" "to, Olien\a~on ",,,,,o~ onl'l and is nOI inlended to' iUf\Sdic\iOnaI 01 s.e ",anning!",I"-S." ",0" accolS1e '""" oI'I>e ",e"ands can ,esu' 1fOl1\ a suNey trJ a qual,r,ed land suNeyOl 01 me .agged wel\alld _. @ "'cA" :',: ," \ .... ~ -- - - -- --'\ - - - - -- - - -........... \ , \ /\ ( \ \ ,../ ",'" .. -'1- t \ l l l \ 0'" \ .~ I ~ \ ~ c,:. ..,- - -- ~ /,.,--~ ~ $" ~ .~ ~~( ) 0-' J-" e;-/ .~ / ....... ~I ~~ r--"- ,..-/ \ / \ I #?:) f "- C:J " " ....... SS?' , ", #3 -- , ' ' " . --- Not to $Ca\e '" "'-... /' ) I l \ ) -_/ .14 (f) " ~.,~ " , \ ,:' \' ~ ) '--, \ \ \ " -~ ...... ...6 0.1 ~.6 #18 rrm ~ ---- --- #3 --- - - ----- Bear Valley Rd SE () s: i~ ~lt" e, ' ~','. '. r- : ,', \ .19 , ' ~ o .s ..... Q..tf3 ~ .a i ..::i: legend wet\andS propertY 6out'\dar'1 L099\t'\9 ~oads We\\at'\d Number 1't\ompson Cree" Durant S\ SE 0- to 2 '" "0 e to - ~ a> ~ '" "0 e to - s:. C7) .- ~ e o ~ '" "'" ::s s:. r- ,~ '< 1 ~ Ii 'iO o ~ s: ~ ... o ct ~ . .".. ~ c:. ::s o () c:. o ~ tJ) '"'" ::s s:. ""'" . 6 - a> )"" Gl en ~ ('4 a>C:Ot- ~Gl\t)c-I tO~~o .- '0 \ U (0 4. (of) OGl3. .A s::. . (1) V' "" (0 '" .; 'a <D c:t~Eo (J).~~ w~o - F\9ure 8 Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Appendix B - Tables -97- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Table 1 - Definitions of Indicator Status Indicator Symbol Definition OBL Obligate. Species that occur almost always (estimated probability >99%) in wetlands under natural conditions. FACW Facultative wetland. Species that usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67 to 99%), but occasionally are found in non-wetlands. FAC Facultative. Species that are equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated probability 34-66%). FACU Facultative upland. Species that usually occur in non-wetlands (estimated prob- ability 67-99%), but occasionally are found in wetlands. UPL Upland. Species that occur almost always in non-wetlands under normal conditions (estimated probability 99%. NI No indicator. Species for which insufficient information was available to determine an indicator status. Sources: Federal Interagency Delineation, 1989. Reed, 1988. Committee for Wetland -98- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Table 2 - Hydric Soil Indicators Hydric Indicator Diaqnostic Criteria Organic content * > 50% by volume Sulfitic material * "Rotten egg" odor Soil color * Mottling * Dark soil matrix color * Gleyed colors. Water saturation * Groundwater table at less than 1.5 feet from the surface for a significant period (usually a week or more) during the growing season. Sources: Hydric Soils of the United States. u. S. Department of Agriculture, 1991. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Handbook No. 436. -99- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Table 3 - Hydrologic Regimes and Wetland Characteristics Degree of Inundation or Saturation Duration* of Inundation or Saturation Wetland Characteristics ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ Permanently inundated** 100% present Semi permanently to > 75% - <100% nearly permanently inundated or saturated*** present Regularly inundated > 25% - <75% or saturated usually present Seasonally inundated > 12.5% - <25% or saturated often present Irregularly inundated > 5% - < 12.5% or saturated often absent Intermittently or <5% never inundated or saturated absent * ** *** percent of growing season inundation> 6.6 feet mean water depth inundation < 6.6 feet mean water depth Sources: Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, January 1987. Clark and Benforado, 1981. from COLONEST(DeTray) 9/12/91 -100- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Table 4 - Partial List of Known or Expected Plants Scientific Name Acer circinatum Acer macrophyllum Achlys triphylla Agropyron repens Agropyron smithii Agrostis alba Agrostis scabra Agrostis tenuis Alisma plantago-aquatica Alnus rubra Alodea nuttali Anthemis cotula Anthoxanthum odoratum Arbutus menziesii Asarum caudatum Athyrium fi1ix-femina Berberis aquifolia Betula papyrifera Brassia nigra Bromus enermis Carex obnupta Carex stipata Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Cirsium arvense Cirsium vulgare Cornus stolonifera Corylus cornuta Crataegus douglasii Cytisus scoparius Dactylis glomerata Daucus carota Dicentra formosa Dipsacus sylvestris Dryopteris austriaca Eleocharis palustris Elymus glauca Epilobium ciliatum Epilobium augustifolium Equisetum arvense Festuca elatior Fragaria vesca Fraxinus latifolia Common Name vine maple big-leaf maple vanilla leaf quackgrass western wheatgrass redtop rough bentgrass Colonial bentgrass Water plantain red alder water weed dogfenne1 sweet vernal grass madrona, madrone wild ginger subarctic lady fern Oregon grape paper birch black mustard smooth brome slough sedge stalk grain sedge Oxyeye daisy Canadian thistle bull thistle red-osier dogwood beaked hazelnut, filbert black hawthorn Scot's broom orchard grass Queen Anne's lace bleedingheart teasel forest fern creeping spikerush blue wild-rye willow weed fireweed field horsetail meadow fescue wood strawberry Oregon ash -101- Type FACU FACU UPL FACU FACU FACW FAC FAC OBL FAC OBL UPL FACU UPL UPL FAC UPL FACU UPL UPL OBL OBL UPL FACU FACU FACW UPL FAC UPL FACU UPL UPL NI UPL OBL FACU FACW FACU FAC UPL UPL FACW Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Galium aparine Gaultheria shallon Geum macrophyllum Hedera helix Heracleum lanatum Holcus lanatus Holodiscus discolor Hypochaeris glabra Ilex aquifolium Juncus bufonius Juncus effusus Juncus ensifolius Ledum glandulosum Lemma minor Linaria vulgaris Lolium perenne Lonicera involucrata Lysichiton americanum Mahonia repens Maianthemum dilatatum Matricaria matricarioides Mintha arvensis Oenanthe sarmentosa Osmaronia cerasiformis Parentucellia viscosa Phalaris arundinacea Phleum pratense Physocarpus capitatus Pinus contort a Plantago lanceolata Poa pratensis Polygonum cuspidatum Polygonum lapathifolium Polypodium glycyrrhiza Polystichum munitum Populus tremuloides Populus trichocarpa Prunella vulgaris Prunus emargenata Prunus subcordata Pseudotsuga menziesii Psoralla physodes pteridium aquilinum Pyrus fusca Ranunculus repens bedstraw salal large-leaf avens English ivy cow-parsnip common velvet grass ocean spray cats-ear English holly toad rush softrush dagger-leaf rush glandular Labrador-tea duckweed butter and eggs perennial ryegrass twinberry yellow skunk-cabbage mahonia false lily-of-the-valley pineapple weed Canadian mint water-parsley osoberry, Indian plum lousewart reed canarygrass timothy Pacific ninebark lodge-pole pine English plantain Kentucky bluegrass Japanese knotweed willow-weed licorice fern sword fern quaking aspen black cottonwood heal-all bitter cherry American wild plum Douglas fir California tea bracken fern Pacific crabapple creeping buttercup -102- FACU UPL FACW UPL FAC FAC UPL UPL UPL FACW FACW FACW FACW OBL UPL FACU FAC OBL UPL FACU FACU UPL OBL UPL FAC FACW FACU FAC FAC FACU FACU NI FACW FACU UPL FAC FAC FACU FAC UPL UPL FACU FAC FACW Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Rhamnus alnifolia Ribes lacustre Ribes sanguineum Rosa gymnocarpa Rosa multiflora Rosa nutkana Rosa pisocarpa Rosa woodsii Rubus discolor Rubus lacinatus Rubus leucodermis Rubus parvifloris Rubus spectabilis Rubus ursinus Rubus vitifolus Rumex acetosella Rumex occidentalis Salix lasiandra Salix piperi Salix scoulariana Salix sessilifo1ia Salix stichensis Sambucus racemosa Scirpus microcarpus Senecio jacobaea Smilacina racemosa Sparagium evrycarpum Spirea douglasii Symphoricarpos albus Tansineum vulgare Taraxacum officinale Thuja plicata Tolmeia menziesii Trifolium hybridum Trifolium pratense Tri1ium ovatum Tsuga heterophylla Typha latifolia Urtica dioica Vaccinium parvifolium Veronica sp. Vicia sativa cascara prickly currant red-flowering currant Baldhip rose multiflora rose Nootka rose pea-fruit rose wild rose Himalayan blackberry cut-leaf blackberry black-capped raspberry thimbleberry salmonberry trailing blackberry dewberry sheep sorrel western dock Pacific willow dune willow Scouler's willow northwest willow Sitka willow European red elderberry small-fruit bulrush tansy ragwort false Solomon's seal burr reed hardhack snowberry tansy common dandelion western red cedar piggy-back plant a1sike clover red clover western trillium western hemlock broad-leaf cattail stinging nettle red huckleberry speedwell common vetch -103- FACU FAC FAC NI FACU FACU FACU FACU UPL FACU FAC UPL FACU FACW FACW FACW FAC FACW FACW FACU OBL UPL OBL FACW FACU UPL FACU FAC FAC FACU FACU NI FACU OBL FAC UPL UPL Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Table 5 - Partial List of Mammals Common Name Scientific Name black-tailed deer brush rabbit chickaree cottontail rabbit coyote deer mouse dusky shrew house mouse long-tailed weasel meadow vole muskrat Norway rat opossums Oregon vole raccoon red fox striped skunk Townsend's mole Townsend's shrew Townsend's vole white-footed mouse Odocoileus hemionus Sylvilagus bachmani Tamiasciurus douglasi Sylvilagus floridensis Canis latrans peromyscus maniculatus Sorex obscurus Mus musculus Muste1a frenata Microtus pennsylvanicus Ondatra zibethica Rattus norvegicus Didelphis marsupialis Microtus oregoni Procyon lotor Vulpes fulva Mephitis Scapanus townsendii Sorex townsendi Microtus townsendi peromyscus leucopus -104- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Table 6 - Partial List of Birds Common Name American goldfinch American robin American widgeon Audubon's warbler barn swallow Bewick's wren black-capped chickadee Brewer's blackbird brown-headed cowbird California quail cedar waxwing chestnut-backed chickadee common bushtit common crow downy woodpecker fox sparrow golden crowned kinglet golden crowned sparrow great blue heron great horned owl green-winged teal house finch house sparrow house wren Lazulis bunting lesser yellowlegs long-billed marsh wren mallard mourning dove orange-crowned warbler Oregon junco pileated woodpecker plain titmouse red tailed hawk red-breasted nuthatch red-winged blackbird red-shafted flicker ring-necked pheasant ruby crowned kinglet ruffed grouse rufous hummingbird rufous-sided towhee Scientific Name Spinus tristis Turdus migratorius Mareca americana Dendroica auduboni Hirundo rustica Thryomanes bewickii Parus atricapillus Euphagus cyanocephalus Molothrus ater Lophortyx californicus Bombycilla cedrorum Parus rufescens Psa1triparus minimus Corvus brachyrhynchos Dendrocopus pubescens Passerella illaca Regulus satrapa Zonotrichia atricapilla Ardea herodias Bubo virginianus Anas carolinensis Carpodacus mexicanus Passer domesticus Troglodytes aedon Passerina amoena Totanus flavipes Te1matodytes palustris Anas platyrhynchos Zenaidura macroura Vermivora celata Junco oreganus Dryocopus pileatus Parus inornatus Buteo jamaicensis Sitta canadensis Agelaius phoeniceus Colaptes cafer Phasianus colchicus Regulus calendula Bonasa umbellus Selasphorus rufus Pipi10 erythrophthalmus -105- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 savannah sparrow song sparrow starling Steller's jay Swainson's thrush tree swallow varied thrush violet-green swallow western bluebird western kingbird white-crowned sparrow Wilson's warbler winter wren Wood duck yellow warbler Classification and Wildlife passerculus sandwichensis Melospiza melodia Sturnus vulgaris Cyanocitta stelleri Hylocichla ustulata Iridopracne bicolor Ixoreus naevius Tachycineta tha1assina Sialia mexicana Tyrannus verticalis Zonotrichia leucophrys Wilsonia pusilla Troglodytes Aix sponsa Dendroica petechia -106- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Table 7 - Partial List of Expected Reptiles and Amphibians Common Name Scientific Name common garter snake northwestern garter snake Oregon salamander Pacific tree frog red-legged frog western red-backed salamander western terrestrial garter snake bullfrog Thamnophis sirtalis Thamnophis ordinoides Vatrachoseps wrighti Hyla regilla Rana aurora Plethodon vehiculum Thamnophis e1egans Rana catesbeiana -107- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Table 8 - Summary of Wetland Classifications WETLAND # USFWS SYSTEM YELM SYSTEM USFWS IES CATEGORY 1 PFOY II 2 PEMY PSS/EM/OWY II 3 PEMY PEM/OWY III 4 PEMY POWW III 5 PEMY POWY III 6 POWY IV 7 PSSY PSSY IV 8 PSSY PSSY IV 9 PFOY IV 10 PSS/EMY PSSY II 11 PEMY PFOY IV 12 PSSY POWW III 13 PSSY PSSY III 14 PSSY IV 15 PFOY PFO/SSY II 16 PSSY III l7 PEMY-POW II 18 PSSY PSSY III 19 PEMY PEMY III 20 R2UB II Off-Site PSSY PSSY II (easement) -108- Wetlands Delineation, Plant Classification and Wildlife Evaluation Thurston Highlands Property June 22, 1992 Appendix C - Field Forms -109- Appendix C Housing Unit Demand Study Prepared by Mundy and Associates Seattle, Washington RECEIVED NAY 6 '992 R.W THORPE & ASSC. THURSTON HIGHLANDS Housing Unit Demand Study South Thurston County Prepared For Thurston Highlands Associates l\lay, 1992 MUNDY & ASSOCIATES MUNDY & ASSOCIATES ECONOMIC MARKET & VALUATION ANALYSTS WATERMARK TOWER SUITE 200 1109 1ST AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 2945 (206) 623-2935 FAX (206) 623-2985 April 15, 1992 Thurston Highlands AssocIates c/o Mr Dennis T Su, AIA Cieneral11anager K. C. 11. 