September 4, 2020 · 04.09.2020 · 5920 100TH Street SW, #25 Lakewood, WA 98499 phone: 253-984-2900 beylerconsulting.com Plan. Design. Manage CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING | LAND

LAKEWOOD OFFICE

5920 100TH Street SW, #25 Lakewood, WA 98499 phone: 253-984-2900

beylerconsult ing.com

Plan. Design. Manage

CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING | LAND SURVEYING | PLANNING PROJECT MANAGEMENT | FEASIBILITY | PERMITTING LTR-NisquallyAccess Response to Hearing Examiner-

2020.09.04.docx

September 4, 2020

RE: Response to Hearing Examiner Comments dated Jun 29, 2020

Project No. 2017103260, LDS Camp Nisqually Access Road & Stream

Crossing

BC Job# 16-231

Dear Hearing Examiner;

On behalf of our client, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, this letter has

been prepared in response to your comments dated June 29, 2020. We have

previously presented the facts of how this project and a 48-inch squashed culvert meets

the intent of Thurston County and State laws and regulations and the Thurston County

Staff report acknowledged that they were in agreement that what has been presented

meets the criteria and standards of the code.

Based on your current comments and conclusions and in order to fully demonstrate

compliance with all criteria of the Reasonable Use Exception (RUE), you are asking for a

further analysis/demonstration of the most suitable type of new crossing that will

provide the least amount of impact to the critical areas. Specifically, the request or

question is, will a bridge have less of an impact to these critical areas than the

proposed 48-inch squashed culvert?

In order to satisfy the RUE and demonstrate that no reasonable use with less impact on

the critical areas or buffers is possible (criterion 2), and that the proposed culvert is the

“minimum encroachment into the critical area and/or buffer necessary (criterion 4) and

that the flood hazard areas as defined in TCC 14.38.050.A.5(a) and TCC 24.20.100 that

there is no other alternative method with less impact for constructing the approved use

we have provided further review of a bridge alternative and how it compares to the

proposed 48-inch culvert.

This response letter sets out to detail how the proposed project satisfies the specific

sections of the Thurston County Code and how a bridge will NOT have a benefit over

the use of a 48-inch squashed Culvert crossing as proposed.

Page 2 of 5

LTR-NisquallyAccess Response to Hearing Examiner-2020.09.04.docx

Wildlife Habitat and Wetlands

Curtis Wambach, M.S. Senior Biologist for the project has addressed his comments per

Enclosure 1. You will find that his conclusions are that the proposed 48-inch squashed

culvert would not increase critical area impacts over a bridge design.

Flood Hazard Areas

The crossing of the proposed project creates some unique characteristics related to the

flood plains. The reason for this uniqueness is that the necessary crossing is entirely

within the 100-yr flood plain and as such any type of crossing, whether a culvert or a

bridge will not have the capacity to “allow passage of one-hundred-year flood flows” per

TCC 24.20.140. This is because the 100-year floodplain of the Nisqually River is

approximately 2,600 feet wide and encompasses the entire parcel, including the

proposed access corridor and all the surrounding properties.

Because of this situation of the entire crossing being within the 100-year floodplain and

not being able to design a crossing that would allow passage of this storm event under

the crossing as well as understanding that flooding was sensitive in this area you will

find that in our original zero-rise analysis we reviewed the existing and proposed culvert

conditions at not just the 100-year event, but also the 5, 10, 50 year events. These

flood events were reviewed to verify if at the lower events the proposed culvert would

have significant impact to the flood elevations. The analysis previously provided under

Attachment K showed that there was no significant impact to the flood elevations at

any of these storm events. This analysis also showed that Hartman creek could handle

the 5-year event, but that at the 10-year event flows exceed the Hartman Creek banks.

There is no storm data on events in-between the 5 and 10 year even, and as such are

not analyzed. But from this it indicates that flooding of the Nisqually River occurs

during storm events of 10 years or greater. During smaller storm events Hartman

Creek only experiences stormwater runoff from a smaller surrounding sub-basin.

It should also be noted that at the 5-year flood event or less the restricting areas that

would more likely dam the creek are located up and downstream of the proposed

crossing. That is the proposed 48-inch culvert exceeds the water carrying capacity of

both the upstream 24-inch culvert and downstream 30-inch culvert about 50 yards

away. Under any of these lower flood events that are within the smaller sub-basin of

the Hartman Creek, the existing up and downstream culverts have a greater negative

impact on the floodwaters within the Hartman Creek.

What is most important about the analysis of each of these storm events is to compare

the existing conditions against a proposed culvert or a bridge alternative and do they

have a negative impact on the floodplains? Does a culvert or bridge crossing minimize

Page 3 of 5


impacts better than the other? What are the fill areas created by these alternative

crossings and how do those fill areas impact the rise of the water surface elevations

(WSE)?

To provide this comparison and further satisfy the criterion of the RUE we have

provided additional flood analysis and comparison of a Bridge versus a Culvert crossing,

see Enclosure 2 for the detailed analysis. A conceptual profile is provided in Enclosure

2 with a 60-foot-long bridge to minimize fill within the floodplain area. The Hartman

Creek was analyzed separately from the Nisqually River basin for the 5-year flood event

to focus on the effects of each crossing type for the localized flooding impacts. In

summary here are the results of this analysis.

The below Table 1 shows a comparison of the cut and fill volumes at the crossing and

Table 2 shows a comparison of the WSE results for the 5-year flood event at the

crossing.

Table 1 – Cut/Fills

Crossing Cut Volume (CY) Fill Volume (CY) Net Volume (CY)

Culvert 198 132 66

Bridge 282 196* 86

*Includes estimated volume of the bridge structure mass.

Table 2 – Hartman Creek Water Surface Elevation Table

River

Station

5-Year WSE

Existing Culvert Bridge

6726.68 28.59 28.59 28.59

5636.34 28.26 28.26 28.26

4448.21 26.00 26.01 26.00

4357.16 Culvert Culvert Culvert

4355.59 25.84 25.85 25.84

4346.08 N/A Culvert Bridge

4223.65 25.84 25.84 25.84

3066.66 25.79 25.79 25.79

741.36 19.25 19.25 29.25

The results of our analysis indicate that neither a culvert nor the bridge have a

significant impact on the flooding and that the culvert condition will provide adequate

Page 4 of 5


conveyance and there is no additional benefit to the Hartman Creek subbasin with a

bridge.

