Regular Public Meeting Agenda 04/18/23

Arne Mortensen, Commissioner District 1

Dennis Weber, Commissioner District 2

Richard R. Dahl, Commissioner District 3

Kelly Dombrowsky, Clerk of the Board

Regular Public Meeting

April 1 8 , 202 3 , 9:00 a.m.

Board Meeting Convenes at 9:00 a.m.

 Pledge of Allegiance

 Minutes of April 10-12, 2023

 Consent Agenda of April 18, 2023

 Call for Bids

 Motion Items

 Public Hearing 9:45 a.m.

 Closed Public Hearing 10:00 a.m.

 Public Comments

o Citizen Participation may be anonymous. See RCW 42.30.040

Consent Agenda

Call for Bids

1. Call for Bid approval for May 2, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. for road surfacing materials to be used by Public Works for the period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024.

2. Call for Bid approval for May 2, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. for asphalt materials to be used by Public Works for the period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024.

Agreements/Contracts/Bid Awards

3. Public Assistance Grant Agreement and the Designation of Application's Agent Resolution approval for reimbursement of expenditures for the January 2022 storm event to include debris removal from county roads, emergency leachate pumping and repairs to damage on Italian Creek Road, Bates Road, Butte Hill Road and PH10 and allowing Susan Eugenis, County Engineer or her alternate, to sign for the Board for the execution of contracts, completion of projects, request payments and prepare required documentation for funding requirements.

Regular Public Meeting

April 18, 2023, 9:00 a.m.

4. Completion letter approval to Pacific Tech Construction, Inc. for the completion of the Sheriff’s Office Transaction Window Project in the Hall of Justice Building, Project #2022-0040-01.

5. Revised Commissioners’ Committee Assignments for 2023.

Board Correspondence

6. Letters/Notices

a. Letter dated 4/18/2023 regarding support for the Mount St. Helens Lodge & Education Center.

b. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Notice dated 3/30/2023 regarding EAP Reprint Comment Response, Merwin, Yale and Swift No. 1 Projects.

c. Affidavit of Posting Resume for the Month of March 2023.

d. Letter dated 4/18/2023 to Curtis Thomsen appointing him to the Silver Lake Watershed Advisory Committee. This is a 4-year term that will expire January 31, 2027.

e. Letter dated 4/18/2023 to Milton E. Patterson Jr. appointing him to the Silverlake Flood Control District representing Director Position #2. This is a 6-year term

f. Letter dated 4/18/2023 to Great Rivers Behavioral Health changing Cowlitz County Board of Commissioners representation from Commissioner Dennis P. Weber to Commissioner Arne Mortensen.

Vouchers

7. Invoice No. NCPL2023-08 dated 4/1/2023 from Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) for Special Assessment supporting the National Center for Public Lands Counties. The assessment is calculated based on one percent of your allocation of Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Funds. The Total amount is $2,024.00.

The following vouchers/warrants are approved for payment:

Regular Public Meeting

April 18, 2023, 9:00 a.m.

Motion Item

Auditor

8. Resolution approval to update the internal district boundary lines from the Port of Woodland (adopted in Resolution #512) by altering the new boundaries, splitting Caples into two precincts (Caples and Wishman), splitting Woodage, and splitting Woodland Heights.

Public Hearing

9. 9:45 a.m. 2023 Budget Amendment

Closed Public Hearing

10. 10:00 a.m. Closed Record Hearing for the Preliminary Plat approval for Ridge View, a 11-lot Rural Subdivision on 27.32 acres.

Citizen Comments – Citizen participation may be anonymous. See RCW 42.30.040

RCW 42.30.040 - Conditions to attendance not to be required. A member of the public shall not be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a governing body, to register his or her name and other information, to complete a questionnaire, or otherwise to fulfill any condition precedent to his or her attendance. People may remain anonymous when logging on to Zoom by creating any name and email of their choosing. In a meeting, public comment will be received, either or both, orally (raise hand in Zoom or use *9 on phone) and by writing. Note: Written comments may be sent to the Board at any time. For oral presentations, the Board may set a time for comments and speakers.

All matters listed with the Consent Agenda were previously distributed to each Board Member for reading and study, were available for public viewing, are considered items of regular County business, and will be approved, without separate discussion, by one motion of the Board of County Commissioners. An item may be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda for separate discussion and voting at the request of any Board Member.

The Board of Commissioners may add and take action on other items not listed on this Agenda.

 Agenda Online Address: https://www.co.cowlitz.wa.us/535/Agendas Regular-Public-Meetings

 ZOOM Invitation Address (for all meeting days):

o https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82019613917

 KLTV Live Feed Address: http://www.kltv.org

AS-12744 1.

BOCC Agenda

Meeting Date: 04/18/2023

CALL FOR BIDS: Road Surfacing Materials for the period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024

Submitted For: Shawn Roewe, Public Works

Department: Public Works

Submitted By: Carol Sides, Public Works

Information

Subject and Summary Statement

Attached are the necessary documents to issue a Call for Bids for road surfacing materials to be used by Public Works for the period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024.  Road surfacing materials will be purchased as needed from the list of awarded qualified bidders.

Will Staff Attend - NAME OF STAFF or No

Yes

Department Recommendation

It is the recommendation of the Department of Public Works that the Board move to approve the Call for Bids, set a time for the bid opening and publish the Notice in the usual manner.

Attachments

Call for Bids

Notice

Bid Proposal

CALL FOR SEALED BIDS AND PROPOSALS

Road Surfacing Materials for the Period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024

Sealed bids will be received by the Board of County Commissioners of Cowlitz County, Washington, ATTN: Clerk of the Board, County Administration Building, 207 Fourth Avenue North, Kelso, Washington, 98626, prior to 11:00 o'clock a.m., the 2nd day of May , 2023, for furnishing road surfacing materials for the period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024.

ALL BIDS MUST BE SUBMITTED ON THE ATTACHED PROPOSAL FORMS. The outside of envelope must have the following information:

1) Mailing Address: Board of County Commissioners

Attn: Clerk of the Board 207 Fourth Avenue North Kelso WA 98626

2) Bid Description: Road Surfacing Materials

3) Date of Bid Opening: May 2, 2023

RCW 39.34 allows cooperative purchasing between public agencies in the State of Washington. Other public entities (cities, school districts, and so forth), which have filed an Interlocal Cooperative Joint Purchasing Agreement with the County, may elect to purchase road surfacing materials from the vendor based on the terms and conditions of this agreement, subject to vendor's consent.

Specifications and proposal forms will be furnished, upon request, by the Department of Public Works, 1600 - 13th Avenue South, Kelso, Washington, 98626, telephone (360) 577-3030. The bid proposal, bid specifications, and bid results may also be viewed on the Cowlitz County Department of Public Works internet website at https://www.co.cowlitz.wa.us/Bids.aspx?CatID=37

It is the sole responsibility of the Bidder to obtain Addenda, if any. Addenda information will be available on Cowlitz County Department of Public Works internet website. Cowlitz County accepts no responsibility or liability and will provide no accommodation to bidders who fail to check for addenda and thereby submit inadequate or incomplete responses.

All documents received in response to this invitation to bid will become a matter of public record and subject to the Washington Public Disclosure Act under Chapter 42.56 RCW.

The Board reserves the right to reject any and all bids, to waive any informalities and minor irregularities in the bids, and to accept other than the low bid if it appears to be in the best interests of the County.

DATED this 18th day of April, 2023.

ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COWLITZ COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Kelly Dombrowsky Clerk of the Board Richard R. Dahl, Chairman

Arne Mortensen, Commissioner

Dennis P. Weber, Commissioner

N O T I C E CALL FOR BIDS

Road Surfacing Materials for a Period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Cowlitz County, Washington, will receive bids for furnishing of various road surfacing materials during the period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024.

Sealed bids will be received by the Board of County Commissioners, Attn: Clerk of the Board, County Administration Building, 207 Fourth Avenue North, Kelso, Washington, 98626, prior to 11:00 o'clock a.m., the 2nd day of May, 2023, for furnishing various road surfacing materials for a period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024.

RCW 39.34 allows cooperative purchasing between public agencies in the State of Washington. Other public entities (cities, school districts, and so forth), which have filed an Interlocal Cooperative Joint Purchasing Agreement with the County, may elect to purchase road surfacing materials from the vendor based on the terms and conditions of this agreement, subject to vendor's consent.

Specifications and proposal forms will be furnished, upon request, by the Department of Public Works, 1600-13th Avenue South, Kelso, Washington, 98626, telephone (360) 577-3030. The bid proposal, bid specifications, and bid results may also be viewed on the Cowlitz County Department of Public Works internet website at https://www.co.cowlitz.wa.us/Bids.aspx?CatID=37.

The Board of County Commissioners reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive informalities and minor irregularities in the bids, and to accept other than the low bid if it appears to be in the best interests of the County

All documents received in response to this invitation to bid will become a matter of public record and subject to the Washington Public Disclosure Act under Chapter 42.56 RCW.

DATED this 18th day of April, 2023.

Published:

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COWLITZ COUNTY, WASHINGTON

PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT: To be published in one issue at least thirteen (13) days prior to bid opening.

BILLING INFORMATION:

1) AFFIDAVIT TO: Cowlitz County Commissioners ATTN: Clerk of the Board 207 Fourth Avenue N Kelso, WA 98626

2) BILL TO: Cowlitz County Department of Public Works

1600 – 13th Avenue South Kelso, WA 98626

P.O. 000957

PROPOSAL

ALL BIDS MUST BE SUBMITTED ON THE ATTACHED PROPOSAL FORMS

The undersigned bidder hereby agrees to furnish the items listed below conforming to the specifications below at the prices stated. PRINT LEGIBLY IN INK OR TYPE

DATE OF BID:

BID SUBMITTED BY: (Company Name)

SIGNATURE:

NAME PRINTED: TITLE:

MAILING ADDRESS:

EMAIL:

SUPPLIER’S LOCATION: (street location)

Addenda. The bidder acknowledges receipt of the following addenda: _____, _____, and _____. (Insert numbers of any addenda received.)

Please provide prices in applicable column for materials/products. SUPPLIERS MAY SUBMIT PRICES ON ANY OR ALL ITEMS AND ARE REQUESTED TO LIST OTHER MATERIALS WHICH THEY WILL HAVE REGULARLY AVAILABLE.

*This page is for the WSDOT spec. items listed below.

*This page is for non-WSDOT spec. items and other materials. NON-WSDOT

OTHER MATERIALS

Please list multiple grades of sand, if available, i.e. washed sand, snow sand, etc.

COWLITZ COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ROAD SURFACING MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS

I. GENERAL

A. Firm prices are solicited for the road surfacing materials listed. It is the intent of these specifications to describe the Road Surfacing Materials in sufficient detail to secure bids on comparable materials. All materials shall conform in strength, quality of workmanship to that which is usually provided by the trade in general. Any variance from the specifications or standards of quality must be clearly pointed out in writing by the bidder.

B. More or Less: Quantities are estimated only and shall be bid on a MORE OR LESS basis. For the purpose of comparison, bids shall be made on the various materials in the quantities listed in the proposal. Listed quantities shall not be considered firm estimates of requirements for the year, nor shall the County be bound or limited to quantities listed.

C. Quantities: The County does not bind itself to purchase these items in specific quantities. Payment will be made only for quantities actually ordered, delivered, and accepted.

D. Term: The period of this contract shall be for a period of one year from its effective date. Either party may at any time during the life of this contract terminate this contract by giving thirty (30) days’ notice in writing to the other party of its intention to cancel.

E. Right to Award: The County reserves the right to make contract award on all groups of materials listed on the bid form or award based on any group or based on any combinations of groups.

F. Right to Reject/Accept: The County reserves the right to reject any or all bids, accept any presented bids which meet or exceed these specifications that are in the best interest of the County and will not necessarily bind the County to accept the lowest bid.

G. Material Availability: Material of each size and type shall be available during any workday, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. upon 24 hour notice by the County. The requesting department or division head in charge of the work and the vendor’s representative shall establish, by mutual consent, a delivery schedule.

H. Changes: Any proposed change in this contract shall be submitted to the Cowlitz County Public Works Department for prior approval and they will make the change by a contract modification. Any oral statement or representation changing any of these terms or conditions is specifically unauthorized and is not valid.

I. Invoices: Payment will be made according to state statute, in the month following use of materials, providing a properly detailed invoice has been furnished. Vendor shall accurately invoice per the prices in the contract and shall issue one invoice per order. Invoices shall be mailed to:

Cowlitz County-Public Works Accounts Payable 1600 13th Avenue S. Kelso, WA 98626

or emailed to publicworks@cowlitzwa.gov.

II. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS

A. This is to be considered an open-ended bid, inasmuch as the materials will be purchased against this bid for a period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024.

B. Prices may not increase during the contract period.

C. Multiple vendors may be selected based upon this bid. Actual individual orders will be placed with the vendor having the lowest evaluated cost based on the total of:

1. Quoted bid prices, and

2. $2.00/mile travel cost from the work area to the pick-up point.

Travel distance will be from the vendor plant or pit site to the work site with the haul route to be determined by Cowlitz County. The following is an example of how the lowest evaluated price will be determined.

Example: Quantity of material required for the job, 90 tons of item X. This equals 9 loads @ 10 tons per load.

VENDOR A: Bid price for X material $25.75/ton.

Distance from the work site: 12 miles.

VENDOR B: Bid price for X material $27.00/ton.

Distance from the work site: 5 miles.

Evaluation for the day’s material order:

Vendor A: (90 x $25.75) + (9 x 12 x $2.00) = $2,533.50

Vendor B: (90 x $27.00) + (9 x 5 x $2.00) = $2,520.00

Under this example, Vendor B has the lowest evaluated price for the material.

D. COWLITZ COUNTY STRUCTURAL FILL - SIEVE ANALYSIS

Materials

Aggregate for Structural Fill shall meet the following requirements.

1. Grading shall conform to the following gradation:

2. 70% of the aggregate retained on each of the 1-inch square and ¼-inch square sieves shall have at least one fractured face.

3. Structural Fill shall consist of unweathered, hard, angular, durable, free-draining material that is visibly well graded from course to fine.

E. The County may reject all material that does not meet, as determined by the County, the requirements for the specific job being performed.

F. Cowlitz County retains the right to randomly sample and test materials for compliance with material specifications. Non-conforming material will be rejected as determined by the County and will result in the selection of a different vendor. All items listed followed by "WSDOT" shall conform to the State of Washington Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, 2023 English Edition.

G. Measurement will be made per ton or per yard "truck measure." If used, scales shall be easily accessible and shall be certified at least every six months.

H. After the bids are opened, the Board will determine a list of qualified suppliers and notify those suppliers of their intention to purchase various materials during the period specified.

AS-12746 2.

BOCC Agenda

Meeting Date: 04/18/2023

CALL FOR BIDS: Asphalt Materials for the Period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024

Submitted For: Shawn Roewe, Public Works

Department: Public Works

Submitted By: Carol Sides, Public Works

Information

Subject and Summary Statement

Attached are the necessary documents to issue the Call for Bids for asphalt materials to be used by Public Works for the period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024.  Asphalt materials will be purchased as needed from the list of awarded qualified bidders.

Will Staff Attend - NAME OF STAFF or No

Yes

Department Recommendation

It is the recommendation of the Department of Public Works that the Board move to approve the Call for Bids, set a time for the bid opening and publish the Notice in the usual manner.

Attachments

Call for Bids

Notice

Bid Proposal

CALL FOR SEALED BIDS AND PROPOSALS

Asphalt Materials for a Period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024

Sealed bids will be received by the Board of County Commissioners of Cowlitz County, Washington, ATTN: Clerk of the Board, County Administration Building, 207 Fourth Avenue North, Kelso, Washington, 98626, prior to 11:00 o'clock a.m., the 2nd day of May, 2023, for furnishing asphalt materials for a period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024.

ALL BIDS MUST BE SUBMITTED ON THE ATTACHED PROPOSAL FORMS. The outside of envelope must have the following information:

1) Mailing Address: Board of County Commissioners

Attn: Clerk of the Board

207 Fourth Avenue North Kelso WA 98626

2) Bid Description: Asphalt Materials

3) Date of Bid Opening: May 2, 2023

RCW 39.34 allows cooperative purchasing between public agencies in the State of Washington. Other public entities (cities, school districts, and so forth), which have filed an Interlocal Cooperative Joint Purchasing Agreement with the County, may elect to purchase asphalt materials from the vendor based on the terms and conditions of this agreement, subject to vendor's consent.

Specifications and proposal forms will be furnished, upon request, by the Department of Public Works, 1600 - 13th Avenue South, Kelso, Washington, 98626, telephone (360) 577-3030. The bid proposal, bid specifications, and bid results may also be viewed on the Cowlitz County Department of Public Works internet website at https://www.co.cowlitz.wa.us/Bids.aspx?CatID=37

It is the sole responsibility of the Bidder to obtain Addenda, if any. Addenda information will be available on Cowlitz County Department of Public Works internet website. Cowlitz County accepts no responsibility or liability and will provide no accommodation to bidders who fail to check for addenda and thereby submit inadequate or incomplete responses.

All documents received in response to this invitation to bid will become a matter of public record and subject to the Washington Public Disclosure Act under Chapter 42.56 RCW.

The Board reserves the right to reject any and all bids, to waive any informalities and minor irregularities in the bids, and to accept other than the low bid if it appears to be in the best interests of the County.

DATED this 18th day of April, 2023.

ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COWLITZ COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Kelly Dombrowsky

Clerk of the Board

Richard R. Dahl, Chairman

Arne Mortensen, Commissioner

Dennis P. Weber, Commissioner

N O T I C E CALL FOR BIDS

Asphalt Materials for a Period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Cowlitz County, Washington, will receive bids for the furnishing of asphalt materials during a period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024.

Sealed bids will be received by the Board of County Commissioners, Attn: Clerk of the Board, County Administration Building, 207 Fourth Avenue North, Kelso, Washington, 98626, prior to 11:00 o'clock a.m., the 2nd day of May, 2023, for the furnishing asphalt materials for a period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024.

RCW 39.34 allows cooperative purchasing between public agencies in the State of Washington. Other public entities (cities, school districts, and so forth), which have filed an Interlocal Cooperative Joint Purchasing Agreement with the County, may elect to purchase asphalt materials from the vendor based on the terms and conditions of this agreement, subject to vendor's consent.

Specifications and proposal forms will be furnished, upon request, by the Department of Public Works, 1600-13th Avenue South, Kelso, Washington, 98626, telephone (360) 577-3030. The bid proposal, bid specifications, and bid results may also be viewed on the Cowlitz County Department of Public Works internet website at https://www.co.cowlitz.wa.us/Bids.aspx?CatID=37

The Board of County Commissioners reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive informalities and minor irregularities in the bids, and to accept other than the low bid if it appears to be in the best interests of the County.

All documents received in response to this invitation to bid will become a matter of public record and subject to the Washington Public Disclosure Act under Chapter 42.56 RCW.

DATED this 18th day of April, 2023.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COWLITZ COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Published:

PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT: To be published in one issue at least thirteen (13) days prior to bid opening.

BILLING INFORMATION:

1) AFFIDAVIT TO: Cowlitz County Commissioners

ATTN: Clerk of the Board

207 Fourth Avenue N Kelso, WA 98626

2) BILL TO: Cowlitz County Department of Public Works

P.O. 000958 1600 – 13th Avenue South Kelso, WA 98626

PROPOSAL

ALL BIDS MUST BE SUBMITTED ON THE ATTACHED PROPOSAL FORMS

The undersigned bidder hereby agrees to furnish the items listed below conforming to the specifications below at the prices stated. PRINT LEGIBLY IN INK OR TYPE.

DATE OF BID:

BID SUBMITTED BY: (Company Name)

SIGNATURE:

NAME PRINTED:

TITLE:

MAILING ADDRESS:

EMAIL:

SUPPLIER’S LOCATION: (street location)

Addenda. The bidder acknowledges receipt of the following addenda: _____, _____, and _____. (Insert numbers of any addenda received.)

Please provide prices in applicable column for materials/products. SUPPLIERS MAY SUBMIT PRICES ON ANY OR ALL ITEMS AND ARE REQUESTED TO LIST OTHER MATERIALS WHICH THEY WILL HAVE REGULARLY AVAILABLE.

*This page is for the WSDOT spec. items listed below. WSDOT

9-02.1(6)

** The Unit Price for HMA products shall be subject to the General Special Provision for Asphalt Cost Price Adjustment outlined under the special instructions on page 6.

COWLITZ COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ASPHALT MATERIALS SPECIFICATIONS

I. GENERAL

A. Firm prices are solicited for the asphalt materials listed. It is the intent of these specifications to describe the asphalt materials in sufficient detail to secure bids on comparable materials. All materials shall conform in strength, quality of workmanship to that which is usually provided by the trade in general. Any variance from the specifications or standards of quality must be clearly pointed out in writing by the bidder.

B. Term: The period of this contract shall be for a period of one year from its effective date. Either party may at any time during the life of this contract terminate this contract by giving thirty (30) days’ notice in writing to the other party of its intention to cancel.

C. Right to Award: The County reserves the right to make contract award on all groups of materials listed on the bid form or award based on any group or based on any combinations of groups.

D. Right to Reject/Accept: The County reserves the right to reject any or all bids, accept any presented bids which meet or exceed these specifications that are in the best interest of the County and will not necessarily bind the County to accept the lowest bid.

E. Changes: Any proposed change in this contract shall be submitted to the Cowlitz County Public Works Department for prior approval and they will make the change by a contract modification. Any oral statement or representation changing any of these terms or conditions is specifically unauthorized and is not valid.

F. Invoices: Payment will be made according to state statute, in the month following use of materials, providing a properly detailed invoice has been furnished. Vendor shall accurately invoice per the prices in the contract and shall issue one invoice per order. Invoices shall be mailed to:

Cowlitz County-Public Works Accounts Payable 1600 13th Avenue S. Kelso, WA 98626

or emailed to publicworks@cowlitzwa.gov.

II. Special Instructions

A. This is to be considered an open-ended bid, inasmuch as the materials will be purchased against this bid for a period of May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024. This contract will be automatically renewed for two (2) additional 1 year periods, unless notice is received 30 days prior to the contract end date.

B. Base Prices may not increase during the contract period. Base price may be adjusted at each renewal period.

C. Multiple vendors may be selected based upon this bid. Actual individual orders will be placed with the vendor having the lowest evaluated cost based on the total of:

1. Quoted bid prices, and

2. $2.00/mile travel cost from the work area to the pick-up point.

Travel distance will be from the vendor plant or pit site to the work site with the haul route to be determined by Cowlitz County. The following is an example of how the lowest evaluated price will be determined.

Example: Quantity of material required for the job, 90 tons of item X. This equals 9 loads @ 10 tons per load.

VENDOR A: Bid price for X material $25.75/ton.

Distance from the work site: 12 miles.

VENDOR B: Bid price for X material $27.00/ton. Distance from the work site: 5 miles.

Evaluation for the day’s material order:

Vendor A: (90 x $25.75) + (9 x 12 x $2.00) = $2,533.50

Vendor B: (90 x $27.00) + (9 x 5 x $2.00) = $2,520.00

Under this example, Vendor B has the lowest evaluated price for the material.

D. Asphalt Cost Price Adjustment: The Contracting Agency will make an Asphalt Cost Price Adjustment, either a credit or a payment, for qualifying changes in the reference cost of asphalt binder. The adjustment will be applied to partial payments made according to Section 1-09.9 for the following bid items when they are included in the proposal:

“HMA Cl. ___ PG ___”

“Commercial HMA”

The adjustment is not a guarantee of full compensation for changes in the cost of asphalt binder. The Contracting Agency does not guarantee that asphalt binder will be available at the reference cost.

The Contracting Agency will establish the asphalt binder reference cost twice each month and post the information on the Agency website at: https://wsdot.wa.gov/Business/Construction/EscalationClauses.htm

The reference cost will be determined using posted prices furnished by Poten & Partners, Inc. If the selected price source ceases to be available for any reason, then the Contracting Agency will select a substitute price source to establish the reference cost.

The base cost established for this contract is the reference cost posted on the Agency website for the period immediately preceding the bid opening date.

Adjustments to the price per ton will change monthly based on the current reference cost for the period ending on the 15th of the month immediately prior to the asphalt sale, for Western Washington as posted on the WSDOT website. For example, asphalt products purchased during the month of June shall utilize the Current Reference Cost for the period ending May 15th of the same calendar year as compared to the base cost. The adjustment will be calculated as follows:

No adjustment will be made if the reference cost is within 5% of the base cost.

If the reference cost is greater than or equal to 105% of the base cost, then Price per ton Adjustment = (Current Reference Cost – (1.05 x Base Cost)) x 0.056).

If the reference cost is less than or equal to 95% of the base cost, then Price per ton Adjustment = (Current Reference Cost – (0.95 x Base Cost)) x 0.056).

The price bid for each product will be adjusted by the Price per ton Adjustment resulting from these calculations.

E. The County may reject all material that does not meet, as determined by the County, the requirements for the specific job being performed.

F. Cowlitz County retains the right to randomly sample and test materials for compliance with material specifications. Non-conforming material will be rejected as determined by the County and will result in the selection of a different vendor. All items listed followed by "WSDOT" shall conform to the State of Washington Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, 2023 English Edition.

G. Measurement will be made per ton or per yard "truck measure." If used, scales shall be easily accessible and shall be certified at least every six months.

H. After the bids are opened, the Board will determine a list of qualified suppliers and notify those suppliers of their intention to purchase various materials during the period specified.

AS-12747 3.

BOCC Agenda

Meeting Date: 04/18/2023

AGREEMENT: Public Assistance Grant Agreement & Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution Washington State Military Department

Submitted For: Susan Eugenis, Public Works

Submitted By: Carol Sides, Public Works Department: Public Works

Information

Subject and Summary Statement

Attached is the Public Assistance Grant Agreement with the Washington State Military Department, the Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution and supporting documentation that provides for reimbursement of expenditures that occurred or will be occurring for the January 2022 storm event.

The Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution allows Susan Eugenis, County Engineer, or her alternate, Christopher Andrews, to sign for the Board for the execution of contracts, certify completion of projects, request payments and prepare required documentation for funding requirements.  The expenditures include debris removal from county roads, emergency leachate pumping and repairs to damage on Italian Creek Road, Bates Road, Butte Hill Road and PH10.

Will Staff Attend - NAME OF STAFF or No

Yes

Department Recommendation

It is the recommendation of the Department of Public Works that the Board move to adopt the Resolution and enter into the agreement with the Washington State Military Department.

Attachments

Public Assistance Grant Agreement  Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution

Form Review

AS-12748

BOCC Agenda

Meeting Date: 04/18/2023

Sheriff's Office Transaction Window

Submitted For: Don Nyman

Department: Facilities Maintenance

Submitted By: Don Nyman

Information

Consent 4.