1917 First Avenue Seattle, W A 98101 RE Housing Demand AnalysIs of Thurston Highlands, our Job #92-304 Dear:Mr S u. 11undy & AssocIates has completed Its demographIc and housing demand analysis for the proposed Thurston HIghlands development in south Thurston County The purpose of this analysIs IS to provIde housmg demand forecasts for Thurston County and the Yelm area to assess the annexatlon of tills property relatlve to the gUIdelmes of the Cirowth Management Act. Our analYSIS of housing demand m Thurston County is based on employment projectIOns for Thurston County through 2010 The allocation of housmg demand to the Yelm area considers Yelm's location m the county and access to major employment centers within the county such as Lacey and Olympia. In addition, the potential for retrrement housing and resIdentIal demand from the staff mcrease at Ft. LeWIS and McChord have been consIdered. ThIS report has been prepared m conformance WIth standards establIshed by the AppraIsal InstItute, a profeSSIonal appraisal organizatlon of whIch BIll Mundy IS a member (MAl #5439), certified through September, 1992. It has been a pleasure performmg thIS analYSIS for you and we look forward to bemg of continued aSSIstance to you. If you have any questions about the report, please feel free to call upon us for clan ficatlon. Smcerely, 11UNDY & ASSOCIATES ~~ BIll 11undy, Ph.D., CRE, MAl Jf~<- e ~ Rhoda Corbett BlIss, M.A. WM/RB.dh T ABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. Purpose of the Report . Identification of the Property Research ParticIpants and Time Frame ...... .., . . . 1 1 1 1 1 ~1EIGHBORHOOD DATA REGIONAL DATA . State of Washington Employment Population Thurston County History. . Economic Base Unemployment Employment ProjectIons Population 3 3 . . 3 ..... ... ........ .... 3 3 3 6 . 6 10 10 14 18 18 .21 .22 .22 . .22 ..22 HOUSING DEMAND Housing Demand by Area CompetitIve Residential Development Military Demand for Housing Retirement Housing SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Housing Demand Yelm Area PopulatIon ProjectIons Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6a Table 6b Table 7 Table 8 Table 9a Table 9b Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 LIST OF TABLES Employment Change 1975-1988 PopulatIOn Growth Puget Sound's Fastest Growmg CountIes Covered Employment and ResIdent Civilian Labor Force Employment Wages, Thurston County .. .. Resident CIvIhan Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment EstImates. Employment Forecast, Thurston County, 1990-2000 Employment Forecast, Thurston County, 2000-2010 Population Trends, Thurston County .. Histonc Demographic Trends, Thurston County Projected Demographic Trends, Thurston County, 1990-2000 Projected Demographic Trends, Thurston County, 2000-2010 Housing UnIt DIstnbution, Thurston County Age Distnbution, Thurston County Housing Demand Summary, Yelm Area Population Projections, Yelm Area 1990-2010 5 5 7 8 9 11 12 13 15 16 17 19 23 .24 .25 LIST OF FIGURES SIte LocatIon Map . Regional Location Map Map of Competinve Projects Thurston County Census Tract Map. 2 ........... ......................... 4 ... ..................... 20 . ... . .26 MUNDY & ASSOCIATES SEA me . PORTlAND . ANCHORAGE n-3O' Wcl...".,rrDorpe ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS That the analyst IS not responsible for the accuracy of opinions furnIshed by others and conta1Oed in this report. Nor is he responsible for the reliability of government data utilized herein. That compensation for research servIces is dependent only upon delIvery of this report, and is not contingent upon estimates provided. That this report considers nothing of legal character, and the analyst assumes no responsibilIty for matters of legal nature. Unless otherwIse stated 10 thIS report, the existence of hazardous substances, includIng without 1mutation asbestos, polychlonnated bIphenyls, petroleum leakage, or agncultural chemIcals, WhICh mayor may not be present on the property, or other environmental condinons, were not called to the attention of nor did the appraiser become aware of such during the appraIser's inspectIon. The appraIser has no knowledge of the eXIstence of such materials on or in the property unless otherwIse stated. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to test such substances or cond1tions. If the presence of such substances, such as asbestos, urea fonnaldehyde foam insulatIon, or other hazardous substances or environmental condItIons, may affect the value of the property, the value esumated IS predIcated on the assumptIon that there IS no such condItion on or In the property or m such proxmuty thereto that It would cause a loss 10 value. No responsIbihty IS assumed for any such condIuons, nor for any expertise or engmeenng knowledge required to discover them. That testimony or attendance m court is not required by reason of this analysis unless arrangements are previously made. That information furnished by property owner, agent and management is correct as received. That no part of thIS study may be reproduced WIthout penrusslOn of Mundy & ASSOCIates. That no part of thIS study may be used as a part of or referred to in a public or pnvate stock offering Trus report is the confidenual and pnvate property of the chent and Mundy & Associates. Any person other than Mundy & ASSOCIates or the client who obtains and/or uses this report or its contents for any purpose not authorized by Mundy & Associates or client is hereby forewarned that all legal means to redress may be employed against him. ThIS report IS based on mformation which the author believes to be reliable. However, the informatIOn used reflects the author's personal opmion of market conditIons and other factors whIch influence employment, population, commerCIal and residential real property markets and value. The use of such information IS at the user's own risk. MUNDY & ASSOCIATES &AntE. PORTlAND. ANCHORAGE nlOl Wclcom<lThatpt 1 INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Report The purpose of this report is to analyze the demographics of Thurston County and to translate employment and population forecasts into housmg demand for the proposed annexation of approximately 1,900 acres into the City of Yelm. Identification of the Property The area under consideration for annexation is approximately 1,900 acres located southwest of the City of Yelm in southeastern Thurston County. The annexation properties consist of four main ownerships: a 1,240-acre sIte owned by Thurston Highlands Associates, a 264-acre site owned by Venture Partners, the 90-acre Nisqually Valley Golf Course, and additional parcels under separate ownershIps, totaling approxrmately 306 acres. The 1,240-acre Thurston Highlands site is a clear cut property that IS currently cnss-crossed by old logging roads. Current access to the property is from State Route 507 through two adjacent farms. The property nses above the surrounding terrain and is rolling to somewhat rugged m some 10catic"'"Js. Some of the upper portions of the property provide views of the mountams and the surroundmg temtory Research Participants and Time Frame This study was prepared for Thurston Highlands Associates by Mundy & ASSOCIates under the supervision of BIll Mundy, Ph D , CRE, MAl Rhoda BlIss, M.A and Semor Analyst, performed the analysis and wrote the report. The data was collected and analyzed and the report was written between February and Apn11992. NEIGHBORHOOD DATA The subject property is located southwest of the City of Yelm in east central Thurston County (See Figure 1, SIte Location Map) The CIty of Yelm is located near the county's eastern border WIth Pierce County, approximately twelve rmles southeast of Lacey and eighteen rrules southeast of OlympIa{fumwater The City of Yelm is located in the rural southern ponion of the county. Other towns in south Thurston County include Rainier, approximately seven rmles southwest of Yelm, Ternno, ten rmles southwest of Rainier, and Bucoda, five miles south of Tenino These four cities make up the mcorporated areas of southwestern Thurston County. The 1990 population for the City of Yelm was 1,455 persons. There are 555 housmg units located WIthin the city hrruts. Housing m Yelm is predominantly in the low to moderate value range There is commercIal space frontmg on the two main artenal streets, and a l50-acre industnal area that is raIl served located northeast of downtown. The center of town is the intersection of State Routes 507 and 510 SR 510 provides access between Yelm and Lacey and SR 507 prOVIdes , access to Ramier, Temno, and Interstate 5, approximately 30 miles to the west. Fort LeWIS generally surrounds the Yelm area on three sides, to the east, north, and west. The Burlmgton Northern Rallroad tracks extend through the City of Yelm In a southwest to northeasterly drrection The area surrounding the subject property is predominantly rural in nature, WIth fanns, forested areas, and large acreage reSIdentIal development MUNDY & ASSOCIATES SEAmE . PORTLAND. ANCHORAGE n3OlWcl~ 2 Fort leWIS ~ ~ Q- ~ )- 3 REGIONAL DATA The subject property is located in Thurston County, Washington, which contains Olympia, the state's capItol, and IS located at the southern end of Puget Sound in western Washington state (See Figure 2, Regional Location Map). The Puget Sound region experienced very strong growth during the latter part of the 1980s. While growth connnues in the area, It decreased dramatIcally ill 1990 and contmued at a decreased rate in 1991 and into 1992. Projections are for growth to increase, but probably not to the levels expenenced in the late 1980s. The Seattle metropolItan area, located north of Thurston County, includes the counties of King, Snohomish, and Pierce. While the Thurston County economy will be considered separately in this analysis, there is a definite lmk between economic actIvity in Thurston County and economic activIty in the Seattle metropolItan area and m Washington State as a whole. Therefore, econonnc trends in those areas and their impact on the Thurston County economy will also be considered in this analysis. State of Washington Employment Of the five western states, Washmgton enjoyed the strongest employment growth rate from 1975 to 1988, WIth a growth rate of 36% compounded annually, as compared with CalIfornia at 3 4%, Oregon at 2.5%, Idaho at 19%, and Montana at 1 2% Over the 13wyear penod from 1975 to 1988, Thurston County expenenced a rate of employment growth of 5 6% on an average annual compound baSIS. (See Table I, Employment Change 1975-1988). Dunng the same tIme penod, the Umted States average growth rate was 3 0% and the Seattle SMSA averaged 4.5% Population Growth m Washmgton state dunng the 1980s was concentrated in the state's western metropolItan countIes, especIally in Its largest metropolItan area, the Seattle-Tacoma SMSA. King, Snohonnsh and Pierce Counties accounted for 62% of the persons added to the state's population between 1980 and 1990, compared to only 36% in the previous decade. Table 2 (population Growth, Puget Sound's Fastest Growing CountIes) shows population growth from 1980 to 1990 in the state's five fastest growing counties which make up the Puget Sound Comdor. These five countIes accounted for 74% of the state's population growth since 1980 A total of 493,399 people were added to the five-county reglOn during the 10-year penod. Thurston County History While Tacoma and Seattle became fast-growing settlements after the arrival of the raIlroads in the 1870s, Thurston County began Its economic history gradually Timber productIon began early in the 1850s, with the Bald and Black Hills under the large ownerships of Weyerhaeuser, Scott Paper, Simpson Company and the State of Washington. Sandstone quarrying and coal mmmg operations were active dunng the 1870s around Teruno and Bucoda. Subbituminous coal deposIts still exist in the southern parts of the County, and large gravel deposits occur on the County's prames. A modem strip nuning and coal fired electnc generatIng plant operate on the border of LeWIS and Thurston countIes. MUNDY & ASSOCIATES SEATTlE' PORTlAND' ANCHORAGE 'HOC WcI <CIlDO/I'borp< berdeen 4 v Figure 2 Regional Location Map v '-1J .- ... -. -- ';/: ...-... ; "-T R;If,'IER . - ... .r-~.:.---:-_..