Cost Analysis

Cost is not a main concern in determination of the RUE. This is a secondary factor as it

relates to alternatives and should be weighed out based on the cost to benefit of

impacts to the critical areas. As shown above in our analysis and additional

documentation either alternative crossing, a culvert or a bridge, provide similar impacts

to the critical areas and neither is superior than the other. A cost Estimate was

completed for each alternative see Enclosure 3. In summary a culvert is estimated to

cost $64,910 while a bridge would cost $404,923. Based on our analysis and

assessment we do not see a cost benefit to install a bridge over a culvert.

Conclusion

The installation of the proposed 48-inch squashed culvert will not increase habitat or

flood plan impacts over a bridge design because no significant habitat or flood plain

impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project, as detailed in this document,

and in the Culvert versus Bridge Zero-rise analysis comparison, the Zero-Rise Analysis,

the Critical Areas Report, Biological Evaluation, and the additional documentation

submitted to Agencies previously. The WDFW agree that the seasonal impoundments

at the proposed project site are not fish-bearing waters and they have issued the HPA

permitting the proposed forty-eight (48)-inch culvert.

Although, no stream characteristics occur at the proposed project site, the proposed

project complies with Chapter 24.25 for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.

The project with a proposed 48-inch culvert complies with TCC 24.30.270 with a

crossing that provides a minimum impact to the critical areas. A bridge is not required

per the code, and the proposed 48-inch culvert will not increase flood plain impacts

over a bridge if it was required.

The project is essential to maintain continued long-term access to the existing

campground. The project minimizes habitat and flood plain impacts to the greatest

extent practical in meeting Thurston County and State laws and regulations while

achieve project goals.

The cost of a bridge is substantially more expensive than a culvert and will not provide

a greater benefit to critical areas.

Page 5 of 5


We believe that the additional analysis and comments from this letter addresses the

request and question that a culvert will not significantly increase habitat or flood plain

impacts over a bridge and as such a culvert design as proposed will satisfactorily meet

the criteria of the RUE and Thurston County Codes.

If you have any questions you can contact me at (253) 984-2900 or by email at

[email protected].

Sincerely,

Landon C. Beyler, P.E.

Enclosure 1:

Biologist, Curtis Wambach with EnviroVector Response Letter Dated 25 August 2020

Enclosure 2: Floodplain Zero-Rise Analysis Comparison (Culvert vs. Bridge)

Enclosure 3: Probably Cost Estimates

LDS NISQUALLY THURSTON COUNTY, WASHINGTON

RESPONSE TO HEARINGS EXAMINER COMMENTS

Curtis Wambach, M.S.

Senior Biologist and Principal

EnviroVector

25 August 2020

www.envirovector.com

lbeyler

Typewriter

ENCLOSURE #1

25 August 2020

Beyler Consulting LLC

5920 100th Street SW, Suite #25

Lakewood WA 98499

Reference: LDS Nisqually Campground Access

Subject: Response to County Comments

Dear Mr. Beyler:

This letter has been prepared in response to comments #7 and #12 by the Thurston County Hearings

Examiner. These comments pertain to a justification of the proposed culvert installation over a bridge

design and whether a bridge design would reduce impacts over the proposed culvert. Since these

comments have been prepared, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) issued the

Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) (Appendix A). The WDFW issued the HPA with the understanding

and agreement that the seasonal impoundment at the proposed project site is not fish bearing and that the

proposed project would not significantly degrade habitat or affect the flood plain over a bridge design.

This response to the Hearings Examiner comments sets out to detail how the proposed project satisfies

specific sections of the Thurston County Code referenced in the below comments.

Hearings Examiner Finding #7

Hearings Examiner Comment

7. The CAO standards applicable to development of roads, bridges, and culverts within wetlands and

fish and wildlife conservation areas are most restrictive with respect to Category I and II wetlands

and Type S and F streams (and bridges are identified in the ordinances as preferred in those critical

areas).

EnviroVector

1441 West Bay Drive Suite 301

Olympia, WA 98502

Phone: (360) 790-1559

Email: [email protected]

www.envirovector.com

Landon Beyler

25 August 2020

Page 3 of 13

Response to Hearings Examiner Comments

EnviroVector Response

No Category I or II wetlands or Type S or F streams occur at the proposed bridge crossing. Thereby,

no impacts to Category I or II wetlands or Type S or F streams are proposed or would occur as a

result of this proposed land use action. Thereby, potential impacts to Category I or II wetlands or

Type S or F streams would be entirely avoided.


In the instant proposal, a Category III wetland and a Type Ns stream and the associated regulatory

buffers would be impacted. Exhibit 1.B-1. Paraphrased, the applicable fish and wildlife conservation

area standards require a showing that the crossing be essential; that the alignment have the least

amount of impact, be perpendicular to the stream, and avoid larger conifer trees; and that the

crossing be the minimum width and meet Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife standards for

fish passage. Thurston County Code (TCC) 24.25.280.


The water feature at the proposed project site does not satisfy the definition of ‘stream’ under TCC

24.03.010---Definitions (Insert 1). Thereby, it is questionable whether requirements under TCC

24.25.280 apply to this project.

Insert 1. Thurston County Definition of Stream

"Streams" means those areas of Thurston County where surface waters flow sufficiently to

produce a defined channel or bed. A "defined channel or bed" is an area which demonstrates

clear evidence of the passage of water and includes but is not limited to bedrock channels, gravel

beds, sand and silt beds and defined-channel swales. The channel or bed need not contain water

year-round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface

water runoff devices or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmon or

used to convey streams naturally occurring prior to construction.

No defined channel or bed occurs at the project site which demonstrates clear evidence of the

passage of water and includes but is not limited to bedrock channels, gravel beds, sand and silt beds

and defined-channel swales. The water feature at the proposed project is a seasonal impoundment

that does not demonstrate the passage of water. The passage of water is not identified at the

proposed project or greater than nine hundred (>900) feet north of the proposed project. Although

the water feature at the proposed project site does not satisfy the definition of stream under TCC

24.03.010---Definitions, the proposed project satisfies all the requirements under Chapter 24.25---

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, as addressed in the EnviroVector (15 March 2019)

Nisqually Campground Access Road Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan.