Subject and Summary Statement

On October 14, 2022 the Board of Commissioners awarded the bid for Contract Execution Project #2022-0040-01 for the Sheriff’s Office Transaction Window Project in the Hall of Justice Building.  One bid was submitted by Pacific Tech Construction, Inc. for $49,163.85 including Washington State Sales Tax.

The work was executed in accordance with project plans and specifications.  All equipment and materials used to complete the work conform to the criteria outlined by the project specifications. The total cost of the work specified in the Agreement with Pacific Tech Construction, Inc in the amount of $56,330.89, including Washington State Sales Tax.

Project Start Date:                              10/14/2022

Project Completion Date:                   04/11/2023

Will Staff Attend - NAME OF STAFF

Yes, Will Tastad

Department Recommendation

The Facilities Maintenance Department recommends that the Board of County Commissioners move to accept the Agreement with Pacific Tech Construction, Inc for the Sheriff’s Office Transaction Window Project in the Hall of Justice Building, Project #2022-0040-01, as being completed, and sign the attached Letter of Acceptance.

Fiscal Impact

Expenditure Required $: 56,330.89

Budget Sufficient Y-N: Y

Amendment Required Y-N: N

Source of Funds - What Dept ? : 31001 375100

Grant Y-N: N

Attachments

Project Summary  Completion Letter

Project Summary Page

Sheriff's Office Transaction Window

Contractor: Pacific Tech Construction, inc.

Start Date: 10/14/2022

Completion Date: 4/11/2023

Contract Amount $49,163.85

Change Order: $7,167.04

NOTES:

$56,330.89 Total Contract Amount

COMMISSIONERS

Arne Mortensen

District 1

Dennis P. Weber

District 2

Rick Dahl

District 3

ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR

Kelly Dombrowsky

Board of Commissioners

County Administration Building

207 Fourth Avenue North Kelso, WA 98626

TEL (360) 577-3020

FAX (360) 423-9987

www.co.cowlitz.wa.us

April 11, 2023

Cal Miller Pacific Tech Construction, Inc.

1302 Walnut Street Kelso, WA 98626

SUBJECT: Contract Completion for Project #2022-0040-01 for the Sheriff’s Office Transaction Window in the Hall of Justice Building for a cost totaling $56,330.89 including Washington State Sales Tax

Dear Mr. Miller,

We have received certification from the Cowlitz County Facilities Maintenance Department that Pacific Tech Construction, Inc has satisfactorily completed the contract for Project #2022-0040-01 for the Sheriff’s Office Transaction Window in the Hall of Justice Building on April 11,2023, therefore, we accept the contract as being complete.

Very truly yours,

Board of County Commissioners of Cowlitz County, Washington

Rick Dahl, Chairman

Dennis P. Weber, Commissioner

Arne Mortenson, Commissioner

ATTEST:

Kelly Dombrosky, Clerk of the Board

BOCC:jb

AS-12758

BOCC Agenda

Meeting Date: 04/18/2023

Commissioners' Committee Assignments

Submitted For: Kelly Dombrowsky, Clerk of the Board

Submitted By: Kelly Dombrowsky, Clerk of the Board

Department: Commissioners Office

Information

Subject and Summary Statement

Revised Commissioners' Committee Assignments for 2023.

Will Staff Attend - NAME OF STAFF

Department Recommendation

Approved:_____________________ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COWLITZ COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Richard R. Dahl, Chairman

Arne Mortensen, Commissioner

Dennis P. Weber, Commissioner

Attest:______________________ Clerk of the Board

Attachments

Consent 5.

Committee Assignments

Form Started By: Kelly Dombrowsky

Final Approval Date: 04/12/2023

Form Review

Started On: 04/12/2023 03:33 PM

COMMISSIONERS

Arne Mortensen District 1

Dennis Weber District 2

John Jabusch District 3

CLERK OF THE BOARD

Board of Commissioners

County Administration Building 207 Fourth Avenue North Kelso, WA 98626

TEL (360) 577-3020

FAX (360) 423-9987

www.co.cowlitz.wa.us

COMMISSIONERS' COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2023

 Area Agency on Aging and Disabilities of SW WA Mortensen (Weber alternate)

 Building and Planning Advisory Council Dahl

 Castle Rock/Toutle Regional Water System Board Dahl, District 3

 Clean Air Agency (monthly) Mortensen (Weber alternate)

 Cowlitz 911 Public Authority Dahl (Weber alternate)

 Cowlitz County Canvassing Board (RCW 29A.60.140) Chair of BOCC (alternate – commissioner not on ballot)

 Cowlitz Transit Authority (CTA) (Monthly) Weber (Dahl alternate)

 Cowlitz/Wahkiakum Council of Governments Weber (Dahl alternate)

o Executive Committee (Monthly)

o Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) (quarterly)

Kelly Dombrowsky

Weber (Jabusch alternate)

o SW Washington Economic Development District Board (quarterly)

o Regional Information Forum (monthly)

 Disability Advisory Board Mortensen (Weber alternate)

 Economic Development Council (EDC) Weber

 Emergency Management Advisory Council Mortensen

 Emergency Compensation Board

 Title III Local Emergency Planning Committee (HAZMAT)

 Fair Board Dahl

 Great Rivers Behavioral Health Organization (GRBHO) (RCW 43.20A.894) Mortensen

 Kelso-Longview Chamber Board of Directors (monthly)

 Law & Justice Council (RCW 72.09.300) Weber (Dahl alternate)

 Law Library (RCW 27.24.020) Chair of BOCC

 Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (RCW 67.28.1817)

 Lower Columbia Community Action Council (CAP)

 Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board (RCW 77.85.090)

 North County EMS District Mortensen

 Noxious Weed Board (RCW 17.10) Mortensen (Dahl alternate)

 Park Board (RCW 36.68.030) Mortensen

 Public Facility Board Dahl

 Rodeo Board Dahl

 Silver Lake Watershed Advisory Council Dahl, District 3

 Solid Waste Equipment, Land, Facilities (ELF) Governance Committee Position 1 Mortensen (Weber alternate) Position 2 (County Engineer)

 Southwest Washington Regional Airport Operating Board Mortensen

 Spirit Lake/Toutle/Cowlitz River System Collaborative Dahl (BOCC Chair) & County Engineer Alternate Vegetation Specialist

 Three Rivers Regional Wastewater Authority Director Position Weber (Mortensen alternate) Operating Board (Patrick Harbison)

 Title III Local Emergency Planning Committee (HAZMAT) Mortensen

 Treasurer - Finance Committee (RCW 36.48.070) Chair of BOCC

 Washington Counties Insurance Fund (WCIF) Mortensen (Warren HR Director)

 Washington State Association of Counties Legislative/Federal Steering Committees Dahl

 Workforce Development Council Weber

o Workforce Education (WET)

AS-12740

BOCC Agenda

Meeting Date: 04/18/2023

Letter of Support for the Mount St. Helens Lodge & Education Center

Submitted For: Kelly Dombrowsky, Clerk of the Board

Submitted By: Kelly Dombrowsky, Clerk of the Board

Department: Commissioners Office

Information

Consent a.

Subject and Summary Statement

Letter dated 4/18/2023 regarding support for the Mount St. Helens Lodge & Education Center.

Will Staff Attend - NAME OF STAFF

Department Recommendation

Attachments

Letter

Form Started By: Kelly Dombrowsky

Final Approval Date: 04/05/2023

Form Review

Started On: 04/05/2023 04:27 PM

COMMISSIONERS

Board of Commissioners

April 18, 2023

County Administration Building 207 Fourth Avenue North Kelso, WA 98626

TEL (360) 577-3020

FAX (360) 423-9987

www.co.cowlitz.wa.us

Letter of Support for the Mount St. Helens Lodge & Education Center

To Whom It May Concern:

Please accept this letter of support for the Mount St. Helen’s Institute’s (MSHI) request of $4 million 2023-25 budget submitted by Rep. Orcutt and Sen. Braun to help fund Phase 1 on Mount St. Helens Lodge and Education Center project. The Cowlitz County Board of Commissioners supports MSHI’s planned renovation to transform the aging and illequipped former Coldwater Ridge Visitor Center into a world-class campus for outdoor education and recreation. The proposed Lodge & Education Center will expand capacity for outdoor school programs and provide overnight accommodations on the Monument, a first for this historical area. The Lodge & Education Center will have an impact on the region by:

 Providing better access to Mount St. Helens for visitors, including new overnight capacity

 Expanding outdoor education opportunities for youth in Southwest Washington in the spring and fall months

 Offering new educational opportunities during summer months for adult participants

Since its 1980 eruption, public access to Mount St. Helens has been steadily declining. We believe that Mount St. Helens lacks the amenities – campgrounds, lodges, cabins and dining – to make it more than a day trip destination. MSHI’s Lodge & Education Center will provide expanded access to the Monument, thus tapping into a growing market for overnight accommodations and amenities in places of interest. We believe that outdoor recreation tourism is an important driver of economic diversification which will enable Cowlitz County to grow long-term as demand for outdoor recreation opportunities surge.

The Cowlitz County Board of Commissioners supports MSHI in expanding educational and recreational opportunities so that everyone in our region can experience the transformative power of the volcano.

Sincerely,

Board of County Commissioners

Of Cowlitz County, Washington

Richard R. Dahl, Chairman

Arne Mortensen, Commissioner

Dennis P. Weber, Commissioner

Arne Mortensen District 1

Dennis P. Weber District 2

Richard R. Dahl District 3

CLERK OF THE BOARD Kelly Dombrowsky

AS-12752

BOCC Agenda

Meeting Date: 04/18/2023

FERC Notice EAP Reprint Comment Response, Merwin, Yale and Swift No. 1 Projects

Submitted For: Kelly Dombrowsky, Clerk of the Board

Submitted By: Kelly Dombrowsky, Clerk of the Board

Department: Commissioners Office

Information

Consent b.

Subject and Summary Statement

FERC Notice dated 3/30/2023 regarding EAP Reprint Comment Response, Merwin, Yale and Swift No. 1 Projects.

Will Staff Attend - NAME OF STAFF

Department Recommendation

Attachments

FERC Notice

Form Started By: Kelly Dombrowsky

Final Approval Date: 04/12/2023

Form Review

Started On: 04/12/2023 10:12 AM

AS-12753

BOCC Agenda

Meeting Date: 04/18/2023

Affidavit of Posting Resume for the Month of March 2023

Submitted For: Kelly Dombrowsky, Clerk of the Board

Submitted By: Kelly Dombrowsky, Clerk of the Board

Department: Commissioners Office

Information

Subject and Summary Statement

Affidavit of Posting Resume for the Month of March 2023

Will Staff Attend - NAME OF STAFF

Department Recommendation

Attachments

Affidavit

Form Started By: Kelly Dombrowsky

Final Approval Date: 04/12/2023

Form Review

Started On: 04/12/2023 10:14 AM

Consent c.

AS-12754

BOCC Agenda

Meeting Date: 04/18/2023

Consent d.

Letter dated 4/18/2023 to Curtis Thomsen appointing him to the Silver Lake Watershed Advisory Committee

Submitted For: Kelly Dombrowsky, Clerk of the Board

Submitted By: Kelly Dombrowsky, Clerk of the Board

Department: Commissioners Office

Information

Subject and Summary Statement

Letter dated 4/18/2023 to Curtis Thomsen appointing him to the Silver Lake Watershed Advisory Committee.  This is a 4-year term that will expires January 31, 2027.

Will Staff Attend - NAME OF STAFF Department Recommendation

Attachments

Letter

Form Started By: Kelly Dombrowsky

Final Approval Date: 04/12/2023

Form Review

Started On: 04/12/2023 10:14 AM

Board of Commissioners

COMMISSIONERS

Arne Mortensen

District 1

Dennis P. Weber

District 2

Richard R. Dahl

District 3

CLERK OF THE BOARD

Kelly Dombrowsky

April 18, 2023

Curtis Thomsen

150 Lakeview Dr. Silverlake, WA 98645

Dear Mr. Thomsen

The Cowlitz County Board of Commissioners, at its regularly scheduled meeting today, April 18, 2023, were pleased to appoint you to serve on the Silverlake Watershed Advisory Council. This is a 4-year term that will expire January 31, 2027.

We are grateful for your willingness to work in this capacity and delighted that you have agreed to serve

Sincerely, Board

Of

cc: Commissioner’s Record Public Works

Richard R. Dahl, Chairman

Arne

Mortensen, Commissioner

Dennis

Weber, Commissioner

AS-12755

BOCC Agenda

Meeting Date: 04/18/2023

Consent e.

Letter dated 4/18/2023 to Milton Patterson appointing him to the Silverlake Flood Control District

Submitted For: Kelly Dombrowsky, Clerk of the Board

Submitted By: Kelly Dombrowsky, Clerk of the Board

Department: Commissioners Office

Information

Subject and Summary Statement

Letter dated 4/18/2023 to Milton E. Patterson Jr. appointing him to the Silverlake Flood Control District representing Director Position #2. This is a 6-year term.

Will Staff Attend - NAME OF STAFF

Department Recommendation

Attachments

Letter

Form Started By: Kelly Dombrowsky

Final Approval Date: 04/12/2023

Form Review

Started On: 04/12/2023 10:18 AM

Board of Commissioners

COMMISSIONERS

Arne Mortensen

District 1

Dennis P. Weber

District 2

Richard R. Dahl

District 3

CLERK OF THE BOARD

Kelly Dombrowsky

April 18, 2023

Milton E. Patterson, Jr. 118 Shenandoah Dr. Silverlake, WA 98645

Dear Mr. Patterson,

The Cowlitz County Board of Commissioners, at its regularly scheduled meeting today, April 18, 2023, were pleased to appoint you to serve on the Silverlake Flood Control District representing Director Position #2. This is a 6-year term.

We are grateful for your willingness to work in this capacity and delighted that you have agreed to serve.

Sincerely,

Board of County Commissioners Of Cowlitz County, Washington

cc: Commissioner’s Record Public Works

Richard R. Dahl, Chairman

Arne Mortensen, Commissioner

Dennis Weber, Commissioner

AS-12757

BOCC Agenda

Meeting Date: 04/18/2023

Letter dated 4/18/2023 to Great Rivers BHO changing representation

Submitted For: Kelly Dombrowsky, Clerk of the Board

Submitted By: Kelly Dombrowsky, Clerk of the Board

Department: Commissioners Office

Information

Consent f.

Subject and Summary Statement

Letter dated 4/18/2023 to Great Rivers Behavioral Health changing representation from Cowlitz County Board of Commissioners from Commissioner Dennis P. Weber to Commissioner Arne Mortensen.

Will Staff Attend - NAME OF STAFF

Department Recommendation

Attachments

Letter

Form Started By: Kelly Dombrowsky

Final Approval Date: 04/12/2023

Form Review

Started On: 04/12/2023 02:57 PM

COMMISSIONERS

Arne Mortensen

District 1

Dennis P. Weber

District 2

Richard R. Dahl

District 3

CLERK OF THE BOARD

Kelly Dombrowsky

Board of Commissioners

County Administration Building 207 Fourth Avenue North Kelso, WA 98626

TEL (360) 577-3020

FAX (360) 423-9987

www.co.cowlitz.wa.us

April 18, 2023

Great Rivers BH – ASO

P.O. Box 210 Chehalis, WA 98532

RE: Change in representation from Cowlitz County Board of Commissioners

Dear Great Rivers Behavioral Health Governing Board,

Please accept this letter as authorization to change the representation of Cowlitz County Board of Commissioners on the Great Rivers Behavioral Health Governing Board. Commissioner Arne Mortensen will now be the Great Rivers Behavioral Health board member from Cowlitz County replacing Commissioner Dennis P. Weber.

Commissioner Arne Mortensen can be reached at 360-562-0471 or by email at mortensena@cowlitzwa.gov.

Sincerely,

The Board of County Commissioners Cowlitz County, Washington

Richard R. Dahl, Chairman

Arne Mortensen, Commissioner

Dennis P. Weber, Commissioner

AS-12745

BOCC Agenda

Meeting Date: 04/18/2023

Special Assessment Supporting the National Center for Public Land Counties Invoice

Submitted For: Kelly Dombrowsky, Clerk of the Board

Submitted By: Kelly Dombrowsky, Clerk of the Board

Department: Commissioners Office

Information

Consent 7.

Subject and Summary Statement

Invoice No. NCPL2023-08 dated 4/1/2023 from Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) for Special Assessment supporting the National Center for Public Lands Counties. The assessment is calculated based on one percent of your allocation of Local Assistance and Trbal Consistency Funds. The Total amount is $2,024.00.

Will Staff Attend - NAME OF STAFF

Department Recommendation

Approved:_____________________

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COWLITZ COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Dennis P. Weber, Chairman

Arne Mortensen, Commissioner

Richard R. Dahl, Commissioner

Attest:______________________

Clerk of the Board

Attachments

Memo  Invoice

Form Started By: Kelly Dombrowsky

Final Approval Date: 04/10/2023

Form Review

Started On: 04/10/2023 09:02 AM

Originally Presented: November 14, 2022

Updated: March 2, 2023

Revised: April 3, 2023

TO: Washington State Public Land Counties

FROM: Eric Johnson, Executive Director

Stevens County Commissioner Wes McCart, WIR 2nd Vice President

SUBJECT: National Center for Public Lands Counties

Assessment

Attached for consideration is your County’s invoice to support the National Center for Public Lands Counties. This is a one-time assessment. It may be paid in full, or paid in two installments (2023/2024 or 2024/2025) If you intend to pay in two installments, please advise us accordingly by contacting finance@wsac.org. Your Assessment is calculated based on one percent of your allocation of Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Funds. In addition to your counties invoice, a complete listing of all assessments is attached.

This is a voluntary assessment. Our hope is to have 100% participation of all Public Land Counties in Washington State. If you would like a presentation to your county legislative authority, have questions on The Center itself, or the attached invoice, please do not hesitate to contact either Commissioner McCart or Eric Johnson.

Monday, April 3rd WSAC Virtual Assembly

Please join us for the Monday, April 3rd WSAC Virtual Assembly. Stevens County Commissioner Wes McCart will be joined by Eric Bryson, Executive Director of the Montana Association of Counties, to discuss the purpose of the proposed National Center for Public Land Counties. This is an excellent opportunity to get all your questions answered as you consider participation and funding The Center. Zoom link to join this meeting: https://wsac-org.zoom.us/j/96091320845

Public Lands in Washington State Background

Over 43%, or 19.8 million acres, of lands in Washington State are publicly owned. The number of acres and land in public ownership varies widely per county - ranging from Whitman County with approximately 5% public land ownership to Skamania County with more than 86% public land ownership. Of the 19.8 million acres in public ownership, 12.7 million, or 64 percent, are owned by the federal government In Washington State.

Federal and State Lands are important economic generators for a number of natural resource base industries, provide outdoor recreation opportunities, support cultural values, and provide a variety of environmental benefits.

Public Lands in Washington State are also important Federal and State revenue sources for counties with more than $110 million annually in revenue to counties.

•

•

•

•

Proposed National Center for Public Lands Counties

In October 2022, the National Association of Counties (NACo) and the Western Interstate Region (WIR) Board of Directors proposed the creation of a National Center for Public Lands Counties (The Center) to look towards the future of these unique and important lands, opportunities and investments.

As many of you know, our county elected and appointed officials are a leading voice in the intergovernmental partnership in responsible resource management. Understanding counties unique governance role and relationship to Public Lands, Congress has consistently supported appropriations for critical programs like Payments In-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Secure Rural Schools (SRS)

Congress has granted new authorities to federal land managers to broaden the scope, pace and scale of their on-the-ground resource management work with local governments. We have a unique opportunity to accelerate our understanding and demonstrate the results achieved through this partnership. It is important that we provide and share evidence-based research, peer information exchanges, and overall understanding of our lessons learned, emerging trends analysis, and priority public policy issues.

The NACo and WIR Boards of Directors is establishing the National Center for Public Lands Counties (The Center) to give public lands counties an enhanced opportunity to demonstrate how prosperous public lands counties create a prosperous America. The Center will identify and complete research projects, collect and create data and information, and at times provide detailed, individual research and written county profiles focused on the benefit, opportunities, and impact of Public Lands in our counties. The Center will use both traditional and new media such as podcasts and video interviews to tell stories and disseminate information. The Center will look at:

• County partnerships with federal agencies, states, tribes and other counties to reduce wildfire risk, responsibly develop energy and minerals, improve public access and recreational opportunities on federal lands, protect watersheds, conserve species and fish and wildlife habitat, and protect our national parks and other natural treasures;

• County investments of PILT, SRS and other natural resource revenue payments to benefit residents, visitors and surrounding public lands;

• The different economic drivers and values in rural vs. urban public lands counties;

• Development and implementation of county natural resource management plans and baseline socioeconomic data for environmental analyses;

• Resource and property values of federal lands compared to nearby privately owned lands;

• Meeting the unique challenges facing public lands counties, such as housing affordability for residents and federal employees, ensuring a stable tax base to deliver critical services, managing infrastructure on federal lands, and providing services to visitors coming to visit public lands and on the public lands themselves.

For the Center to meet its mission and serve as a long-term tool for public lands counties, a one time voluntary investment of $15 million from counties throughout the nation is being sought over the next two years These resources will provide the necessary ongoing funding for staff and consultants to plan, initiate, and complete critical research, projects, activities, communication materials and an annual work plan and place The Center on a sustainable future financial course. The Center will report to the NACo and WIR Board of Directors on its financial health and issue an annual report at the annual WIR Conference on both the work product, return on investment, and financial position of the Center.

The Center’s governing body is currently envisioned as follows:

• WIR Executive Committee (President, 1st VP, 2nd VP, Immediate Past President)

• NACo Public Lands Steering Committee Chair

• NACo Public Lands Steering Committee Subcommittee Chairs

• Federal Lands Gateway County Official appointed by the NACo Public Lands Steering Committee Chair

• NACo West Region Representative

• NACo Executive Director

• Executive Director from WIR Immediate Past President’s home state

• NACo Public Lands Legislative Director and WIR Liaison, serving as NACo staff liaison to the governing board

The Center’s governing board will be empowered to develop an annual workplan based on the research priorities selected by the WIR Board of Directors and NACo Public Lands Steering Committee. At the WIR Annual Conference each May, the WIR Board of Directors and the NACo Public Lands Steering Committee will review the activities and performance of the Center, and consider and adopt the proposed workplan for the next year.

In order to leverage the expertise of NACo’s public lands membership, the governing board will also have the ability to appoint research subcommittees made up of county officials, based on the research priorities selected by the WIR Board of Directors and NACo Public Lands Steering Committee, to coordinate and oversee the research efforts of The Center. Research work conducted by The Center will be non-partisan, aligned with NACo policy and priorities and will not directly conflict with the interests of any county.

Discussion

Washington’s 39 Counties have a unique opportunity to invest in the Center WIR Board of Directors, NACo leadership, state associations of counties executives and county officials set a fundraising goal of $15 million over the next two years to establish a set of funds to draw from to hire the necessary staff to conduct this critical research and keep The Center on a sustainable

financial course. Washington’s counties are being asked to provide $635,000 in funding – a one time assessment If NACo and the WIR Board of Directors are successful, this initial investment will pay dividends for generations to come.

Moving Forward – Immediate Ask

The goal for WSAC over the next two years, is to generate $635,000 to support the creation and future operations of the Center. Attached is your invoice to support the National Center for Public Land Counties Membership Assessments. Counties that receives PILT and Secure Rural Schools, and/or refuge revenue sharing (38 of 39 counties). Your individual counties assessment is equivalent to one percent of your allocation of Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Funds (see attached).

WSAC and our WIR and Public Lands leaders will continue to provide information to our county elected and appointed officials on how to participate as well as work with WSAC leadership and member counties to better understand the role WSAC can play in funding and supporting the development of the National Center for Public Lands Counties.

If you have any questions, you are encouraged to reach out to either WSAC Executive Director Eric Johnson and/or WIR 2nd Vice President Stevens County Commissioner Wes McCart. Either can be available to answer questions, attend work sessions, and provide additional information.

National Center for Public Land Counties

Washington State Per County Membership Assessment

Based on 1% of Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Funds (LATCF) Received

AS-12737

BOCC Agenda

Meeting Date: 04/18/2023

2023 Precinct Adoption

Submitted For: Carolyn Fundingsland

Department: Auditor

Subject and Summary Statement

Motion Items 8.

Submitted By: Carolyn Fundingsland

Information

Per RCW 29A.16.040, the county legislative authority of each county in the state shall divide the county into election precincts and establish the boundaries of the precincts.

The Auditor received updated internal district boundary lines from the Port of Woodland (adopted in Resolution #512) and has made the necessary modifications to precinct boundaries. In order to implement the new boundaries, the following precinct alterations were made:

Caples was split into two precincts – Caples and Wishman.

Woodage was split; it had two precinct portions and now has three precinct portions.

Woodland Heights was split; it had four precinct portions and now has five precinct portions.

After the necessary adjustments, Cowlitz County gained 1 precinct, bringing our total number of precincts to 92. Precinct numbers have been adjusted to accommodate the new precinct and keep the precinct names in alphabetical order.

Attached are maps of precinct changes, labeled before and after changes for easy viewing, in addition to one combined PDF of all 2023 precincts up for adoption.

Also attached is a resolution calling for the adoption of these modified voting precincts in Cowlitz County. Per RCW 42.30.060, this resolution shall be adopted in a meeting open to the public.

Will Staff Attend - NAME OF STAFF

Yes, Carolyn Fundingsland.

Department Recommendation

It is recommended that the Board adopt the voting precincts as submitted.

Fiscal Impact

Expenditure Required $: 0

Budget Sufficient Y-N: Y

Amendment Required Y-N: N

Source of Funds - What Dept ? : 51001 / 520100

Grant Y-N: N

Attachments

2023 Precinct Adoption Resolution  Caples Before and After Changes  Wishman New Precinct

Woodage Before and After Changes  Woodland Heights Before and After Changes  2023 Combined Precincts for Adoption

Form Review

Inbox Reviewed By Date

Carolyn Fundingsland (Originator) Carolyn Fundingsland 04/05/2023 10:49 AM

Form Started By: Carolyn Fundingsland Started On: 04/05/2023 10:14 AM

Before The Board of County Commissioners of Cowlitz County, State of Washington

A Resolution to adopt Voting Precinct Resolution No. __________ Boundaries in Cowlitz County,

WHEREAS,the BoardofCommissioners ofCowlitzCounty, Washington has the authority to divide, alter, or combine precincts under RCW 29A.76.010 and 29A.16.040; and

WHEREAS, RCW 29A 76 010, 29A 76.020, and 29A.16.050 require the proposed boundaries be in compliance with the following criteria:

a) Every voting precinct is wholly within a single congressional district, a single legislative district, and a single district of county legislative authority.

b) Everyvotingprecinctiscomposed,asnearlyaspracticable,ofcontiguousandcompactareas.

c) Boundaries of precincts follow visible, physical features with the exceptions of annexations or incorporations or substantial impairment of election administration.

d) No precinct exceeds the statutory limit of 1,500 active voters

WHEREAS, the proposed voting precinct boundary changes meet all of the above criteria, and

WHEREAS, the Cowlitz County Auditor has requested that such changes as described in the attached documents be considered for adoption by the Board of Commissioners of Cowlitz County, Washington.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Cowlitz County Commissioners establish the voting precincts as presented.