___ -~. HAl-io'HAL PA 5 Table 1 Employment Change 1975-1988 (in thousands) 1975-1988 1975 1988 Employment Onpd. Ann. Area Ann. Avg. June Increase % Change Change United States 76,945 106,021 29,076 378% 2.5% California 7,847 12,121 4,274 54.5% 34% Idaho 273 347 74 271% 1.9% Montana 238 278 40 168% 1.2% Oregon 837 1,148 311 37.2% 2.5% Washington 1,226 1,942 716 584% 36% West Coast 10,421 15,836 5,415 520% 33% Seattle PMSA 685 1,220 535 781% 4.5% Thurston County 28 57 29 103 6% 56% Source. Employment & Earnings, B.L.S., 10/88, Thurston Regional Plarming Council, Mundy & Associates. Table 2 Population Growth Puget Sound's Fastest Growing Counties 1980-1990 1980-1990 Change 1989-1990 County 1980 1990 Number Ann.Cmpd.% Number King 1,269,898 1,482,800 212,902 16% 36.800 Pierce 485,667 574,500 88,833 17% 13,600 Snohomish 337,720 450,200 112,480 2.9% 19,800 Kitsap 147,152 188,800 41,648 2.5% 7,300 Thurston 124,264 161.800 37,536 2.7% 6,700 Total Region 2,364,701 2,858,100 493,399 19% 84,200 Washington Total 4,132,353 4,798,100 665,747 1.5% Region as % of State 57.2% 596% 741% MUNDY & ASSOCIATES SEAmE . PORTlAND. ANCHORAGE n.304 Wol~ 6 Until the 1970s and 1980s, when housing construction began to move outward from the Olympia area, growth in the rural areas was slow. The centralizanon of state offices m OlympIa in the 1960s, the impact of Fon Lewis, and the establishment of The Evergreen State College have contributed sIgmficantly to the population increase. The clOSIQg of sawmills and quarries, and the decrease in farrmng have had a neganve impact on employment growth. Other employment factors included construction of the Satsop Nuclear Plants in Grays Harbor (unul shutdown in 1983) and the development of indusmal parks in the area. The growth In employment and the resultant growth in population increased the demand for housing constructIon. Each of these factors has contributed to increased economic activity m the rural areas of the county Economic Base Industries and busmess that form the economic base of the community are those which export goods and services outside the commumty and bring dollars into the community In Thurston County, state government is the major base of the economy providIng or exporting services to the entrre state In 1989, state government provIded 30% of the employment in Thurston County (Table 3, Covered Employment and ReSIdent CiVIlian Labor Force), conmbuting 40% to the total payroll received by local wage earners (Table 4, Employment Wages, Thurston County) The proponion of people employed by government in Thurston County is more than double the percentage for the enme state. In addItion to state government, the other economic base industries involve the manufactunng and agnculture/forestry/fishmg sectors. Combmed, these sectors account for 9% of local employment -- less than half the state-wIde percentage, whIch IS approxImately 18% ThIS Illustrates the county's lack of diversIty in its economic base. Thurston County has probably faired better than ItS county neighbors, gIven the relative stabilIty of income in state government. Federal, state and local government provide a total of 42% of the employment in Thurston County. Between 1980 and 1990 government employment grew at an annual average rate of 3 7%. The trade and servIce sectors of the county economy combined proVlde 39% of the employment These two sectors have expenenced the largest percentage growth in employment over the last decade, but have the lowest average Income in wages Between 1980 and 1990, wholesale and retaIl trade employment mcreased by an annual average rate of 44%, and the servIce sector by 6.2% annually Unemployment The unemployment rate in the county, state and nation rose slightly over the decade of the 1970s Thurston County and Washmgton State's unemployment rates have been traditionally higher than the national unemployment rates. ThIS is due partlally to the lack of a dIverse industrial base In both the state and the county The state IS hIghly dependent on two main manufacturing mdustries, lumber and aerospace, while Thurston County's main source of employment IS government. The unemployment rate, whIle fairly steady from 1970 to 1980, Increased dramatically In 1980, 1981 and 1982 In Thurston County and Washmgton State. Dunng this period, unemployment in Thurston County Increased by over 4%, peaking in 1982 at 122%, more than double the 1974 rate. In 1983, the unemployment rate dechned, reflecting a slightly Improved econonuc clImate locally and natlonally Unemployment rates continued to drop from a high In 1982 of 12.2% to a low of 5 4% In 1990 (See Table 5, ReSIdent CIVIlIan Labor Force, Employment, Unemployment Estm1ates, Thurston County). MUNDY & ASSOCIATES SEA mE . PORTlAND . ANCHORAGE n.]OC Wclcomo/J'bcopo 10 Employment Projections Since housing demand is population and household driven, which in turn are driven by employment, our housing demand model begins with employment forecasts for Thurston County Estimated employment in Thurston County in 1990 was 79,176 WhICh represented an annual average increase of 47% over 1980. The fastest growing sector during the 1980s was Services, WIth an average annual Increase of 6.4% Construction was second with 6.2% and Trade was third with 4 4% Total employment is made up of two components. Total covered employment which Includes workers covered by the Employment Secunty Act and those workers that are self employed or otherwise not covered. Covered employment IS estimated to Include 80% to 85% of total employment in Thurston County. Total covered employment in 1990 was 64,446, which was a 4.2% annual average Increase over the 1980 figure of 42,568. Based on historic trends and our opinion of what is likely to occur in the future, we have developed employment forecasts for Thurston County through the year 2010 (See Tables 6a and 6b, Employment Forecasts, Thurston County) Total employment is projected to increase by 2.9% annually through 2000 for total employment of 106,277. From 2000 to 2010, employment is projected to Increase by 2.8%, for a 2010 total of 140,151 Employment forecasts were done by Thurston RegIonal Planmng CounCIl m 1989 through the year 2010 When we compare our forecast with the forecasts prepared by Thurston County, WhICh were ,-,one for medium, low and high growth scenarios, we find that in 1990, actual total employment at 79,176 IS 15% higher than what was forecast under the hIgh growth scenario Consequently, our forecast tends to be higher than the county's forecasts through 2005 From 2005 through 2010, our forecast falls between the county's medium and hIgh forecasts. Population PopulatlOn change and rrugranon In Thurston County are influenced by national, state and regIonal factors. At the turn of the century, as large numbers of immigrants arrived from the east and Europe to homestead and work in the forests, the population began to increase dramatically PopulatIon growth continued over the next several decades, but at a slower pace, for both Thurston County and the state. In the late 1940s Puget Sound counties expenenced a rapId mcrease from the post-war Industnal expansion Population change was faIrly constant for Thurston County throughout most of thIS penod, about 20% per decade. In the 1960s, With the growth of state government and the opemng of The Evergreen State College, Thurston County's population Increased very rapidly. Population Increases during the 1960-to-1970 and 1970-to-1980 pen ods were 40% and 62%, respectively ThIS by far exceeded the 29% increase in Washington State's populatIon for the same periods. Thurston County continued to show a greater annual percentage of population gain than other neighboring countles and almost twIce the stateWIde growth rate between 1980 and 1990 OlympIa is the largest City in Thurston County, contaInIng 21 0% of the county's populatlOn (Table 7, PopulatlOn Trends) Lacey IS the second largest city with 12.0% and Tumwater is thrrd with 6.2% The incorporated areas have been losing their share of total populatIon as growth in the unincorporated areas has Increased In recent years. In terms of rate of increase, Tumwater and Lacey lead the county with 4 1 % and 3 3% compounded annually The umncorporated portion of the county was the next fastest growing area at 2.7% annually from 1980 to 1990. MUNDY & ASSOCIATES SEAmE . PORTlAND. ANCHORAGE 9l.)()l Wclc.amc/lbarpc Table 6a Employment Forecasts Tburston count! 1990-2000 ----- ~ ~n. Avg. 1990 199\ 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 \998 1999 2000 Chanl!C ToW &oploym"" L ~ S2,059 84 .565 87.117 89.7\6 92.360 95.048 97.'180 100,555 \03.371 106.227 2.9% % Covered EmplOyment. 81.0% 81.0% 81 \% 81.2% 81.3% 814% 81.5% 81.5% 8\.6% 817% 81.8% 0.1% Total Covered Employment. 64.449 66.506 68.606 70.747 '12.930 75.155 77,420 79.'125 82.069 84,452 ~f,,872 3.0% Total Manufacturing 4.241 4.313 4.385 4,457 4.530 4.603 4.675 4.748 4.821 4.894 4,iJ6i 1.6% .... Total Nonrnanufacturing 60.208 62.193 64.221 66,290 68.400 70,552 72.744 74.976 77.248 79.557 81.905 .... 31% Mining 36 37 38 39 40 40 41 42 43 44 45 2.3% consuuction 2.982 3.\\9 3.2.59 3,405 3,554 3.708 3.866 4.029 4.196 4.367 4.543 4.3% TranSll" Comm. &. Uti\. \.no \,759 \,797 \,837 \,876 \,916 \,956 \.996 2.037 2.078 2.\19 2.1% Wholesale &. Rctail Trade 13.201 13.628 14.063 14,505 14.955 15,413 15.877 16.349 \ 6.828 \7.3\3 17 ,80S 3.0% finance. Ins. &. R.E. 2.\25 2,\67 2.208 2,250 2,293 2.335 2.378 2,420 2,463 2.506 2.549 1.8% Services 11.699 \ 2.2.56 12.8:n 13,425 14.038 \4.670 15.321 15.991 \ 6.680 17.388 \8.115 4.5% Govemment 26.813 27.553 28.303 29.062 29.832 30.6\0 31.398 32.194 32.998 33.8\0 34.629 2.6% Ag.. forest. &. Fish. 1.632 \.676 \.72\ 1.767 1.813 \.859 1.906 1.954 2.002 2.05\ 2,\00 2.6% Th"""'" County \.00>1 &oP\~ l'n.,,,,,,,, Re.;""" PI...... C.....;\. Medium Growth Scenario 67.064 76.237 85,913 2.5% High Growth Sccnario f{6.969 82.133 97.358 3.5% \..,ow Growth Scenario 64.769 70.668 78.027 \.9% . 1",1- oNY """" "","", by &op10,...... s='Y ^e' E>""'''''' to ...Iud< '0 to S5'!> or 'oW...p\ol""'" of wOl'Ken within Thurston County source: Mundy &. Associates Forecast. Table 6b Employment Forecasts Thurston County 2000-2010 Ann. Avg. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ChlUwe Total Emp\oyment 106.227 100,169 112,200 115,323 118,540 121.855 125,271 128,791 132,418 "6.,56 2.8% % Covered Employment. 81.8% 81.9% 81.9% 82.0% 82.\% 82.2% 82.3% 82.4% 82.4% 82.5% 82.5% 0.1% Total Covered Employment. 86.872 89,367 91.940 94,594 97,330 100,152 103,062 106,064 109.160 112,355 115,650 2.9% Total Manufacturing 4.967 5.041 5.116 5,\92 5,270 5.348 5,428 5,509 5,591 5.674 5,759 1.5% Total Nonmanufacturing 81,905 84.326 86.824 89,401 92.060 94,803 97,634 100,555 103,569 106.680 109.891 3.0% Mining 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 54 55 56 2.2% .... ConstrUction 4,543 4,726 4,916 5,114 5.319 5.533 5,756 5,987 6,228 6,478 6,739 4.0'10 N Transp., comm. &. Util. 2.119 2.160 2,203 2.246 2,291 2.336 2.382 2,429 2,471 2.525 2,575 2.0'10 Wholesale &. Retail Trade 17 .805 18,311 18.831 19.366 19.916 20,481 21.063 21.662 22.277 22,910 23 ,560 2.8% Finance, Ins. &. R.E. 2,549 2,593 2,638 2.683 2,729 2,716 2.824 2.872 2.922 2.972 3.023 17% Services 18,115 18.872 19.661 20,483 21.339 22.231 23.160 24.128 25.137 26.187 27.282 4.2% Government 34.629 35,468 36.328 37.208 38,110 39,034 39.980 40.948 41.941 42,957 43.998 2.4% Ag.. Forest &. Fish. 2,100 2,\50 2,20\ 2,254 2.307 2,362 2,419 2,476 2,536 2,596 2.658 2.4% Thunton County Local Employment Forecasts. Thurston Regional Planning Council. r\ 85,923 98,070 112,493 ) 2.7% 97,358 121.238 140.V 3.8% 78.027 86,184 96.106 2.1% ------- . Incl..... only ..= """red by Emplu",,"'t S""nty Ad. "'"molallu mel"'" 80 lu"% uf total_lu",,"" of workers within Thurston County Source: Mundy &. Associates Forecast. Table 7 Populahon Trends Thurston County by Incorporated and Unincorporated Areas 1970-1990 Year Blleoda Lacey Olympia Raimcr Tcnino Tllmwatcr Yclm Inc. Unine. Count 1970 421 9,296 23,296 382 962 5,373 628 40,358 36,132 76,490 1980 519 13,940 27,447 891 1,280 6,705 1,294 52,076 72,188 124,264 1981 520 14,200 27,600 1,020 1,310 6,690 1,440 52,780 76,320 129,100 1982 520 14,175 27,700 990 1,340 7,(XX) 1,4 20 53,145 78,155 131,300 1983 540 14,030 28,000 992 1,400 7,050 1,390 53,402 80,098 133,500 1984 535 14,520 28,790 1,010 1,375 7,240 1,385 54,855 81,345 136,200 1985 535 15,200 28,560 995 1,390 7,380 1,370 55,430 84,070 139,500 1986 530 15,270 28,990 995 1,390 7,890 1,385 56,450 85,750 142,200 1987 525 15,840 29,600 985 1,340 8,070 1,370 57,730 87,770 145,500 1988 535 16,380 30,270 1,(XX) 1,285 8,100 1 ,400 58,970 90,330 149,300 1989 16,940 31,020 1,290 8,200 1,425 - 525 1,020 60,420 94,630 155,050 \jJ 1990 536 19,279 33,840 991 1,292 9,976 ~ 67,251 93,987 161,238 . ~"T~ 1//})~"~~~7 Annual Percentage Change: / rlt) 1970-1980 2.1% 41% 17% 8.8% 2.9% 2.2% 7.5% 2.6% 7.2% 5.0% 1980-1990 0.3% 3.3% 2.1% 11% 0.1% 41% 0.3% 2.6% 2.7% 2.6% Percentage Distribution of the Population by Area Year Bueoda Lacey Olympia Rainier Tenino Tumwater Yelm Inc. Unme. Count 1970 0.6% 12.2% 30.5% 0.5% 1.3% 7.0% 0.8% 52.8% 47.2% 100.0% 1980 0.4% 11.2% 22.1% 07% 1.0% 54% 1.0% 41.9% 58.1% 100.0% 1990 0.3% 12.0% 21.0% 0.6% 0.8% 6.2% 0.8% 417% 58.3% 100.0% Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management, Thurston RegIOnal Planning Council, and Mundy & ASSOCiates. 