Landon Beyler

25 August 2020

Page 4 of 13


The Project is Essential

Under TCC 24.25.280(A), “the applicant shall demonstrate that the necessary property or easement

for the alternative access cannot be obtained at reasonable terms or that the alternative is otherwise

cost prohibitive.” The EnviroVector (15 March 2019) Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan

demonstrates that the existing access, which is not a dedicated easement, cannot be obtained or

maintained at reasonable terms into perpetuity.

The existing access occurs on private property that is not owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of

Latter-day Saints. There is no guarantee that the neighboring landowner would continue to allow

access to the facility. A dedicated access road within the existing right-of-way is required to assure

current and future access of the existing facility.

In addition, the existing access is narrow and winds through driveways and parked cars. The

existing access extends through a trailer park on 11th Lane SE. The attendant at the neighboring RV

park to the north of the subject property stated to the author that RVs accessing the LDS facility

often get stuck on the existing narrow winding access road and cannot turn around. The proposed

straight and direct access to the facility will ensure that RVs no longer get stuck while attempting to

access the site. Thereby, the existing access road is inadequate to service the existing and future

recreational use of the property, satisfying this condition under TCC 24.25.280(A). See

EnviroVector (15 March 2019) Nisqually Campground Access Road Critical Areas Report &

Mitigation Plan for more details.

Alternative access in the form of a bridge is cost prohibitive, satisfying another condition under TCC

24.25.280(A).

The Alignment has the Least Amount of Impact

In compliance with TCC 24.25.280(B)(1), the proposed crossing would not degrade salmonid

spawning or rearing areas, priority wildlife habitat, or stands of mature conifer trees in riparian areas.

No salmon spawning or rearing habitats are known to occur at the project site. No priority wildlife

habitat is mapped at the project site by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)

Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database (See EnviroVector [15 March 2019] Critical Areas

Report & Mitigation Plan). No mature conifer trees would be impacted within a riparian area. The

crossing is located, to the greatest extent practical, to avoid fragmentation of priority habitats in

compliance with TCC 24.25.280(B)(1).

The proposed crossing avoids bends in a stream or areas with highly erodible soils and landslide

prone areas in compliance with TCC 24.25.280(B)(2).

The proposed new road crossing will be aligned perpendicular to the channel in compliance with

TCC 24.25.280(B)(3).

The road alignment avoids, to the maximum extent practical, conifer trees greater than twelve (12)

inches in diameter at four and one-half (4.5) feet above the ground, measured on the uphill side of

the tree and will stay five (5) feet outside of the dripline of oak trees in compliance with TCC

24.25.280(B)(4).

Landon Beyler

25 August 2020

Page 5 of 13


TCC 24.25.280(B)(5) refers to utility roads, which is not applicable to the current proposal.

Serve Multiple Properties

This provision only applies to crossings of Type S and F streams and does not apply to the proposed

project.

Spacing of Crossings

TCC 24.25.280(D)(2) states that “the approval authority may require that crossings spaced closer

than called for in this subsection be accomplished with a bridge rather than a culvert if it would

significantly reduce habitat impacts.

A bridge, opposed to a culvert, would not significantly reduce habitat impacts.

Approximately 5,575 sf of impacts would occur to already degraded wetland buffer under the

current proposal. Wetlands A & B at the project site are ponded and do not function as a stream. No

stream features, such as flowing water, occur in Wetlands A or B. However, these wetlands are

labeled by databases as part of Hartman/Medicine Creek. Because Wetlands A & B at the project

site do not function as a stream or riparian habitat, and because no fish are identified by agency

databases to occur at the project site, no stream or riparian impacts have been considered.

Whether a bridge or a culvert, the 5,575 sf of buffer impacts would remain unchanged. A bridge

would not reduce buffer impacts over a culvert.

The proposed dedicated access road would result in an unavoidable impact to the southern end of

Wetland A, totaling three hundred seventy-five (375) sf in size. This small area consists of road

slope on an existing private crossing owned by the neighboring property. The proposed project

would extend the new crossing over the road slope of the existing crossing, which minimizes habitat

impacts.

Photo 1 from the EnviroVector (15 March 2019) Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan illustrates

that no significant habitat occurs in the project area (Insert 2). No vegetation occurs in the work

area, other than European grasses, as seen in Insert 2. Because no significant habitat occurs in the

work area, no significant impacts to habitat would occur and, as such, no significant reduction in

habitat impacts would occur with a bridge design over a culvert.

Landon Beyler

25 August 2020

Page 6 of 13


Insert 2. No Significant Habitat in Project Area

Minimize Crossing Width

Project design considers the narrowest width possible, consistent with applicable County road standards

and protection of public safety in compliance with TCC 24.25.280(E)---Minimize Crossing Width.

Clearing to accommodate the road would be minimized to the greatest extent practicable for a successful

project design. The width of the road crossing is limited by road standards, staying within the right-of-

way, and minimizing environmental impacts.

Bridge and Culvert Design

The design of stream crossings is consistent with the WDFW Fish Passage Design at Road Culverts (See

attached HPA).

Avoidance of Flood Hazards

In compliance with TCC 24.20.070, roads crossings and culverts are permitted within floodplains. The

proposed project design avoids habitat degradation to the maximum extent possible while not increasing

flood hazards. In compliance with TCC 24.20.080, development will be design so it does not increase

flood hazard. In compliance with TCC 24.20.090, clearing and grading will only occur between May 1

and September 30 while protecting soils from compaction during construction. In compliance with TCC

24.20.100, the proposed road will be constructed along a designated road easement for a property that

would otherwise be landlocked. Additionally, the excavated material will be used as fill to prevent

increase in elevation within the floodplain.

Logging Roads within Sites Proposed for Development

This section does not apply.

Landon Beyler

25 August 2020

Page 7 of 13



The wetland standards contain similar requirements, plus a requirement that oversize culverts be used

to allow wildlife passage. TCC 24.30.280.


The project HPA has been issued permitting a forty-eight (48) inch culvert (See Appendix A).

EnviroVector, in coordination with the project engineers, have sized the culvert. The Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has approved the HPA for fish and wildlife passage. The

WDFW are the experts of fish and wildlife passage and they believe that the proposed forty-eight (48)

inch culvert is adequate. Thereby, the proposed culvert satisfies TCC 24.25.280(D)(4) and is consistent

with Chapter 24.25 TCC, as discussed above in this document.