DATED this 18th day of April, 2023

Board Of County Commissioners Of Cowlitz County, Washington

Richard Dahl, Chairman

Attest:

Dennis Weber, Commissioner

Arne Mortensen, Commissioner

Kelly Dombrowsky, Clerk of the Board

Cowlitz County Washington

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Caples 12.00

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Wishman 86.00

New Precinct

Cowlitz County Washington

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Woodage 87.01, 87.02, 87.03

After Changes

Cowlitz County Washington

Tunstall 6

Before Changes

Precinct: Woodland Heights 88.01, 88.02, 88.03, 88.04

Lewis River 2

Lewis River 4

Woodland Heights 88.01

Congressional - 3

Legislative - 20

County Commissioner - 1

Fire - 1

Cloverdale 5

Lewis River 4

Chinook

Cloverdale 1

Cloverdale 4

Cloverdale 3

Woodland Heights 2

Lewis River 5

Cemetery - 2

Port - WD3 School - 404

PUD - 1

WoodlandSwim/Rec

Woodland Heights 88.02

Congressional - 3

Legislative - 20

County Commissioner - 1 Cemetery - 2

Port - WD3

School - 404

PUD - 1

WoodlandSwim/Rec

Woodland Heights 88.03

Congressional - 3

Legislative - 20

County Commissioner - 1

Cloverdale 4

Woodage 2

Woodland Heights 1

Lewis River 1

Fire - 1 Cemetery - 2

Port - WD1 School - 404

PUD - 1

WoodlandSwim/Rec

Woodland Heights 88.04

Congressional - 3

Legislative - 20

County Commissioner - 1

Fire - 1

Port - WD3 School - 404

PUD - 1

Caples

Woodage 1

WoodlandSwim/Rec

Woodland Heights 3

Woodland Heights 4

Woodland East

Woodland North

Woodland West 1

02,0004,0006,0008,000 1,000 Feet

DISCLAIMER

Cowlitz County does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, completeness, or usefulness of any information. Cowlitz County provides this information on an "as is" basis without warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, and assumes no responsibility for anyone's use of this information.

Wishman

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Woodland Heights 89.01, 89.02, 89.03, 89.04, 89.05

Woodland East

Woodland North

Cloverdale

*All

Cowl itz County Washington

Cowlitz County Washington Precinct:

Stel la 3

Cowl itz County Washington

Preci nct: Arkansas 3.0 1, 3.02

Ryde rwo od 1

Coa l Cre ek 3

Ryde rwo od 2

Coa l Cre ek 3

Arka nsa s 2

Dela me ter 2

Dela me ter 1

To

Cowl itz County Washington Preci

Cowl itz County Washington

Cowlitz County Washington

Cowl itz County Washington

Preci

Cowl itz County Washington

Cowl itz County Washington Preci

Cowl itz County Washington

Preci nct: Burcham 11 .00

Cow litz County Washington

Pre cinct: Caples 12.00

NINTERSTATE5HWY

Cowl itz County Was hington

Hillcrest 1

Redpath

Harris

Harris

West Kelso 2

Sacajaw ea North

Hudson

Delaware

Baltimore

Crawford

Burcham

Brynion 2

Mill North

Mill South

McGowan

McGowan

Alabama

FIBRE

Industrial 1

Valley View

Rose Valley 8

Rose Valley 3

Owl Creek 2

Tam O'Shanter Haussler 2

Industrial 2

Tunstall 1

Haussler 1

Owl Creek 1

Haussler 2

Rose Valley 6

Rose Valley 7

Rose Valley 4

Rose Valley 5

Rose Valley 3

Tunstall 7

Carrolls 3

Modrow 1

Kalama

Modrow 1

Modrow

Modrow 2

Carrolls 1

Carrolls 5

Carrolls 4

Carrolls 2

Tunstall 11

Modrow 3

Tunstall 5

Kalama

Modrow 4

Tunstall 6

McGowan Cloverdale

Cloverdale

Cloverdale

Tunstall

Cowl itz County Washington

Cowl itz County Washington Preci

Roc k South 15.0 0

Cow litz County Washington

Pre cinct: Chinook 16 .00

Cow litz County Washington

Pre cinct: Cloverdale 17.0 1, 1 7.02, 17.03 , 17 .04

Cowl itz County Washington

Cowlitz County Washington Precinct: Columbia Heights 19.01, 19.02, 19.03, 19.04, 19.05, 19.06

Columbia Heights - 19.01

Congressional - 3

Legislative - 19

County Commissioner - 3

Fire - 2

Port - LV3

School - 458

PUD - 3

Rural Library District

Columbia Heights - 19.02

Congressional - 3

Legislative - 19

County Commissioner - 3

Fire - 2

Port - LV3

School - 458

PUD - 3

Beacon Hill Water/Sewer

HAZELDELLRD

Pleasant

Pleasant

Columbia Heights - 19.06

Congressional - 3

Legislative - 19

County Commissioner - 3

Fire - 6

Port - LV3

School - 458

PUD - 3

Rural Library District

Rural Library District

Lexington Flood Control Zone

Columbia Heights - 19.03

Congressional - 3

Legislative - 19

County Commissioner - 3

Fire - 2

Port - LV3

School - 458

PUD - 3

Rural Library District

Lexington Flood Control Zone

Columbia Heights - 19.04

Congressional - 3

Legislative - 19

County Commissioner - 3

Fire - 2

Port - LV3 School - 458

PUD - 3

Beacon Hill Water/Sewer

Rural Library District

Columbia Heights - 19.05

Congressional - 3

Legislative - 19

County Commissioner - 3

Fire - 2

Port - LV3 School - 458

PUD - 3

Beacon Hill Water/Sewer

Rural Library District

Lexington Flood Control Zone

DISCLAIMER

Cowlitz County does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, completeness, or usefulness of any information. Cowlitz County provides this information on an "as is" basis without warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, and assumes no responsibility for anyone's use of this information.

Cowl itz County Washington Preci

Cowl itz County Washington

Cowl itz County Washington Preci nct: De lam ete r 2 2.0 1, 22.0 2

Cowl itz County Washington Preci

Cowl itz County Washington

Preci nct: Doug las 2 4.00

Cowl itz County Washington

Preci nct: Harris 25 .00

Cowl itz County Washington

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Hillcrest 27.01, 27.02

Cowl itz County Washington

Cowl itz County Washington

Preci nct: Industri al 29.0 1, 29.0 2

Cowl itz County Was hington Preci

Cowl itz County Washington

Preci nct: Kalam a 31.0 1, 31. 02, 31. 03, 31 .04

Cowl itz County Washington

Preci nct: Kalam a East 32.0 1, 32.0 2

Cowl itz County Washington

Preci nct: Kalam a We st 33 .01, 33 .02

Cowl itz County Washington

Cowl itz County Was hington

Preci nct: Lake 35. 00

Cowl itz County Washington

Cowl itz County Was hington

Preci

KALAMARIVERRD LEWISRIVERRD

Cowl itz County Washington

Preci

PLEASANTHILLRD

Cowl itz County Washington Preci

Cowl itz County Washington

Cowl itz County Washington

Preci

Mar igol d 4 1.00

Cowl itz County Washington

Preci

Cowl

Cowl itz County Was hington

Preci nct: Mi ll North 44.0 0

Cowl itz County Was hington

Cowl itz County Washington

Cowl itz County Washington

Cowl itz County Washington

Cowl itz County Washington

Preci

Cowl itz County Washington

Cowl itz County Washington

Preci nct: Olson 51 .01, 51 .02

Cowl itz County Washington Preci

Cowl itz County Washington

Cowl itz

County Washington

Preci nct:

Ostrande r 54.0 1, 54.0 2, 54.0 3, 54. 04, 54 .05, 54 .06

LOOKOUTRD

20

County Commis sioner - 3

Fire - 2

Cemetery - 4

Port - LV2

School - 458

PUD - 3

Beacon Hil l Wa ter/Se we r

Ostrander - 54 04

Congressional - 3

Le gi slative - 20

County Commis sioner - 3

Fire - 2

Cemetery - 4

Port - LV2

School - 458

PUD - 3

Beacon Hil l Wa ter/Se we r

Congressional - 3

Le gi slative - 20

County Commis sioner - 3

Fire - 2 Cemetery - 4

Port - LV2

School - 458

PUD - 3

Ostrander - 54 06

Congressional - 3

Le gi slative - 20

County Commis sioner - 3

Fire - 6 Cemetery - 4

Port - LV2

School - 458

PUD - 3

Ostrander - 54 05

Cowl itz County Washington

Harr

Haussler

Rose

Cowl itz County Washington

Cowl itz County Washington

Preci nct: Ple asant Hi ll 57 .01, 57 .02, 57 .03, 57 .04, 57 .05, 57 .06

Plea sant Hill 5 7.06

Congressional - 3

Le gi slative - 19

County Commis sioner - 3

Fire - 2

Port - LV2

School - 458

PUD - 3

gi slative - 19

County Commis sioner - 3

Fire - 2 Cemetery - 4

Port - LV3 School - 458

PUD - 3

Plea sant Hill 5 7 03

Congressional - 3

Le gi slative - 19

County Commis sioner - 3

Fire - 2 Cemetery - 4

Port - LV2 School - 458

PUD - 3

Plea sant Hill 5 7.04

Congressional - 3

Le gi slative - 19

County Commis sioner - 3

Fire - 2 Cemetery - 4

Port - LV2

School - 458

PUD - 3

Beacon Hil l Wa ter/Se we r

Plea sant Hill 5 7.05

Congressional - 3

Le gi slative - 19

County Commis sioner - 3

Fire - 2 Cemetery - 4

Port - LV3

School - 458

PUD - 3

Beacon Hil l Wa ter/Se we r

Cowl itz County Washington

Preci nct: Po nde rosa 58 .01, 58 .02 , 5 8.03 , 5 8.04 , 5 8.05 , 5 8.06

Ponderosa 58 0 1

Congressional - 3

Le gi slative - 19

County Commis sioner - 3

Fire - 6

Port - LV3

School - 458

PUD - 3

Ponderosa 58.0 2

Congressional - 3

Le gi slative - 19

County Commis sioner - 3

Fire - 2

Port - LV3 School - 458

PUD - 3

Ponderosa 58 0 3

Congressional - 3

Le gi slative - 19

County Commis sioner - 3

Fire - 2

Port - LV3

School - 458

PUD - 3

Beacon Hil l Wa ter/Se we r

Ponderosa 58.0 4

Congressional - 3

Le gi slative - 19

County Commis sioner - 3

Fire - 2

Port - LV3

School - 458

PUD - 3

Beacon Hil l Wa ter/Se we r

Ponderosa 58.0 6

Congressional - 3

Le gi slative - 19

County Commis sioner - 3

Fire - 2

Port - LV2 School - 458

PUD - 3

Beacon Hil l Wa ter/Se we r

Le xington Flood Control Zone

Le xington Flood Control Zone

Ponderosa 58.0 5

Congressional - 3

Le gi slative - 19

County Commis sioner - 3

Fire - 2

Port - LV3

School - 458

PUD - 3

Beacon Hil l Wa ter/Se we r

Le xington Flood Control Zone

800 Fe et

Cowl itz County Washington

Preci nct: Powe ll 59 .00

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Redpath 60.00

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Ridgecrest 61.00

Cowlitz

Stella 3

Ryderwood 2

Arkansas 2

Stella 1

Delameter 1

Stella 4

Arkansas 1

Stella 2

Coal Creek 3

Coal Creek 1

Ryderwood 1

Coal Creek 3

Coal Creek 4

Delameter 2

ALLENDER 0 3,900 7,800 11,700 15,600 1,950 Feet

RD . Ryderwood - 64.01 Congressional - 3 Legislative - 19 County Commissioner - 3 Fire - 20 Port - LV1 EMS - 4 School - 401 PUD - 3 Ryderwood - 64.02 Congressional - 3 Legislative - 19 County Commissioner - 3 Port - LV1 School - 401 PUD - 3

Cowlitz

Cowlitz County Washington

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct:

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Sacajawea South 66.00

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Sandy Bend 67.01, 67.02, 67.03

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Silver Lake North 68.01, 68.02, 68.03

Silver

Toutle

Silver

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Silver Lake South 69.01, 69.02, 69.03

Studebaker 1

Silver Lake North 1

Silver Lake South 1

Silver Lake South 2

Ostrander 6

Toutle South

Ostrander 1

Toutle North 1

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Sparks 70.01, 70.02

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: St. Helens 71.00

Stella 1

Stella 3

Ryderwood 1

Ryderwood 2

Coal Creek 3

Arkansas 2

Arkansas 1

Delameter 2

Stella 4

Stella 2

Coal Creek 3

Coal Creek 2

Delameter 1

Coal Creek 1

Willow Grove

Coal Creek 4 Oriole

Sandy Bend 1

Sandy Bend 2

View 2

Columbia Heights 1

View 1

Pacific

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Stella 72.01, 72.02, 72.03, 72.04

Arkansas 1

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Studebaker 73.01, 73.02, 73.03

Studebaker 1

Toutle North 4

Toutle North 4

Tower 1

Tower 2

Silver Lake North 2 Tower 3

Studebaker 3

Silver Lake North 3

Toutle North 2

Studebaker 2

Toutle North 3

Silver Lake North 3

Silver Lake North 1

Delameter 1

Castle Rock South

Sandy Bend 1

Sandy Bend 3

Ponderosa 1

Silver Lake South 1

Powell

Silver Lake South 3

Toutle South

Ostrander 6

Ostrander 1

Toutle North 1

Rose Valley 2

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct:

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Tam O'Shanter 75.00

TOWER

Studebaker 1

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Toutle North 76.01, 76.02, 76.03, 76.04

Toutle North 4

Toutle North 4

Studebaker 3

Silver Lake North 2

Studebaker 2

Silver Lake North 3

Silver Lake North 1

Toutle North 2

Toutle North 3

LUEBKE

Toutle North 1

Toutle South

Silver Lake South 3

Ostrander 6

Ostrander 1

Brynion 3

Brynion 1

Brynion 2

Rose Valley 8

Rose Valley 2

Tunstall 2

Rose Valley 1

Rose Valley 6

Rose Valley 7

Rose Valley 4

Rose Valley 3

Tunstall 9

Tunstall 3

Tunstall 1

Tunstall 7

Tunstall 10

Yale 5

Tunstall 4

Yale 2

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Toutle South 77.00

Toutle

Studebaker 2

Studebaker 3

Silver

Silver Lake South 3

Toutle

Ostrander 1

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Tower 78.01, 78.02, 78.03

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Valley View 80.00

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: View 81.01, 81.02

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Washington Way 82.00

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: West Kelso 83.01, 83.02

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Willow Grove 84.00

Ocean

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct:

Cow litz County Was hington

Pre

Cow litz County Was hington

Pre cinct: Woodage 87.01, 87.0 2, 8 7.03

Cow litz County Was hington

Pre cinct: Woodland East 88.00

Cow litz County Was hington Pre

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Woodland North 90.00

Cow litz County Was hington

Rose

Cowlitz County Washington

Precinct: Yale 92.01, 92.02, 92.03, 92.04, 92.05, 92.06

Tunstall 9

Tunstall 3

Yale 92.01

Congressional - 3

Legislative - 20

County Commissioner - 1

Fire - 7

Cemetery - 2

Port - WD3

EMS - 1

School - 404

PUD - 1

Woodland Swim/Rec

Yale Library District

Tunstall 4

Yale 92.02

Congressional - 3

Legislative - 20

County Commissioner - 1 Cemetery - 2

Port - KM3

EMS - 1

School - 404

PUD - 1

Woodland Swim/Rec

Yale Library District

Yale 92.03

Congressional - 3

Legislative - 20

County Commissioner - 1

Fire - 7

Cemetery - 2

Port - KM3

EMS - 1

School - 404

PUD - 1

Woodland Swim/Rec

Yale Library District

Yale 92.04

Congressional - 3

Legislative - 20

County Commissioner - 1 Cemetery - 2

Port - WD3

EMS - 1

School - 404

PUD - 1

Woodland Swim/Rec

Yale Library District

Yale 92.05

Congressional - 3

Legislative - 20

County Commissioner - 1 Cemetery - 2

Port - KM3

School - 404

PUD - 1

Woodland Swim/Rec

Yale Library District

Yale 92.06

Congressional - 3

Legislative - 20

County Commissioner - 1 Cemetery - 2

Port - WD3

School - 404

PUD - 1

Woodland Swim/Rec

Yale Library District

0 7,700 15,400 23,100 30,800 3,850 Feet

DISCLAIMER

Cowlitz County does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, completeness, or usefulness of any information. Cowlitz County provides this information on an "as is" basis without warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, and assumes no responsibility for anyone's use of this information.

AS-12750

BOCC Agenda

Meeting Date: 04/18/2023

Budget Amendment and new fund April

Submitted For: Kathy Funk-Baxter

Department: Office of Financial Management

Subject and Summary Statement

Timed Items 9.

Submitted By: Kathy Funk-Baxter

Information

The Office of Financial Management advised the Board of Commissioners that an amendment is needed to establish a new fund to be known as Opioid Response (19301-075100) and to adjust the 2023 Cowlitz County budgets to increase appropriations to account for additional expenditures and revenues and to make certain other adjustments.

Will Staff Attend - NAME OF STAFF

Kathy Funk-Baxter

Department Recommendation

The Office of Financial Management recommends that the Board of Commissioners approve the establishment of the new fund for Opioid Response and to adjustment and amendment to the 2023 Cowlitz County budget and increase the budget, as more specifically set out in Attachment "A".

Attachments

Budget Resolution April

Agenda summary budget april

Attachment A april

Form Started By: Kathy Funk-Baxter

Form Review

Started On: 04/11/2023 01:22 PM

BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COWLITZ COUNTY, WASHINGTON

In the Matter of Adopting Amendments ) to the 2023 Cowlitz County Budgets ) RESOLUTION NO.

WHEREAS, the hour of 9:45 a.m. having been fixed as the time for a hearing on a resolution calling for the adoption of an amendment to establish a new fund known as the Opioid Response (19301-075100) for the 2023 Cowlitz County budget and to amend the 2023 Cowlitz County Budget to account for unanticipated expenditures and revenues; and

WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is presented in detail in Attachment “A”; and

WHEREAS, those persons who wished to speak for or against the amendment were allowed to join the meeting in the Commissioner’s hearing room, call into the remote public participation, or submitted written comments.

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the County Treasurer is authorized to appropriate amounts more particularly itemized in Attachment “A”; and the County Auditor is authorized to draw warrants on said budgets as amended upon the presentation and approval of properly executed vouchers. The adjustment and amendments to the 2023 Cowlitz County budget are approved and adopted.

DATED: April 18, 2023

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF COWLITZ COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Dennis P. Weber, Chairman

ATTEST:

Richard R. Dahl, Commissioner

Arne Mortensen, Commissioner Clerk of the Board

To the Board of County Commissioners:

From: Kathy Funk-Baxter,

Finance Manager

Re: Public Hearing Regarding Proposed

AGENDA SUMMARY

Agenda Item No.

Dept. of Origin: Office of Financial Management

Date Submitted: April 11, 2023

For Agenda of: April 18, 2023

Expenditure Required: $

Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Amendments to Cowlitz County Budget Action Required: Budget Amendment 2023 County budgets

List of Exhibits:

Resolution

Attachment “A” (detail of amendments)

Summary Statement:

The Office of Financial Management advised the Board of Commissioners that an amendment is needed to establish a new fund to be known as the Opioid Response (19301-075100) and to adjust the 2023 Cowlitz County budgets to increase appropriations to account for additional expenditures and revenues and to make certain other adjustments.

Department Recommendation:

The Office of Financial Management recommends that the Board of Commissioners approve the establishment of the new fund for Opioid Response and to adjustments and amendments for the 2023 Cowlitz County budget and increase the budget, as more specifically set out in Attachment “A”.

Note 1: Correct fund balance to actual balance per financial results as of 12/31/2022

AS-12751

BOCC Agenda

Meeting Date: 04/18/2023

Ridge View Rural Subdivision

Submitted For: Daniel Turner

Department: Building & Planning

Subject and Summary Statement

Timed Items 10.

Submitted By: Daniel Turner

Information

Project Description: Preliminary Plat approval for Ridge View, a 11-lot Rural Subdivision on 27.32 acres. A closed record hearing before the Board of County Commissioners is required to complete preliminary approval.

Will Staff Attend - NAME OF STAFF

Daniel Turner

Department Recommendation

Approval of Case No. 2270.02, based on the findings and subject to the conclusions of approval stated in the planning staff report dated February 1, 2023.

Approved:_____________________

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COWLITZ COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Dennis P. Weber, Chairman

Arne Mortensen, Commissioner

Richard R. Dahl, Commissioner

Attest:______________________Clerk of the Board

Attachments

Ridge View Rural Subdivision_Exhibit A_Updated 3-1-2023 Written Narrative - 11 Lots

Ridge View Rural Subdivision Exhibit B Preliminary Plat

Ridge View Rural Subdivision_Exhibit C_Legal Description

Ridge View Rural Subdivision_Exhibit D_Ridge View Traffic Study_Final

Ridge View Rural Subdivision_Exhibit E_Critical Area Report

Ridge View Rural Subdivision_Exhibit F_ Class IV Conversion FPA and Critical Area Permit (March 2022) and Salmon Creek Restrictive Cov

Ridge View Rural Subdivision_Exhibit G_SEPA Checklist

Ridge View Rural Subdivision_Exhibit H_SEPA Comments

Ridge View Rural Subdivision_Exhibit I_Maps

Ridge View Rural Subdivision_Exhibit I_Maps  Planning Staff Report  Draft Meeting Minutes 3-15-2023

Form Started By: Daniel Turner

Ridge View Subdivision (WKS3616002)

Narrative

September 8, 2022 (Updated October 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023)

Page 1 of 19

NARRATIVE

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

TRMC VENTRUES LLC (“Applicant”) plans to subdivide a 27.32-acre property into ten (10) detached single-family detached lots and a single commercial lot within the Unzoned (UZ) property within Cowlitz County. The site is located at 102 Si Town Road in Castle Rock, Washington 98611 and is further identified as parcel number WK3613002, within the Northwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 10 North, Range 2 East of the Willamette Meridian.

Construction is anticipated to commence in 2023 upon the receipt of the necessary development permits and approvals.

The existing site is vacant and primarily heavily vegetated, characterized by deciduous and coniferous trees with an understory of native shrubs and grasses. A portion of the northwest part of the property contains impervious surfaces that are remnants from an old, asphalted roadbed.

Surrounding use primarily consists of undeveloped, forested land. Existing development in the surrounding area includes single-family residential housing within similarly unzoned (UZ) property abutting the site and to the north across Spirit Lake Highway (State Route (SR 504))

CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVAL REVIEW CRITERIA

Under the provisions of RCW §58.17.033, RCW §58.17.110, and Cowlitz County Code (herein after interchangeably referred to as CCC or Code) Title 18 Land Use and Development, the public use and interest must be served by the establishment of the proposed rural subdivision. The subsequent narrative addresses this proposal’s compliance with all applicable conditions for approval of the preliminary rural subdivision applications.

Chapter 18.10 Land Use Ordinance […]

18.10.270 Unzoned (U) – Area of application.

Unzoned areas are those areas not precisely zoned by the Official Land Use Map. The areas to which this classification is to be applied are generally those areas of Cowlitz County which have not had extensive urban development and probably will not have any degree of such development in the foreseeable future. [Ord. 15-039 § 1, 3-24-15.]

Narrative

September 8, 2022 (Updated October 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023)

Page 2 of 19

Response: The site is located within an area designated by the County in its Official Land Use Map as Unzoned (U).

18.10.270 Unzoned (U) – Area of application.

In the U district all uses which have not been declared a nuisance by statute, resolution, ordinance, or court of competent jurisdiction are permitted. [Ord. 4107, § 4.10.02, 4-1475.]

Response: The Ridge View Subdivision includes uses that are outright permitted within the underlying zoning district. No special uses or variances are included or required with this rural subdivision application.

[…]

Performance Standards and Requirements

18.10.500 Application of standards.

After April 14, 1975, any use established and any building, structure, or tract of land developed, constructed or used for any permitted or special use shall comply with the applicable performance standards set forth herein.

If any existing use or building or other structure is extended, enlarged, moved, structurally altered, the standards included within this section are to be considered applicable to these activities and they shall be considered minimum standards. [Ord. 4508, § 2-6.01, 12-1775; Ord. 4107, § 6.01, 4-14-75.]

Response: This proposal includes a new rural subdivision involving permitted uses and as such is required to comply with the standards contained within this section.

18.10.501 Standards.

After April 14, 1975, any use established and any building, structure, or tract of land developed, constructed or used for any permitted or special use shall comply with the applicable performance standards set forth herein. All development shall conform to the development standards of the zone district classifications in which the development is located as indicated in Table 18.10.501. However, Table 18.10.501 contains only minimum standards, and stricter standards may be required by other regulations, including building codes, fire codes, stormwater management or regulations governing sewage disposal or water service. Where Table 18.10.501 lists more than one standard, the stricter standard shall apply.

Ridge View Subdivision (WKS3616002)

Narrative

September 8, 2022 (Updated October 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023)

Page 3 of 19

Table 18.10.501

Minimum Zone District Development Standards

Response: This proposal has been designed to meet the applicable development standards contained within Table 18.10.501 pertaining to U-zoned property in unincorporated areas within the County with the provision of fifteen-foot (15’) rear yard setbacks and ten-foot (10’) side yard setbacks. This proposal has also been designed in compliance with the 2017 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Category guidelines which require a two (2) acre lot minimum size and the one hundred foot (100’) lot width at the building line.

18.10.540 Minimum lot width and minimum building line for lots fronting on cul-desac and road curves.

The minimum lot width for cul-de-sac lots or lots fronting on road curves shall be 40 feet. Said lots shall be provided a minimum building line width of not less than 60 feet and shall be located not less than 25 feet back from the front lot line as measured perpendicular to the front lot line or 55 feet from the centerline of the fronting street, whichever is greater. [Ord. 4107, §6.04, 4-14-75.]

Response: This proposal has been designed to meet these requirements. For more information, see the attached Application Submittal Item No. 7, Site Plan.