14 HOUSING DEMAND Housing demand for Thurston County is based on the assumption that new housing units will need to be added to the stock as the economy of the area grows. Economic growth is measured in terms of employment. Therefore, an analysis is made of the relationship between employment and population, and populatIon and housing. This analysis is shown in Table 8 (Histonc DemographIC Trends, Thurston County) and Tables 9a and 9b (Projected Demographic Trends, Thurston County). Important relationslups involved WIth the estImate of housing demand are: · Covered-to-total employment. This ratIo accounts for people who are self-employed and who do not have to report employment activities to the State Employment Security Department The number of uncovered employees for most areas has been slowly declIning with time. This trend is projected to continue as the state continues efforts to 10clude a hIgher proportIon of the labor force as employment covered by Social Secunty · Commut1Og factor Estimates by Thurston County indicate that approximately 7% of the county's resIdents work outside the county and, for this reason, the total labor force is actually greater than total employment located with10 the county We have estImated that this factor will cont1Oue to increase as employment centers outSIde the county grow (such is Ft. LeWIS) and hous1Og for those workers is provided 10 Thurston County Percent unemployment The unemployment rate for Thurston County has been decreasing over UIne. It currently IS approximately 5.4% It is forecast that the rate WIll decrease 10 1992 and level off through the year 2000. ~~ vi . . Labor force participatlon rate. This rate reflects the proportion of the populatIon that is ill the labor force. ThIS rate has been increasing Wlth tune, pnncipally because of a higher proportion of women entering the labor force. Demographers project that thIS trend WIll contInue; therefore, the labor force parocIpation rate increases as a part of our forecast PopulatIon per occupIed dwelling unit. For the United States and for Thurston County, thIS statJstlc has been decreasing WIth tIme. The reason is that as economic conditions improve, a hIgher proportion of households seek independent housing ThIS trend IS forecast to continue for the United States and, because of the healthy econonuc conditions of Thurston County, it is also forecast to continue there. . . Vacancy rate. The overall vacancy rate for housing in Thurston County has been declming and is forecast to continue to decline slowly during the forecast period. One factor for the continuing decline IS the relatIvely hIgh rate of growth for the area and another is financing constralnts which make construction financing more dIfficult to obtain. MUNDY & ASSOCIATES SEAffiE . PORTIAND . ANCHORAGE 92.304 WdOllllE/lDorpt Table 8 lIisloric Demographic TrendS: Employment, Popnl.tion & Housing Thurston County, Washington 1980-1990 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 AVL. Employment Total Employment 50.200 49.800 49.600 55.800 57.300 60.800 64,300 68.100 70.800 74.200 79.176 47% Unemployment 4.603 5.595 6.828 6.826 5.875 5.215 5.591 5,363 5.084 4.485 4.520 .0.2% % Unemployment 8.4% 10.1 % 12.1% 10.9% 9.3% 7.9% 8.0% 7.3% 6.7% 57% 54% -4.3% Local Labar Force 54.803 55.395 56,428 62.626 63.175 66.015 69.891 73,463 75.884 78.685 83.696 4.3% commuting Factor 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0'10 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0iJo 7.0% Total Labor Force 58.928 59.564 60.675 67,340 67.930 70.984 75.152 78.992 81.596 84.608 89.995 4.3% PopulatloD Total 124.264 129.100 131.300 133.500 136.200 139.500 142.200 145.500 149.300 155.100 161,238 2.6% Labor rorce/Pop.1lation 0.474 0.461 0.462 0.504 0.499 0,509 0.528 0.543 0.547 0.546 0.558 1.6% ..... VI Hous\ng Dwelling Uni15 49.734 55.301 56,487 57.576 58.698 59,666 60.749 62,391 64.055 65,844 66,464 2.9% ()ccUpied D.U 46.375 48,471 49.594 50,730 52.068 53.651 55.020 56.637 58.467 61.104 62,150 3.0% Vacant U.U. 3.359 6,830 6.893 6.846 6.630 6.015 5.729 5,754 5.588 4.740 4,314 2.5% VacanCY Rate 6.8% 12.4% 12.2% 11.9% 11.3% 10.1% 94% 9.2% 8.7% 7.2% 6.5% -0.4% popjOccUp. D U. 2.680 2.663 2.647 2.632 2.616 2.600 2.585 2.569 2.554 2.538 2.594 -0.3% SwtS/lOOO Pop. 12.78 919 8.29 8.40 711 776 11.55 1144 11.98 16.36 17.24 3.0% Housing StartS (l) 1.588 1.186 1.089 1.122 968 1.083 1.642 1,664 1.789 2.538 2,780 5.8% 1.586 Thurston County population Projections 1990 Actual: 161,238 Medium Growth Scenario 139.500 157.618 2.5% High Growth Scenario 139.500 160,844 2.9% Low Growth Scenario 139.500 154.910 2.1% Source: Thurston Regional Planning Council and Mundy & Associates. 'Table 9a Projected DtIl10StapbiC Trends' ElI1plOyll1enl, l'opul.1ion & noosing 'Thurston County, washington 1990-2000 \990 \99\ \ <)91. 1993 \994 \995 \996 \99' \998 \999 1000 A.v... E11\l'\oyment 89.116 92,360 95.048 9'1,180 100.555 103,3'11 106.22'1 2.0/10 '{'ala1 FJnP10yment '19.fJ1J 82.059 84.565 8'1.\1'1 unemployment 4,('/)6 4,593 4.'133 4.816 5.02\ 5,\69 5,3\9 5.412 5,628 5.'185 5.945 3.8% % Unemp1oyn'ent 5.4% 5.3% 5.3% 5,3% 53% 53% 53% 53% 5,3% 5.3% 5.3% u-:a1 Labor force 83.696 86.65 \ 89.29'1 91.993 94.'131 9'1,529 100.368 103,253 \06.\82 Hy).156 1\2.1'12 3.0% canunutin& FllCtor 1.0% 1\% 1.'2% 14% 1.5% 11% 1$'10 8.0% 8'\% 8.3'10 8.4% '{'ala1 Labor force 89.995 93.244 96.238 99;1.91 10'2.421 105.611 108.866 1\'2.185 115.568 119.015 1'22.5'25 3.1% populatk>. 182.'130 181.052 191.415 195.81'1 200,'255 204,12S 2.4% '{'ala1 161.138 165.891 1'10,033 114;1.19 118.452 Labor rorcelPopulation 0.558 0.562 0.566 0.510 0.514 0.5'18 0.582 0.586 0.590 0.594 0.598 ...- 0'1 }lousing '14,'2.26 16.005 '1'1.81\ 19.645 81.505 83,391 85,303 2.5% owelling Units 66.464 68.664 10.154 12,4'16 ()ccUpied D.U. 62,\50 64.153 65,965 61.808 69.680 11,582 13.512 15.410 1'1,455 19,46'1 81,505 2.'1% Vacanl D.\). 4,314 4.51\ 4.189 4.668 4.546 4.413 4.300 4.\15 4.050 3.924 3.198 .13% Vacancy Rate 6.5% 6.6% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6.4% 6,3% popJOcCUP' D.U '2.594 2.586 2.5'18 2.569 2.561 2.553 2.545 2.536 2.528 2.520 2.512 StartS!1000 pap. \1:2.4 13.26 10.66 10.58 10.49 10.4 1 1032 10.13 10.14 10.05 9.95 11.21 }lousing Demand 2.'180 2,200 1.812 1.843 1,8'12 1.902 1,930 1,958 1.985 2.012 2.038 2.030 ThUISton C()\Jltt'j population projeclions 116.899 191.100 2.3% Medium QroWth Scenario 15'1,618 }ligb (jrowm Sce1\ar\o 160.844 188,314 220.612 3.2% LoW Growm Scenario 154.910 169,29'1 \ gG,48'1 1.9% _ Th"""'" R'O""'" \'b>>"inO C.,.ncil "" MundY &. A_'''''' No'" BuildinO.....it d... {o< 1991 ~ on ~ """, 00 1.1J1 .....in il.und .......b J'" ...- 'fable 9b . E I I l'o~.I.lion & \lOOSlOg \'rojet1e4 J)el1logr.~bie 'treo4S: 11I~ OJ""'? · 'fhurston County, Washington 2000-20\0 ~OO1 1()O% ~{'fiJ ~O\O ^V~. 1004 1()O5 1006 iOOO 100\ 1001 1003 11%;191 \31.41S \36.151 140.151 2.%Qo Et1\ll\oytnent 112.200 1 \5.323 11%,540 \21.S55 \'25.~1\ 1.620 1.M4 2.%% \06.121 \09.\69 1 ,2.0% 1.4\\ 1'olal Fftll\oytnen\ 6.219 6,454 6.634 6$2.0 1.0\\ 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% Unet1W\oytncn\ 5.945 6.\\0 5.3% 5.3'10 5.:Wo 2.%% 5.3% 5.3'10 5.3% \43.111 141.f1J4 5.3% 5.3% \32.'l%2 \35.999 \39.%19 % Unetnll\Oytncnt \2\.111 1'2.5.\15 \2%.615 \0'\% \0.3% \\2,\11 \\5.119 \\%.4%0 95% 91<<10 9.9% .... \.,oCal \.,abOf farce 9 Jffo 9\% 9.3% \ 64 .9%% 3 .0<<10 -.1 %.4% %.6% S.%% 150.6\1 \55.\93 \59.916 COfI\ll\u\inPo factor 131 ;115 \41.9\4 \46.193 \11,5'2.5 \26.\5\ \29.S99 133,111 15'\.962 ~ 23'" l' olal \.,a'oOC force 11&.<1J1 234.161 239.614 145.239 rO\'lu\at\Ot\ 104 .1'2.S 109:311 1\4.041 1\&.%9'2. 123.&15 0.6'2.4 0.61& 0.633 0.631 . 1'olal 0.6\5 0.610 \.,abOf {arcefPopulation 0.59& 0.603 0.601 0.6\\ \00,\44 \0'2..530 104.990 \01,526 2.3!Jo Uous\n~ 9\ ,2.81 93.403 95,582 91.829 \0'2..860 \05.1\9 2.6C(0 DWellinPo Units &5.303 %1.239 %9,7.33 92.652 95.089 91,60 \ \00,\9\ .1.2% 83.604 85.166 &1.<1J3 <)0,2.88 '2.,543 1.339 2,\30 \.801 ()cCUl'ied O.U 8 \ ,505 3.\\5 2.930 2.139 3.19% 3.635 3,461 3,2.94 6.1'10 6.'2.% 6'\% 6'\% 6'\% 'Iacanl D.\J 6.'2.% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.2% 2,456 2.448 2.440 2A32 'I acanc,/ ~ate 2.480 2,41'2. 2.464 \0.31 2.504 2.496 2,488 \0.56 \0.64 \\ \'2. POi'.JOCCUp. D.\J. 2.5 \'2. \0.33 \0.40 10A8 \0.\0 \0.11 \0.'2.5 '2..610 ~.859 1.381 suns/\ 000 pop. 9.95 \0.03 1.295 1.365 1,431 '2.,5\'2. 1.589 1.(11) 1,1 62 2,2.'2.1 \loUSinPo oet1\and 2.038 f '\1lUf$Wl\ CountY population ptoieGliQt\S ( 262.<>>2 \ 2.9'/0 1'2.6.3 \9 32~.:~ ;~~o JA<d""" G<<"'" ~ 191.1<11 211.150 "i h (Jrow'" 5<<"0<\0 ');lO.m '2.01 J'IO\ Po S' \ 86,4%1 \.oW """"" ,,,,,",0 . . ",,1oI ~ "~,,,... ~ 11<",,'00 "..;on" ?l....... Coun<" on , 18 ~ ~ ~ (\, . New housing starts per 1,000 population This ratio is an important part of our forecasting model since it tends to keep all of the above ratIos 10 a proper synchroOlzation. For the UOlted States, on a historical basis, the starts per 1,000 population have ranged between 10 and 15, and for hIgh growth areas between 15 and 20. As can be seen In Tables 9a and 9b (Projected Demographic Trends. Thurston County), the starts per 1,000 number is m the 8 to 17 range. It is vmually impossible to produce housing at a rate more than 20 starts per 1,000 population due to supply pipelme constramts such as penmtting, lack of avaIlable sites, labor shortages, dramatic price increases, supply shonages and so fonh. Demand on an annual basis IS shown in the last row of Table 8 (Historic Demographic Trends, Thurston County) Thurston County has been producing hOUSIng m the 1,600 dwelling-per-year range. In 1990, over 2,700 housing units were constructed. The forecast shown in Tables 9a and 9b (Projected DemographIc Trends, Thurston County) is a demand forecast. In reflects what the area should be producmg, rather than what it IS producmg. Therefore, the model could be labeled ~s "ldeahstlc" in the sense that It reflects the quantIty of housmg WhICh should be constructed to ately provide for households in Thurston County Housing demand IS forecast itoave~e 1,673 nIts per year from 1990 to 2000, rangmg from a high of 2,780 m 1990 to a low ~~j" Housing Demand by Area Table 10, (Housmg Unit DIstrIbution, Thurston County), shows that Olympia, the largest Jurisdiction in Thurston County, is losing its share of total dwellmg uOlts, havmg accounted for 248% of the total in 1980 and droppmg to 23 7% in 1990 Lacey has maintamed its share of county hOUSIng at 11.5% The Lacey Environs, on the other hand, mcreased from 20.2% In 1980 to 21 0% 10 1990 Tumwater Increased its share from 58% in 1980 to 6.7% In 1990 Tumwater expenenced the strongest rate of growth at 64 6% for the decade. The Yelm unincorporated area was second with a 53 8% growth rate. Dunng the 1980s, the overall county growth rate in housing umts was 41 5%, with the uOlncorporated area growmg at a faster rate (43 4%) than the uOlncorporated areas (39 1 %) The Yelm area (includmg the City of Yelm and the unincorporated Yelm area) accounted for approximately 7 1 % of the total increase 10 housmg uOlts m the county from 1980 to 1990 The Yelm area contained 6.0% of total housmg umts in 1980 and mcreased that share to 6.4% by 1990 Projections by the county are for the Yelm area to continue to mcrease its share of new housmg m the county, pamcularly as other areas in the nonh become more built-out. The Yelm area is located within commutIng distance of Lacey, OlympIa, Tumwater, and Fort Lewis, as well as other employment and activIty centers in Thurston and Pierce counties, making it the next logical expansion area for housing development. In addition to housing demand generated by growth within Thurston County, there WIll be a substantial increase in personnel at Fort LeWIS and McChord bases 10 PIerce County The Impact of these Increases IS dIscussed in a latter sectIOn of this report. Another Important factor affecting future growth in Yelm is the provision of servIces. Yelm is, at the present time, the only city in south Thurston County that has received grants for a sewage treatment plant. The availabilIty of a broader range of housmg optIons than is currently avaIlable 10 the Yelm area WIll also increase housing demand in the area SInce It WIll appeal to a broader spectrum of households. Competitive Residential Development There are a number of reSIdentIal developments currently proposed for development in Thurston County and south Pierce county, ranging in size from under 100 dwellmg uOlts to several thousand dwelling umts. (See Figure 3, Map of CompetitIve Projects.) \(1 'J ~ N "- ~ ~ MUNDY & ASSOCIATES SEAffiE . PORTIAND . ANCHORAGE n-304 WclcomcITharpo Table 10 Housing Umt Distribution Thurston County by Jurisdiction and Subarea 1980 and 1990 Total HOUSIng VOlts 1980-1990 Change Change as Percent of Total Jurisdiction 1980 1990 Number Percent % of Total 1980 1990 B ucoda 213 227 14 6.6% 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% Lacey 5,838 8,225 2,387 40.9% 114% 11.5% 11.5% Olympia 12,560 16,963 4,403 35.1% 21.0% 24.8% 23.7% Rainier 305 409 104 341% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% Tenino 502 549 47 94% 0.2% 1.0% 0.8% Tumwater 2,920 4,807 1,887 64.6% 9.0% 5.8% 6.7% Yelm 470 555 85 18.1% 0.4% 0.9% ~8%-) ::;;:\ .... Incorporated Subtotal 22,808 31,735 8,927 391% 42.5% 45.0% \0 {/ Gnffin 1,415 1,888 473 33.4% 2.3% 2.8% 2.6% ;i.