While the wetland regulations specify that bridges are preferred for Category I and II wetlands, they

also include language (see TCC 24.30.280.D.2) that the approval authority may require that crossings

be accomplished with a bridge rather than a culvert if it would significantly reduce wetland impacts.

TCC 24.30.280. In this case it is not known whether a bridge would significantly reduce wetland

impacts. Exhibit 1, page 18.


TCC 24.25.280(D)(2) does not apply because no Category I or II wetlands or wetlands in riparian

habitat areas occur in the proposed project site. Wetland A at the project site is categorized as Category

III. Because Wetlands A & B at the project site do not function as a stream, and because no fish are

identified by agency databases to occur at the project site, no riparian habitat occurs at the project site.

The WDFW has determined that the water feature at the project site is not fish bearing and has issued

the HPA as such.

As discussed above in this document, the water feature at the proposed project site does not satisfy the

definition of ‘stream’ under TCC 24.03.010---Definitions (Insert 1), and thereby, no riparian habitat

occurs at the project site.

A bridge, opposed to a culvert, would not significantly reduce habitat impacts, as discussed above in this

document.

As discussed above in this document, a bridge would not reduce wetland buffer impacts over a culvert.

In addition, no significant reduction in impacts would be achieved by installing a bridge over a culvert

because the very small area of wetland impacts, totaling three hundred seventy-five (375) sf in size, is

located on the road slope of the neighbor’s existing access (Insert 2). The proposed project would

extend the new crossing over the road slope of the existing crossing, to minimize habitat impacts.

Landon Beyler

25 August 2020

Page 8 of 13


Photo 1 from the EnviroVector (15 March 2019) Critical Areas Report & Mitigation Plan illustrates that

no significant habitat occurs in the project area (Insert 2). No vegetation occurs in the work area, other

than European grasses, as seen in Insert 2. Because no significant habitat occurs in the work area, no

significant impacts to habitat would occur and, as such, no significant reduction in habitat impacts

would occur with a bridge over a culvert.

Hearings Examiner Finding #12


12. County flood hazard building standards do not allow fill within flood hazard areas unless a qualified

professional engineer and wildlife biologist demonstrate that there is no alternative method for

constructing the use and that certain identified impacts will not occur (increase in flood hazard or

flood elevations, degradation of important habitats, etc.). TCC 14.38.050(A)(5)(a). In this case the

Applicant did not evaluate a bridge alternative to the proposed culvert, so a direct comparison of the

impacts of the two structures cannot be made. Of note, a bridge could not avoid floodplain impacts

entirely because it would not be possible to elevate it out of the floodplain. The floodplain is 2,600

feet wide and covers the entire panhandle. Exhibit 1; Landon Beyler Testimony.


TCC 14.38.050(A)(5)(a) states that no fill is allowed within the special flood hazard area unless a

qualified professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington and a qualified wildlife habitat

biologist demonstrate that there is no other alternative method for constructing an approved use listed in

Table 24.20-1 TCC or to provide access to essential public facilities and that such grading and filling

will not block stream side channels, increase flood hazards, water velocity, or flood elevations, inhibit

channel migration, or degrade important habitats

New construction of culverts is an approved use in frequently flooded areas under Table 24.20-1 TCC.

No other alternative method (i.e., bridge) for constructing an approved use (i.e., culvert) would reduce

blockage of watercourse side channels, decrease flood hazards, reduce water velocity, change flood

elevations, expand channel migration, or improve important habitats.

Water does not flow at the proposed project site and there are no side channels. Thereby, the proposed

culvert will not block stream side channels or a bridge design. Engineers performed a Zero Rise

Analysis to determine that flood hazards would not increase with the installation of the proposed culvert.

Thereby, the proposed culvert would not increase flood hazards over a bridge design. Water velocity

would not increase with the construction of the new culvert over a bridge because no flow occurs within

the seasonal impoundment of water at the proposed project site. Flood elevations will not change

significantly with the construction of the proposed culvert over a bridge because the majority of the

proposed road, which is completely within the flood plain, would not change from culver to bridge

design. The entire project is within the flood plain, whether culvert or bridge. The culvert design would

not restrict channel migration over a bridge design because no channel migration occurs at the proposed

project site. The proposed culvert installation would not degrade important habitat over a bridge design

Landon Beyler

25 August 2020

Page 9 of 13


as detailed above in this document because no significant habitat occurs at the proposed project site that

would be disturbed.

The proposed access road meets all other requirements of TCC 14.38 including, but not limited to, the

zero rise and compensatory storage requirements. The project engineers performed a Zero Rise

Analysis and evaluated compensatory storage requirements as part of the proposed design.

The proposed culvert installation would not degrade important habitat over a bridge design because no

significant impacts to important habitat would occur as a result of the proposed culvert installation. No

fish or fish habitat are known to occur at the proposed project site that would be impacted by the

proposed project.

The EnviroVector (15 March 2019) LDS Nisqually Access Road Biological Evaluation (BE)

(No Effects Determination) analyzes potential impacts to important habitats within Flood Hazard Areas.

The study determined that no fish occur in the water feature located at the project area and there would

be ‘no effect’ on protected species.

The EnviroVector (15 March 2019) LDS Nisqually Access Road Supplement Fish Study determined

that fish do not occur at the proposed work site. Fish barriers and the lack of water prevent fish access

to the proposed work area. Seasonal water impounds at the proposed work site. However, no water

occurs downgradient of the work site, other than for the short duration of extreme winter storms. Low

water prevents fish access to the proposed work site.

Insert 3 shows areas of impounded water and the dry channel downgradient of the impoundments.

Photo locations are shown in Insert 3. Insert 4 shows photographs of impounded seasonal water in the

area of the proposed work site and the dry channel downgradient of the proposed work site. No fish can

pass the dry channel to inhabit the seasonally impounded water in the area of the proposed work site.

The flood plain is two thousand six hundred (2,600) feet wide, encompassing the entire work site and

water feature shown in Insert 3. Because the entire project site is within a flood plain, flooding may

occur occasionally. If by some unlikely chance, fish make their way to the proposed work site during an

extreme flood event, fish mortality would surely follow when this seasonal water dries up completely

during the summer months. No sustainable fish life is possible at the work site because of this seasonal

drying out.