18.10.550 Sewer and water.

Sewer and water requirements for each land use shall be as specified by the CowlitzWahkiakum Health District. The minimum lot size of lots not provided with community sewers shall be as specified by the County Sanitation Ordinance. However, where the application of the provisions of the County Sanitation Ordinance permit a less restrictive lot than is specified in CCC 18.10.501, the requirements in CCC 18.10.510 shall apply. [Ord. 4107, § 6.05, 4-14-75.]

Narrative

September 8, 2022 (Updated October 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023)

Page 4 of 19

Response: This proposal has been designed with the intention that septic utility design will be included for review with future building permit applications. Pursuant to the County Sanitation Ordinance as contained within CCC 15.14.070 Water and sewer service requirements, where a satisfactory sewer main does not exist, an extension is not required. There are no public sewer utilities located within the project vicinity.

18.10.560 Off-street parking

Off-street parking requirements in CCC 18.10.561 and 18.10.562 are minimum requirements and shall apply in all unincorporated areas of Cowlitz County. Such requirements must be met whenever:

A. A new building is erected;

B. An existing building is altered such that the alteration costs exceed 50 percent of the county-assessed market value of the building, or the building’s floor space is increased by more than 50 percent; or

C. The use of an existing building is changed. [Ord. 81-796, § 1, 10-12-81; Ord. 81-678, § 1, 7-27-81.]

Response: This proposal involves a rural subdivision and will include the future provision of single-family residential housing. New buildings are not included as part of this land use application.

18.10.561 Off-street parking – General Provisions.

Response: Off-street parking requirements pursuant to CCC 18.10.561, only applies to the proposed commercial lot (Lot 11). This rural subdivision application does not at this time include a site plan for Lot 11, however the site plan does depict setbacks and a driveway entrance. The Applicant acknowledges that should a site plan application be submitted to the County in the future, the design standards contained within CCC 18.10.561 for off-street parking must be adhered to.

18.10.562 Number of off-street parking spaces required.

[…]

Response: Pursuant to the requirements contained within CCC 18.10.562, each of the ten (10) residential lots must be designed to facilitate the inclusion of two (2) parking spaces per unit. This proposal has been designed to facilitate the provision of at least two (2) parking spaces within each of the single-family residential lots. As such, a minimum total of twenty (20) off-street parking spaces are possible with the ten (10) single-family residential lots.

Ridge View Subdivision (WKS3616002)

Narrative

September 8, 2022 (Updated October 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023)

Page 5 of 19

18.10.570 Building height standards.

The maximum height of buildings exceeding 35 feet in height shall be no greater than the capability of the fire abatement equipment of the Fire District in which the building is located. Buildings not located in a Fire District shall not exceed a building height of 35 feet. [Ord. 4107, § 6.07, 4-14-75.]

Response: This proposal does not include structures at this time. However, in the future, when building permit applications are submitted to the County, the Applicant will be required to comply with the Fire District 3 requirements related to building height.

Supplementary Provisions

[…]

18.10.690 Access.

All lots or parcels of land less than five acres in area shall abut upon a publicly developed and maintained road, or on a private roadway that was permitted by the county beginning October 25, 1999, or on a road thereafter regulated or permitted by the county, for a minimum distance of 25 feet. [Ord. 18-102 § 2(ix), 11-6-18; Ord. 16-039 § 4, 3-15-16.]

Response: This proposal has been designed to include direct access for the singlefamily residential lots to a private roadway. Lot 11 included with this proposal has been designed to abut directly upon SR-504, a publicly developed and maintained road. However, development of Lot 11 is not currently contemplated.

Chapter 18.50 Rural Subdivision

[…]

18.50.030 Applicability

A. These regulations apply specifically to those areas classified as rural residential in the Cowlitz County Comprehensive Plan and/or the Zoning Code.

B. The regulations contained in this chapter shall apply to the division or redivision of land into five or more lots, tracts, parcels or sites, any one of which is less than five acres in area, for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer of ownership, except as provided in CCC 18.50.050.

[Ord. 98-008, § 5, 1-20-98; Ord. 80-154, § 3, 5-19-80.]

Response: This proposal has been designed in accordance with an allowed use within rural area in conformance with the County Comprehensive Plan and the Cowlitz County Rural Subdivision Ordinance (also referred to as the Zoning Code). Each of the parcels included in this proposal are fewer than five (5) acres in size.

Narrative

September 8, 2022 (Updated October 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023)

Page 6 of 19

[…] 18.50.060 Application.

A. Informal Review. Before making application for a rural subdivision, the applicant may arrange to have the proposal reviewed informally by submitting one copy of the proposal to the administrator for presubmission conference.

Response: The rural subdivision application was not provided to County staff for an informal review prior to the submittal of the Preliminary Application.

B. Preliminary Application. The preliminary application shall be on a form provided by the Administrator and shall contain the following information:

1. Proposed name of subdivision;

Response: The name of the proposed subdivision is Ridge View Subdivision. This name is included consistently throughout the preliminary rural subdivision application.

2. The name, address and telephone number of the owner;

Response: The name, address and telephone number of the property owner is included in the preliminary application.

3. The name, address and telephone number of the developer, if different from owner;

Response: Not applicable. The developer and the property owner are the same.

4. The existing zoning classifications, or Comprehensive Plan classification if area is unzoned;

Response: The existing zoning classification for the property is unzoned. The Comprehensive Plan classifies the property as rural.

5. The proposed method of sewage disposal, and, if public sewer is used, the name of the district or purveyor having management over the system;

Response: The proposed method of sewage disposal is septic.

6. The proposed method of water supply, and, if a public system is used, the name of the purveyor;

Response: The proposed method of water supply is connection to the County Department of Public Works service which is located within Si Town Road. For more information, see Application Submittal Item No. 13, Supplemental (Water Utility Letter).

7. Signature(s) of owner(s) and developer(s).

Narrative

September 8, 2022 (Updated October 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023)

Page 7 of 19

Response: The Master Application as contained within Application Submittal Item No. 5, includes the required signatures of the owner and developer.

C. Preliminary Plat. A map shall accompany the application prepared on a sheet of paper having dimensions of eight and one-half inches by 24 inches and containing the following information:

1. The date, scale and north arrow; the scale to be one inch equals 100 feet or one inch equals 200 feet, or other scale as may be approved;

2. The distances of the boundary lines, to scale, of the tract to be subdivided and each lot contained therein;

3. The number assigned to each lot;

4. The location, names, widths and auditor’s file number of any existing easements, existing and proposed roads, existing and proposed rights-of-way for public services or utilities within the rural subdivision, and within 100 feet thereof, and location of the nearest public road, if there is not a public road within 100 feet;

5. The boundaries of all lands reserved in the deeds for the common uses of the property owners of the rural subdivision;

6. The location of permanent and topographic features which will have an impact upon the rural subdivision, such as all existing or platted streets adjacent to the rural subdivision, watercourses, railroad rights-of-way, all utility rights-of-way, township lines and section lines. Contour information may also be required;

7. A vicinity sketch clearly identifying the location of the property being subdivided, the sketch having a scale of not less than three inches to the mile.

Response: All of these items are included in the Preliminary Plat (Application Submittal Item No. 7).

D. Preliminary Supporting Documents.

1. An environmental checklist;

Response: An environmental checklist is contained within the Application Submittal Item No. 12, SEPA Environmental Checklist

2. Copies of restrictions, covenants and agreements, if any, proposed and/or existing upon the use of the land. Such restrictions, if required by the county, must be recorded either prior to or simultaneously with the recording of the final plat;

Response: A copy of the existing Riparian Habitat Restrictive Covenant is included within Application Submittal Item No. 14

A draft private road maintenance agreement is included with this rural subdivision application as Item No. 14 and constitutes a requirement for recordation together with the final approved plat.

Narrative

September 8, 2022 (Updated October 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023)

Page 8 of 19

3. An Assessor’s or similar map showing:

a. All the adjacent property in which the subdivider has an interest,

b. All properties abutting those listed in C-1,

c. A master plan of the site,

d. A logical extension of roads and utilities that will bring services to the proposed subdivision and/or deliver services to the adjacent properties. [Ord. 80-154, §6, 5-19-80.]

Response: A map depicting adjacent properties within the project vicinity are included in the Application Submittal Item No. 7, Site Plan In addition, an Assessor’s Map is included in Application Submittal Item No. 13, Supplementals.

Water utility extensions are included to each of the residential lots included with this proposal. For more information, see the Application Submittal Item No. 13, Water Utility Letter.

Roadway extensions are not required or included in this proposal.

18.50.070 General standards.

A. The following shall be applicable to all rural subdivisions:

1. Lot Size. The minimum size of any lot within the proposed large lot subdivision shall be in conformance with the Cowlitz County Zoning Code, shall conform to the minimum lot size specified in the Zoning Code, or such larger size as specified by state health regulations.

In unzoned areas of the county, the minimum lot size within a rural subdivision shall be either the recommended density set forth in and as designated by the County Comprehensive Plan for that area or such size as is required to meet state water and sewage disposal standards, whichever is greater.

Response: The 2017 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Category guidelines require a two (2) acre lot minimum size. Each of the lots included with this proposal meet this requirement.

2. Easements. Easements shall be provided where necessary for road, utility installation and maintenance, public access, drainage, and buffer strip or protective easements.

Response: This proposal has been designed to include easements for the private roadway and water utility installation. For more information, see the Application Submittal Item No. 7.

3. Master Plan. A generalized plan for the entire ownership shall be required to show

Narrative

September 8, 2022 (Updated October 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023)

Page 9 of 19

that the road pattern and general arrangement for the rural subdivision can be coordinated with the entire tract when fully developed. Topographic information may be required.

Response: A generalized plan is included with this application as a site plan. For more information, see Application Submittal Item No. 7

4. Surveys.

a. Surveys shall be required for all rural subdivisions; provided, that the Engineer may waive this requirement if there is sufficient survey data and monumentation, which means that all of the exterior boundaries are included in a previous survey unless a boundary is controlled by a physical barrier such as a river, and that at least two corners are monumented.

Response: An existing conditions Survey is included in the Application Submittal Item No. 7.

b. Monuments and Markers. If all the property has been surveyed, all permanent markers within the rural subdivision shall be located and described, and all controlling corners of the boundaries of the rural subdivision shall be marked by a three-fourths-inch galvanized iron pipe or approved equivalent driven flush with the ground. All markers set shall be marked with the land surveyor’s registration number. All monuments and markers shall be shown on the face of the final plat.

Response: The face of the final plat will contain all monuments and markers.

5. Access. Each lot within a rural subdivision shall be provided with satisfactory access by means of a public or private right-of-way connecting to an existing and developed public street, or by some other legally sufficient right-of-access, inseparable from the lot to be served.

Response: This proposal has been designed to include individual residential lot access for each of Lot 1 through Lot 10 to the private roadway. The commercial lot within the northwest portion of the site (Lot 11) has been designed with direct access to SR-504. However, development is not currently contemplated for Lot 11.

6. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be as set forth in the County Zoning Code for those zoned portions of the county. All rural subdivisions locating in unzoned areas of the county shall be consistent with the lot widths recommended by the County Comprehensive Plan or required by health regulations, whichever is greater.

Response: This proposal has been designed to be consistent with the minimum lot width requirements contained within the County Comprehensive Plan. The applicable lot minimum width requirements are one hundred feet (100’)

Narrative

September 8, 2022 (Updated October 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023)

Page 10 of 19

at the building line. For more information, see the Application Submittal Item No. 7, Site Plan.

7. All rural subdivisions shall comply with the minimum requirements of the Washington State Uniform Fire Code or such fire protection as adopted by the Board.

Response: This rural subdivision has been designed in compliance with the 2016 International Fire Code as well as applicable sections of the Code, including but not limited to CCC 16.05.050 Building Code.

8. Difficult Development Land. Difficult development land shall not be subdivided unless the subdivider, within 90 calendar days following the original submission, provides acceptable plans for overcoming any harmful features. Reasonable conditions may be applied to rural subdivision approval to minimize harmful environmental conditions pertinent to the property.

Response: Not applicable. The site does not contain harmful or otherwise hazardous conditions.

9. Sewage Disposal. Where sanitary sewers are not available, each lot shall contain adequate area and proper soil and topographical drainage conditions to be served by an on-site sewage disposal system or shall be suitable for an alternative sanitary waste disposal system that meets state health regulations.

Response: Sanitary sewer is not available in the project vicinity therefore each lot has been designed with adequate area within which there are proper soil and topographical drainage conditions to facilitate the future inclusion of septic.

B. Standards applicable to all rural subdivision private roads are as follows:

1. Any right-of-way or road surface not open to general public use shall be retained as a privately owned and privately maintained road.

2. The face of any rural plat containing a private road shall bear the following language:

WARNING, Cowlitz County has no responsibility to build, improve, or maintain the private roads contained within or providing services to the property described in this plat nor to otherwise service such private roads.

Response: The Preliminary Plat contains the requisite language listed above within Sheet Notes Item 4: PRIVATE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE 60' WIDE. COWLITZ COUNTY HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO MONITOR, IMPROVE, OR MAINTAIN THE PRIVATE ROADS CONTAINED WITHIN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. ANY PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVEWAY, ROAD, OR STREET SHALL REMAIN A PRIVATE

Narrative

September 8, 2022 (Updated October 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023)

Page 11 of 19

RESPONSIBILITY UNLESS IT IS UPGRADED TO A PUBLIC STREET OR ROAD STANDARDS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE DEVELOPER OR ABUTTING LOT OWNERS TO INCLUDE HARD SURFACE PAVING AND IS ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY FOR PUBLIC OWNERSHIP AND CONTINUED MAINTENANCE.

For more information, see the Application Submittal Item No. 7. In addition, private ownership and maintenance is further discussed in the Application Submittal Item No. 13, Supplementals, Proposed Private Road Maintenance Agreement.

3. Privately owned roads shall be open for necessary public use.

Response: The private road included in this proposal will remain open for necessary public use.

4. Private road right-of-way widths and improvements shall meet county standards as approved and adopted by the Department of Public Works.

Response: The private roadway included with this proposal serving the singlefamily residential lots has been designed in compliance with the Rural Access / Low Volume Access (Drawing: CC-1309) which requires a sixty-foot (60’) right-ofway/easement within which a twenty-four foot (24’) paved width and one-foot (1’) clear space on each side For more information, see the Application Submittal Item No. 7, Site Plan.

5. Building line minimum setbacks shall be 25 feet from the nearest right-of-way line or 55 feet from the centerline of the right-of-way, whichever is greater.

Response: These setbacks are reflected in the Site Plan which is included as Application Submittal Item No. 7.

6. A private maintenance agreement shall be required. The agreement shall list all of the private streets, easements, community utilities, and common properties to be maintained by the owners and shall provide for their maintenance. The agreement shall also provide for a minimum maintenance standard that insures that all items on the list can at all times be used for the function for which they were intended. In order to insure the continued good repair, it must be demonstrated to the Commission prior to the recording of the subdivision that:

a. There is a workable organization such as a homeowners’ association, to guarantee maintenance with a committee or group to administer the organizational functions;

b. There is a means for assessing maintenance costs equitable to property owners served by the private streets, easements, community utilities and properties;

c. If at some future date it becomes feasible for the roads to become county roads, assurance shall be given that the roads will be brought up to county

Narrative

September 8, 2022 (Updated October 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023)

Page 12 of 19

standards prior to the county’s acceptance for maintenance and operation.

Response: A draft private road maintenance agreement is included within the Application Submittal Item No. 13, Supplementals, which will be finalized during final plat review and recorded with the final plat to ensure the proper maintenance of the private roadway included with this proposal.

C. Standards applicable to all rural subdivisions along public roads are as follows:

1. Dedication or deeding or granting of an easement to the county of such right-ofway as may be consistent with adopted county standards for public roads, or a portion thereof, shall be required within or along the boundaries of any lot(s) within the plat, under one or more of the following circumstances:

a. Where the Department of Public Works’ six-year road improvement plan indicates the necessity of a new right-of-way or portion thereof for road purposes;

b. Where there is less than one-half of the standard right-of-way from the centerline of the right-of-way to the property line;

c. Where necessary to extend or complete the existing road;

d. When necessary to develop better traffic circulation in the community or neighborhood.

Response: Not applicable. This proposal includes the provision of a private roadway for which dedication, deeding or granting of an easement to the County is not required or proposed.

2. Public road improvements, consistent with adopted county or state standards and specifications for public streets, shall be required when new public right-of-way is deeded or dedicated.

Response: Not applicable. This proposal does not require or include public road improvements.

3. Public roads right-of-way widths and improvements shall be consistent with adopted county or state road standards and specifications. [Ord. 15-039 § 8, 3-2415; Ord. 80-154, § 7, 5-19-80.]

Response: Lot 11 has been designed to include frontage along public roadways, SR-504 and Si Town Road, respectively. At a future time, if a site plan is submitted for Lot 11, access will be required to be addressed at that time.

Ridge View Subdivision (WKS3616002)

Narrative

September 8, 2022 (Updated October 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023)

Page 13 of 19

[…]

Chapter 18.64 Commercial and Industrial Binding Site Plan Code (BSP)

[…]

Response: While this rural subdivision contains a commercial lot, development is not currently contemplated for it. At a later time, if the Applicant wishes to pursue the development within Lot 11, they will be required to comply with the provisions contained within this code section. […]

Chapter 19.11 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)

[…]

Response: A SEPA Checklist has been prepared in compliance with this code section. For more information, see the Application Submittal Item No. 11.

Chapter 19.15 Critical Areas

[…]

19.15.080 Optional incentives for nondevelopment of critical areas.

[…]

Response: A restrictive covenant for a conservation area easement area was recorded against the property in 2022 in fulfillment of a condition of approval pursuant to the Critical Areas permit (0002484-001) associated with the Forest Practices Conversion permit (0001643-001). This proposal has been designed to avert work within the conservation area easement. In addition, this proposal does not utilize the density transfer provisions of the code since the provision of eleven (11) lots meet the minimum lot area and do not require the use of density transfer to meet full developable potential of the site.

19.15.090 Planning clearance and permitting.

[…]

Response: A Critical Areas permit (0002484-001) was issued for the property on March 3, 2022. This rural subdivision application is provided to Cowlitz County within the one (1) year expiration period. The boundaries for the critical area as included as a deed restriction will be maintained by the proposed lot layout for the Ridge View Subdivision.

Ridge View Subdivision (WKS3616002)

Narrative

September 8, 2022 (Updated October 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023)

Page 14 of 19

[…]

19.15.130 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.

A. Designation of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.

Response: Portions within the site is designated as fish and wildlife habitat conservation area is included within the recorded restrictive covenant. For more information, see the Application Submittal Item No. 13, Supplementals, Covenants or Restrictions - Existing Restrictive Covenant.

C. Critical Area Assessment – Additional Requirements for Habitat Conservation Areas. In addition to the general critical area assessment requirements of CCC 19.15.090(F)(2), critical area assessments for habitat conservation areas must meet the requirements of this section. Critical area assessments for two or more types of critical areas must meet the requirements for each relevant type of critical area.

Response: A level one critical area assessment is included in this application as Submittal Item No. 12.

D. Development Standards – General Requirements.

Response: No ground disturbing activities are included within the critical area encumbering the single-family residential lots. Work within Lot 11 would be permissible to occur in accordance with the approved mitigation plan associated with the Critical Areas permit (0002484-001) Application Submittal Item No. 13, and the level one critical areas assessment that is included with this application as Application Submittal Item No. 12

E Development Standards – Specific Habitats

Response: The Type F, channel width less than 20 feet, that transects a portion of the site necessitates a one-hundred-foot (100’) Riparian Habitat Area (RHA) width. Partial use of the Outer Zone of the RHA may be included in Lot 11, however, development is not currently contemplated within that lot.

19.15.150 Geologically hazardous areas.

C. Development Standards – General Requirements for All Geologically Hazardous Areas.

Narrative

September 8, 2022 (Updated October 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023)

Page 15 of 19

Response: Portions of the site contain steep slopes. This proposal has been designed to largely avoid the on-site steep slope areas. A geotechnical engineering evaluation of the site will be submitted with the engineering application for this proposal.

[…]

H. Landslide Hazard Areas.

2. Development Standards – Specific Requirements. Uses and activities permitted shall conform to the following standards:

a. Protection of Landslide Area and Buffer. The landslide hazard area and associated buffer shall be protected from disturbance. Modification of topography and vegetation in landslide hazard areas shall be stringently limited in order to preserve long-term stability of sensitive slopes, reduce erosion potential and stormwater runoff, and preserve related ecological values.

Response: The landslide hazard area is associated with the riparian habitat and is included within the restrictive easement. This proposal has been designed to avert the landslide hazard area and associated buffer. No modification within the landslide area is associated with this proposal thereby preserving the long-term stability of sensitive slopes, reducing erosion potential and stormwater runoff and preserving related ecological values.

b. Buffers. A buffer shall be established from all edges of landslide hazard areas. The minimum dimension of the buffer shall be 50 feet from the edge of the landslide hazard area.

i. Buffer Reduction. The buffer may be reduced to a minimum of 25 feet at the sides of a landslide hazard area when a qualified professional demonstrates that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments, and uses and the subject critical area. No reductions are allowed for developments uphill or downslope from landslide hazard areas.

Response: Not applicable. This proposal does not include a request to reduce the landslide hazard area buffer.

ii. Buffer Use. Where reduction of the buffer is not permitted, development encroachment within the buffer area may be allowed provided a qualified professional demonstrates that site alterations will not impact a landslide area and/or the adjacent properties.

Response: Not applicable. This proposal does not include a request to reduce the landslide hazard area buffer.

iii. Increased Buffer. The buffer may be increased where the Director or a

Narrative

September 8, 2022 (Updated October 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023)

Page 16 of 19

qualified professional determines a larger buffer is necessary to prevent risk of damage to proposed and existing development.

Response: This proposal does not include a request to increase the landslide hazard area buffer as it is located entirely within the existing conservation easement.

iv. The buffer shall be clearly staked before and during any construction or clearing.

Response: The buffer was clearly staked prior to the commencement of logging activities associated with the FPA permit (0001643-001).

c. Design and Development Standards. Development or alterations within a landslide hazard area and/or buffer shall be designed to meet the following requirements. Deviations from one or more of these standards may be permitted where it can be demonstrated by a qualified professional that an alternative design provides equal or greater protection of the critical area and proposal. The basic development design standards are:

Response: Not applicable. Development or alterations within the landslide hazard area on site is not included in this proposal.

i. Structures and improvements shall be located to avoid landslide hazard areas and other critical areas;

Response: While structures are not included in this rural subdivision application, it has been designed to ensure that building envelopes do not encroach into the landslide hazard area on site.

ii. Structures and improvements shall minimize alterations to the natural contour of the slope, and foundations shall be tiered where possible to conform to existing topography;

Response: Improvements included with this proposal minimize slope alterations and also include a decrease in slope from 4:1 to 2:1 within certain portions of the site. For more information, see the Application Submittal Item No. 7.

iii. Structures and improvements shall be located to preserve the most critical portion of the site and its natural landforms and vegetation;

Response: The most critical portion of the site has been avoided with the site design included in this proposal.

iv. The proposed development shall not result in an increase in surface water

Narrative

September 8, 2022 (Updated October 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023)

Page 17 of 19

discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties;

Response: This proposal includes a nominal increase in impervious surfaces and will therefore result in immaterially different discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties.

v. Development shall be designed to minimize impervious lot coverage;

Response: This proposal has been designed to minimize the inclusion of impervious surfaces. It is estimated that approximately three percent (3%) of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces upon the completion of construction.

vi. Vegetation Retention.

Response: This proposal has been designed to include minimal disturbance, thus most vegetation on site is retained with this rural subdivision.

(A) Removal of vegetation from a landslide hazard area or related buffer shall be permitted only when approved by a qualified professional; and

Response: This proposal does not include the removal of vegetation from the landslide hazard area or related buffer.

(B) If the landslide area and buffer lacks adequate vegetation, a vegetation restoration plan or other slope stability measures may be required;

Response: The landslide hazard area and buffer contain adequate vegetation and will be later evaluated as part of the engineering application review of this proposal.

vii. Seasonal Restriction.

Response: There are no seasonal restrictions or limitations as this proposal does not include disturbance within the landslide hazard area.

(A) Clearing activities that disturb the soil shall be allowed from May 1st to October 1st; provided, that the county may extend or shorten the dry season on a case-by-case basis, except that timber harvest, not including brush clearing or stump removal, may be allowed pursuant to an approved forest practice permit;

(B) Outside of the designated dry season, clearing activities that disturb the soil may occur only when demonstrated by a qualified professional that no increased risk to landslide hazard and buffer areas will occur from clearing activities;

Narrative

September 8, 2022 (Updated October 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023)

Page 18 of 19

Response: Not applicable. This proposal does not include disturbance within the landslide hazard area.

viii.Utility Lines and Pipes. Utility lines and pipes shall be permitted in landslide hazard areas only when the applicant demonstrates that no other practical alternative is available;

Response: Not applicable. This proposal does not include disturbance within the landslide hazard area.

ix. Drainage.

(A) Surface drainage, including downspouts, shall not be directed across the face of a hazard area. If drainage must be discharged from the top of a hazard area to its toe, it shall be collected above the top and directed to the toe by tight line drain, and provided with an energydissipating device at the toe for discharge to a swale or other acceptable natural drainage areas.

Response: This proposal does not include the directed discharge of surface drainage across the landslide hazard area.

(B) Stormwater retention and detention systems, including percolation systems utilizing buried pipe, are strongly discouraged unless a geotechnical assessment indicates such a system shall not affect slope stability and the systems are designed by a licensed civil engineer. The licensed civil engineer shall also certify that the systems are installed as designed;

Response: This proposal has been designed to include these items outside of the landslide hazard area. A preliminary stormwater technical information report (TIR) will be provided as part of the engineering application.

x. Sewage Disposal Systems. On-site sewage disposal systems, including drainfields, shall be permitted within landslide hazard areas and related buffers only where demonstrated by a qualified professional to not increase the potential landslide hazard impact to the proposed development or surrounding developments.

Response: This proposal has been designed to facilitate the future inclusion of on-site sewage disposal systems outside of the landslide hazard area.

I. Critical Area Assessment – Requirements for Geologically Hazardous Areas.

Ridge View Subdivision (WKS3616002)

Narrative

September 8, 2022 (Updated October 28, 2022 and February 13, 2023)

Page 19 of 19

4. Geotechnical Assessment. A geotechnical assessment is an overview of site conditions and a professional evaluation of the need for additional studies prior to development on the property. The geotechnical assessment is intended to be a limited study of geological hazards (i.e., landslide, liquefaction, erosion) at a site, and does not include the collection of any subsurface soil, rock and groundwater data. If determined to be necessary, the qualified professional will recommend the preparation of a detailed geotechnical report that includes the investigation of subsurface soil, rock and groundwater conditions to better assess the geological site hazards. The geologic assessment shall include, but not be limited to:

Response: A geotechnical engineering report will be included as part of the engineering application.