- Cooper Point 1,826 2,436 610 33.4% 2.9% 3.6% 3.4% 0 I Northeast Thurston 3,655 5,092 1,437 39.3% 6.8% 7.2% 71% c. ?~ ~ Lacey Environs 10,225 15,043 4,818 471% 23.0% 20.2% 21.0% G I' Black Lake/Littlerock 4,502 6,476 1,974 43.8% 94% 8.9% 9.0% Rochester 2,313 3,189 876 37.9% 4.2% 4.6% 4.5% Tenino /J /(.fT /l 878 1,198 320 36.4% 1.5% 17% 17% Yelm A/f'4Y/f 2,605 4,007 1 ,402 53.8% 6.7% 51% ~~ Summit Lake 408 563 155 38.0% 0.7% 0.8% .8% Unincorporated Subtotal 27,827 39,892 12,065 43.4% 57.5% 55.0% 55.7% Total County 50,635 71 ,627 20,992 41.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: Thurston Regional PlannIng Council, 1991, and Mundy & Associates. 20 o KEY 1) Indian Summer 2) Meridian Campus 3) Hawks Prairie Planned Comm. 4) Silver Hawk Golf & C.C. 5) Deschutes Ridge Golf Course 6) Northwest Landing ~ ~ Q- " >., 21 Meridian Campus, a 1,150-acre property was annexed into the City of Lacey on April 6, 1992. The proposed plan includes approximately 2,500 dwellIng umts, as well as commercial, light industrial, and retail development. The property is beIng developed by Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company and the first phase of residential and light industnal will be ready for development by fall of 1992 The first phase of resIdential wIll include 132 single farmly lots at 9,000 to 10,000 square feet each The project also includes plans for a golf course which will be developed In 1993 Plans Include SIngle farmly home lots on the golf course. Further north along 1-5 In south Pierce County, near Dupont, Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company IS developmg the 3,OOO-acre Northwest Landing which WIll include approXImately 5,500 dwellIng units, 431 acres of IIllxed use office, residenoal and retail, 958 acres of industnal and 110 acres of town center Hawks Prame Planned Commumty is adjacent to Mendian Campus, just north of Lacey, and is ill Thurston County The project was approved almost five years ago by the county for a horse racing faCIlity and residenoal development on 1,100 acres. The project is currently on hold because the horse racing faCIlIty was never approved and the property it was to be built on is ill bankruptcy court The Vlcwood Group has purchased the remainder of the property with the intent of developmg residentlally and are currently negotiatlng with the county for approval to begin development in 1993 The county will review the master plan in August 1992, and the current pemut expires m October IndIan Summer Golf Course and Country Club IS located south of Lacey In Thurston County. The project WIll include approximately 250 single family homes, many of them located on the golf course, and 150 multlfarmly homes, some of whIch WIll be located on the fairways. The lots at IndIan Summer are In the upper pnce ranges and are not seen as direct competition WIth the subject project. Deschutes Ridge Golf Club and Estates was being proposed south of Tumwater, next to the Deschutes River near 79th Avenue Southeast. Plans for the project included 121 SIngle-family homes. Portions of the property, however, are outsIde the urban growth boundary and WIthIn the river shore conservaoon area. The developers are going forward WIth Phase 1 for 40-50 resldenoal units, but the remaInder of the project IS on hold. SlIver Hawk Country Club was proposed as a public golf course WIth 320 homes. The project, which was being proposed by Fortune Development Company, is currently on hold SInce the property has reverted to the origmal owner Military Demand for Housing Dunng the next several years, the nulitary and civilIan personnel statloned at Fort Lewis and McChord IS projected to increase by approximately 8,800 people through transfers from Fort Ord in Callforma and other personnel moves and changes. Dunng 1992, an estimated 500 addItional personnel WIll be employed at the two rmlitary bases. In 1993 another 7,000 WIll be added and in 1994, 1,200 new personnel will be added. We have estlmated that approXImately 5% of the new personnel will fmd hOUSIng in the Yelm area in 1992 and 1993 and that the demand WIll Increase to 7% in 1994 and 10% in 1995, as housing becomes less available and more expenSIve in areas located closer to the bases. As a result of the addloonal IIllhtary demand for housing in ea, we .mate demand for housmg In Yelm from rmhtary sources to be 25 units in 1992,350 umts In 1993, 4 In 1994, and 10 dwellIng units In 1995, for a total of 469 umts of demand ge ted b new IItary personnel over the next four years. \ ,c,f' ~ MUNDY & ASSOCIATES SEAmE . PORTlAND. ANCHORAGE 92-304 WcloamlTh~ 22 Retirement Housing The number of people in the 6O-and-above age category wIll increase by 16,343 in Thurston County between 1990 and 2010, or approximately 817 per year (See Table 11, Age Disnibution, Thurston County) In addition, there are military personnel stationed at Fort Lewis and McChord who retire each year According to information from the Public Services Office, they are haVIng approximately 25 retirement ceremonies per month for people retiring from the post. This translates into approximately 300 people per year. Of these numbers, not all will remain in Thurston County. Some will move to warmer chmates or to areas that are closer to their chIldren or other family members. We have estimated that a well designed retirement golf-course community 10 Yelm can attract a segment of the retIrement housing market for Thurston County As of the 1990 Census, there were 16,534 people in the 65-and-above age category resid10g in Thurston County. In addlUon, there are currently 16,000 retired military personnelliv1Og with10 50 rmles of the bases Some of the retired people residing in Thurston County may be retlred military personnel so there may be some overlap in the figures. We estlmate that mitially approxImately 58 units of retirement housing could be absorbed per year at the Thurston Highlands golf course commumty 10 Yelm. 11us demand WIll 10crease to 60 umts per year from 1995 to 2000, 69 umts per jear from 2000 to 2005, and 94 units per year through the year 2010. This esumate IS based on tlie assumption that the retirement community will be well designed with senior actlvity centers, golf course clubhouse, lots adjacent to or near the golf course, and umts that cover a broad pnce range, includrng a large proportIon in the moderate pnce range. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Housing Demand Table 12 (Housing Demand Summary, Yelm Area), shows estimated housing demand for Thurston County and for the Yelm area by year through the year 2013 Begmning in 1993, when the first of the lots would be scheduled to come on hne at the subject property, there WIll be estlmated demand for some 592 dwelling units in the Yelm area. Demand WIll decrease to 336 In 1994, 273 in 1995, and 272 10 1996. After 1996, demand is estimated to increase each year through the forecast penod to 602 units in 2013 During the 20-year penod 1993 through 2013, an estimated 8,732 umts could be absorbed in the Yelm area. These projections are based on the assumption that a broad range of housing will be offered in the Yelm area dunng the forecast period, in terms of price, housing type and size, lot size, and amenities. Yelm Area Population Projections Table 13 (PopulatIon ProjectIons, Yelm Area, Thurston County) shows population Increases by year in the Yelm Area through the year 2013 The Yelm area includes Census Tract 124 (see Figure 4, Thurston County Census Tract Map) County projectIons are for the Yelm area to account for approXImately 10% of the county population growth through 2010 Our projections are for the area to capture 13 4% of the county populatlon growth, from 1993 through 2013, based on several major factors. · The provIsion of expanded sewer faCIlities 10 the Yelm area will allow the area to accommodate higher density development · ExpanSIOn of personnel at Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base will add to Yelm's share of county populatlon growth. MUNDY & ASSOCIATES SEAffiE . PORTlAND. ANCHORAGE n.3OCWd~ Table 11 Age Di.c;tribution Thurston Count)' 1980-'2010 2000 2005 20\0 Chane % of\om\ Ann. % ~ \9~0 \9~5 \990 \995 \3,418 14,655 16,860 5,218 51% 1.9% 4 and under 9,680 10,411 11,582 12,556 5,616 54% 2.0% \3,S48 15,400 \1 ,'208 5\09 9,628 \0,51\ \\ ,5'3'2 12,130 11,612 6,204 5.9% 2.2% \3,&95 15.6\8 \0 \0 \4 \0.460 10,'382 \\ ,468 12.569 \8,\10 6,108 6.4 % 2.3% 15 \0 19 11,\09 11,3\0 \\ ,462 \2,638 13 .&83 \5,885 6.9% 2.2% \2,605 \3,2\5 \3,531 \4,96'3 \1,4 \5 20.4\1 1,202 20 \0 24 \0,159 2\,958 1,459 1\% 2'\% 12,25'3 14,499 \5,211 \5,850 18,502 25 \0 29 \\,413 2 \,88 \ 8,2\8 1.9% 2.4% 12,511 1'3,66'3 \6,0\6 16,98\ 18,480 30 \0 34 11.028 18.548 20,5\0 1,\02 6.8% 2.\ % 1\,618 13,408 14,563 \1,02\ 35 \0 39 8,134 \9,663 1,548 1.2% 2.5 % 12,\ 15 \'3,815 15,090 11,865 \'-J 40 \0 44 6,582 9,085 H\.499 9,161 8.8% 3.5% vJ 6,181 9,'332 \2,348 14,13'3 \5.569 45 \0 49 5,85'3 9,464 12,450 14,402 \5,916 9,020 8.6% 4.2% 50 \0 54 5,860 5,915 6,956 \ 2,544 14 8,528 8.2% 4.5% 55 \0 59 5,162 5,882 6.051 1,025 9,411 6.3% 3.9% 6,9'24 9,'39\ \2. \5 6,6\9 60\064 5,106 5,630 5,196 5,981 9.061 3,11'3 3.6% 2.1% 4,821 5.354 5,522 5,116 6,105 65 \0 69 4,191 4,803 4,9f:/.l 5,2\8 6,\45 \,8\8 \ 1% \.8% 10 \0 14 3;209 3,154 4,321 1\ ,036 4,\83 4.0% 2.4% 15 and over 4,824 5.113 6,853 8,001 9,\41 10,\20 116,899 191,162 226,3 \1 262,\iJ2 \04.443 \00.0% 2.6% Total \24,264 \39,500 151,619 SoU!<": '{burSUJII county \'O\W\atiOU Pr<>p:tions and lAondy & """"i.u:s. jb~j t ftl.. ) rr'~d} I i Table 12 ~f i~ flJ' PI'- l~fOP H~gDemandSummary ~~1j\ /.) fj V f rl 1, If Yelm Area, Thurston County, waShingl r-1 ~ ff~pflY"& P" & / 7 i - 1993-20lJ -f f1 r;f111 Ci'1/ Total %Yelm Yclm Area Military %Yelm Yelm Area Reltremenl %Yelm Yelm Area Total Yelm Cumulative Year CounlV . ,Area Demand Increasc. Area Demand QOEulaLiov Area Demand Area Demand Demand 1993 1,843 10.0% 184 7,000 5.0% ~ 1,159 5.0% 58 592 592 1994 1,872 10.3% 194 1,200 7.0% 1,159 5.0% 58 336 928 1995 1,902 10.7% 203 100 10.0% 10 1,196 5.0% 60 273 1,201 1996 1,930 11.0% 213 ~ "!~ ;;~.~ 1,196 5.0% 60 272 1,473 1997 1,958 114% 222 1,196 5.0% 60 282 1,755 1998 1,985 11.7% 232 tJ$G~ 7 1,196 5.0% 60 292 2,048 1999 2,012 12.0% 242 G .~ yJ 1,196 5.0% 60 302 2,350 2000 2,038 12.4% 252 ffIP~ fl'f.. 1,385 5.0% 69 322 2,671 2001 2,099 12.7% 267 1,385 5.0% 69 336 3,007 tv 2002 2,162 13.1% 282 ! Sill. t1: ji 1,385 5.0% 69 352 3,359 ~ 2003 2,227 13.4% 298 o . 1,385 5.0% 69 368 3,727 2004 2,295 13.7% 315 ~~ {; O~ 1,385 5.0% 69 385 4,111 2005 2,365 14.1% 333 f 1,878 5.0% 94 427 4,538 2006 2,437 14.4% 351 1,878 5.0% 94 445 4,983 2007 2,512 14.8% 371 1,878 5.0% 94 465 5,448 2008 2,589 15.1% 391 1,878 5.0% 94 485 5,933 2009 2,670 154% 412 1,878 5.0% 94 506 6,439 2010 2,859 15.8% 451 1,878 5.0% 94 545 6,984 2011 2,913 16.1% 470 1,878 5.0% 94 564 7,548 2012 2,969 5> 489 1,878 5.0% 94 583 8,130 2013 3,025 (/1~.8% 508 1878 5.0% 94 )~ r8.73 /~ e - Totals 39,755 13.1% ev 8.300 5.3% 444 5.0% e) (6;; · Includes Fl Lewis and McChord. , Source: Mundy & Associates Forecasts. / I 1/(~c.. ~ J~ (frP /i O()O ~ b~-'jP- ~~l~ ) " '( e~tn Ca~tu!e Rate County of Count lncrease- ~9). 184.'2.06 ~. 1993 19'2..\'2.4 6.'2.36 1994 198.359 6.033 1995 '2.04.393 6.06'2. 1996 '2.10.455 6.091 1991 '2.16.546 6.1'2.1 1998 '2.'2.'2..f/:J1 6.331 1999 2'2.9.005 6.450 '2.f$$J '2.35,454 6.569 '2.001 '2.4'2.,0'2.3 6.695 '2.00'2. '2.48.118 6.8'2.9 '2.003 '2.55,541 1,398 '2.f$J4 '2.6'2..945 1.535 '2.005 '2.10,4Bl 1,68'2. '2.\fY:> '2.1B.16'2. 1,B35 '2.001 2B5,991 1.999 '2.008 '2.93,996 8,4'2.8 '2.f$f} 30'2.,4'2.4 8.530 '2.010 310,954 B,636 '2.011 319.590 B,145 '2.01'2. 