The WDFW agrees that the seasonal impoundments at the proposed project site are not fish-bearing

waters. As such, the WDFW issued the HPA permitting the proposed forty-eight (48)-inch culvert

(Appendix A). Because no fish are expected to occur at the proposed project site, so impacts to fish or

fish habitat would occur under the proposed project. Thereby, no significant reduction of fish impacts

would occur with the construction of a bridge over a culvert.

Landon Beyler

25 August 2020

Page 10 of 13


Insert 3. Water Impoundments and dry channel

Landon Beyler

25 August 2020

Page 11 of 13


Insert 4. Photographs from Fish Study at locations shown in Insert 3.

Landon Beyler

25 August 2020

Page 12 of 13


Conclusion

The installation of a culvert would not significantly increase habitat or flood plain impacts over a bridge

design because no significant habitat or flood plain impacts would occur as a result of the proposed

project, as detailed in this document and in the Critical Areas Report, Biological Evaluation, and

additional documentation submitted to Agencies. The WDFW agrees that the seasonal impoundments at

the proposed project site are not fish-bearing waters. As such, the WDFW issued the HPA permitting

the proposed forty-eight (48)-inch culvert.

Although no stream characteristics occur at the proposed project site, the proposed project complies with

Chapter 24.25---Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. The project is essential to maintain

continued access to the existing campground. The project minimizes habitat impacts to the greatest

extent practicable in order to achieve project goals. Potential impacts have been quantified and

appropriate mitigation proposed in the Critical Areas Report to off-set these potential impacts.

We believe that the Hearings Examiner’s comments #7 and #12 have been fully addressed.

If you have any questions or require further services, you can contact me at (360) 790-1559.

Sincerely,

Curtis Wambach, M.S.

Senior Biologist and Principal

EnviroVector

Landon Beyler

25 August 2020

Page 13 of 13


Appendix A

Copy of WDFW HPA

PERMITTEE AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR

Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints EnviroVector

ATTENTION: Arlin Burbridge ATTENTION: Julie Lewis

50 E North Temple RM 2225 1441 W Bay Dr NW

Salt Lake City, UT 84150 Olympia, WA 98502-4306

Project Name: LDS Nisqually Access Road

Project Description: The project proposes to construct an access road to the LDS facility. Road construction includes a crossing structure composed of ecology block with a 48 inch culvert in the Medicine Creek channel to pass flow.

PROVISIONS

TIMING - PLANS - INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL

1. TIMING LIMITATION: You may start work immediately. Work below the ordinary high water line must only occur during times of the year when flooding is unlikely.

2. APPROVED PLANS: You must accomplish the work per plans and specifications submitted with the application and approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, entitled 16-231 PLAN SET Revised.pdf, uploaded on August 21, 2020, except as modified by this Hydraulic Project Approval. You must have a copy of these plans available on site during all phases of the project construction.

3. MITIGATION: Mitigation for this project must be constructed per the mitigation plans titled Mitigation Plan All Drawings (21 March 2019).pdf.

4. INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL: Follow Method 1 for low risk locations (i.e. clean/drain/dry). Thoroughly remove visible dirt and debris from all equipment and gear (including drive mechanisms, wheels, tires, tracks, buckets, and undercarriage) before arriving and leaving the job site to prevent the transport and introduction of invasive species. For contaminated or high risk sites please refer to the Method 2 Decontamination protocol. Properly dispose of any water and chemicals used to clean gear and equipment. You can find this and additional information in the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's "Invasive Species Management Protocols", available online at https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/invasive/prevention.

NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

5. NOTIFICATION: You, your agent, or contractor must contact the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife by e-mail at [email protected]; mail to Post Office Box 43234, Olympia, Washington 98504-3234; or fax to (360) 902-2946 at least three business days before starting work. The notification must include the permittee's name, project location, starting date, and the Hydraulic Project Approval permit number.

STAGING, JOB SITE ACCESS, AND EQUIPMENT

6. Establish staging areas (used for equipment storage, vehicle storage, fueling, servicing, and hazardous material storage) in a location and manner that will prevent contaminants such as petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh concrete, sediments, sediment-laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or harmful materials from entering waters of the state.

Page 1 of 5

HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

PO Box 43234

Olympia, WA 98504-3234

(360) 902-2200

Permit Number: 2020-6-332+01

FPA/Public Notice Number: N/A

Application ID: 22091

Project End Date: December 31, 2022

Issued Date: August 21, 2020

7. Use existing roadways or travel paths.

8. Limit the removal of native bankline vegetation to the minimum amount needed to construct the project.

9. Retain all natural habitat features on the bed or banks including large woody material and boulders. You may move these natural habitat features during construction but you must place them near the preproject location before leaving the job site.

10. Equipment used for this project may operate waterward of the ordinary high water line, provided the drive mechanisms (wheels, tracks, tires, etc.) do not enter or operate waterward of the ordinary high water line.

11. Check equipment daily for leaks and complete any required repairs in an upland location before using the equipment in or near the water.

12. Use environmentally acceptable lubricants composed of biodegradable base oils such as vegetable oils, synthetic esters, and polyalkylene glycols in equipment operated in or near the water.

CONSTRUCTION-RELATED SEDIMENT, EROSION AND POLLUTION CONTAINMENT

13. Work in the dry watercourse (when no natural flow is occurring in the channel, or when flow is diverted around the job site).

14. Protect all disturbed areas from erosion. Maintain erosion and sediment control until all work and cleanup of the job site is complete.

15. All erosion control materials that will remain onsite must be composed of 100% biodegradable materials.

16. Straw used for erosion and sediment control, must be certified free of noxious weeds and their seeds.

17. Stop all hydraulic project activities except those needed to control erosion and siltation, if flow conditions arise that will result in erosion or siltation of waters of the state.

18. Prevent project contaminants, such as petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh concrete, sediments, sediment-laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or harmful materials, from entering or leaching into waters of the state.

19. Route construction water (wastewater) from the project to an upland area above the limits of anticipated floodwater. Remove fine sediment and other contaminants before discharging the construction water to waters of the state.

20. Deposit waste material from the project, such as construction debris, silt, excess dirt, or overburden, in an upland area above the limits of anticipated floodwater unless the material is approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for reuse in the project.

21. Deposit all trash from the project at an appropriate upland disposal location.

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

22. Store all construction and deconstruction material in a location and manner that will prevent contaminants such as petroleum products, hydraulic fluid, fresh cement, sediments, sediment-laden water, chemicals, or any other toxic or harmful materials from entering waters of the state.