Response: A small portion of the northern part of the site is located within an area of moderate to severe CARA areas. However, this proposal does not include work within that area. Should work be proposed within that area at a later time, a CARA evaluation will be conducted.

CONCLUSION

This subdivision application narrative and all other submittal items demonstrate compliance with the approval criteria contained within Section 18.50 and in conformance with all other applicable requirements contained within the Code. The Applicant therefore respectfully requests the County’s approval of this land use application for a rural subdivision.

19.15.160 Critical aquifer recharge areas.

PROPOSEDUTILITIES

SANITARYSEWER:ON-SITESEPTIC

WATER: PUBLIC(COWLITZCOUNTYDEPARTMENTOFPUBLICWORKS) STORM: RURALON-SITETREATMENT&DETENTION

SPIRITLAKEHWY(SR504)

CLASSIVGENERALFOREST PRACTICESCONVERSION PERMIT-0001643-001

PARCELWJ0120015PARCELWJ0120013PARCELWJ0120011PARCELWJ0120009PARCELWJ0120007PARCELWJ0120005PARCELWJ0120003 PARCELWJ0120001 PARCEL WJ0101001

TIMBERLINEDR(EXIST)

SPIRITLAKEHWY(SR504)

SHEETNOTES

1. PRIVATEROADRIGHT-OF-WAYSHALLBE60'WIDE,WITH24'PAVEDWIDTH,ANDROADSIDE DITCHES.COWLITZCOUNTYHASNORESPONSIBILITYTOMONITOR,IMPROVE,ORMAINTAINTHE PRIVATEROADSCONTAINEDWITHINORPRIVATEROADSPROVIDINGACCESSTOTHEPROPERTY DESCRIBEDINTHISDEVELOPMENT.ANYPRIVATEACCESSDRIVEWAY,ROAD,ORSTREETSHALL REMAINAPRIVATERESPONSIBILITYUNLESSITISUPGRADEDTOAPUBLICSTREETORROAD STANDARDSATTHEEXPENSEOFTHEDEVELOPERORABUTTINGLOTOWNERSTOINCLUDEHARD SURFACEPAVINGANDISACCEPTEDBYTHECOUNTYFORPUBLICOWNERSHIPANDCONTINUED MAINTENANCE.

2. SETBACKSAREFRONT=25',SIDES=10',ANDREAR=15'

3. AMINIMUMOF100'WIDTHPROVIDEDATBUILDINGENVELOPE/PAD.

4.NOWATERMETERSSHALLBELOCATEDABOVEELEVATION630FT.NAVD88.

TIMBERLINEDR(EXIST)

SPIRITLAKEHWY(SR504)

LOT11(COMMERCIALPARCEL)

WK3615007 PARCELWJ0120015PARCELWJ0120013PARCELWJ0120011PARCELWJ0120009PARCELWJ0120007PARCELWJ0120005PARCELWJ0120003 PARCELWJ0120001

TIMBERLINEDR(EXIST)

SHEETNOTES

1. PROJECTBOUNDARYESTABLISHEDPERRECORDOFSURVEY3387510(VOL.30,PAGE103)

2. SITOWNROADVARIABLEWIDTHPERRECORDOFSURVEY3387510.(60'WIDEPERSN3224692AND PLATOF"SILVERFIRESTATES").

3. SITOWNROADSHALLBEDEDICATED60'WIDTH.

4.PRIVATEROADRIGHT-OF-WAYSHALLBE60'WIDE.COWLITZCOUNTYHASNORESPONSIBILITYTO MONITOR,IMPROVE,ORMAINTAINTHEPRIVATEROADSCONTAINEDWITHINTHEPROPERTY DESCRIBEDINTHISDEVELOPMENT.ANYPRIVATEACCESSDRIVEWAY,ROAD,ORSTREETSHALLREMAIN APRIVATERESPONSIBILITYUNLESSITISUPGRADEDTOAPUBLICSTREETORROADSTANDARDSATTHE EXPENSEOFTHEDEVELOPERORABUTTINGLOTOWNERSTOINCLUDEHARDSURFACEPAVINGANDIS ACCEPTEDBYTHECOUNTYFORPUBLICOWNERSHIPANDCONTINUEDMAINTENANCE.

SPIRITLAKEHWY(SR504)

LOT11(COMMERCIALPARCEL)

WILDWOODDR(PVT)

TIMBERLINEDR(EXIST)

SHEETNOTES

1. PRIVATEROADRIGHT-OF-WAYSHALLBE60'WIDE,WITH24'PAVEDWIDTH,ANDROADSIDE DITCHES.COWLITZCOUNTYHASNORESPONSIBILITYTOMONITOR,IMPROVE,ORMAINTAINTHE PRIVATEROADSCONTAINEDWITHINORPRIVATEROADSPROVIDINGACCESSTOTHEPROPERTY DESCRIBEDINTHISDEVELOPMENT.ANYPRIVATEACCESSDRIVEWAY,ROAD,ORSTREETSHALL REMAINAPRIVATERESPONSIBILITYUNLESSITISUPGRADEDTOAPUBLICSTREETORROAD STANDARDSATTHEEXPENSEOFTHEDEVELOPERORABUTTINGLOTOWNERSTOINCLUDEHARD SURFACEPAVINGANDISACCEPTEDBYTHECOUNTYFORPUBLICOWNERSHIPANDCONTINUED MAINTENANCE.

2. SETBACKSAREFRONT=25',SIDES=10',ANDREAR=15'

3. AMINIMUMOF100'WIDTHPROVIDEDATBUILDINGENVELOPE/PAD.

4.NOWATERMETERSSHALLBELOCATEDABOVEELEVATION630FT.NAVD88.

5. EXISTINGANDPROPOSEDCONTOURSSHOWNAT5FTINTERVALS.

LEGEND

DRAINAGEFLOWARROW EXISTINGCONTOUR(MAJOR)

PROPOSEDCONTOUR(MAJOR)

BOUNDARYLINE

MEMORANDUM

DATE: February 28, 2023

TO: WSDOT Cowlitz County

FROM: Dana Beckwith, PE

Monica Leal, PE Richard Martin, EIT

SUBJECT: Ridge View Subdivision Traffic Impact Analysis

P22-045

This memorandum summarizes the traffic impact analysis prepared for the proposed Ridge View Subdivision development at 102 Si Town Road in Cowlitz County, Washington. The proposed development is located on the southwest quadrant of the Spirit Highway (SR 504) at Si Town Road intersection. The traffic impact analysis for the proposed development was prepared to determine improvements needed at the site access and evaluate the impacts of the development to the existing transportation system. The following intersections were included in this analysis:

• SR 504 at Si Town Road

• Si Town Road at Wildwood Drive (Proposed)

• SR 504 at Lot 11 Site Access

The SR 504 at Si Town Road Intersection and the potential future proposed site access1 onto SR 504 for Lot 11 were included in this analysis. A vicinity map for the proposed development is provided in Figure 1. A preliminary site plan is provided in Figure 2.

Figure 1: Vicinity Map

1 CoordinationbetweenGlobalTransportationEngineeringandWSDOT.Emaildated6/15/2022.

Ridge View Subdivision Traffic Impact Analysis

February 28, 2023

Page 2 of 12

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• A 10-unit residential development and one commercial lot are proposed for 102 Si Town Road in Cowlitz County, Washington. Access for the commercial building for Lot 11 will be via SR 504 and the residential units via a private road that accesses Si Town Road. No development is currently proposed for Lot 11.

• An existing conditions analysis showed no mitigable crash patterns at the SR 504 and Si Town Road Intersection.

• A sight distance evaluation showed no sight distance issues at the proposed site access on SR 504.

• A traffic impact analysis was conducted to determine the 2022 existing conditions, 2025 background conditions, and 2025 buildout conditions for the SR 504 at Si Town Road intersection and the proposed site access onto SR 504. The analysis showed that the study intersections operate at acceptable performance levels through the 2025 buildout conditions. No capacity mitigations are recommended.

• A warrant analysis showed that no left or right-turn lanes are warranted at the proposed site access on SR 504.

• No mitigations are recommended associated with the proposed commercial or residential developments.

Figure 2: Preliminary Site Plan

Ridge View Subdivision Traffic Impact Analysis

February 28, 2023

Page 3 of 12

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this analysis is to identify potential improvements at the study intersections and the proposed site access onto SR 504 to adequately serve existing and future horizon year traffic conditions based on standards established by Cowlitz County and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). This traffic impact analysis considers the following elements:

• Project Description

• Traffic Analysis

o Existing Conditions Analysis

 Description of Existing Facilities

 Existing Intersection Performance

 Crash Data Analysis

o Sight Distance Evaluation

o Projected Conditions Analysis

 Trip Generation and Distribution

 Background Growth

 2025 Background Volumes

 2025 Buildout Volumes

 Future Intersection Performance

 Warrant Analyses

• Left-Turn Lane Warrants

• Right-Turn Lane Warrants

• Conclusions and Recommendations

• Appendices

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed development will divide approximately 31.98 acres into 11 separate lots at 102 Si Town Road in Cowlitz County, Washington. Ten of these lots are for residential use and will gain access via a proposed private road that connects to Si Town Road. Lot 11 is modeled for a potential 5,000 square foot commercial office building with access via SR 504. Figure 2 shows a preliminary site plan.

• Based on the Pre-Application Notes2 for this project, a Traffic Impact Study must be provided for the commercial site on Lot 11. The Traffic Impact Study was developed based on the Washington Department of Transportation standards and is presented below.

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

Existing Conditions Analysis

Existing transportation conditions were evaluated along SR 504 and Si Town Road. All modes of travel were evaluated, including pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and motor vehicles. The existing transportation conditions are summarized in Table 1.

Ridge View Subdivision Traffic Impact Analysis

February 28, 2023

Page 4 of 12

Table 1: Existing Conditions Within Study Area

Notes: 1 Based on the WSDOT Functional Classification Map.

2 Based on the Cowlitz County GIS Map, Street Classification

Existing Intersection Performance

An intersection performance analysis was conducted to document the existing operations for the SR 504 and Si Town Road Intersection and to develop a baseline for analyzing future intersection operational needs associated with the proposed development. Intersection operations were analyzed for the current peak hour performance. The peak periods analyzed for this evaluation include the AM peak period (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and the PM peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM).

Turn movement count data was collected for both the AM and PM peak hours on June 22, 2022. Based on coordination with Cowlitz County3, June falls within the Mount Saint Helens tourist season and seasonal adjustment factors do not need to be considered in the traffic volume calculations. The detailed count data is included in Appendix A. Existing traffic volumes and lane configurations are shown in Figure 3.

The level of service analyses presented in this report has been completed using the Synchro (Version 11) analysis software. Synchro reports are based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition methodology.

WSDOT utilizes level of service (LOS) standards to identify the acceptable levels of congestion. These standards also define the thresholds at which transportation system deficiencies are identified for improvements. The following level of service standards4 apply:

• LOS C or better for rural non-NHS facilities

Table 2 summarizes the existing traffic operations for the SR 504 and Si Town Road Intersection. Delay is reported as that of the worst stop-controlled approach for the unsignalized intersection. The detailed analysis results have been included in Appendix B.

Table 2: Existing Intersection Performance Summary, Unsignalized Intersections

Bold =doesnotmeetperformancestandards.

Under the existing intersection performance analysis, the SR 504 at Si Town Road Intersection meets performance standards during the AM and PM peak hours.

3 Coordination between Cowlitz County Public Works and Global Transportation Engineering. Email dated 2/15/2023. 4 WSDOT Design Manual, Division 3, Chapter 320.05.

Ridge View Subdivision Traffic Impact Analysis

February 28, 2023

Page 6 of 12

Crash Analysis

Crash data for the five-year period from January 2017 through December 2021 was obtained from the Washington Department of Transportation and was reviewed to identify traffic safety concerns at the SR 504 at Si Town Road intersection. The crash rates presented in Table 3 are based on the number of crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV). Typically, further analysis and crash mitigations are not necessary unless its crash rate exceeds a threshold of 1.0 crashes per MEV.

Note:*M.E.V.-millionenteringvehicles.

As shown in Table 3, the intersection crash rate does not exceed 1.0 crashes per MEV and mitigations are not recommended. Of the reported crashes at the intersection, neither resulted in injury. One was a rear-end collision and the other was a turning-movement collision. No crash patterns were found. Detailed crash data is available in Appendix C.

Sight Distance Evaluation

Intersection sight distance for the proposed site access onto SR 504 was evaluated based on WSDOT standards and standards established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official’s (AASHTO) standards. The sight distance measurement assumes stop control operations at the proposed site access. Sight distance was compared with WSDOT and AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance for the following cases:

• WSDOT Left and Right Access Sight Distance

• AASHTO Case B1 - Left Turn from the proposed access

• AASHTO Case B2 - Right Turn from the proposed access7

• WSDOT8 and AASHTO9 Stopping sight distance (SSD) Eastbound and Westbound Directions - Traffic approaching along SR 504 at the proposed access

Based on the posted speed limit of 55 mph on SR 504, the sight distance evaluation is summarized in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, all sight distance standards are met for the proposed site access.

Table 4: Sight Distance Evaluation Results

5 WSDOTDesignManualM22.01.20,Section1340.03(3).

6 AASHTO,CaseB1–Intersectionswithstopcontrolontheminorroad(AASHTO,CaseB1,Table9-6).

7 AASHTO,CaseB1–Intersectionswithstopcontrolontheminorroad(AASHTO,CaseB2,Table9-8).

8 WSDOTDesignManualM22.01.20,Section1260.03(1)(b).

9 AASHTOStoppingSightDistance,Table3-1.

Table 3: Crash Analysis Summary

Ridge View Subdivision Traffic Impact Analysis

February 28, 2023

Page 7 of 12

Projected Conditions Analysis

A future conditions analysis was conducted to determine the expected traffic operating conditions for the study intersections and the proposed site access on SR 504 for the buildout year 2025.

Trip Generation and Distribution

Site trips for the development were determined based on land use trip rates taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Average rates were utilized in the trip generation development. Estimates were developed for AM, PM, and Average Daily Trips (ADT). In review of ITE land use codes, the trips generated by the commercial site will most closely be represented by the ITE Land Use Code 712 – Small Office Building. ITE Land Use Code 210 was utilized for the residential site. Table 5 summarizes the trip generation for the commercial and residential sites.

Trip distributions for the site generated traffic are based on the peak hour turning movement counts obtained for the SR 504 at Si Town Road intersection. Figure 4 summarizes the site trip distribution.

Background Growth

Based on coordination with WSDOT,10 a background growth Rate of 2 percent per year was determine for use in developing future volumes. A further seasonal adjustment of 1.08 was applied to the future volumes in accordance with the WSDOT Short Count Factoring Guide.11

In-Process Trips

Based on coordination with WSDOT and Cowlitz County, in-process trips from the Silver Lake Village, Phases II and III developments were included in the development of background traffic. Based on coordination with Cowlitz County staff, 90% of site trips from the Silver Lake Village development would pass by the intersection of SR 504 at Si Town Road. Phases II and III include 16 and 26 residential lots respectively for a total of 42 residential lots.

Site trips for the Silver Lake Village Development were determined based on land use trip rates taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Average rates were utilized in the trip generation development. Estimates were developed for AM, PM, and Average Daily Trips (ADT). In review of ITE land use codes, ITE Land Use Code 210 was utilized for this development. Table 6 shows the trip generation for the in-process developments. The Silver Lake Village II and III in-process trips and distribution are provided in Appendix D.

10 Emails from WSDOT engineering staff dated July 25, 2022. 11 WSDOT Short Count Factoring Guide, June 2020.

Table 5: Trip Generation Summary

Ridge View Subdivision Traffic Impact Analysis

February 28, 2023

Page 9 of 12

Table

2025 Background Traffic Volumes

Background growth and in-process trips were added to existing turn movement volumes to develop the 2025 background volumes. The 2025 Background volumes are shown in Figure 5.

2025 Buildout Traffic Volumes

Commercial and residential site trips were added to the 2025 background volumes to develop the 2025 buildout volumes. These volumes are shown in Figure 6.

Future Intersection Performance

Table 6 summarizes the AM and PM peak hour performance results for the 2025 intersection analyses. The HCM reports for the future analyses are included in Appendix E.

Table 6: 2025 Intersection Performance Analysis

Notes: Bold =doesnotmeetperformancestandards.

As shown in Table 6, The SR 504 at Si Town Road intersection and the proposed site access onto SR 504 operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours for both the 2025 Background and 2025 Buildout Scenerios.

Warrants Analyses

Left-Turn Lane Warrants

Left-turn lane warrants were reviewed for the proposed site access onto SR 504 using the Highway Research Board Report 211.12 Left turn warrants were evaluated for each study scenario. Table 7 shows a summary of the left turn warrant analysis results.

Left-turn lanes are not warranted under any conditions for any of the turning movements. Complete analysis details can be found in Appendix F.

6: In-Process Trip Generation Summary

12 Highway Research Board, Volume Warrants for Left-Turn Storage Lanes at Unsignalized Grade Intersection, Report 211.

Ridge View Subdivision Traffic Impact Analysis

February 28, 2023

Page 12 of 12

Table 7: Left Turn Lane Warrants Analysis

Notes:HRB=HighwayResearchBoard

Right-Turn Lane Warrants

Right-turn lane warrants were reviewed for the proposed site access onto SR 504 using the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 279. Right turn warrants were evaluated for each study scenario. Table 8 shows a summary of the right turn warrant analysis results.

Table 8: Right Turn Lane Warrants Analysis

Right turn lanes are not warranted under 2025 buildout conditions for the site access. Complete analysis details can be found in Appendix F.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A traffic analysis was conducted for the proposed commercial and residential development at 102 Si Town Road in Cowlitz County, Washington. The proposed development will consist of a 10-unit singlefamily residential development that will gain access via a proposed private road that connects to Si Town Road. Lot 11 is modeled for a potential 5,000 square foot commercial office building with access via SR 504.. The study area for the analysis included the SR 504 at Si Town Road intersection, Si Town Road at Wildwood Drive, and a potential site access to SR 504 from Lot 11.

The study intersections operate at an acceptable level of service under all scenarios. No capacity mitigations are recommended.

A crash analysis was conducted and showed no crash patterns at the SR 504 and Si Town Road Intersection. No safety mitigations are recommended.

A sight distance evaluation was conducted for the proposed site access location. No sight distance issues were identified.

Left-turn Lane warrants were reviewed for the proposed site access using the Highway Research Board Report 211. Left-turn lanes are not warranted under any analysis scenario.

Right-turn Lane warrants were reviewed for the proposed site access using the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 279. Right-turn lanes are not warranted under any analysis scenario.

Appendix A – Count Data

Appendix B – Existing Intersection Performance HCM Reports

Intersection

Int Delay, s/veh0.4

MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR

Lane Configurations

Traffic Vol, veh/h14480247140

Future Vol, veh/h14480247140

Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000

Sign ControlFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStop

RT Channelized-None-None-None

Storage Length----0-

Veh in Median Storage, #0--00-

Grade, %0--00-

Peak Hour Factor909090909090

Heavy Vehicles, %19257000

Mvmt Flow16090274160

Major/MinorMajor1Major2Minor1

Conflicting Flow All001690439165

Stage 1----165Stage 2----274-

Pot Cap-1 Maneuver--1379-579885 Stage 1----869Stage 2----777-

Platoon blocked, %---

Mov Cap-1 Maneuver--1379-579885

Mov Cap-2 Maneuver----579Stage 1----869Stage 2----777-

ApproachEBWBNB

HCM Control Delay, s0011.4

HCM LOSB

Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBTEBRWBLWBT Capacity (veh/h)579--1379HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.027----

Intersection

Int Delay, s/veh0.5

MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR

Lane Configurations

Traffic Vol, veh/h396292262212

Future Vol, veh/h396292262212

Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000

Sign ControlFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStop

RT Channelized-None-None-None

Storage Length----0-

Veh in Median Storage, #0--00-

Grade, %0--00-

Peak Hour Factor898989898989

Heavy Vehicles, %5355050

Mvmt Flow445332294242

Major/MinorMajor1Major2Minor1 Conflicting

ApproachEBWBNB

Appendix C – Crash Analysis

OFFICERREPORTEDCRASHESTHATOCCURREDATTHEFOLLOWINGINTERSECTIONINCOWLITZCOUNTY

SR504(MP2.68-2.72)@SITOWNRD

01/01/2017 - 12/31/2021

Under 23 U.S. Code § 148 and 23 U.S. Code § 407, safety data, reports, surveys, schedules, lists compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential crash sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings are not subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.

StateRouteCowlitz5042.70NoE95145907/29/201912:30NoApparentInjury00200

StateRouteCowlitz5042.70NoE74150111/11/201713:31NoApparentInjury00200

VEHICLE1TYPEVEHICLE2TYPEJUNCTIONRELATIONSHIPWEATHER Pickup,PanelTruckorVanetteunder10,000lbOtherAtIntersectionandRelatedClearorPartlyCloudy PassengerCarPickup,PanelTruckorVanetteunder10,000lbAtIntersectionandRelatedClearorPartlyCloudy

ROADWAY SURFACE CONDITION LIGHTING

CONDITIONFIRSTCOLLISIONTYPE/OBJECTSTRUCKVEHICLE1ACTIONVEHICLE2ACTION

VEHICLE1 COMPASS DIRECTION FROM DryDaylightEnteringatangleMakingLeftTurnGoingStraightAheadSouth DryDaylightFromsamedirection-bothgoingstraight-onestopped-rear-endGoingStraightAheadStoppedinRoadwayEast

VEHICLE1 COMPASS DIRECTION TO

VEHICLE2 COMPASS DIRECTIONFROM

VEHICLE2 COMPASS DIRECTIONTO MVDRIVERCONTRIBUTING CIRCUMSTANCE1(UNIT1)

MVDRIVER CONTRIBUTING CIRCUMSTANCE2 (UNIT1)

MVDRIVER CONTRIBUTING CIRCUMSTANCE3 (UNIT1)

MVDRIVER CONTRIBUTING CIRCUMSTANCE1 (UNIT2)

WestEastWestDidNotGrantRWtoVehicleNone

WestVehicleStoppedVehicleStoppedInattentionFollowTooCloselyNone

MVDRIVER CONTRIBUTING CIRCUMSTANCE2 (UNIT2)

MVDRIVER CONTRIBUTING CIRCUMSTANCE3 (UNIT2)

FIRSTIMPACTLOCATION (City,County&Misc Trafficways-2010forward)

WASTATE PLANE

SOUTH-X 2010FORWARD

WASTATE PLANE

SOUTH-Y 2010FORWARD

Lane1DecreasingMilepost1042417.09362804.24

Lane1DecreasingMilepost1042405.57362815.5

Appendix D – In Process Trips

Richard Martin

From: Harbison, Patrick <HarbisonP@cowlitzwa.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 1:50 PM

To: Richard Martin

Cc: Monica Leal

Subject: RE: Ridge View Subdivision Traffic Study

Attachments: Site Access Analysis.pdf

I can’t seem to find Phase 2's traffic study. It was 16 residential lots at the same location as 3. Not sure if that helps. I would assume 90% of the trips generated by phase 2, pass by the si town/SLH intersection.

Patrick N. Harbison, P.E.

UtilitiesManager

CowlitzCountyPublicWorks

160013th AveSouth Kelso,WA98626

(360)577-3030ext.6536

(TheCountyrecentlyswitchedovertoOffice365andchangedouremaildomain.Pleasenotemynewemailandupdate yourcontactinfoasnecessary. Thankyou.)