3'2.B,335 1,015 '2.013 13 4% ell as \he 1 crease: 1.551 . d me county as w hnnual Aserage n 2.9% . eases frotn outsl e u1ation lnC! . u\ s colutnn reflect P:"~ 'tables 9a and 9b. ngures \n 1 ed increases 1Il "'~ote: 'The , tnent general 'tract \'2.4 etn~lOY . 1 des Census . !\tea \nClU . ectlons. ","''the '(eltn hssociateS pro) MundY &. Source: 10.0% ~ 10.1<10 11.0% 114% 1\1% 1'2..0% 1'2..4% 1'2..1% 131% 134% 131% \4 1<10 144% \4.80/0 151% 154% 15.B% 16.1% 16.5% 16$% ~ ~ ~'- ~ 'I ~\~..~ \ ~ \ \ \ ~ ~. , ~ 666 f/:J5 6B9 113 131 185 8'2.0 858 B91 938 1.04'2. \.OB1 1.134 1.183 1,'2.35 1.330 1.315 1,4'2.1 1,469 9,504 10,3'2.3 10.9B9 1 \ .654 \'2.,34'2. 13,055 13,19'2. 14.516 15.391 16.'2.55 11.15'2. 18,090 19.13'2. '2.0,'2.18 '2.1.35'2. 2'2..535 '2.3,110 '2.5,100 '2.6.415 '2.1.891 '2.9,3f/:J 3.895 4,'2.31 4.503 4.116 5.058 5.350 5.65'2. 5.914 6.310 6.66'2. 1.029 1.414 1.841 B.'2.B6 8,151 9.'2.36 9,142 10.'2.81 10.B50 11.433 1'2..035 5.%% 5.8% ~ ~ */ ~ ~ ~ ~ () ~ ~ ~~~ ' / ~ ~ .~ $\~ ~ ,,~'l ~_ ',,- ~ / / I ~") ') ~'l I I ~ ~J ~ i 1 !\ K~\ ~ ~ /\' ~,f! ~ ~ '" -_/~\ 'T ,I 1-' ,01 ;\1 1>-- I : I I !Ti \~\ tl ITi IAi I' I LL I I 1 IT\ "".\I"S I~. II IWIIIOR ~ I .",n I f j T I Ii .\ I ~ I 'I I'~. ) 1 , -- . 10.._ II 1.1 \I I. I r. L_L I. It. c..il. I.,,j'. 'T " o ;). -=<: ! i I !T II 19' ). i i I +,,( Joo3 ::r c ., fIl .... o :s (j o c :s~ .... -. '<lJQ (j~ ~~ ~A C fIl N 0.. -..,.,,--~;: 1 ,. - THURSTON COUNTY WASHINGTON Joo3 ., l$ n .... ~ l\) "0 1 Iii "I i i ' I ' ~ JJ ~ ... I _ ~ , rlERCE I' ~ 1'- ~__ . __ - ' ,-~ ~\------:- '~ I I ." _ "" . _ _. _. ' "'- ---. ~ -- r II ' . . _ " , . . ::-'V _~., __' I' - ~ -.. -, ~ r I ~i ?~ .l...J)L:- '2;~'~~ './ -"' ;-': \---,-~ \T: I I . <--c. > .'. I'{ .-< ,_? \ '" -' -- - '--.. .'. , ,d f' -- ~, , \. I lL-rs CO~~T\' i ":,1 II ~ I~:\ \\ ~ [:'~ \I : (, [ II: ~ tr<" COI'TY I . .. -:=Jill. r:"l- ~ P'Il:. ~ : ~~~.~' _ . ,,_-. I: I [ I:"l- \14.::.'0\ " " -;:. ;~.... 1990 CENSUS TRACTS COI"n' -:: G LONG TERM UGM BOUNDARY Ptt:l!O: I"Ol"'\TY ~ ~~ 27 . Yelm will be the rust town in the south county area to have a 20-year comprehensIve transportation plan for local traffic improvements. . The growth management act will restrict growth in areas outside designated urban areas thereby increasing the share of populanon growth that IS captured by urban areas. . The development of a wider variety of housing by quality, pnce range and style, will attract a greater share of the population to the Yelm Area MUNDY & ASSOCIATES SEAffiE . PORnAND . ANCHORAGE n.~ WclcaD:/I'l>ape CERTIFICA TION I certuy that, to the best of my knowledge and bebef, .. the facts and data reported by the appraiser and used in the appraisal process are true and correct. the reported analyses, opimons, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptIons and limiting conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. I have no present or prospectIve interest in the property that is the subject of this report and I have no personal mterest or bIas WIth respect to the parties involved. my compensation IS not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opInions, or conclusions m, or the use of, this appraIsal report nor was this assignment based on a requested minimum valuation, a specIfic valuation or approval of a loan - my analyses, opiruons, and conclusions were developed and this appraisal report was prepared in confonnIty with Unifonn Standards of the Professional Appraisal Practice, and the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Practice of the AppraIsal Insntute. the use of this report is subject to the requIrements of the Appraisal Insntute relating to review by ItS duly authorized representatives. as of the date of this report, I have completed the requIrements under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Insntute. Rhoda BlIss has made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. no one provided sigmficant professional assistance to the person(s) signing thIS report. MUNDY & ASSOCIATES ~ n~~r Bill Mundy, Ph.D, MAl State of WashIngton Cerofied Real Estate Appraiser #MU-ND- YW-H603D2 ~ c:; &~ Rhoda C. BlIss, MA Senior Analyst MUNDY & ASSOCIATES SEA TIlE . PORTlAND . ANCHORAGE 92-3001 Wclcomo/lll"'l" BILL MUNDY PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS EXPERIENCE Bill Mundy has over twenty years of experience in real estate market, economic and valuation research Over this time span he has held the following positions . Doane Agricultural Service (1965-67) Farm Manager and rural appraiser . Fenton. Conger & Ballaine (1967-68) Real estate appraiser and market analyst. . Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company (1971-73) Land economist and housing market analyst . Bill Mundy & Associates (1976-present) Owner Real estate development. . Mundy. Jarvis & Associates, Inc dba Mundy & Associates (l976-present) President. Real estate market, econOnllC and valuation (appraisal) analysts and consultants. . Real Estate Counseling Group of America. Inc ,President Professional educational organization of leading real estate experts from throughout the U S Dr Mundy has been and continues to be heavily involved in the educational communJty He has taught at the University of Washington and for the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers (AlREA) He developed a real estate and urban economics curriculum for Seattle UnJversity Professional education development activities for AlREA include membership on the continuing education committee, instructor of the Market Analysis course and developer of the Market Analysis seminar Bill has a broad range of analytical expelience. including benefit-cost. economic base. market and survey research. and real estate appraisal throughout a significant part of the United States the Midwest. South, Southwest. Pacific Northwest, Alaska and Hawaii. Several important areas of concentration include market research involving litigation matters and radioactive. hazardous and toxic waste He has also developed. for his own account. agricultural. residential, office, retail and rehabilitation properties in Washington and Alaska EDUCATION Bachelor of Science. Agriculture (Business Option), 1965 Washington State University. Pullman. Washington Master of Arts, Urban Economics. 1971 UnJversity of Washington, Seattle. Washington Doctor of Philosophy. Marketing. Urban Economics and Survey Research, 1977 Unn'ersity of Washington. Seattle. Washington Fellow. Weimer School of Advanced Studies in Real Estate and Land Economics, 1992 SCHOLASTIC HONORS Beta Gamma Sigma Amer1can Institute of Real Estate Appraisers Scholarship Recipient. 1970-71, 1975-76 UnJversity of Washington representative to doctoral consortium and American Marketing Association Meetings. 1976 Arthur A. May Memorial Award, 1988. American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. for developing the seminar "Market Analysis" PUBLICATIONS Urban Obsolescence -A Case History oj Obsolescence-Renewal. Masters Thesis, University of Washington, 1970 ~Natural Resource Scarcities and the Cost of Housing", monograph, University of Washington, 1976, Seattle, Washington. ~ A Methodology to OptimiZe Building Rene, B11l Mundy & Assoc1ates, Inc., 1977, Seattle, Washington. A Partial Test oj a Multi-Stage Theory oj Homebuyer Behavior: A Methodological and Substantive Approach Using Judgmental and Behavioral Data., Ph D Dissertation, University of\Vashington, 1977 The Seattle Metropolitan Area Economic Base with. Population and Housing Projections, 1984, B111 Mundy & Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington. -rhe Valuation of H1gh-Amenity Natural Land", Bill Mundy, MAl and V1ctoria Adams, The Appraisal Jouma1. January 1991. pp 48 - 53 -Stigma and Value", Bill Mundy, MAJ, The Appraisal Journal. January 1992, pp 7-13 -rhe Impact of Hazardous and Toxic Materials on Property Values~, Bill Mundy, forthcoming in The Appraisal Journal, April 1992 -rhe Sc1entific Method and the Appraisal Process", Bill Mundy, forthcoming in The Appraisal Journal October 1992. Contributor' The Mundy Insider ARTICLES SUBMITTED FOR PUBLICATION !11e Impact of Hazardous and Toxic Materials on Property Values Rev1sited~, B111 Mundy, subm1tted to The Appraisal Journal PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Arbitration Association. AppraIsal InsUtute (MM #5439) . Member, Textbook and Tenninology Committee Course and seminar instructor Curriculum developer . . American Society of Real Estate Counselors (CRE # 1011) . Currently developing market analysis seminar National Association of Business Economists Lambda Alpha (National Real Estate Honorary) ACADEMIC AFFILIATION Member, Real Estate Cuniculum Advisory Board, and Cha1nnan, Washington Center for Real Estate Research Committee, Washington State University APPRAISAL INSTITUTE EDUCATIONAL CERTIFICATION The Appraisal Institute conducts a voluntary program of continuing education for its designated members Dr Mundy is certified under this program through September 15, 1992 TEACHING EXPERIENCE Amencan Institute of Real Estate Appraisers 5 day courses Memphis State University' University of Houston University of Portland University of San Diego University of Colorado Arizona State University' University of OkJ2.homa UniversitY of North Carolina AlREA- seminars (Market Analysis) Chicago, lL Omaha, NB Anchorage, AK KnoX\ille, T~ Principles, Procedures Principles, Procedures Market Analysis Market Analysis Market Analysis Market Analysis ~1arket Analysis Market Analysis Houston, TX Albuquerque, NM San Diego, CA WRITING/CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT AIREA Terminology Handbook, Reviewer The Appraisal of Real Estate, 8th Edition, Reviewer The Appraisal of Real Estate, 10th Edition, Reviewer Real Estate Market Analysis, forthcoming, Reviewer The Appraisal Institute's Advanced Cuniculum Course Market & Highest & Best Use, Developer AlREA Market Analysis Seminar, Developer AlREA Survey Research Seminar, D~'eloper The Mundy Insider, frequent contributor LICENSES State of Oregon- Broker, Appraiser State of Washington- Broker State of Alaska- Broker Licensed, Certified General Appraiser' Washington #270-11, MU-~'1)-YW-H603D2 Oregon ~OOO234 EXPERT WlTNESS Various courts in, Alaska Oregon Washington RHODA CORBETT BLISS PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Plior to joining Mundy & Associates, Rhoda Bliss accumulated over ten years of real estate economics expelience Most recently, her expelience was with BetaWest Properties, Inc. (U S West) where she conducted real estate market analyses nationwide for the Portfolio Development Division. MARKET RESEARCH Ms. Bliss has extensive experience in all aspects of real estate development including. · residential · condominium . congregate care . resort . office . indu strial . new communUy . retail . specialty uses FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Ms. Bliss has been responsible for conducting the f1scal1mpact analyses for several major large scale, mixed-use developments in urban areas, small towns and mountain communities. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDIES Many of the studies conducted by Ms. Bliss have included socio-econom1c components. In addition, she has conducted socio-econom1c impact studies for new communities and for proposed development that has a major impact on existing facilities. EDUCATION M.A Geography/Urban Econom1cs. 1985 University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado BA. Geography/Location Analysis, 1977 University of Colorado, Denver. Colorado AFFILIATIONS Commercial Real Estate Women Northwest Amelican Planning Association Adjunct Assistant Professor. Urban and Regional Planning Program, University of Colorado at Denver, 1988-1990 Seattle Economists Club. Professional Geographers of Puget Sound. Appendix D Traffic Study Prepared by Skillings and Chamberlain, Inc. Lacey, Washington Planning Context Transportation planning for the Southwest Yelm Annexation was completed concurrently with development of the CIty ofYelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan Environmental Impact Study (EIS) Conclusions drawn by this study are directly related to and support the comprehensive transportation plan and its planning policies, recommended transpor. tation program, and funding strategy The summary of the transportatIon plannmg process for the Southwest Yelm AnnexatIon EIS mcludes the following: Review of eXIstmg travel condItIons m the study area, incluchng capacIty and accident analyses of major intersections, Assessment of environmental Impacts created by the proposal includ- ing no-action, preferred and alternate land use alternatives, Determination of sIgnIficant impacts and appropriate mItIgatIon created by the proposal on the existing and future transportation system, and Assessment of unavoidable adverse Impacts by the proposal. Planning Assumptwns For plannmg purposes, It IS assumed the recommended Improvements are m-place according to the ImplementatIon schedule specified m the comprehensIve transportatIon plan. DurIng the comprehensive transportatIon planning process, development assump- tions were made for the Southwest AnnexatIon parcels and other growth throughout the Yelm Urban Growth Area (UGA) A transportatIOn program was developed to support thIS growth WIth a transportation system meetmg City ofYelm's Level-of-ServIce (LOS) standard and funding abilities (as mandated by the Growth Management Act) Therefore, the study's focus is to determme the traffic impact the proposed action has on the transportatIon plan and ImplementatIon schedule A No-Action alternative IS Included for each horIzon year to determIne how SIgnIficant an Impact the Southwest Yelm AnnexatIOn parcels have on the CIty'S plan. ComparIsons were made WIth thIS alternatIve agamst the Preferred and Village Alternatives proposed for the annexatIon parcels. A fourth alternative, entitled the Compact Alternative, was also developed for this EIS The land use densIties proposed for thIS alternatIve do not dIffer from the Preferred Alternative for the project. From a transportation planmng perspective, the impacts created by the Compact Alternative are IdentIcal to those generated by the Preferred Alternative Therefore, the transportation planning analysis effort for this EIS does not make any dIstmctIon between these two alternatives. Finally, the assumption to mclude the Improvements proposed m the ComprehensIve Transportation Plan as a gIven infrastructure in the future year analYSIS IS conSIstent WIth the Growth Management Act (GMA)'s concurrency prOVISIon. Tills prOVISIon states as development comes on-Ime, the necessary facilities must be constructed to accommo- date the growth. The Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan Includes assumptIOns for future development (includIng the Southwest Annexation parcels) and a transportation program based on this assumption. This plan represents the UGA's future transportation system. It is appropriate to include the infrastructure m the Southwest Yelm Annexation EIS Existing Conditions The transportatIOn network m the immedIate VICInIty of the Southwest Annexation parcels mcludes the followmg major roadways: Yelm Avenue (SR-51O and SR-507) is the pnmary pnncipal artenal m the Yelm UGA. To the west of the City, the SR-51O portion ofYelm Avenue becomes Yelm HIghway and connects Yelm through Fort LeWIS and the NIsqually IndIan Nation Lands to the major Thurston County CIties of Olympia, Tumwater, and Lacey East of the City, Yelm Avenue is known as SR-507 and connects Yelm WIth PIerce County and the major urban areas of Tacoma, Spanaway, and Puyallup In the immediate site vicInity, Yelm Avenue is a two-lane roadway with a posted speed limIt between 35-mph and 25-mph. All mmor roadways mtersectmg Yelm Avenue are under STOP control. The only SIgnalIzed mtersectIon along Yelm Avenue IS at SR-507/First Street, where separate left-turn lanes are prOVIded. The roadway IS under the mamtenance jurIsdIctIOn of the Washmgton State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) SR-507 is another prmcipal artenal m the Yelm UGA. Tlus two-lane roadway IS under WSDOT mamtenance JunsdIctIon and connects Yelm with the South Thurston County communities of Rainier, Tenino, and the unincorporated Grand Mound area near Inter- state 5 All mmor roadways mtersectmg with SR-507 are under STOP control. The only signahzed intersection along SR-507 IS at Yelm Avenue/FIrst Street, where separate left- turn lanes are prOVIded. 93rd Avenue SE IS a two-lane roadway WIth a posted 35-mph speed hmIt prOVIdIng access for reSIdences along the Fort LeWIS boundary to Yelm Avenue The roadway's approach to Yelm Avenue IS under STOP control. LongmIre Street IS a local two-lane roadway WIth a posted 25-mph speed lImit providing access for residences north and south ofYelm Avenue At its intersection WIth Yelm Avenue, both north and south approaches are under STOP control. To the south, LongmIre Street extends approxImately 1 and 1/2 mIles to a dead-end. North ofYelm Avenue, the roadway extends four blocks (1/2 mIle) to ItS terminus with Coates Street. Berry Valley Road IS a local two-lane roadway with a posted 25-mph speed limit prOVIdIng access to Yelm Avenue for reSIdences south of the Yelm HIgh School campus. The roadway has several curves throughout ItS 3/4 mIle length before ItS termmus at Thomp- son Creek. McKenZIe Street IS a local two-lane roadway servIcmg southwest reSIdences witlun the Yelm CIty Limits. It currently extends from LongmIre Street to RaIlroad Avenue and has a posted 25-mph speed limIt. Existing Traffic Volumes and Capacdy Analyses Figure 1 illustrates existing peak hour travel volumes on the major roadways throughout the Yelm UGA. All traffic counts were collected from WSDOT data sources and surveys by Skillings & Chamberlain, Inc. in preparation of the comprehensive transportation plan. Major intersections were analyzed to assess eXIsting capacity deficiencies. The analyses were completed using procedures outlined by the current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual for unsIgnalized intersections, and the planmng analyses of Transportation Research Circular 212, entitled Interim Materials on Highway Capacity Results from the analyses are recorded in a Level of Service (LOS) SIX-letter scale rangmg from A to F LOS A represents free-flowing travel condItions; and LOS F represents congested travel. Analyses were also completed using the guidelines of the pending Yelm Concurrency Management.system (CMS) program The CMS Identifies fifteen major mtersectIOns for momtoring traffic Impacts. These intersections are Identified in Figure 2. LOS results were compared to the CIty'S LOS standards to determine defiCIency or concurrency The City has adopted two LOS standards for the UGA. LOS D for all mtersectIons along Yelm Avenue between 93rd Avenue SE and the Five-Corners junctIon, and LOS C for all remammg roadways m the UGA. In future year analyses, a sIxteenth mtersectIon was IdentIfied for analYSIS. the Annex- ation's South SIte DrIve/SR-507 intersectIon. LOS results for the existmg CMS intersec- tIOns are summarIZed m Table 1 Table 1 Base Year Capacity Analysis Results System Peak Hour Volumes LOS Concurrency IntersectIOn Standard LOS Result 2 93rd Ave, and SR-510 D B 4 Yelm Ave. and Edwards Street D D 5 Mosman Ave. and SR-507 C B - north mtersec., B - south mtersec. 7 Yelm Avenue and 103rd Avenue D D 8 FIve-Corners D E 9 Grove and SR-507 C D 10 3rd Street and Yelm Avenue D D 12 Yelm Avenue and FIrst Street D C 13 First St. and Canal Rd.Wilkensen Rd. C A Existmg travel conditions throughout the Yelm UGA are consistent with the expectations of rural LOS within the A-C range. However, segments ofYelm Avenue exceed the LOS standard estabhshed by the City In addItIon, field observations revealed severe conges- tion occurs dunng other trmes of the day and is associated with bnef traffic bursts related to school dismissals (near Edwards Street and the High School Campus area) and post office operations (near 3rd Street) Traffic Accidents A comprehensive accident analysis was conducted for the UGA as part of the Comprehen- sive Transportation Plan project. The four mtersections having the highest accIdent rates include Five-Corners (jct. of SR.5071Moms Road/Creek StreetJBald Hills Road) 93rd Avenue SElYelm Avenue 3rd StreetlYelm Avenue FIrst StreetlYelm Avenue The transportation plan Improvements mclude mItIgatmg safety deficIencIes of these mtersectIOns. Public Transportation Presently, the Yelm UGA is not served by publIc transportatIon. Pedestnan and BlCYCleS The CIty of Yelm and Thurston County do not maintam separate trau facilities for pedestrians or bIcyclIsts wIthm the Yelm UGA. Currently, the CIty has a partial sIdewalk system along major roadways in the area includmg segments ofYelm Avenue (between the HIgh School Campus and the CIty Center) and SR-507 (between the CIty Park and the CIty Center) Planned and Programmed Improvements A summary of the City's ComprehensIve Transportation Plan is provided m Figure 3 SignIficant Improvements affectmg the Southwest Annexation parcels mclude Y-!. SR-51O/SR-507 Connector, relocatmg SR-51O as an alternate route around the CIty Center through the Southwest AnnexatIon parcels. IrntIal constructIon (1997) is for three-lanes WIth major mtersectIOns at 88th Avenue SE (the Y-3 proposal), 93rd Avenue SE- Yelm Avenue, the Southwest Access roadway, and eXIsting SR-507 Twenty-year forecast volumes mdIcate the need for a five-lane faCUlty (included in the comprehensive transportatIon plan) Y-2. SR-507/Five-Corners Connector. relocating SR-507 as an alter- nate route around the CIty Center to the south. Y-2 begms at the Y- 1 intersectIon WIth eXIstmg SR-507 and contmues along a due-east alIgnment to the present Five-Corners mtersectIon. Improvements planned at thIS intersections includes eliminating the fifth- and SIXth-legs and signalIzatIon. InitIal construction (1997) is for three- lanes, ultimate constructIon (twenty-year) is for five-lanes. V-5. Velm Avenue ImDrovements include widemng the roadway to allow for a bi-directional center left turn lane between 93rd Avenue SE and Five Comers. Edwards Street, 3rd Street, and Jayhawks Shopping Center access intersections are recommended for signals. Improvements to this facIlity are dependent upon construction ofY-l and Y-2 If these roadways are not constructed, then Y-5 is recom. mended for a five-lane cross-section between 93rd Avenue and Five- Corners. V-7. Southwest Access IS a collector roadway to link the Southwest Annexation parcels to the City Center and environs. The new road- way could use eXIsting Longmire Street or Berry Valley Road, or have direct access to 93rd Avenue SE The comprehensive transpor- tation plan recommends conductmg a deSIgn study to determine the route of this facility (For planning purposes, it was assumed the facilIty IS south of 93rd Avenue It would intersect Yelm Avenue near the mtersectIOns of LongmIre Street or Berry Valley Road.) V -8. City Center Connections are linkmg two discontinuous roadways. Washmgton Street and Mosman Road. These connections are mtended to "fill-m" the grId system south of the City Center and provide better cIrculatIOn m these reSI' dentIal areas. The CIty'S SIx-year TransportatIOn Improvement Program (TIP), part of the CapItol FacilIties Plan (CFP), include Y-5 and Y-8 construction and deSIgn studIes for Y-l, Y-2, and y.7 as ImmedIate priorities. FundIng for these Improvements are expected from DOT for eXIstmg defiCIencies mItigation of Y-5, a combmatIOn of City/state Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) fundIng for Y-8, and developer mItigation for the Y-l, Y-2 and Y-7 deSIgn studIes. PublIc transportation in Yelm is expected by 1993 through InterCIty Transit. The actual services plans are not aVaIlable at the wrIting of this EIS Environmental Impacts Assumptions Two alternatives and a no-action alternative were studIed. AB indIcated in a previous sectIOn, three alternatives are proposed, however, the preferred and compact denSIties do not illfTer and have identical traffic impacts. The alternatives include varying residentIal and commercIal development densities over a twenty-year (2012) build out. Two interim phase years are mcluded in this EIS analysIs: five-year and ten-year horIZons (1997 and 2002) The following table summarizes the planned densities for the parcels over the three hOrizon years and alternatives. Table 2 Assumed Development Densities Southwest Annexation EIS Preferred and Compact Alternatives Village Alternative Land Use 1997 2002 2012 1997 2002 2012 Single Family 360 1420 1780 320 1270 1590 Dwellmgs Multi-Family Dwel- 260 1000 1260 220 910 1310 lmgs Ret811 Employment 100 400 500 100 400 500 Non-retail Employ- 190 790 980 ment (Office) Tnp Generation, DlStnbution, and Asslgnment Forecastmg travel growth conSIsts of three components. Tnp Generatwn IS applymg trIp rates, developed from preVIOUS local studies or national surveys by the InstItute of Transportation Engineers (lTE), to the forecasted land use to determine the traffic volume assocIated wIth the development. In Tnp Distribution, a study is conducted to determme where the development traffic IS eIther destined or orIgmated. The final component, Tnp Assignment, applIes the results from the trIp dIstribution study to the trIp generation values to develop a SIte travel forecast. SIte traffic is then combmed wIth eXIstmg volumes and traffic generated by other planned developments to produce a total SIte travel forecast for the study area. All travel forecastmg was completed WIth the aSSIstance of the Yelm Transportation Plannmg Model ThIs model, based on the software package TMODEL2, was developed for the Yelm ComprehensIve Transportation Plan project and for the CIty to use in assessmg Impacts created by development. The process used to develop thIS model mcluded. IdentIfymg the model area (Yelm UGA), Collectmg base year roadway and travel characterIstics data mclud- ing land use data for a Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) system, Converting the land use data into traffic volumes and calibratmg a graVIty model for trIp distribution and capacIty-restramt auto aSSIgn- ment; and Developmg forecast volumes from future land use forecasts for buildout of the Yelm UGA. Traffic generated by the parcel alternatives was developed through trip generation rates by ITE Table 3 on the following page summarizes the estimated traffic generated by alternative for the horIZon years. Table 3 Estimated Traffic Generation Southwest Annexation Preferred/Compact Horizon Year Destination Alternative Village Alternative Origin 260 230 1997 Destination 350 285 Total 610 515 Origin 515 915 2002 Destination 700 1,140 Total 1,215 2,055 Origin 1,030 1,140 2012 Destination 1,400 1,420 Total 2,430 2,560 Trip distribution and assignment for the parcel alternatives was generated by the transportation plannmg model. Included in the model are calibrated dIstribution and assignment representative of existing Yelm traffic patterns. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the parcel traffic assigned to the roadway network as generated by the transportation planning model for the preferred/compact and village alternatives, respectively Figures 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 summarize the forecasting traffic volumes, includIng parcel and other future land use traffic, by 1997, 2002, and 2012 horIZon years; and preferred/compact and village alternatives respectively Traffic Impcu:ts Table 4 summarizes the LOS-capacity analyses completed on the fifteen recordmg intersectIOns of the pending CMS A sixteenth intersection, the south Site drive and SR- 507, was added because of a dIrect relation to parcel-generated traffic volumes. In summary, the capacity analYSIS results indIcate traffic generated by the planned action is accommodated at most locations by the rmprovements of the comprehensive transporta- tion plan. However, there are locations requiring mitigation to bring the LOS back to the City standards as a dIrect result of the proposed action. These locations need SignalIza- tion and are identified in followmg section. Accl,dents Many Improvements in the comprehenSive transportation plan are meant to mitigate safety deficienCies over the next twenty years. In addItion, City standards are upgraded m the comprehenSive plan process to Improve the system's safety and reliability ACCidents will continue into the future and may be the direct result of traffic generated by the proposed action. However, the transportation plan's enhanced deSign and safety Table 4 Level of Servioe Analysis Southwest Yelm Anne1ation Environmental Impact Study Horizon Year 1997 2002 2012 Preferred Preferred Preferred Concurrency Alternative Alternative Alternative Level of No-Action and Compact Village No-Action and Compact Village No-Action and Compact Village Intersection Service Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative 1 88th Ave & SR-5l0 C N/A D' A (sig.) A (sig.) A (sig.) A A A 2 93rd Ave & SR.510 D C C C D E. A (sig.) E. A (sig.) A A A 3 SW Access & SR-510 C N/A N/A D' A (sig.) D' A (sig.) N/A A A 4 YelmAve & Edwards St D D E. A (sig.) E. A (sig.) A A A A A A 5 Mosman & SR.507 C A B B A A A B B B 6 SR-5l0 & SR.507 C N/A A B B A C C 7 Yelm Ave & 103rd Ave D C D D A A A B A A 8 SR-507 & Morria Av-Yelm Av D C D D D F, A (sig.) F, A (sig.) A A A (Five Corners) 9 Grove Rd.Bald Hills Rd C F. A (sig.) A (sig.) A (sig.) A B B A A A & SR-507 10 YelmAve & 3rd St D D D D A A A A A A 11 Coates-Stevens & C B B B A A A B B B First St 12 Yelm Ave & First St D A B B A A A A A A 13 First St & Canal Rd C A A A A A A B A A 14 YelmAve&SW Access D D E. B (sig.) E. B (sig.) A A A A A A 15 Canal Rd & Crystal Spgs C N/A A A A D' A (sig.) A A 16 S Site Dr & SR-507 C N/A N/A F. A (sig.) F. A (sig.) N/A C C KEY NI A Not applicable to this alternative. X. X (sig.): First X repre.sents LOS unsignolize, Second X representll LOS with lIignolll 6/23/92 Sk.illings & Chamberlain, Inc. standards for the UGA should decrease, but not diminish, the likehhood of accident occurrences throughout the study area. PUbZLC Transportation Presently, the Yelm area does not have regularly-scheduled transit service. InterCIty Transit, is in the process of developmg service to Yelm in 1993 The exact service operation is undefmed at thIS time The Yelm Comprehensive Transportation Plan calls for peak perIod servIce to accommodate a 5% modal splIt along the SR-51O corndor However, thIS service level needs dIscussion WIth InterCity Transit before implementa- tion. DemographICS show many reSIdents commuting to the Olympia-Tumwater-Lacey area for employment, shoppmg, and recreational opportunities. It is hkely reSIdents will use transit servIce for these activitIes. However, the impact is not assessable until the service level IS defined by InterCIty Transit and the CIty of Yelm. As the planmng process continues for the Southwest Annexation parcels, additional project-specific studies may be reqUIred, at whIch trme a true impact assessment to publIc transportatIon can be made Fmally, reSIdents may also partIcIpate in vanpoolmg opportunitIes. The CIty IS also working WIth InterCIty TransIt to establish frequent vanpool servIce to help employers meet the Commuter TrIp ReductIon (CTR) legislatIOn. The exact impact IS not measur- able at thIS tIme Pedestnans and BlCYCleS All improvements from the Yelm Comprehensive TransportatIon plan include provisions for sidewalks and bicycle lanes. It is anticIpated most travel by thIS mode related to the Southwest Annexation parcels IS recreational. Further, smce most reSIdents WIll work m the OlympIa-Tumwater-Lacey area, It IS very unlIkely many will commute by either bicycle or walkmg due to the distance and lack of separate traIl faCIlities. Therefore, the Impact to these faCIlItIes IS mImmal. Mitigation Options The major Comprehensive Transportation Plan improvements are related to actiVItIes proposed for the Southwest AnnexatIOn parcels. These Improvements are identified as SR-51O and SR-507 relocation (Y-l and Y-2) and the Southwest Access roadway (Y-7) As mdIcated m the capacity analysis results, most intersections remam WIthin the City's LOS standard. Therefore, the optIOns for more mItigatIon related to the drrect Impacts are very hmIted. The primary option, then, IS to determine responsibility for Improvements. Traffic generated by the Southwest AnnexatIon parcels account for 50% of traffic volumes on the SR-5l0 relocation, 35% on the SR-507 relocation, and 100% on the Southwest Access roadway In addItIOn, the capacity analysis results mdIcate responsibilIty for traffic SIgnals and mtersectIon Improvements at the followmg locatIons by hOrIZon year 1997 HorIzon Year Yelm Avenue and Southwest Access Roadway 2002 Horizon Year 93rd Avenue SE-Yelm Avenue and SR-51O Southwest Access Roadway and SR-510 SR-507 and the South SIte Drive 2012 HorIzon Year No DIrect ResponsibIlIty The primary mitIgation option is the design of the South SIte Drive/SR-507 mtersectIon. By the first horizon year, forecasted intersection volumes and the high-speed of SR-507 reqUIre separate left- and right-turn lanes along SR-507 to safely and efficIently accommo- date site traffic. Signalization is needed by the final horizon year 2012 Effectweness of Options AddItIOnal capacity analyses wIth sIgnals and improvements show the above intersectIons' LOS raIse to A This IS well wlthm the CIty'S LOS standard. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The followmg unavOIdable adverse impacts on the transportation system may be found. Increased vehicular actIvity on the CIty'S transportatIon network. More locations for vehicular accidents. despite the increased safety deSIgn standards. More locations for vehIcular-pedestrIan and velucular-blcycle aCCI- dents, despIte mcreased safety design standards. ConstructIon of improvements, as direct result of this action, may delay travel III the Yelm UGA. f\GURE. ~ .1- 1992 PEAK \tOUR VOLUMES LEGE~ J,.Q.S. ~ ---- 24:> A-B 18-23 C 1~11 0 10-13 E 0-9 r 5 ,,1' 0\0 sm '" City of '(elm. \NQshil'9tOl' cornprehensive Transportation plan .. ~ :x: l1S" \ II ~~\l\b\b\lro@~ !;3 Ii @~l1~OO@OO\bl1Um9 um@, ~~ l2. 10 .fl~ '\i lI.1.!>. - ----.--- f\GIJRt. ~ :. ~ RECOtAMENOEO \N'TERSEC!f\QNS- &1'/\"7 ~c.ovcJ..-w,,") l V\ +z.4:RL-{1' ov-S ~.,..... s.L L ~ ~ ..; ~ ~\ ~~ ~. ~c 0; 109\1\ A'.. S.t. City of '(elm. washington cotnprehenS\'1 e 'TransportatiOn plan e. Fi.... comer" .;unc:t'ot' \ \ ",1's' :I @ClIl\blbUro@@ i;\ II @C\l&GS!@@WIb&llro, uro<s ~~ ~ ~ 89th. .lh. AYlI. S.E. .,; 0: :1. lOQth Ave. S.E. FIGURE ~ 3 RECOMMENDED TRANSPORT A TION PROGRAPi RECOMt.lENDATIONS Y-1 SR-lI07 /5'1-1110 CllNHEC'Tal Y-2 511-1107 /fl't€ CClIMJtS CllNHEC'Tal Y-J CNlAL. IlOAO NORnt LOCI' Y-4 COAlD-S1t\oIMI-10Jrd. CONIETOII Y-a 'lIIJI A'IE. III"lIO\GIOl'l .,... ClnSTAL. SPllNQS llOAIl IX1DIlION Y-7 KIIRY VAIUY-SW 'lIIJI AHIClCA 1ION Aa:ESS y-e CITY CIM1UI COHNEC11ClNS Y-I IIAUl tal IlOAI) IlEAIJQIlIIEHT Y-10 VNlCL ROAD CXlNHEC1ION Y-l1 110lh. AIlE. S.E. CIIED( CIIOISSNG Y-12 IISQUAU.Y PlNO 5ECQlII ACCESS City of Yelm Washington Comprehensive Transportation Plan t ,,@C-::=.':oLS=j'J@@ ~ ~ @C1J2[b][;Jc;[]\1[b2lD~p D~@ fNGINE""S-P'l..~-SVII~)QIIPS LANDS~ AIf01Irrcrs N.T.S. ~> ::l 1..>,0 / o ?:; / ro i,f , / ~(j ~ \>"" 8 \ \A~ ~~ If'\ - \{)~ ~o ~ Q /~ ~ ,,\S' ~~ ~ ~ " /"'"' > ~ Cl [f\ ~ "-...;. ~~ ~ ,p' 'I Ii~ IJ _If "'I .0' /, \)) ~ 0<;( prJ1 Pe..~ ffi.. V~(v~ r-.. t ~ Q lf\ \ (:i f\ ~~ r~ tJ '- " ~ ~Vi u~ ~l.--~ ~~ ~~--q ~o ~ ~~ "SvJ ,Acc.esS " - 80 (.2.0) c~J C:;5J (}=;) 45 -- _BS(io)GoJ OS-)(IO) ,=,5-- :\ ~ ~~) ~~ c::~ t> '\ (/,~ c? / cP/ ,0)1() /lY L.2cl.-w< d XX - /99+ (X '>l) - 2.a::e [xX] - 20'2- ~ _ less ~C;h-ry<; F/' L!.ye 4 12VILL LLX YL217 NDE T#OOEL T? Slte lraffic Assignment P.e~/~ Vill;Jgc Alternative SKILLINGS & CHAMBERLAIN, INC LACEY WA LL. 13382/7191 UR: 21203/15091 06-23-1992 n. )( ~ o Vi ~ " r- n... '-.J Q \f\ t " ~~ ~~ l\- U ~ + i> (>]' ~~ 0~' ,1#7 l: VI 3 \ 'V\~ ""~ 'J'J \fI1\ \3 I ~ ~ AccJeSS __ =;0 (.35)[%".J C 4::;J (0) 1"0 -- _~05 ;J Ci ';J(:Z~;?S -- ~\ ~'ti y~~ ,~ i " -,r.-? IS ... -^- "/ ., 6 ~ s.v::: AI' '.s- 0 {)i / L /' ,.. A-6 "\ r \ s'~ ~ % tfJ- //-' OllS~\.; -; , ~ ~ rti (VZ:l ~~Q./s-~ \! ~ dj/ ~ ~ ~ :- ,i" rJJ~ OrR7 t--;<:/; prvt "Peo. cHou.... V tJ I (,,( lA"Ie'$ T#OO[f Ti ~ - s:;:: V""!"> \ ~~ <Ad X'lC - 199-::t- (;<x) - 2CXJ2 C>cx] - '201 Z h.?) ~.vYe S' 12VIL-L- L-L-X YL-217 NDE SIte T~affic Assignment V,'II~ Preferred/Compact Alternative SKIL-L-INGS & CHAM8ERL-AIN, INC L-ACEY WA L-L-, 13382/7191 UR: 21203/15091 06-23-1992 TIIOOEL 'I I,,, fev",C1. I A VlV\E'~J.,OV1 ---- Pvo~--'h ~ ~~ /. /(j .( ~ }r;7 ? 1997 Peak Heur Volumes Preferred/Compact Alternative SKILLINGS &: CHAMBERLAIN. INC LACEY WA ,~L I- i" ~~ q~ s Hqvr-e 6 97PRP LLX YL950A NDE LL. 13382/ 7191 UR: 21203/ 15091 06-23-1992 THOOEL T( ~ S rd Ave.. '''--'-U-_l ';f-. ~ ANtJ~Yp-nO,J Y1"~~;>t-~~1 A c C:~--:::: ----1 (( i , , \ )I ~/Y' V' c> F(C)(A'~ =1 97VILL LLX YL 950A NDE 1997 Peak Hour Volumes Village Alternative SKILLINGS & CHAM9ERLA1N_ lNC LACEY WA LL 13392/7191 UR: 21203/15091 06-23-1992 k.ces~ g l!\ I QL vi 93...-d A'e ! VI k.... 0'1 0 I AVIV" eV0'4"V P...o ~J.-,-A I '~ 51<.- S,::}::: o q~V'e g THOOEL T( 2002 Peak Hour Volumes Preferred/Compact Alternative SKILLINGS & CHAMBERLAIN. INC LACEY WA 02PRP LLX YL300A NDE LL. 13382/7191 uR: 21203/15091 06-23-1992 , ...i l -.> \.-. c~ ~~ ~ -d- '- ',.J "1..- ~ ~ /~, -.-' Ji s= ~. <::: __ x . .....; -::_ t:' t _ ~ e.. sVV ~> ~ r \0 l.- ~ ""': -,<.P'C' D , ~ re C;v",7"1 / j$. reA:- ~.,. <; e"':;. ( \ /X (I IV THOOEL Tt 2002 Peak Hour Volumes Village Alternative SKlLUNGS I; CHAMBERLAIN. INC LACEY "A F,ol..we '1 I 02VILL LLX YL300A NDE LL. 13362/7191 uR: 21203/1'5091 06-23-1992 l, \--, '= -=3- r' L A...; E.. ') ,t" _____ /"~..JI ~ b-'i.l~-n t:>r~ Ftr'P<-= 7: i /- J- Cve- <: ;. !/lO[}EL rl I / I ( / ~ ~ ~ ~ l1 ....' '1"- "" .- ~ '0 (/.I"e )0 12PRP LLX YL 217 NDE 2012 Peak Hour Volumes Preferred/Compact Alternative LL. 13382/7191 UR:21203/15091 06-23-1992 SKILLINGS & CHAMBERLAIN, INC LACEY WA l#OO[L Ti ~? ,,-, ,~J'- - 1_ ::;;.. -svJ ~c;.s :C',Yia:: t \.t--r..... ~~.//1' ^~Nc:,V,.,..-n od ./// ,,/ P~'i AcLE~S / / / t / ~ r:1 \ LA",e )) 12VILL LLX YL217 NDE 2012 Peak Hour Volumes Village Alternative SKILL INGS I; CHAMBERLAIN. INC LACEY WA LL. 13382/7191 UR: 21203/ I~091 06-23-1992