23. Use only clean, suitable material as fill material (no trash, debris, car bodies, tires, asphalt, concrete, etc.).

DEMOBILIZATION AND CLEANUP

24. Upon completion of the project, restore the disturbed bed, banks, and riparian zone to preproject condition to the extent possible.

25. Seed areas disturbed by construction activities with a native seed mix suitable for the site that has at least one quick-establishing plant species.

26. Upon completion of the project, remove all materials or equipment from the site and dispose of all excess spoils and waste materials in an upland area above the limits of anticipated floodwater.

27. Remove temporary erosion and sediment control methods after job site is stabilized or within three months of

Page 2 of 5



PO Box 43234


(360) 902-2200






APPLY TO ALL HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVALS

This Hydraulic Project Approval pertains only to those requirements of the Washington State Hydraulic Code, specifically Chapter 77.55 RCW. Additional authorization from other public agencies may be necessary for this project. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued is responsible for applying for and obtaining any additional authorization from other public agencies (local, state and/or federal) that may be necessary for this project.

This Hydraulic Project Approval shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work.

This Hydraulic Project Approval does not authorize trespass.

The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s) performing the work may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat that results from failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval.

Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in civil action against you, including, but not limited to, a stop work order or notice to comply, and/or a gross misdemeanor criminal charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.

All Hydraulic Project Approvals issued under RCW 77.55.021 are subject to additional restrictions, conditions, or revocation if the Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that changed conditions require such action. The person(s) to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued has the right to appeal those decisions. Procedures for filing appeals are listed below.

LOCATION #1: Site Name: LDS Nisqually Campground11600 DURGIN RD SE, Olympia, WA

WORK START: August 21, 2020 WORK END: December 31, 2022

WRIA Waterbody: Tributary to:

11 - Nisqually Medicine Creek McAllister Creek

1/4 SEC: Section: Township: Range: Latitude: Longitude: County:

NW 1/4 16 18 N 01 E 47.047422 -122.693941 Thurston

Location #1 Driving Directions

From Interstate I-5 take exit 116 just past the Nisqually river north of Olympia. Turn right onto Nisqually Road/Old Pacific Highway and go 3 miles to the 76 Service Station and Store on the right. Turn left onto Durgin Road SE just past the service station Pass through the one-lane tunnel Just after the entrance to Riverbend campground turn left onto 11th Ln SE. Watch for the sign "Camp Nisqually LDS Recreation Property" Keep to the right as you enter the 11th Lane. Follow the road all the way back to "Welcome to Camp Nisqually"

project completion, whichever is sooner.

Page 3 of 5



PO Box 43234


(360) 902-2200






MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THIS HPA: You may request approval of minor modifications to the required work timing or to the plans and specifications approved in this HPA unless this is a General HPA. If this is a General HPA you must use the Major Modification process described below. Any approved minor modification will require issuance of a letter documenting the approval. A minor modification to the required work timing means any change to the work start or end dates of the current work season to enable project or work phase completion. Minor modifications will be approved only if spawning or incubating fish are not present within the vicinity of the project. You may request subsequent minor modifications to the required work timing. A minor modification of the plans and specifications means any changes in the materials, characteristics or construction of your project that does not alter the project's impact to fish life or habitat and does not require a change in the provisions of the HPA to mitigate the impacts of the modification. If you originally applied for your HPA through the online Aquatic Protection Permitting System (APPS), you may request a minor modification through APPS. A link to APPS is at http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/hpa/. If you did not use APPS you must submit a written request that clearly indicates you are seeking a minor modification to an existing HPA. Written requests must include the name of the applicant, the name of the authorized agent if one is acting for the applicant, the APP ID number of the HPA, the date issued, the permitting biologist, the requested changes to the HPA, the reason for the requested change, the date of the request, and the requestor's signature. Send by mail to: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, PO Box 43234, Olympia, Washington 98504-3234, or by email to [email protected]. You should allow up to 45 days for the department to process your request.

MAJOR MODIFICATIONS TO THIS HPA: You may request approval of major modifications to any aspect of your HPA. Any approved change other than a minor modification to your HPA will require issuance of a new HPA. If you originally applied for your HPA through the online Aquatic Protection Permitting System (APPS), you may request a major modification through APPS. A link to APPS is at http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/hpa/. If you did not use APPS you must submit a written request that clearly indicates you are requesting a major modification to an existing HPA. Written requests must include the name of the applicant, the name of the authorized agent if one is acting for the applicant, the APP ID number of the HPA, the date issued, the permitting biologist, the requested changes to the HPA, the reason for the requested change, the date of the request, and the requestor's signature. Send your written request by mail to: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, PO Box 43234, Olympia, Washington 98504-3234. You may email your request for a major modification to [email protected]. You should allow up to 45 days for the department to process your request.

APPEALS INFORMATION

If you wish to appeal the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) recommends that you first contact the department employee who issued or denied the HPA to discuss your concerns. Such a discussion may resolve your concerns without the need for further appeal action. If you proceed with an appeal, you may request an informal or formal appeal. WDFW encourages you to take advantage of the informal appeal process before initiating a formal appeal. The informal appeal process includes a review by department management of the HPA or denial and often resolves issues faster and with less legal complexity than the formal appeal process. If the informal appeal process does not resolve your concerns, you may advance your appeal to the formal process. You may contact the HPA Appeals Coordinator at (360) 902-2534 for more information.

A. INFORMAL APPEALS: WAC 220-660-460 is the rule describing how to request an informal appeal of WDFW actions taken under Chapter 77.55 RCW. Please refer to that rule for complete informal appeal procedures. The following information summarizes that rule.

Page 4 of 5



PO Box 43234


(360) 902-2200






A person who is aggrieved by the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of an HPA may request an informal appeal of that action. You must send your request to WDFW by mail to the HPA Appeals Coordinator, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat Program, PO Box 43234, Olympia, Washington 98504-3234; e-mail to [email protected]; fax to (360) 902-2946; or hand-delivery to the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St SE, Habitat Program, Fifth floor. WDFW must receive your request within 30 days from the date you receive notice of the decision. If you agree, and you applied for the HPA, resolution of the appeal may be facilitated through an informal conference with the WDFW employee responsible for the decision and a supervisor. If a resolution is not reached through the informal conference, or you are not the person who applied for the HPA, the HPA Appeals Coordinator or designee may conduct an informal hearing or review and recommend a decision to the Director or designee. If you are not satisfied with the results of the informal appeal, you may file a request for a formal appeal.