From: Richard Martin <Richard.Martin@globaltranseng.com>

Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 1:42 PM

To: Harbison, Patrick <HarbisonP@cowlitzwa.gov>

Cc: Monica Leal <monica.leal@globaltranseng.com>

Subject: Ridge View Subdivision Traffic Study

Hello Patrick,

I’ve been working with Standridge Inc on the traffic study for the Ridge View Subdivision at 102 Si Town Road. Based on comments received I wanted to ask if you could send us the in-process trips from Silver Lake Village II and III and any other in-process developments that show site trip distribution along SR 504 at Si Town Road so that we can update our analysis. Thank you,

Richard C. “Rocky” Martin, EI

Transportation Engineering Associate

227 SW Pine Street | Suite 220 | Portland, OR 97204 Mobile: 503-799-1039 | Office: 503-719-7997 richard.martin@globaltranseng.com www.globaltranseng.com

Intersection

Int Delay, s/veh0.4

MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR

Lane Configurations

Traffic Vol, veh/h17190303160

Future Vol, veh/h17190303160

Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000

Sign ControlFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStop

RT Channelized-None-None-None

Storage Length----0-

Veh in Median Storage, #0--00-

Grade, %0--00-

Peak Hour Factor909090909090

Heavy Vehicles, %19257000

Mvmt Flow190100337180

Major/MinorMajor1Major2Minor1

Conflicting Flow All002000532195 Stage 1----195Stage 2----337-

Pot Cap-1 Maneuver--1343-512851 Stage 1----843Stage 2----728-

Platoon blocked, %---

Mov Cap-1 Maneuver--1343-512851

Mov Cap-2 Maneuver----512Stage 1----843Stage 2----728-

ApproachEBWBNB

HCM Control Delay, s0012.3

HCM LOSB

Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBTEBRWBLWBT Capacity (veh/h)512--1343HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.035----

Intersection

Int Delay, s/veh0.6

MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR

Lane Configurations

Traffic Vol, veh/h476332313242

Future Vol, veh/h476332313242

Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000

Sign ControlFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStop

RT Channelized-None-None-None

Storage Length----0-

Veh in Median Storage, #0--00-

Grade, %0--00-

Peak Hour Factor898989898989

Heavy Vehicles, %5355050

Mvmt Flow535372352272

Major/MinorMajor1Major2Minor1

ApproachEBWBNB

Intersection

Int Delay, s/veh0.5

MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR

Lane Configurations

Traffic Vol, veh/h172110307210

Future Vol, veh/h172110307210

Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000

Sign ControlFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStop

RT Channelized-None-None-None

Storage Length----0-

Veh in Median Storage, #0--00-

Grade, %0--00-

Peak Hour Factor909090909090

Heavy Vehicles, %19257000

Mvmt Flow191120341230

Major/MinorMajor1Major2Minor1

Intersection

Int Delay, s/veh0.1

MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR

Lane Configurations

Traffic Vol, veh/h1822432411

Future Vol, veh/h1822432411

Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000

Sign ControlFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStop

RT Channelized-None-None-None

Storage Length----0-

Veh in Median Storage, #0--00-

Grade, %0--00-

Peak Hour Factor929292929292

Heavy Vehicles, %222222

Mvmt Flow1982435211

Major/MinorMajor1Major2Minor1

ApproachEBWBNB HCM

Intersection

Int Delay, s/veh1.4

MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR

Lane Configurations

Traffic Vol, veh/h5001692

Future Vol, veh/h5001692

Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000

Sign ControlStopStopFreeFreeFreeFree

RT Channelized-None-None-None

Storage Length0-----

Veh in Median Storage, #0--00-

Grade, %0--00-

Peak Hour Factor929292929292

Heavy Vehicles, %222222

Mvmt Flow50017102

Major/MinorMinor2Major1Major2

Conflicting Flow All2811120-0

Stage 111-----

Stage 217-----

Critical Hdwy6.426.224.12---

Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----

Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----

Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.3182.218---

Pot Cap-1 Maneuver98710701607---

Stage 11012-----

Stage 21006-----

Platoon blocked, %---

Mov Cap-1 Maneuver98710701607---

Mov Cap-2 Maneuver987-----

Stage 11012-----

Stage 21006-----

ApproachEBNBSB

HCM Control Delay, s8.700

HCM LOSA

Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR

Capacity (veh/h)1607-987--

HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.006--

HCM Control Delay (s)0-8.7--

HCM Lane LOSA-A--

HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-0--

Intersection

Int Delay, s/veh0.6

MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR

Lane Configurations

Traffic Vol, veh/h480392315272

Future Vol, veh/h480392315272

Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000

Sign ControlFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStop

RT Channelized-None-None-None

Storage Length----0-

Veh in Median Storage, #0--00-

Grade, %0--00-

Peak Hour Factor898989898989

Heavy Vehicles, %5355050

Mvmt Flow539442354302

Major/MinorMajor1Major2Minor1

Intersection

Int Delay, s/veh0.2

MovementEBTEBRWBLWBTNBLNBR

Lane Configurations

Traffic Vol, veh/h5162234034

Future Vol, veh/h5162234034

Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000

Sign ControlFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStop

RT Channelized-None-None-None

Storage Length----0-

Veh in Median Storage, #0--00-

Grade, %0--00-

Peak Hour Factor929292929292

Heavy Vehicles, %222222

Mvmt Flow5612237034

Major/MinorMajor1Major2Minor1

Conflicting Flow All005630936562

Platoon blocked, %---

Mov Cap-1 Maneuver--1008-293526

Mov Cap-2 Maneuver----293Stage 1----571Stage 2----695-

ApproachEBWBNB

HCM Control Delay, s00.114.4 HCM LOSB

Intersection

Int Delay, s/veh0.4

MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR

Lane Configurations

Traffic Vol, veh/h30026356

Future Vol, veh/h30026356

Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000

Sign ControlStopStopFreeFreeFreeFree

RT Channelized-None-None-None

Storage Length0-----

Veh in Median Storage, #0--00-

Grade, %0--00-

Peak Hour Factor929292929292

Heavy Vehicles, %222222

Mvmt Flow30028387

Major/MinorMinor2Major1Major2

Conflicting Flow All7042450-0

Stage 142-----

Stage 228-----

Critical Hdwy6.426.224.12---

Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42-----

Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42-----

Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.3182.218---

Pot Cap-1 Maneuver93410291563---

Stage 1980-----

Stage 2995-----

Platoon blocked, %---

Mov Cap-1 Maneuver93410291563---

Mov Cap-2 Maneuver934-----

Stage 1980-----

Stage 2995-----

ApproachEBNBSB

HCM Control Delay, s8.900

HCM LOSA

Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR

Capacity (veh/h)1563-934--

HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.003--

HCM Control Delay (s)0-8.9--

HCM Lane LOSA-A--

HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-0--

Appendix F – Warrant Analysis

CRITICAL AREA REPORT

Ridge View Rural Subdivision

Parcel WK3616002

102 Si Town Road, Castle Rock, WA 98611

Prepared by: Jim Barnes

Cascadia Ecological Services, Inc.

14205 NW 56th Avenue

Vancouver, WA 98685

(360) 601‐8631

Applicant:

TRMC Ventures LLC

18518 NW 41st Avenue

Ridgefield, WA 98642

pjeffries3@outlook.com

(360) 597‐5363

Date: October 20, 2022

Executive Summary

This report details the results of a critical areas assessment conducted by Cascadia Ecological Services, Inc. (CES) on behalf of the applicant, TRMC Ventures LLC, for Cowlitz County Parcel WK3616002. The Applicant plans to subdivide the 31.98‐acre property into 11 detached single‐family detached lots and a single commercial lot within the Unzoned (UZ) zoning designation of Cowlitz County. Construction is anticipated to commence in 2023 upon the receipt of the necessary development permits and approvals.

The study area is located in section 36, Township 5N, Range 2 West of the Willamette Meridian, Cowlitz County, Washington.

This report identifies the extent of critical areas identified on or in the immediate vicinity of the study area as defined and regulated by the Cowlitz County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO).

During a site visits completed by Cascadia Ecological Services, Inc. (CES) staff on June 14 and October 19, 2022, it was determined that three streams are present on the property. Salmon Creek, a DNR Type F water, flows from east to west entering the portion of the study area to the east of Si Town Road. The stream meanders through a depressional wetland eventually flowing into a culvert under the road. It continues in a westerly direction across the north portion of the study area before flowing off site.

An unnamed Type Ns (non‐fish bearing seasonal) stream crosses onto the southwest corner of the property and flows north for approximately 280 feet before flowing off‐site onto the adjacent parcel to the west. This stream converges with Salmon Creek to the northwest of the study area. A second Type Ns stream is located to the east of Si Town Road which flows downslope to the north into the depressional wetlands.

This report documents the investigation, best professional judgment, and conclusions of CES. It is recommended that the findings in this report be verified by Cowlitz County prior to commitment of significant planning and financial resources.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Applicant

CAO

CES

DNR

ESA

FPARS

NMFS

NRCS

RHA

USACE

USDA

USFWS

WDFW

TRMC Ventures LLC

Critical Areas Ordinance

Cascadia Ecological Services, Inc.

Washington Department of Natural Resources

Endangered Species Act

Forest Practices Application Mapping System

National Marine Fisheries Service

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Riparian Habitat Area

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife

Chapter 1. Introduction

The applicant contracted with Cascadia Ecological Services, Inc. (CES) to complete a critical area report for Parcel WK3616002. The purpose of the report is to identify and describe wetlands, streams, or other regulated critical areas within the confines of the study area. CES completed fieldwork for this project on June 14 and October 19, 2022.

This report facilitates the applicant’s efforts to:

1. Avoid or minimize impacts to critical areas during the design process.

2. Document wetland and stream boundary determinations for review by regulatory authorities.

3. Provide early indications to project engineers or designers of sensitive species within the study area.

4. Provide background information for critical area mitigation reports. This report is anticipated to support permits locally through Cowlitz County.

Chapter 2. Proposed Project

2.1 Location

Project Location: 102 Si Town Road, Castle Rock, WA 98611

Parcel Number: WK3616002

County: Cowlitz

STR: SE 1/4 of Section 36, T10N, R2W of the Willamette Meridian

Latitude/Longitude: 46.3024/‐122.8684

Hydrologic Unit Code: 17080005

2.2 Purpose and Description

The Applicant plans to subdivide the 31.98‐acre property into 11 detached single‐family detached lots and a single commercial lot within the Unzoned (UZ) zoning designation of Cowlitz County. A site plan for the proposed development is included in Appendix G of this report.

Chapter 3. Methods

This chapter summarizes the methods used to comply with local, state, and federal guidance. The presence of critical areas was assessed by traversing the property on foot. Observation of vegetation, hydrology, and soils in conjunction with data from National Wetland Inventory maps of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2022), the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey

(USDA, 2022), and aerial photos were used to determine the presence of wetlands. The presence or non‐presence of wetlands were determined by using the Routine Determination

Methodology of the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE, 2010). Property data were obtained from Cowlitz County GIS (Cowlitz County, 2022) website. Wetlands were rated according to the guidance of the Washington State Wetland Rating System (Hruby, T., 2014). The local guidance for critical areas was obtained from the Cowlitz County Critical Areas Ordinance (Cowlitz County, 2022).

Critical area locations and features are described in Chapter 5 and shown on Figure 5 of 5. For the purposes of this report, CES used an Arrow 100 Submeter GNSS receiver to map critical area boundaries. The locations and measured areas of mapped critical areas given in this report have been not been surveyed or verified by Cowlitz County.

For the purposes of determining the presence of wetlands, observations of indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were made.

Vegetation was divided into three strata; tree, shrub, and forb, and each layer was classified using the prevalence index (a weighted‐average wetland indicator status of all plant species in the sample plot) and the dominance test (more than 50% of the dominant plant species across all strata are rated obligate, facultative wet or facultative). The 2021 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Wetland Plant List – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region was used to classify plants. Hydrology was determined using two methods: (1) visually, if the water table is at or above the surface, or (2) with a soil pit. The presence of standing water, depth to free water in the soil pit, and depth to saturated soils were recorded. Other primary and secondary hydrology indicators were recorded, such as presence of watermarks, sediment deposits, drift deposits, iron deposits, hydrogen sulfide odor, geomorphic position, and drainage patterns in wetlands. Soil pits were dug to a depth of 12‐18 inches to determine if indicators of hydric soils were present. Soil colors were determined from a moist sample with the Munsell Soil Color Chart. This information is all recorded on the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Corps Routine Wetland Determination Data Form that is filled out for each sample point and included with this report.

The condition of buffers within 150 feet of the critical areas was qualitatively assessed using the following criteria:

 Dominant land use (e.g., agriculture, residential, commercial, industrial).

 Dominant buffer vegetation type (tree, shrub, herb, vine, un‐vegetated).

 Dominant cover of invasive plants by species.

Chapter 4. Existing Conditions

4.1 Project Area and Landscape Setting

The property is located to the south of Highway 504 in rural Cowlitz County, Washington. Si Town Road crosses the east portion of the study area. Most of the surrounding area consists of forestland, open space farmland, and large lot residential properties.

The entire study area consists of mature upland forest with areas of steep slopes leading to a hilltop in the center of the site at an elevation of approximately 600 feet above mean seal level. Salmon Creek flows from east to west across the north part of the site through a ravine which is about 200 feet lower in elevation than the hilltop.

The study area is in the Cowlitz watershed ‐  Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 26 (Washington Department of Ecology, 2022). The Lower Cowlitz basin is the Cowlitz watershed below Mayfield Dam, not including the Toutle and Coweeman basins. The basin encompasses approximately 440 square miles in portions of Lewis and Cowlitz Counties. The Cowlitz enters the Columbia at RM 68, approximately 3.5 miles southeast of Longview, Washington. The Coweeman and Toutle are the two largest tributaries. Other significant tributaries include Salmon Creek, Lacamas Creek, Olequa Creek, Delameter Creek, and Ostrander Creek (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 2004).

Chapter 5. Critical Areas

5.1 Mapped Soils and Wetlands Inventory Information

According to the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA, 2022), the mapped soils on‐site are described as follows (Figure 3 of 5):

 65 ‐ Godfrey silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

 146 ‐ Olympic silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

 147 ‐ Olympic silt loam, 8 to 20 percent slopes

 148 ‐ Olympic silt loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes

The Godfrey series consists of very deep, poorly drained soils formed in recent alluvium on flood plains. Slopes are 0 to 3 percent.

Olympic soils are on stable summits of foothills and mountains at elevations of 200 to 2,000 feet. Slopes are 0 to 65 percent. The soils formed in residuum and colluvium weathered from basic igneous rocks. Soils are well drained with slow to medium runoff and moderate permeability. Olympic soils are mostly in forests. Native vegetation is Douglas‐fir, red alder, western hemlock, western redcedar, and bigleaf maple and an understory of salal, vine maple, western swordfern, Oregon‐grape, western brackenfern, red huckleberry, trailing blackberry and Pacific trillium.

The site contains mapped wetlands per USFWS National Wetland Inventory in the portion of the study area east of Si Town Road (Figure 4 of 5).

5.2 Wetlands

CES determined that the east portion of the property contains a depressional wetland, through which flows Salmon Creek. For the purposes of this report, the wetland unit is identified as Wetland 1. The wetlands on‐site comprise approximately 1.1 acres of the study area.

Hydrological inputs to the wetland occur from Salmon Creek, a seasonal stream, precipitation, overland surface runoff, and a seasonal high groundwater table.

The wetland is located within a depressional area at the base of steep, forested hillslopes. The wetlands are rated as Category III depressional per the Washington State Wetland Rating System with a habitat score of eight (8) points (Figure 5 of 5).

The following description of the wetland type on the study area is per the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, 2008).

Depressional wetlands occur in topographic depressions. Dominant water sources are precipitation, ground water discharge, and both interflow and overland flow from adjacent uplands. The direction of flow is normally from the surrounding uplands toward the center of the depression. Elevation contours are closed, thus allowing the accumulation of surface water. Depressional wetlands may have any combination of inlets and outlets or lack them completely. Dominant hydrodynamics are vertical fluctuations, primarily seasonal. Depressional wetlands may lose water through intermittent or perennial drainage from an outlet, by evapotranspiration and, if they are not receiving ground water discharge, may slowly contribute to ground water.

Notes:

A. Cowardin et al. (1979) or National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Class based on vegetation: PEM – Palustrine, emergent; PSS –Palustrine scrub shrub

B. Ecology rating according to Hruby (2014).

C. Wetlands category according to Cowlitz County Code, Title 19. Environmental Protection (Cowlitz County, 2022).

D. Wetland buffer width according to Cowlitz County Code, Title 19. Environmental Protection, CCC Table 19.15.120‐C (Cowlitz County, 2022).

5.3 Wetland Buffers

Per the CCC Chapter 19.15 (Critical Areas), Category III wetlands with a habitat score of 8 points wetlands are afforded a 150‐foot buffer for the proposed high land use intensity, which includes a residential lot, in order to protect water quality and habitat functions.

Table 1. Wetlands within the Study Area.

Table 2. Wetland Information Summary (Wetland 1)

Location: 46.30187, ‐122.86589

Local Jurisdiction Cowlitz County WRIA 26 – Cowlitz

Ecology Rating (Hruby, 2004) III

Local Jurisdiction Rating III

Local Jurisdiction Buffer

Width 150‐feet (Habitat Functions Buffer per CCC Table 19.15.120‐C)

Wetland Size

~1.1 acres (within study area)

Cowardin Classification PEM/PSS

HGM Classification Depressional Pin flag or ribbon color: Pink “Wetland Delineation”

Populus balsamifera, Alnus rubra, Phalaris arundinacea, Lysichiton americanum, Juncus effusus, Oplopanax horridus, Urtica dioica Soils 65 ‐ Godfrey silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

Dominant Vegetation

Hydrology Oxidized rhizospheres on living roots (C3), Geomorphic Position (D2), FAC‐neutral Test (D5) Wetland Rating Summary

Improving Water Quality Site Potential: M; Landscape Potential: M; Value: L; Total: 5 pts.

Hydrologic Site Potential: M; Landscape Potential: L; Value: H; Total: 6 pts.

Habitat Site Potential: M; Landscape Potential: H; Value: H; Total: 8 pts.

Buffer Condition

The buffer consists mainly of upland mature forest.

5.4 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas

Chapter 19, Table 19.15.130‐A of the CAO designates the types of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas identified on the study area as:

 Waters of the state shall be those defined in WAC 222‐16‐031, Forest Practices Board, Definitions, with the following revisions:

(a) Type F Water (Type 2) – means segments of natural waters, which are not classified as Type S or 1 Water and have a high fish, wildlife, or human use. These are segments of natural waters and periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands.

(b) Type Ns Water (Type 5) – means all segments of natural waters within defined channels that are not Type S, F, or Np Waters. These are seasonal, nonfish habitat streams in which surface flow is not present for at least some portion of a year of

normal rainfall and are not located downstream from any stream reach that is a Type Np Water. Ns Waters must be physically connected by an aboveground channel system to Type S, F, or Np Waters.

Salmon Creek meets the criteria of a Type F stream and is mapped as such by the DNR FPARS (Washington DNR, 2022). The average width of the stream channel as measured across the study area is 14 to 15 feet. The unnamed streams along the west and east sides of the study are seasonal based on the observation no flowing water at the time of the site visit in October.

Section 19.15.130.E. 3.d, Table 19.15.130‐B lists the riparian habitat area (RHA) widths by Cowlitz County.

Salmon Creek (Type F water, channel width less than or equal to 20 feet): 100 feet

Unnamed Type Ns waters: 50 feet

The RHA widths are to be measured outward in each direction, on the horizontal plane, from the ordinary high water mark, or from the top of bank, if the ordinary high water mark cannot be identified.

5.5 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts

Activities within RHA’s are required to be reviewed and approved through a critical areas assessment which demonstrates the activities will not impact the RHAs’ functions and values.

When the proposed use and development activities would occur outside of the standard RHA widths shown in Table 19.15.130‐B, no critical areas permit is required.

If the proposed use and development activities are to occur in the outer 50 percent of the RHA, a level one critical areas habitat assessment is required. The CAO does not allow for development activities to occur within the inner 50 percent of the standard RHA width.

A habitat conservation area may be altered; provided, that the proposed alteration of the habitat or the mitigation proposed does not degrade the quantitative and qualitative functions and values of the habitat, and provided it is not otherwise restricted or prohibited by the CAO.

Any approval of alterations or impacts to a habitat conservation area shall be supported by the best available science through a mitigation plan.

Chapter 6. Regulatory Jurisdiction

Wetlands are regulated as “Waters of the United States” by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as “Waters of the State” by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), and locally by Cowlitz County.

A Cowlitz County critical areas permit is required for any proposed development in wetlands or their buffers. The applicant must avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and buffers as much as possible. Any impacts that cannot be avoided require mitigation.

The streams on the study area meet one or more of the designations in Table 19.15.130‐A and are designated critical areas subject to the provisions of the CAO.

Streams are regulated as “Waters of the United States” by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and are regulated. Streams are regulated at the local level by Cowlitz County.

A Cowlitz County critical areas permit is required for any activity proposed within streams or their buffers.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has jurisdiction over discharges to streams and hydrologically connected wetlands under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) has jurisdiction over discharges to wetlands under Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act.

Because several fish species in Cowlitz County are listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), the USACE must review all proposed wetland impacts for potential “takings”. ESA review may take a considerable amount of time because the Corps must consult the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Prior to undertaking any work within regulated critical areas or buffers detailed in this report, it is recommended to consult with these agencies regarding current permitting requirements.

Chapter 7. Conclusion

The study area contains streams and a wetland that are regulated under Chapter 19.15 of the CAO.

This report documents the investigation, best professional judgment, and conclusions of CES. It should be used at your own risk unless it has been reviewed and approved in writing by Cowlitz County under their jurisdictional standards.

Chapter 8. References

Cowlitz County. (2022, October 19). Cowlitz County Code Chapter 19.15 Critical Areas. Retrieved from https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/CowlitzCounty/#!/CowlitzCounty19/CowlitzCoun ty1915.html#19.15.130

Cowlitz County. (2022, October 19). Cowlitz County GIS Retrieved from Cowlitz County GIS: https://cowlitz.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/

Hruby, T. (2014). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. (2004). Volume II, Chapter 8 Cowlitz Subbasin— Lower Cowlitz. Portland, OR: Northwest Power and Conservation Council.

USACE. (2010). Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center.

USDA. (2022, October 19). Web Site for Official Soil Series Descriptions and Series Classification. Retrieved from https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/

USDA. (2022, October 19). Web Site for Official Soil Series Descriptions and Series Classification. Retrieved from https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/

USFWS. (2022, October 19). National Wetlands Inventory. Retrieved from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html

Washington Department of Ecology. (2022, October 19). State Wide WRIA Finder. Retrieved from https://waecy.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html

Washington DNR. (2022, October 19). Washington Department of Natural Resources Retrieved from Forest Practices Activity Mapping Tool: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs‐and‐services/forest‐practices/forest‐practices‐application‐review‐system‐fpars

Appendix A – Methods and Tools

Table A‐1. Methods and tools used to prepare the report.

Parameter Method or Tool Website

Wetland Delineation Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0)

USFWS / Cowardin Classification System

National Wetlands Inventory – Wetlands Mapper V2

Wetland Classification Washington State Wetland Rating System – 2014 Update

Cowlitz County Municipal Code –Critical Areas

http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals /2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/reg_s upp/west_mt_finalsupp2.pdf

Website

Reference

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/dat a/wetland‐codes.html

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/dat a/mapper.HTML

Western Washington: https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/public ations/documents/1406029.pdf

https://www.codepublishing.com/ WA/CowlitzCounty/#!/CowlitzCount y19/CowlitzCounty1915.html#19.15 .120

Website

Website

Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Effective January 2015)

Website

Wetland Rating and Stream Classifications

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Typing System

Forest Practices Water Typing: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forest‐practices‐water‐typing

WAC 222‐16‐030: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/defaul t.aspx?cite=222‐16‐030

Water Type Mapping: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs‐and‐services/forest‐practices/forest‐practices‐application‐review‐system‐fpars

Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 222‐16‐030. DNR Water typing system.

Soils Data

Priority Habitats and Species

Threatened and Endangered Species

WA Wetlands of High Conservation Value

Cowlitz County Municipal Code –Critical Areas

USDA Web Soil Survey

Washington Priority Habitats and Species

USFWS species lists by County

WA Wetlands of High Conservation Value Map Viewer

https://www.codepublishing.com/ WA/CowlitzCounty/#!/CowlitzCount y19/CowlitzCounty1915.html#19.15

.130

https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda. gov/App/HomePage.htm

http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsonthe web/

Western Washington: https://ecos.fws.gov/

https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPwetla ndviewer

Website

Website

Website accessed on 10/19/22. There are mapped PHS features on the study area. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).

Website

Website

Appendix B – Figures

Figure 1 of 5 – Vicinity Map

Figure 2 of 5 – Site Topographic Contours

Figure 3 of 5 – Soil Survey Map

Figure 4 of 5 – USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map

Figure 5 of 5 – Identified Critical Areas

Study Area

Si Town Rd.

Source: OpenStreetMap

Critical Areas Report

Project: Ridge View Rural Subdivision Location: 102 Si Town Road, Castle Rock, WA 98611 Parcel: WK3616002

Legal: SE 1/4 of Section 36, T10N, R2W of the Willamette Meridian 46.3024 N. lat. / -122.8684 W long. County: Cowlitz

Cascadia Ecological Services, Inc. 14205 NW 56th Avenue, Vancouver, WA 98685 (360) 601-8631 www.cascadia-inc.com

Applicant:

TRMC Ventures LLC 18518 NW 41st Avenue

Ridgefield,WA98642

pjeffries3@outlook.com

(360)597-5363

10/20/22

Figure 1 of 5 - Vicinity Map

Study Area

Source: GAIA GPS, USGS

Figure 2 of 5 - Site Topographic Contours Critical Areas Report

Project: Ridge View Rural Subdivision Location: 102 Si Town Road, Castle Rock, WA 98611 Parcel: WK3616002

Legal: SE 1/4 of Section 36, T10N, R2W of the Willamette Meridian 46.3024 N. lat. / -122.8684 W long. County: Cowlitz

Cascadia Ecological Services, Inc. 14205 NW 56th Avenue, Vancouver, WA 98685 (360) 601-8631 www.cascadia-inc.com

Applicant:

TRMC Ventures LLC

18518 NW 41st Avenue

Ridgefield,WA98642

pjeffries3@outlook.com

(360)597-5363

10/20/22

Study Area

109

147

148

146

147

Project:

65

Legal:

Cascadia

Figure 3 of 5 - Soil Survey Map

- Olympic silt loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes

- Olympic silt loam, 8 to 20 percent slopes

- Olympic silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

- Olympic silt loam, 8 to 20 percent slopes

Source: USDA Web Soil Survey

- Godfrey silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

- Lithic Haplumbrepts, 50 to 100 percent slopes

Source: USFWS National Wetlands Inventory

Study Area

R5UBH - Riverine, unknown perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded

R4SBC - Riverine, intermittent, streambed, seasonally flooded

PSSF - Palustrine, scrub-shrub, Semipermanently Flooded wetlands

R4SBC - Riverine, intermittent, streambed, seasonally flooded

Project: Ridge View Rural Subdivision Location: 102 Si Town Road, Castle Rock, WA 98611 Parcel: WK3616002

Legal: SE 1/4 of Section 36, T10N, R2W of the Willamette Meridian 46.3024 N. lat. / -122.8684 W long. County: Cowlitz

Cascadia Ecological Services, Inc.

Applicant:

Figure 4 of 5 - USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map Critical Areas Report

Flow Direc on

Salmon Creek

Type F water, channel width less than or equal to 20 feet

RHA Width (ft.): 100

Unnamed Tributary Stream to Salmon Creek

Type Ns water

RHA Width (ft.): 50

Highway 504 Parcel WK3616002

100' Buffer Line

Salmon Creek

50' Buffer Line

Note: Wetland and habitat boundaries have been flagged in the field. It is recommended that critical area boundaries be flagged and surveyed for mapping accuracy. Critical area boundaries, designations, and buffers are preliminary until verified by Cowlitz County.

Aerial Photo Source: Cowlitz County NetMaps 2022

- Category III Depresional wetlands (150-ft. Buffer per CCC Table 19.15.120-C)

- 150-ft. Wetland buffer per CCC Table 19.15.120-C

- Salmon Creek (Type F water, channel width less than or equal to 20 feet)

- Salmon Creek 100 ft. Buffer (per CCC Table 19.15.130-B)

- Seasonal Type Ns streams

- Type Ns stream 50-ft. Buffer (per CCC Table 19.15.130-B)

- Photo Point Location

- Upland Sampling Point (SP)

Figure 5 of 5 - Identified Critical Areas Critical Areas Report

Project: Ridge View Rural Subdivision Location: 102 Si Town Road, Castle Rock, WA 98611 Parcel: WK3616002

Legal: SE 1/4 of Section 36, T10N, R2W of the Willamette Meridian 46.3024 N. lat. / -122.8684 W long. County: Cowlitz

Cascadia Ecological Services, Inc. 14205 NW 56th Avenue, Vancouver, WA 98685 (360) 601-8631 www.cascadia-inc.com

- Wetland Sampling Point (SP)

Applicant: TRMC Ventures LLC 18518 NW 41st Avenue Ridgefield, WA 98642 pjeffries3@outlook.com

(360) 597-5363

Photo 1

Photos 2 & 3

Photo 4

Photos 5 & 6

Photo 7

Photo 8

Photo 9

Photo 10

Photo 11 SP 3/4

Type Ns water RHA Width (ft.): 50

Appendix C – Site Photos

Photo 1. North part of the study area south of Highway 504 facing northwest.

Photo 2. North part of the study area south of Highway 504 facing south.

Appendix C – Site Photos (cont.)

Photo 3. North part of the study area south of Highway 504 facing southeast.

Photo 4. North part of the study area in the north buffer of Salmon Creek.

Appendix C – Site Photos (cont.)

Photo 5. Salmon Creek.

Photo 6. Salmon Creek.

Appendix C – Site Photos (cont.)

Photo 7. Salmon Creek culvert at Si Town Road facing east.