B. FORMAL APPEALS: WAC 220-660-470 is the rule describing how to request a formal appeal of WDFW actions taken under Chapter 77.55 RCW. Please refer to that rule for complete formal appeal procedures. The following information summarizes that rule.

A person who is aggrieved by the issuance, denial, conditioning, or modification of an HPA may request a formal appeal of that action. You must send your request for a formal appeal to the clerk of the Pollution Control Hearings Boards and serve a copy on WDFW within 30 days from the date you receive notice of the decision. You may serve WDFW by mail to the HPA Appeals Coordinator, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat Program, PO Box 43234, Olympia, Washington 98504-3234; e-mail to [email protected]; fax to (360) 902-2946; or hand-delivery to the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St SE, Habitat Program, Fifth floor. The time period for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal appeal, you may request a formal appeal within 30 days from the date you receive the Director's or designee's written decision in response to the informal appeal.

C. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS: If there is no timely request for an appeal, the WDFW action shall be final and unappealable.

Habitat Biologist [email protected] for Director

WDFWDarrin Masters 360-764-9942

Page 5 of 5



PO Box 43234


(360) 902-2200






LAKEWOOD OFFICE 5920 100th St SW, Ste 25 Lakewood, WA 98499 phone: 253-984-2900 fax: 253-336-3950

beylerconsult ing.com

Plan. Design. Manage

CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING | LAND SURVEYING | PLANNING PROJECT MANAGEMENT | FEASIBILITY | PERMIT EXPEDITING 2018.06.12 Zero-Rise Analysis

27 July 2020

ATTN: Tim Rupert

Thurston County

Community Planning and Economic Development

Thurston County Courthouse, Building 1

2000 Lakeridge Drive Southwest

Olympia, Washington 98501

RE: Floodplain Zero-Rise Analysis Comparison (Culvert vs. Bridge)

County Permit Number: 2017103260

Project Name: LDS Camp Nisqually

BC Project Number: 16-231

Mr. Rupert:

We are writing to you to provide supplemental information regarding the flood plain analysis

performed LDS Camp Nisqually project dated September 10, 2019. This supplemental

information addresses the upstream impacts for the Durgin Road SE crossing at Hartman

Creek. The 5-Year flood event within the floodplain was analyzed for the proposed 48-inch

round equivalent (actual dimensions are 57” wide x 38” tall) corrugated steel pipe-arch

culvert and a simple span bridge at the crossing.

The results of our analysis, described below, indicates that the culvert condition will provide

adequate conveyance and there is no additional benefit to the creek with a bridge.

Below is a summary of the hydraulic modeling and results yielded from analyzing the 5-year

flood event.

Hydraulic Modeling and Methodology

Hydraulic Engineer Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) was used to model the

Nisqually River and Hartman Creek at 5-year, 10-year, 50-year and 100-year flood events

for subcritical stead-state flow.

Floodplain geometry for the modeling was generated using the best available GIS data from

Thurston County. This GIS data does not characterize the bathymetry of the Nisqually River

so the three-dimensional surface (generated by AutoCAD Civil 3D 2018) was modified to

include an assumed rectangular cross section.

The peak discharges from the Nisqually River were obtained from the June 16, 1999

Thurston County Flood Insurance Study.

lbeyler

Typewriter

ENCLOSURE #2

Page 2 of 3

The 1999 Flood Insurance Study noted that “A discharge flow of approximately 18,000 cubic

feet per second (cfs) at McKenna is associated with a zero-flood damage on Nisqually

River”. 18,000 cfs coincides with a storm event with recurrence interval of less than 10

years. This indicates that flooding of the Nisqually River occurs during storm events of 10

years or greater. During smaller storm events Hartman Creek only experiences stormwater

runoff from a smaller surrounding sub-basin.

Table 1 – Nisqually River and Hartman Creek Flood Table

Flood Event Nisqually River (cfs) Hartman Creek (cfs)

5- Year 18,000 15.63

10-Year 21,500 N/A*

50-Year 29,000 N/A*

100-Year 33,000 N/A*

*The analysis performed in HEC-RAS indicated that flooding occurs in the Nisqually River

floodplain during the 10-year flood event and higher. The flow rate in Hartman Creek is

negligible compared to the flooded flow rate from the Nisqually River.

Hartman Creek was analyzed separately from the Nisqually River for the 5-Year flood event.

Results

Table 2, below, describes the upstream WSE results for the 5-year flood event through the

culvert. Table 3, below, describes WSE for the 10,50 and 100-year flood events.

Table 2 – Hartman Creek Water Surface Elevation Table

River

Station

5-Year WSE

Existing Culvert Bridge

6726.68 28.59 28.59 28.59

5636.34 28.26 28.26 28.26

4448.21 26.00 26.01 26.00

4357.16 Culvert Culvert Culvert

4355.59 25.84 25.85 25.84

4346.08 N/A Culvert Bridge

4223.65 25.84 25.84 25.84

3066.66 25.79 25.79 25.79

741.36 19.25 19.25 29.25

Page 3 of 3

Table 3 – Nisqually River Water Surface Elevation Table

River

Station

10-Year WSE 50-Year WSE 100-Year WSE

Existing Culvert Bridge Existing Culvert Bridge Existing Culvert Bridge

6726.68 34.60 34.57 34.60 35.58 35.56 35.58 36.11 36.09 36.11

5636.34 33.15 33.05 33.15 34.21 34.17 34.21 34.68 34.64 34.68

4448.21 32.08 31.99 32.09 33.16 33.07 33.16 33.58 33.49 33.58

4357.16 Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert

4355.59 32.02 31.94 32.03 33.11 33.03 33.12 33.54 33.45 33.54

4346.08 N/A Culvert Bridge N/A Culvert Bridge N/A Culvert Bridge

4223.65 31.92 31.92 31.02 33.02 33.02 33.02 33.44 33.44 33.44

3066.66 30.32 30.32 30.32 31.55 31.55 31.55 32.02 32.02 32.02

741.36 19.25 19.25 19.25 19.25 19.25 19.25 19.29 19.29 19.29

*The culvert at STA 4357.16 is an existing culvert upstream of the planned road crossing at

Hartman Creek.