Photo 8. Seasonal stream in southwest portion of the study area.

Appendix C – Site Photos (cont.)

Photo 9. Type Ns stream in the southeast portion of the study area east of Si Town Rd.

Photo 10. Salmon Creek on portion of study area east of Si Town Road.

Appendix C – Site Photos (cont.)

Photo 11. Depressional wetlands east of Si Town Road facing east.

Appendix E – Wetland Determination Data Forms

Appendix D – Observed Plant Species

Table D‐1. Dominant plant species occurring in depressional wetlands on the study area.

Scientific Name

Common Name WIS*

Populus balsamifera Black cottonwood FAC

Alnus rubra Red alder FAC

Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass FACW

Lysichiton americanum Skunk cabbage OBL

Urtica dioica Stinging nettle FAC

Oplopanax horridus Devil’s club FAC

Juncus effusus Soft rush FACW

Table D‐2. Dominant plant species occurring on uplands within the study area.

Scientific Name Common Name WIS*

Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir FACU

Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC

Acer macrophyllum Big‐leaf maple FACU

Alnus rubra Red alder FAC

Acer circinatum Vine maple FAC

Corylus cornuta Beaked hazelnut FACU

Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC

Polystichum munitum Swordfern FACU

Pteridium aquilinum Brackenfern FACU

Maianthemum dilatatum False Lily‐of‐the‐Valley FACU

Dicentra formosa Western bleeding heart FACU

Urtica dioica Stinging nettle FAC

* Wetland Indicator Status (WIS):

OBL = almost always occur in wetlands

FACW = usually occur in wetlands, but may occur in non‐wetlands

FAC = occur in wetlands and non‐wetlands

FACU = usually occur in non‐wetlands, but may occur in wetlands

UPL = almost always occur in non‐wetlands

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

City/County:

Applicant/Owner: TRMC Ventures LLC

Investigator(s): Jim Barnes

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley bottom

Subregion (LRR): LRR A

65 - Godfrey silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

conditions on the site typical for this time of year?

Are Vegetation

, or Hydrology

Are

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

, Soil Hydric Soil Present?

Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic?

Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Data point was taken along the north side of the depressional wetlands in uplands.

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are "Normal Circumstances" present?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Prevalence Index worksheet:

State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydrophytic Vegetation

Army Corps

Engineers

Soil

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :

Histosol (A1)

Histic Epipedon (A2)

Black Histic (A3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)

Thick Dark Surface (A12)

Sandy Muck Mineral (S1)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Remarks:

Hydrology

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (S6)

Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1)

Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

Depleted Matrix (F3)

Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

Redox depressions (F8)

2 cm Muck (A10)

Red Parent Material (TF2)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes No

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2)

Drift deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)

Iron Deposits (B5)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

(includes capillary fringe)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

Salt Crust (B11)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Dry Season Water Table (C2)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Geomorphic Position (D2)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

FAC-neutral Test (D5)

Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

Frost Heave Hummocks (D7)

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

Soils were dry due to lack of recent rainfall.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Yes No

Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

City/County:

Applicant/Owner: TRMC Ventures LLC

Investigator(s): Jim Barnes

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley bottom

Subregion (LRR): LRR A

148 - Olympic silt loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes

conditions on the site typical for this time of year?

Are Vegetation

, or Hydrology

Are

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Soil Hydric Soil Present?

Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic?

Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Data point was taken along the north side of the depressional wetlands in uplands.

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are "Normal Circumstances" present?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

/

Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Prevalence Index worksheet:

State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydrophytic Vegetation

Army Corps of Engineers

Soil

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :

Histosol (A1)

Histic Epipedon (A2)

Black Histic (A3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)

Thick Dark Surface (A12)

Sandy Muck Mineral (S1)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Remarks:

Hydrology

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (S6)

Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1)

Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

Depleted Matrix (F3)

Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

Redox depressions (F8)

2 cm Muck (A10)

Red Parent Material (TF2)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes No

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2)

Drift deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)

Iron Deposits (B5)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

(includes capillary fringe)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

Salt Crust (B11)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Dry Season Water Table (C2)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Geomorphic Position (D2)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

FAC-neutral Test (D5)

Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

Frost Heave Hummocks (D7)

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

Soils were dry due to lack of recent rainfall.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Yes No

Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

Applicant/Owner: TRMC Ventures LLC

Investigator(s): Jim Barnes

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley bottom

Subregion (LRR): LRR A

65 - Godfrey silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

conditions on the site typical for this time of year?

Are Vegetation

or Hydrology

Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic?

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Hydric Soil Present?

Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Data point was taken along the south side of the depressional wetlands.

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are "Normal Circumstances" present?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Prevalence Index worksheet:

State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

Soil

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :

Histosol (A1)

Histic Epipedon (A2)

Black Histic (A3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)

Thick Dark Surface (A12)

Sandy Muck Mineral (S1)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Remarks:

Hydrology

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (S6)

Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1)

Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

Depleted Matrix (F3)

Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

Redox depressions (F8)

2 cm Muck (A10)

Red Parent Material (TF2)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes No

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2)

Drift deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)

Iron Deposits (B5)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

(includes capillary fringe)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

Salt Crust (B11)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Dry Season Water Table (C2)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Geomorphic Position (D2)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

FAC-neutral Test (D5)

Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

Frost Heave Hummocks (D7)

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

Soils were dry due to lack of recent rainfall.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Yes No

Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region

City/County:

Applicant/Owner: TRMC Ventures LLC

Investigator(s): Jim Barnes

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Valley bottom

Subregion (LRR): LRR A

148 - Olympic silt loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes

conditions on the site typical for this time of year?

Are Vegetation

, or Hydrology

Local relief (concave, convex, none): naturally problematic?

Are "Normal Circumstances" present?

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Soil Hydric Soil Present?

Remarks:

Section, Township, Range: S significantly disturbed? Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Data point was taken along the north side of the depressional wetlands in uplands.

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

Summary of Findings - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Dominant Species? Rel.Strat. Cover

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

Percent of dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Prevalence Index worksheet:

State: Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Army Corps

Engineers

Soil

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)

Type: C=Concentration. D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ²Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils :

Histosol (A1)

Histic Epipedon (A2)

Black Histic (A3)

Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)

Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)

Thick Dark Surface (A12)

Sandy Muck Mineral (S1)

Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches):

Remarks:

Hydrology

Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Sandy Redox (S5)

Stripped Matrix (S6)

Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except in MLRA 1)

Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)

Depleted Matrix (F3)

Redox Dark Surface (F6)

Depleted Dark Surface (F7)

Redox depressions (F8)

2 cm Muck (A10)

Red Parent Material (TF2)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes No

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Surface Water (A1)

High Water Table (A2)

Saturation (A3)

Water Marks (B1)

Sediment Deposits (B2)

Drift deposits (B3)

Algal Mat or Crust (B4)

Iron Deposits (B5)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)

Field Observations:

Surface Water Present?

Water Table Present?

Saturation Present?

(includes capillary fringe)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

Salt Crust (B11)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Depth (inches):

Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Dry Season Water Table (C2)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Geomorphic Position (D2)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

FAC-neutral Test (D5)

Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)

Frost Heave Hummocks (D7)

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitor well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

Soils were dry due to lack of recent rainfall.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Yes No

Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0

Appendix F – Rating Summary Western Washington

Appendix G – Proposed Site Plan

SPIRITLAKEHWY(SR504)

LOT12(COMMERCIALPARCEL)

TIMBERLINEDR(EXIST)

SITOWNRD

SHEETNOTES

1.PRIVATE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE 60' WIDE, WITH 24' PAVED WIDTH, AND ROADSIDE DITCHES. COWLITZ COUNTY HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO MONITOR, IMPROVE, OR MAINTAIN THE PRIVATE ROADS CONTAINED WITHIN OR PRIVATE ROADS PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. ANY PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVEWAY, ROAD, OR STREET SHALL REMAIN A PRIVATE RESPONSIBILITY UNLESS IT IS UPGRADED TO A PUBLIC STREET OR ROAD STANDARDS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE DEVELOPER OR ABUTTING LOT OWNERS TO INCLUDE HARD SURFACE PAVING AND IS ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY FOR PUBLIC OWNERSHIP AND CONTINUED MAINTENANCE.

2.SETBACKS ARE FRONT = 25', SIDES = 10', AND REAR = 15'

3.A MINIMUM OF 100' WIDTH PROVIDED AT BUILDING ENVELOPE/PAD.

DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND PLANNING

207 Fourth Avenue North Kelso, WA 98626

TEL (360) 577-3052

FAX (360) 414-5550

www.co.cowlitz.wa.us/buildplan

Board of County Commissioners

Arne Mortensen District 1

Dennis P. Weber District 2

John Jabusch District 3

CLASS IV GENERAL FOREST PRACTICES CONVERSION

Permit Number 0001643-001

Applicant/Owner: Nick Little (Chilton Development)

Owner: 41st Ave LLC

1760 Down River Dr 18518 NW 41st Ave Woodland, WA 98674 Ridgefield, WA 98642

Associated Permits: Planning Clearance (0001692-001), SEPA (0001616-002), Critical Areas Permit (0002484-001),

Project Address: 102 Si Town Rd, Castle Rock, WA 98632

Parcel Number(s): WK3616002

Legal Description: 36 -10N -2W T-16A

Impacted Critical Area(s): Riparian Habitat Area (Type F, fish bearing stream)

Mitigation Required: Yes, as outlined in Habitat Assessment

Associated Water Body: Named Type F Stream- Salmon Creek

Development Type: Single-family Residential – Forest Practices Class IV General Conversion

Staff Reviewer: Peyton Murphy, Environmental Planner

Issuance Date: March 10th , 2022

Project Description:

The applicant, Nick Little of Chilton Development Services, on behalf of owner TRMC Ventures LLC, propose a Class IV Conversion to remove approximately 16.4 acres of timber on their 32.92 acre parcel (WK3616002) located at 102 Si Town Rd. The proposed Class IV Conversion is to prepare the site for future subdivision that is not a component of this application. The parcel contains multiple critical areas, including Salmon Creek, a named Type F stream, an unnamed Type N stream, and NWI Wetlands. Harvest is proposed outside of the RHA and Critical Areas

Page 1 of 3

Buffer of the Type N stream and outside of mapped wetlands, which are located across Si Town Rd from proposed harvest location. Harvest is proposed within the outer RHA of Salmon Creek. A Level I Habitat Assessment, prepared by CanDu Environmental, LLC, and presented by Loowit Consulting Group dated 11/21/21 was submitted in support of this application.

State Environmental Policy Act [SEPA] Review

In accordance with the Cowlitz County Code (CCC) 17.20.050, et seq. all forest practice conversions are required to comply with the State Environmental Policy Act per CC Chapter 19.11. Cowlitz County Issued a Determination of Non-Significance on February 1st , 2022 with a 14-day comment period ending February 16th , 2022. Comments were received from the Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY), the Cowlitz County Historic Preservation Committee (George Winn), and one neighbor in support of the Forest Conversion, but with traffic impact questions for future projects. The comments received from ECY and George Winn were general in nature. Compliance with SEPA has been achieved. Comments are attached.

Forest Practices

In accordance with CC 17.20.050, the Planning Division has determined that the issuance of this conversion will not be detrimental to public health, safety, general welfare and will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact. The forest practices proposed with this Class IV Conversion are deemed consistent with the goals and policies of the unzoned areas and the rural comprehensive plan designation.

Conclusion:

Based on development recommendations and conclusions and critical areas review for the proposed project is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions of approval.

Conditions:

To ensure consistency with the Cowlitz County Critical Areas Ordinance (CCC 19.15), the proposed development must meet the following conditions of approval:

1. Conditions of the associated Critical Areas Permit (0002484-001) must be met

2. Timber harvest associated with this Class IV General Forest Practices Conversion must be in accordance with the approved site plan. The approved site plan is included with this decision.

3. In the event any archaeological or historic materials are encountered during project activity, work in the immediate area must stop and actions in accordance with the attached “Cowlitz Indian Tribe Inadvertent Discovery Language” must be taken.

4. Logging debris must be cleared from areas within 200 feet of all existing and proposed structures in compliance with Forest Practices regulations. Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSWGP) may be required.

5. Forest practices conducted on the subject property in conjunction with this permit are subject to the applicable provisions of 76.09 RCW.

Page 2 of 3

6. Forest practices occurring outside the scope of this approval will result in the imposition of a six-year development moratorium from the date the unpermitted forest practices were documented by Cowlitz County or DNR

Sincerely,

Peyton Murphy Environmental Planner

Encl.: Approved Site Plan

DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND PLANNING

207 Fourth Avenue North Kelso, WA 98626

TEL (360) 577-3052

FAX (360) 414-5550

www.co.cowlitz.wa.us/buildplan

CRITICAL AREAS PERMIT

Permit Number 0002484-001

Applicant/Owner: Nick Little (Chilton Development)

Board of County Commissioners

Arne Mortensen District 1

Dennis P. Weber District 2

John Jabusch District 3

Owner: 41st Ave LLC

1760 Down River Dr 18518 NW 41st Ave Woodland, WA 98674 Ridgefield, WA 98642

Associated Permit Number(s): Planning Clearance (0001692-001), SEPA (0001616-002), FPA (0001643-001)

Project Address: 102 Si Town Rd, Castle Rock, WA 98632

Parcel Number(s): WK3616002

Legal Description: 36 -10N -2W T-16A

Impacted Critical Area(s): Riparian Habitat Area (Type F, fish bearing stream)

Mitigation Required: Conditions as noted

Associated Water Body: Salmon Creek

Development Type: Single Family Residential

Staff Reviewer: Peyton Murphy, Environmental Planner

Issuance Date: March 3rd, 2022

Project Description:

The applicant, Nick Little of Chilton Development Services, on behalf of owner TRMC Ventures LLC, propose a Class IV Conversion to remove approximately 16.4 acres of timber on their 32.92 acre parcel (WK3616002) located at 102 Si Town Rd. The proposed Class IV Conversion is to prepare the site for future subdivision that is not a component of this application. The parcel contains multiple critical areas, including Salmon Creek, a named Type F stream, an unnamed Type N stream, and NWI Wetlands. Harvest is proposed outside of the RHA and Critical Areas Buffer of the Type N stream and outside of mapped wetlands, which are located across Si Town Rd from proposed harvest location. Harvest is proposed within the outer RHA of Salmon Creek. A Level I Habitat Assessment, prepared by CanDu Environmental, LLC, and presented by Loowit Consulting Group dated 11/21/21 was submitted in support of this application.

Page 1 of 3

Discussion:

The applicant submitted a Level 1 Habitat Assessment (“the assessment”) prepared by CanDu Environmental and Loowit Consulting, dated November 21st, 2021, in support of this application. The report meets the requirements of CCC 19.15.130 (C) (3.) and the conclusions and recommendations of the report are relied upon for the review and approval of this project.

Project specific recommendations are found on pages 7-9 of the report (enclosed). Based on the conclusions and recommendations of the assessment, the geological hazard critical areas review for the proposed project is hereby approved, subject to the following:

Conditions of Approval:

1) The applicant shall develop a deed restriction as outlined in the Level 1 Habitat Assessment. The deed restriction must suitably and accurately depict the location of the premises intended for permanent preservation, including, the area within the Inner RHA of Salmon Creek, the southern Outer RHA of Salmon Creek plus 50’, effectively placing a 150’ no-development RHA from the OHWM on the south side of the creek. The deed restriction must indicate that future development activities will not occur within the described area, including the removal of native vegetation or disturbance of soil. The draft deed restriction shall be provided to the Department of Building and Planning for review. Once approved, it shall be recorded with the County Auditor’s Office.

2) Prior to timber harvest and/or construction activity on-site, the applicant shall provide the Department of Building and Planning with the Auditor’s File Number of the deed restriction described in Condition 1.

3) Prior to timber harvest or construction activity, the applicant shall install temporary markers 5’ outside of the exterior of the areas identified within the deed restriction for protection. These markers shall be plainly visible and utilized in the field to ensure no intrusion into the protected areas occur. Temporary markings shall be subject to inspection and maintained throughout development activities onsite.

4) Prior to issuance of final subdivision approval or certificate of occupancy for any future building permits onsite, the applicant shall install permanent natural barriers or permanent signage along the exterior of the areas identified within the deed restriction for protection in accordance with CCC 19.15.170.H.2&3. Documentation of compliance with this condition shall be submitted with the final subdivision or building permit application materials, and subject to inspection.

5) Construction shall proceed in compliance with the plans and specifications submitted to this department. Any proposed changes or modifications to these plans and specifications, including those required by other agencies, shall require additional regulatory review and approval by the Department of Building and Planning prior to implementation.

6) All work shall follow the conclusions and recommendations contained within the “Level I Habitat Assessment,” prepared by CanDu Environmental, LLC, and presented by Loowit Consulting Group dated 11/21/21

7) The permittee shall provide a copy of the critical areas permit, conditions, geotechnical report, and drawings to all contractors performing any of the authorized work.

Page 2 of 3

8) Representatives from this department shall be allowed to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that the project is being, or has been, accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of this permit.

9) All disturbed soils shall be stabilized in a timely manner utilizing best management practices and excess cut/fill shall be disposed of at an approved offsite location.

10) Clearing activities that disturb the soil shall be allowed from May 1st to October 1st; provided, that the county may extend or shorten the dry season on a case-by-case basis.

11) The permittee must contact the Building and Planning Department to discuss any substantive plan changes or project modifications prior to implementation.

12) Surface drainage, including downspouts, shall not be directed across the face of a hazard area. If drainage must be discharged from the top of a hazard area to its toe, it shall be collected above the top and directed to the toe by tight line drain, and provided with an energy-dissipating device at the toe for discharge to a swale or other acceptable natural drainage areas

Sincerely,

Peyton Murphy Environmental Planner

Encl.: Level I Habitat Assessment,” prepared by CanDu Environmental, LLC, and presented by Loowit Consulting Group, dated 11/21/21

Approved Site Plan

CHECKLIST

Purpose of checklist:

The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Chapter 43.21C, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and agencies identify impacts from your proposal and to help agencies decide whether or not an EIS is required.

Instructions for applicants:

This environmental checklist asks you to describe basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether or not the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. Please answer the questions briefly, giving the most precise information or best description known. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write “do not know” or “does not apply.”

Some questions pertain to governmental regulations such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. If you have problems answering these questions, please contact the Clark County Permit Center for assistance.

The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. You may be asked to explain your answers or provide additional information related to significant adverse impacts.

Use of checklist for non-project proposals: Complete this checklist for non-project proposals (e.g., county plans and codes), even if the answer is “does not apply.” In addition, complete the supplemental sheet for non-project actions (Part D).

For non-project actions, the references in the checklist to the words “project,” “applicant,” and “property or site” should be read as “proposal,” “proposer,” and “affected geographic area,” respectively.

A. Background

1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Ridge View Subdivision

2. Name of Applicant: TRMC VENTURES LLC

3. Address and Phone Number of Applicant and Contact Person: Address: PO Box 570 Phone Number: 360.952.8256

Woodland, WA 98674 E-Mail: pjeffries3@outlook.com

Contact Person: Patrick Jeffries scottj@jcllcwa.co

4. Date Checklist Prepared: September 9, 2022

5. Agency Requesting Checklist: Cowlitz County, WA

6. Proposed Timing or Schedule (including phasing, if applicable):

Development of the single-family residential lots is anticipated to commence upon attainment of requisite permitting and approvals. Project completion will be contingent on the timing of materials, supplies and obtaining the requisite building permitting and approvals.

7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to this proposal? If yes, explain.

Future development of Lots 11 and 12 are possible but there are no actual plans for development at this time.

8. List any environmental information that has been or will be prepared related to this proposal.

• Traffic Impact Study dated August 22, 2022, prepared by Global Transportation Engineering Corporation.

• Critical Area Report dated June 24, 2022, prepared by Cascadia Ecological Services, Inc.

9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No.

10. List any government approvals or permits needed for your proposal, if known: The following are the governmental approvals and permits anticipated for this proposal:

Preliminary Subdivision Approval Septic Permit Approval

SEPA Threshold Determination

Private Roadway Covenant

Erosion Control Plan Approval

Grading Permit

Stormwater Plan Approval

Final Plat Approval

Fire Marshal Site Plan Approval

Engineering Plan Approval

Grading Plan Approval

Building Permits

Final Subdivision Approval

NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit

The future development of both Lot 11 and 12 will necessitate site plan review. In addition, the future development of Lot 12 will necessitate a WSDOT Highway Access Permit as well as a CARA permit. Future development of Lot 11 will necessitate environmental review due to the presence of riparian habitat indicators.

11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your

proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.)

The Applicant is requesting approval for a subdivision involving eleven (11) single-family residential lots and a commercial lot (Lot 12) within approximately 3.98 acres of real property Unzoned (UZ) property fronting State Route (SR) 504 and Sci Town Road, a County road. This proposal is located within parcel no.

WK3616002 A private roadway, utilities and other related infrastructure improvements are also included with this proposal All existing vegetation will be removed at the time of construction.

12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.

The Site is located within Section 36, Township 10 North, Range 2 East of the Willamette Meridian.

B. Environmental Elements

1. Earth

a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other

b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?

The steepest slope on the Site ranges between 40-45% according to information available from the County’s GIS in addition to topographical elevations obtained in July 2022 by Standridge Inc.

c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils.

The Cowlitz County Soil Survey designates Site soils as predominantly Olympic silt loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes Other soils present at the site include Olympic silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, Lithic Haplumbrepts, 50 to 100 percent slopes and Godfrey silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

The Site does not contain soil types associated with agriculture

d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, please describe. No.

e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or proposed grading. Also, indicate the source of fill.

Grading will be performed as necessary for the installation of infrastructure and construction of the private road and lots associated with this twelve (12) lot rural subdivision. There will be approximately 36,000 cubic yards of excavation within a total disturbed area of 4.82-acres. The source of any required fill will be from on-site.

f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, please describe.

As with any clearing or other types of earth-disturbing construction activity, there is potential for erosion to occur. Site-specific best management practices will be used to mitigate erosion during the construction of the Project. Site-specific erosion control measures will be implemented per the approved Grading Plan

Further, all sediment and erosion control design work will be completed in accordance with the requirements of the Construction Stormwater General Permit and County standards.

g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?

Approximately three percent (3%) of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after the project is constructed. This equates to approximately 0.47 acres for the private roadway pavement, approximately 0.57 acres for the single-family residential lots It should be noted that the impervious areas are estimates only based on anticipated building envelopes; the Applicant does not at this time have site plans for Lot 11 or Lot 12. Final impervious surface area will be determined during the building permit review process

h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth include, if any:

Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth include treating and detaining stormwater, as well as, silt fencing and other erosion control best management practices. Forthcoming stormwater and erosion control plans prepared by Standridge Inc. comply with the County’s regulatory requirements.

2. Air

a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.

During Construction, Operation, and Maintenance: Equipment and vehicles required for construction activities will generate dust and particulate emissions during the construction period.

After Project Completion: Delivery trucks, mail delivery, solid waste, recycling vehicles and residence’s automobiles will generate some particulate emissions in the long-term. Other emission sources include those typical to residential areas, e.g. small power tools including, heating, air conditioning, fireplaces, gas appliances, small gas-powered equipment used for site and landscape maintenance and emissions that are typical of a residential area are anticipated.

b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, please describe. No.

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air? If so, generally describe. If necessary, water will be utilized for dust control as needed during construction of on- and off-site improvements. Emissions control measures for vehicles and equipment are regulated under the Washington State Department of Ecology and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency It is anticipated that all construction vehicles and equipment will be in compliance with these regulations.

3. Water

a. Surface Water:

1) Is there any surface water body on or in the vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe the type and provide names and into which stream or river it flows into.

Salmon Creek, a Type F stream, transects a portion of the northeastern property from east to west. An unnamed Type N stream is crosses part of the western property, which converges off-site to the north with Salmon Creek. For more information, see the Critical Area Report dated June 24, 2022, prepared by Cascadia Ecological Services, Inc.

2) Will the project require any work within 200 feet of the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.

Work within two hundred feet (200’) of the described waters will occur in accordance with the approved critical area plan and permit and as such will not encroach within the areas forbidden within the recorded restrictive covenant

3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.

Not applicable.

4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.

Surface water withdrawals or diversions are not included with this proposal.

5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, please note the location on the site plan. The proposal is not located within a 100-year floodplain.

6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. The proposal does not involve discharges of waste materials to surface waters.

b. Ground Water:

1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well , proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.

Not applicable: Water will not be discharged to ground water.

2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Waste materials will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks for each of the single-family residential lots.

c. Water runoff (including stormwater):

1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal. Include quantities, if known. Describe where water will flow, and if it will flow into other water. Post-development sources of runoff will include roofs, driveways and the private roadway. The existing impervious surfaces included in the northern commercial lot will remain as no development of that lot is currently contemplated.

Stormwater generated post-development will be collected, treated and released in accordance with the 2019 Western Washington Stormwater Manual and will include the provision of vegetated roadside

ditches with conveyance channels to existing roadside ditches and downspouts for single-family roofs Controlled disbursement will be facilitated by the inclusion of several hundred feet of spacing within which naturally vegetated areas must be crossed prior to the eventual discharge to Salmon Creek and the unnamed tributary within the southeastern portion of the site Eventual discharge of collected, disbursed and treated stormwater will go to the existing stream north of the development A preliminary stormwater technical information report (TIR) is not included in this proposal as it is a subdivision which includes less than an acre of impervious surface area. Pursuant to Section 16.20.070, the TIR is not required to be provided

Eventual discharge for on-site stormwater will be to Salmon Creek and its unnamed Type Ns tributary transecting the site in the southeastern corner.

2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, please describe. No.

d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: This proposal will meet or exceed the County’s water quality and quantity standards provided for by its Stormwater Manual and Ordinance.

4. Plants

a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site:

▪ Deciduous Tree: alder, maple, aspen, other (poplar, apple and beaked hazelnut)

▪ Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other

▪ Shrubs

▪ Grass

▪ Pasture

▪ Crop or grain

▪ Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other

▪ Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other

▪ Other types of vegetation.

b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All vegetation is proposed to be removed within the developed area of the site.

c. List threatened or endangered species on or near the site. There are no known threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.

d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: No landscaping is included or required with this proposal.

e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. None known.

5. Animals

a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site.

▪ Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other;

▪ Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other; and,

▪ Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other (frog spp)

b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. There are no known threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site The Type F stream may include habitat for anadromous fish such as rainbow trout, but its potential for salmon is unknown at this time.

c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The site is located within what is commonly referred to as the Pacific Flyway. This Flyway is the general migratory route for various species of ducks, geese, and other migratory waterfowl. The Flyway stretches from Alaska to Mexico and from the Pacific Ocean to the Rocky Mountains. Neotropical birds, such as Robins, may also seasonally utilize or be near the Site.

d. List proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Retaining a majority of the single-family residential lots as undisturbed area will provide some habitat for wildlife at the site.

e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None.