If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact

us at (253) 984-2900.

Sincerely,

Landon C. Beyler, P.E.

Beyler Consulting, LLC

Project Name: LDS Nisqually Recreational PropertyJob Number: 16.231

Estimated By: Landon C. BeylerDate: 9/4/2020

TOTALS

Structural Engineering & Construction Admin $8,750.00 $50,259.45

$59,009.4510% $5,900.95

$64,910.40

Clarifications and Assumptions

1. Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost is for planning purposes only. Contractor shall make his own determination

as to cost and/or quantities without reliance on information presented on this spreadsheet.

2. This estimate has not factored in the cost for delivery and transportation of material.

3. Opinion is based on information prior to engineered plans

4. This estimate is an opinion and is in no way a guarantee of costs of construction.

Page 1 of 2Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost

Summary of Estimates

Culvert material & installation

CULVERT CROSSING

SUB-TOTALCONTINGENCY

OPINION OF PROBABLE COST

lbeyler

Typewriter

ENCLOSURE #3

Culvert - Engineers Estimate Breakdown Page 2 of 2

Culvert Installation Units Quantity Unit Price Subtotals

Mobilization LS 1.00 $500.00 $500.00MATERIAL

Crushed Rock CY 132.00 $38.00 $5,016.00Asphalt CY 15.00 $190.00 $2,850.00Ecology Blocks EA 75.00 $250.00 $18,750.0048-inch Culvert EA 1.00 $600.00 $600.00Mics LS 1.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00

LABOR (Based on Total Manhours)Excavation/Site Prep HRS 120.00 $100.00 $12,000.00Grading/Paving HRS 25.00 $65.00 $1,625.00Walls HRS 40.00 $65.00 $2,600.00

CULVERT INSTALLATION SUBTOTAL $45,941.00 STATE SALES TAX @ 9.4 % $4,318.45

CULVERT INSTALLATION TOTAL $50,259.45

Project Name: LDS Nisqually Recreational PropertyJob Number: 16.231

Estimated By: Landon C. BeylerDate: 9/4/2020

TOTALS

Structural Engineering & Construction Admin $16,700.00 $351,412.49

$368,112.4910% $36,811.25

$404,923.74

Clarifications and Assumptions

1. Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost is for planning purposes only. Contractor shall make his own determination

as to cost and/or quantities without reliance on information presented on this spreadsheet.

2. This estimate has not factored in the cost for delivery and transportation of material.

3. Opinion is based on information prior to engineered plans

4. This estimate is an opinion and is in no way a guarantee of costs of construction.

Page 1 of 2Preliminary Opinion of Probable Cost

Summary of Estimates

Culvert material & installation

60' BRIDGE CROSSING

SUB-TOTALCONTINGENCY

OPINION OF PROBABLE COST

BRIDGE - Engineers Estimate Breakdown Page 2 of 2

Culvert Installation Units Quantity Unit Price Subtotals

Mobilization LS 1.00 $500.00 $500.00MATERIAL

Crushed Rock CY 196.00 $38.00 $7,448.00Abutments EA 2.00 $4,850.00 $9,700.00Pre-Engineered/Manufacturing Bridge EA 1.00 $146,448.00 $146,448.00Mics LS 1.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00

LABOR (Based on Total Manhours)Excavation/Site Prep HRS 134.00 $100.00 $13,400.00Grading/Paving HRS 25.00 $65.00 $1,625.00Shipping, Site Construction & Bridge Erection LS 1.00 $140,097.00 $140,097.00

BRIDGE INSTALLATION SUBTOTAL $321,218.00 STATE SALES TAX @ 9.4 % $30,194.49

BRIDGE INSTALLATION TOTAL $351,412.49

1+00 2+00 3+00

31.7

31.6

9

31.3

31.2

9

31.6

31.6

3

31.5

31.4

6

30.5

30.5

0

31.1

31.0

6

29.0

29.0

3

26.0

25.9

8

25.4

25.4

2

29.0

29.0

3

31.2

31.2

2

32.2

32.2

2

32.2

32.1

7

32.0

31.9

8

32.0

31.9

6

31.7

31.7

4

31.9

31.9

2

-1.66%

0.00%2.24%

PVI STA: 1+60.00PVI ELEV: 29.122

K: 6.01LENGTH: 10.00

BVC S

TA:

1+55

.00

BVC E

LEV:

29.2

1

EVC S

TA:

1+65

.00

EVC E

LEV:

29.1

2


K: 5.35LENGTH: 12.00

BVC S

TA:

2+14

.00

BVC E

LEV:

29.1

2

EVC S

TA:

2+26

.00

EVC E

LEV:

29.2

6


K: 137.79LENGTH: 50.00

BVC S

TA:

3+12

.94

BVC E

LEV:

31.2

1

EVC S

TA:

3+62

.94

EVC E

LEV:

32.4

2

CIV

IL &

STR

UCTU

RAL

ENG

INEE

RIN

G |

LAN

D S

URVEY

ING

| P

LAN

NIN

GPR

OJE

CT

MAN

AG

EMEN

T |

FEASIB

ILIT

Y |

PERM

IT E

XPE

DIT

ING

CO

RP

OR

ATE

OFF

ICE

5920

100

th S

t SW

, Ste

#25

Lake

woo

d, W

A 9

8499

phon

e: 2

53-9

84-2

900

bey

lerc

onsu

ltin

g.c

om

SHEET OF

JOB NUMBER

NO

.

DES

CRIP

TIO

N

IN

IT

DATE

DR

AW

N B

Y:

CH

ECK

ED B

Y:

SC

ALE

:H

OR

Z:

VER

T:D

ATE

:

BEYLE

RC

ON

SU

LT

ING

Pla

n.

De

sig

n.

Ma

na

ge

BRIDGE LENGTH = 60'TOP OF BRIDGE HEIGHT = 4.5'±ESTIMATED BRIDGE DEPTH = 2'

LDS C

AM

P N

ISQ

UALL

YACCES

S R

OAD

PLA

NJU

RIS

DIC

TIO

N,

WASH

ING

TON

11

16-231C1

BRID

GE

OPT

ION

60'BRIDGE

4.5'

±

Documents

September 4, 2020 · 04.09.2020 · 5920 100TH Street SW, #25 Lakewood, WA 98499 phone: 253-984-2900 beylerconsulting.com Plan. Design. Manage CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING | LAND