6. Energy and Natural Resources

a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Typical residential uses of electricity and/or natural gas will be required for the completed project.

b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No.

c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: All construction on the site will be designed to comply with the State of Washington Energy Code and the adopted version of the International Building Code

7. Environmental Health

a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No environmental health hazards or hazardous waste are anticipated to result from this proposal

1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. Unknown.

2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity.

The Applicant will comply with applicable local, state and federal regulations during the construction this proposal

3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction , or at any time during the operating life of the project. Construction equipment will require the use of various petroleum products for fuel, hydraulics, and lubrication.

4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Special emergency services are not anticipated for this proposal. However, State-compliant protocol will be followed should any unforeseen complications arise with the spillage of hazardous or otherwise toxic chemicals. A spill prevention and/or response plan will be on site at all times during construction.

5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None

b. Noise

1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (e.g., traffic, equipment, operation, other)?

Some traffic noise from surrounding roadways may be heard from the site but is not anticipated to adversely affect the proposal or surrounding area

2) What types and levels of noise are associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (e.g., traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours the noise would come from the site. Construction on the site will create short-term noise and will not occur after 7 p.m. or before 7 a.m. Visitor, resident, mail delivery, deliveries and solid waste and recycling vehicles will create some noise in the long-term. Other long-term noise sources include small power tools including, but not limited to, small gas-powered equipment used for site and landscape maintenance.

3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Limiting construction activities between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.

8. Land and Shoreline Use

a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe.

The site is currently vacant with a previously developed, flat, graveled area and remnants of old Spirit Lake Highway and a rock quarry located between the creek and SR-504. There are no existing structures on the site. The current use of adjacent properties includes undeveloped forested area and single-family residential housing. The proposal will not affect the nearby or adjacent properties.

b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use?

The project site was previously used for commercial timber production, but has not been designated Department of Forestry Land (DFL) or effectively managed for timber for many years.

1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling , and harvesting? If so, how: No.

c. Describe any structures on the site. There are no existing structures on the site.

d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, please describe. Not applicable. There are no existing structures on site.

e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site is designated as Unzoned (UZ) by Cowlitz County.

f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Rural.

g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. The site is not located within a shoreline designated area.

h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, please specify. The County has designated riparian habitat area (RHA) on site associated with the streams as critical area. In addition, there are County mapping indicators for critical aquifer recharge area (CARA) within a small portion of the northern part of the property in proposed Lot 12

i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?

Approximately twenty-eight (28) people would reside in the completed project. The figure was derived from multiplying the total number of proposed lots (10) by 2.8 (persons per single family household); this is the State of Washington Department of Ecology’s (ECA) standard calculation for occupancy rates utilized in instances when the exact number is not yet known.

j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None.

k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. The site is currently undeveloped and uninhabited.

l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any:

This proposal includes uses compatible with adjacent land use and with the County’s Comprehensive Plan.

m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any:

Not applicable. There are no anticipated impacts to agricultural and forest land of long-term commercial significance associated with this proposal.

9. Housing

a. Approximately how many units would be provided? Indicate whether it’s high, middle, or low-income housing.

Approximately ten (10) middle-income housing units will be provided

b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether it’s high, middle, or lowincome housing.

No units will be eliminated with this proposal as the site is undeveloped.

c. List proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: All residences will be built to code and impact fees will be paid.

d. How many people would reside or work in the completed project?

Approximately twenty-eight (28) people may reside in the completed project. However, the exact number of future residents is unknown at this time.

10. Aesthetics

a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas? What is proposed as the principal exterior building materials?

No structures are included with this rural subdivision land use application However, the future development will require that principal exterior building materials are be selected to fit in with the surrounding area.

b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?

Views observable from the part of Si Town Road that abut site will be altered as a portion of the existing site vegetation will be replaced with a subdivision which includes single-family residential homes. However, most of the site will remain unaltered which will result in minimal change in views observable from Si Town Road.

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None.

11. Light And Glare

a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?

Typical residential home lighting will be visible during the nighttime hours. At this time, the Applicant does not have development plans for Lots 11 and 12

b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?

No. The installation of illuminated materials will be done in such a way to minimize dispersion off-site and to not constitute a safety hazard.

c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?

None. Existing off-site sources of light or glare are not anticipated to be visible from the site as it is located at a distance where this would not be easily discernable.

d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Should lighting be required, outside lighting will be down shielded to minimize dispersion and control for potential off-site impacts.

12. Recreation

a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Silver Lake is located approximately four (4) to five (5) miles to the east of the site.

b. Would the project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No.

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreational opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None.

13. Historic and Cultural Preservation

a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe. No.

b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. No.

c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. Visual observation.

d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required.

In the event any archaeological or historic materials are encountered during project activity, work in the immediate area must stop and the following actions taken:

1. Implement reasonable measures to protect the discovery site, including any appropriate stabilization or covering; and

2. Take reasonable steps to ensure the confidentiality of the discovery site; and,

3. Take reasonable steps to restrict access to the site of discovery

If human remains are uncovered, appropriate law enforcement agencies shall be notified first, and the above steps followed. If remains are determined to be Native, consultation with the effected Tribes will take place in order to ensure the culturally appropriate final disposition of said remains.

14. Transportation

a. Identify the public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.

Lot 12 has been designed to include access to SR-504. Lot 11 has been designed to include access to Si Town Road. The single-family residential lots will be accessed via a private roadway which connects to Si Town Road. For more information see the land use plans that are included in the Application Submittal Item No. 7.

b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?

The site is not currently served by public transit. The nearest transit stop is located approximately two (2) to three (3) miles away from the site.

c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate?

This proposal has been designed to facilitate the inclusion of parking spaces within the single-family residential lots as well as the commercial lot There is currently no plan for development and accompanying site plans for Lot 11 and 12, therefore the number of parking spaces for these lots is presently zero No parking spaces will be eliminated with this proposal as the site is undeveloped.

d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).

This proposal includes the provision of a new private roadway to serve the single-family residential lots. No improvements to public roadways are anticipated to be required for this proposal.

e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No.

f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and non passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates?

Based on the proposed development, it is estimated that full build out will generate approximately 72 new Average Daily Trips (ADTs) for the single-family residential lots on the adjacent roadway system during a typical weekday, including eight (8) total vehicle trips during the AM peak hours and a total of eleven (11) vehicle trips during the PM peak hours This estimate is derived from the traffic profile that was prepared based on the 11th ITE Trip Generation Manual and the proposed development’s distance from the nearest transportation corridors or intersections of regional significance. The results of the traffic profile indicate the property can be fully developed as proposed while maintaining acceptable levels of service and safety at the site access points. For more information, see the Traffic Impact Study included within Application Submittal Item No. 12.

g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe.

No.

h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Pay traffic impact fees and construct roadways per County requirements for final engineering approval.

15. Public Services

a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Yes, there could be a potential need for additional fire / emergency and police protection with the proposed development

b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: Provide urban utilities, pay taxes, system development charges and impact fees

16. Utilities

a. Circle the utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other (internet).

b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Public water lines, as well as septic is included with this proposal. Cowlitz County is the purveyor of the water utility located within Si Town Road. Water utility extensions will be required to facilitate the provision of water to each house. General construction activities related to the water line installation includes grading, trenching, installation of water lines and stabilization. On-site septic will be constructed within each lot, involving the excavation of soil, installation of the septic tank and site stabilization

Electricity and internet available to the site. Purveyors of electricity is presumed to be Cowlitz PUD and internet is presumed to be Comcast.

C. Signature

The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.

Signature:

Name of Signee: Ingrid Friedberg

Position and Agency/Organization: Land Use Planner, Standridge, Inc.

Date Submitted: September 9, 2022

Turner, Daniel

From: Fornes, George L (DFW) <George.Fornes@dfw.wa.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 1:29 PM

To: Turner, Daniel

Subject: Cowlitz County SEPA Notification Permit #0002874-002

Attachments: Figure 5 of Cascadia Report from IAR Materials_Rural Subdivision 2270.02_TRMC_102 Si Town Rd.pdf

Mr. Turner,

Thank you for providing the Washington Dept of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) opportunity to review this proposed land division at 102 Si Town Road in Castle Rock. As noted in the SEPA materials, Salmon Creek (Type F) crosses the eastern and northern portions of the property, and an unnamed Type N stream crosses the western portion of the property. Neither the SEPA materials nor the Proposed Site Plan show the third on-site stream that was identified within the Critical Areas Report authored by Cascadia Ecological Services, Inc. dated October 20, 2022. Figure 5 of the Cascadia report shows this third stream as a Type Ns water in the southeastern portion of the property, flowing northeast into Salmon Creek within the proposed Lot 11. The Proposed Site Plan is a good start in that it does show most of the streams, their associated riparian zones, and building envelopes that clearly avoid such areas. However WDFW recommends that the Proposed Site Plan and Preliminary Plat be revised such that they show all of the on-site streams as identified in the Cascadia report, along with their associated riparian zones and building envelopes. Figure 5 from the Cascadia report is attached here for your reference.

Current science regarding functional riparian zones is summarized in our new riparian management recommendations, Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 1: Science Synthesis and Management Implications (Quinn et al. 2020) and Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 2: Management Recommendations (Rentz et al. 2020). WDFW no longer has different recommended riparian zone widths for fish and non-fish bearing streams, and instead recognizes that a riparian zone width based on the Site Potential Tree Height of 200 years (SPTH200) will ensure that the riparian ecosystem has the greatest functionality regardless of stream type. In this framework, the functional riparian zone width within the subject property is 241 feet. Further, current science recommends having a minimum riparian zone of at least 100 feet for all streams regardless of stream Type, to help minimize pollutant runoff into streams. Please explore options to place the development a minimum of 100 feet or more from all on-site streams, and further than that (up to 241 feet) where possible.

WDFW recommends showing all on-site streams and their associated riparian zones on the face of the final plat, along with building envelopes for each lot that clearly avoid the riparian zones.

If any construction or maintenance of water crossing structures is proposed in order to access the new lots, the activity will require authorization from WDFW in the form of Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA).

You can find a tool for determining site potential tree height here: https://wdfw.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=35b39e40a2af447b9556ef1314a5622d

Our updated management recommendations for riparian areas are online here: https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01988

Thanks very much,

George Fornes Habitat Biologist

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

5525 S 11th Street, Ridgefield, WA 98642

Cell: (360) 623-0651

December 1, 2022

STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

Southwest Region Office

PO Box 47775, Olympia, WA 98504-7775 • 360-407-6300

Daniel Turner, Community Planner

Cowlitz County

Department of Building & Planning

207 Fourth Avenue North #119

Kelso, WA 98626

Dear Daniel Turner:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance for the TRMC Ventures, LLC, 102 Si Town Road, Preliminary Plat 2270.02 – 11-Lot Subdivision Project (0002874-003) as proposed by Standridge, Inc.. The Department of Ecology (Ecology) reviewed the environmental checklist and has the following comment(s):

SHORELANDS & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE: Meghan Tait (360)-210-2783

Thank you for providing the Department of Ecology (Ecology) the opportunity to review the proposed 11-lot subdivision on parcel WK3616002.

The required mitigation sequencing for SEPA per WAC 197-11-768 is to avoid critical area impacts altogether by not taking certain actions, minimize impacts by limiting the degree of the action and its implementation, and then compensate for the impact. The creation of lots that are encumbered by wetland, stream, and their associated buffers does not allow for the required mitigation sequencing. Lots should be created to allow for avoidance of critical areas upon development. Proposed lot 11 is encumbered by critical areas and does not allow for the required mitigation sequencing.

The Cowlitz County Critical Areas Ordinance Reasonable Use Section 19.15.190(G)(4) states that “the allowance is not the result of action by current or previous property owners after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section (e.g., creating new parcels without a feasible building site or means of access).” Lots created without feasible building sites or means of access outside of wetlands, streams, and their buffers, such as proposed lot 11, will not qualify for reasonable use allowance under these provisions.

For questions or technical assistance, contact the Wetland Specialist Meghan Tait via email, meghan.tait@ecy.wa.gov, or phone, 360-210-2783.

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT: Derek Rockett (360) 407-6287

All grading and filling of land must utilize only clean fill. All other materials may be considered solid waste and permit approval may be required from your local jurisdictional health department prior to filling. All removed debris resulting from this project must be

Daniel Turner

disposed of at an approved site. Contact the local jurisdictional health department or Department of Ecology for proper management of these materials.

WATER QUALITY/WATERSHED RESOURCES UNIT:

Brian Johnson (360) 624-5741

Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading, or construction. These control measures must be effective to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying soil and other pollutants into surface water or stormdrains that lead to waters of the state. Sand, silt, clay particles, and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are considered to be pollutants.

Any discharge of sediment-laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the state is in violation of Chapter 90.48 RCW, Water Pollution Control, and WAC 173-201A, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, and is subject to enforcement action.

Construction Stormwater General Permit: The following construction activities require coverage under the Construction Stormwater General Permit:

1. Clearing, grading and/or excavation that results in the disturbance of one or more acres and discharges stormwater to surface waters of the State; and

2. Clearing, grading and/or excavation on sites smaller than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale, if the common plan of development or sale will ultimately disturb one acre or more and discharge stormwater to surface waters of the State.

a) This includes forest practices (including, but not limited to, class IV conversions) that are part of a construction activity that will result in the disturbance of one or more acres, and discharge to surface waters of the State; and

3. Any size construction activity discharging stormwater to waters of the State that Ecology:

a) Determines to be a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the State of Washington.

b) Reasonably expects to cause a violation of any water quality standard.

If there are known soil/ground water contaminants present on-site, additional information (including, but not limited to: temporary erosion and sediment control plans; stormwater pollution prevention plan; list of known contaminants with concentrations and depths found; a site map depicting the sample location(s); and additional studies/reports regarding contaminant(s)) will be required to be submitted. For additional information on contaminated construction sites, please contact Evan Wood at evan.wood@ecy.wa.gov, or by phone at (360) 706-4599.

Additionally, sites that discharge to segments of waterbodies listed as impaired by the State of Washington under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act for turbidity, fine sediment, high pH, or phosphorous, or to waterbodies covered by a TMDL may need to meet additional sampling and record keeping requirements. See condition S8 of the Construction Stormwater General Permit for a description of these requirements. To see if your site discharges to a TMDL or 303(d)-listed waterbody, use Ecology’s Water Quality Atlas at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/waterqualityatlas/StartPage.aspx

Daniel Turner

December 1, 2022

Page 3

The applicant may apply online or obtain an application from Ecology's website at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/construction/ - Application. Construction site operators must apply for a permit at least 60 days prior to discharging stormwater from construction activities and must submit it on or before the date of the first public notice.

Ecology’s comments are based upon information provided by the lead agency. As such, they may not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations that must be obtained or legal requirements that must be fulfilled in order to carry out the proposed action.

If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments, please contact the appropriate reviewing staff listed above.

Department of Ecology Southwest Regional Office

(GMP:202205775)

cc: Meghan Tait, SEA

Derek Rockett, SWM

Brian Johnson, WQ

Preliminary Stormwater Report for Ridge View Subdivision

Date: February 25, 2023

Revised:

Applicant: TRMC Ventures LLC PO Box 570 Woodland, WA 98674

pjeffries3@outlook.com, scottj@jcllcwa.com

Prepared By: Standridge, Inc.

703 Broadway, Suite 610 Vancouver, Washington 98660 360.597.9240

Project: JCL001

This Technical Information Report and the data contained herein were prepared by the undersigned, whose seal, as a Professional Engineer licensed to practice as such, is affixed below. The proposed stormwater facilities are feasible and in compliance with Cowlitz County Code 16.20.070 and 18.50.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table of Contents

SECTION A – PROJECT OVERVIEW

A.1 Site Information………………………………………………………………….….….4

A.2 Determination of Applicable Minimum Requirements ....…….…...4

SECTION B – MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

B.1 Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans……………………..…………….….5

B.2 Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP)….5

B.3 Source Control of Pollution………………………………………………….…….5

B.4 Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls……….…….5

B.5 On-site Stormwater Management BMPs……………………….……….….5

B.6 Runoff Treatment Analysis and Design…….…………….………………….6

B.7 Flow Control Analysis and Design………………….…….…………………….6

B.8 Wetlands Protection………………..………………………….…………………….7

B.9 Operations and Maintenance……………………….…………………………..7

SECTION C – SOILS EVALUATION …………………………………….………….7

SECTION D – SOURCE CONTROL .…………………………………….………….7

SECTION E – ONSITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BMPS ………….7

SECTION F – RUNOFF TREATMENT ANALYSIS AND DESIGN .………….7

SECTION G – FLOW CONTROL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ….….………….7

SECTION H – WETLANDS PROTECTION …………………………….………….7

List of Tables

Table 1: Tax Lot Area Summary

Table 2: Impervious Area Summary

Table 3: Flow Summary

Figure 1: Site Map

List of Figures

Technical Appendices

Appendix A: Map Submittals

Appendix B: Existing Conditions Plan, Site Plan, Stormwater Plan

Appendix C: Geotechnical Report

Appendix D: Critical Area Report

Appendix E: WWHM Report (Bioretention Swale for treatment), HydroCAD Report (Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph modeling for flow control)

Ridge View Subdivision

Technical Information Report

February 25, 2023

Page 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ridge View Subdivision is a 10 lot residential and 1 lot commercial project within the Unzoned (UZ) property within Cowlitz County. The site is located at 102 Si Town Road in Castle Rock, Washington 98611 and is further identified as parcel number WK3613002. The site is 27.32 acres and proposes to use roadside swale to treat stormwater and a stormwater pond to meet detention requirements. Stormwater from the pond shall be conveyed in a roadside ditch where it will discharge to the existing Salmon Creek running through the site.

The project site utilizes the drainage requirements as outlined Cowlitz County Code, Chapter 16.20 (Stormwater Management in Rural Areas) Section 070 (Large Development Standards). As designed, water quality, quantity, and conveyance meet county standards.

Project Site =

Figure1:SiteMap

February 25, 2023

SECTION A – PROJECT OVERVIEW

A.1 Site Information

The site is located at 102 Si Town Road in Castle Rock, Washington 98611 and is further identified as parcel number WK3613002. The tax parcel is 32.92 acres per the county records with a 5.64 acre portion east of the existing Si Town Road and the remaining 27.28 acres west of Si Town Road. The 5.64 acre portion has been determined a separate legal lot of record and is not part of this project.

The site is sloping (10% - 33%) from a hilltop centrally located on the property with a natural surface flow to existing streams and roadside ditches that combine to a single threshold discharge area approximately 250 feet east of the property line in existing Salmon Creek. The site is undeveloped, with the central area recently logged (permit 0001643-001). There is an existing Type N stream along the west boundary of the parcel that connects to the existing Type F stream (Salmon Creek) that flows from east to west across the northern part of the site. A wetland east of Si Town Road as part of Salmon Creek and is upstream of this project site.

Proposed development consists of 10 residential lots south of Salmon Creek and associated utilities and roads. The development also consists of 1 commercial lot north of Salmon Creek and south of Spirit Lake Highway (SR504). See Table 1 below for tax lot area summary. A private road shall be constructed with the residential portion of the project along with roadside ditches, stormwater treatment swale, and a stormwater detention pond. This stormwater report shall address all requirements for the residential portion of this development. The commercial site shall be addressed with a separate site application when developed.

Plans showing the existing site, proposed site plan and drainage plan are located in Appendix B.

Table1:TaxLotAreaSummary

Pre-Developed Areas

A.2 Determination of Applicable Minimum Requirements

The proposed development is a new subdivision. As outlined in Cowlitz County Code 16.20.070 (Large development standards), all new subdivisions shall design and construct the development to satisfy minimum requirements No. 1 through No. 9 for the new, replaced, and converted impervious and pervious surfaces. All pollution generating impervious area will be captured and directed to a stormwater treatment swale and detention pond. The proposed new and replaced impervious surfaces total 51,720 SF for the residential development, see Table 2 on the next page.

February 25, 2023

Table2:ImperviousAreaSummary

SECTION B – MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

B.1 Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans

Stormwater Plans and a Stormwater TIR have been prepared in conformance with the 2022 Cowlitz County Stormwater Drainage Manual (CCSDM) Chapter 3 and have been submitted with this application.

B.2 Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP)

A SWPPP shall be prepared for submittal with Final Plans and TIR.

B.3 Source Control of Pollution

There are no prohibited discharges that are proposed from the project. For protection during construction, an erosion control plan shall be included in the final plan submittal for permitting and provided to the contractor. The final site will collect all runoff from areas exposed to vehicular traffic in stormwater cartridges for treatment before discharge offsite.

B.4 Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls

The natural drainage of the site is overland from a central hilltop to an existing Type N stream to the west, to a roadside ditch to the east along Si Town Rd, and northerly towards an existing Type F stream (Salmon Creek). This pattern will continue, as the proposed private street will be caught in a roadside ditch, conveyed to a treatment swale and detention pond, and discharged to the existing Si Town Rd roadside ditch. Some roof stormwater runoff will flow overland to either the Type N stream or Salmon Creek. See Appendix D for critical area report.

B.5 Onsite Stormwater Management BMPs

Infiltration is not recommended by the Geotech, see Appendix C. The project will utilize a bioretention swale, dispersion, amended soil, and a detention pond to meet treatment and flow control requirements. Specifically, the site will use BMP T5.10B “Downspout Dispersion Systems”, BMP T5.13 “Post-Construction

Ridge View Subdivision

Technical Information Report

February 25, 2023

Page 6

Soil Quality and Depth”, and BMP T5.14B “Bioretention” as shown in Volume V-5.3.1 of the SWMMWW and detention ponds in Volume III-3.2.1.

Some Roof areas will utilize BMP T5.10B “Downspout Dispersion Systems”, while the remaining will be directed to a roadside ditch via downspout. BMP T5.14B “Bioretention” shall be utilized to treat road, driveway, and roof runoff not utilizing downspout dispersion. All disturbed pervious areas left uncovered after construction is complete will meet the minimum requirements of BMP T5.13 “Post-Construction Soil Quality and Depth”.

All stormwater quality and quantity facilities for the site have been designed in conformance with the 2022 CCSDM.

B.6 Runoff Treatment Analysis and Design,

The private street, driveways, roofs, and front yards that drain to the roadside ditch along the private street will be the only surfaces that require treatment. These areas total 88,949 SF, exceeding the 5,000 SF threshold. Basic stormwater treatment is required. A bioretention swale per BMP T7.30 shall provide treatment. The bioretention swale shall have side slopes not to be greater than 3H:1V, and made up of 18” of standard bioretention soil mix, 18” of clean drain rock, a 6” perforated underdrain pipe with a 3” orifice connected to a 6” riser pipe for overflow that is 2’ above the bioretention soil, and a 6” outlet pipe at the same elevation as the underdrain. The bioretention swale is designed to treat more than 91% of runoff, in conformance with Volume V of the 2019 SMMWW, 2022 CCSDM, and Cowlitz County Municipal Code Chapter 16.20. See Appendix E for WWHM treatment calculations.

B.7 Flow Control Analysis and Design

A detention system that consists of a detention pond and flow restrictor are proposed for the project to meet the flow control standards outlined in Cowlitz County Municipal Code Chapter 16.20.070. A detention pond shall have side slopes not to be greater than 3H:1V, flat bottom with 0.5-foot sediment storage, 5 feet in depth, flow control structure, and emergency overflow.

In the event the flow control clogs, the stormwater facility will overflow into the right-of way into a roadside ditch along Si Town Rd that conveys to Salmon Creek.

All stormwater quantity facilities for the site have been designed in conformance with Volume III of the 2019 SMMWW, 2022 CCSDM, and Cowlitz County Municipal Code Chapter 16.20. See Appendix E for HydroCAD flow control calculations.

Table3:FlowSummary

Ridge View Subdivision

Technical Information Report

February 25, 2023 Page 7

B.8 Wetlands Protection

This project site does not discharge directly or indirectly to an existing wetland. There is an existing wetland upstream of the discharge location on the east side of Si Town Road and is outside the ground disturbance limits. See Appendix D for critical area report.

B.9 Operations and Maintenance

A site-specific Maintenance and Operation Manual will be included with the final approval submittal and will also be provided to the owner.

SECTION C – SOILS EVALUATION

Per the NRCS Soil Survey, the majority of the site is comprised of OmE - Olympic Silt Loam (3% to 30% slopes), which is considered well drained and moderately slowly permeable. Olympic Silt Loam is classified into Hydrologic Soil Group B. No high groundwater is present. Soil samples have been taken, but a geotechnical report is not yet completed. See Appendix C for preliminary geotechnical infiltration and subsurface conditions.

SECTION D – SOURCE CONTROL

See Minimum Requirements 3 – Section B.3

SECTION E – ONSITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT BMPS

See Minimum Requirements 5 – Section B.5

SECTION F – RUNOFF TREATMENT ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

See Minimum Requirements 6 – Section B.6

SECTION G – FLOW CONTROL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

See Minimum Requirements 7 – Section B.7

SECTION H – WETLANDS PROTECTION

See Minimum Requirements 8 – Section B.8

APPENDIX A

MAP SUBMITTALS:  VICINITY MAP  SOILS MAP

APPROXIMATELY 3.7MINEOF CASTLEROCK

Study

148 - Olympic silt loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes

147 - Olympic silt loam, 8 to 20 percent slopes

Area

146 - Olympic silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

147 - Olympic silt loam, 8 to 20 percent slopes

Source: USDA Web Soil Survey

EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN  SITE PLAN

STORMWATER PLAN

SPIRITLAKEHWY(SR504)

CLASSIVGENERALFOREST PRACTICESCONVERSION PERMIT-0001643-001

PARCELWJ0120015PARCELWJ0120013PARCELWJ0120011PARCELWJ0120009PARCELWJ0120007PARCELWJ0120005PARCELWJ0120003 PARCELWJ0120001 PARCEL WJ0101001

TIMBERLINEDR(EXIST)

SPIRITLAKEHWY(SR504)

SHEETNOTES

1. PRIVATEROADRIGHT-OF-WAYSHALLBE60'WIDE,WITH24'PAVEDWIDTH,ANDROADSIDE DITCHES.COWLITZCOUNTYHASNORESPONSIBILITYTOMONITOR,IMPROVE,ORMAINTAINTHE PRIVATEROADSCONTAINEDWITHINORPRIVATEROADSPROVIDINGACCESSTOTHEPROPERTY DESCRIBEDINTHISDEVELOPMENT.ANYPRIVATEACCESSDRIVEWAY,ROAD,ORSTREETSHALL REMAINAPRIVATERESPONSIBILITYUNLESSITISUPGRADEDTOAPUBLICSTREETORROAD STANDARDSATTHEEXPENSEOFTHEDEVELOPERORABUTTINGLOTOWNERSTOINCLUDEHARD SURFACEPAVINGANDISACCEPTEDBYTHECOUNTYFORPUBLICOWNERSHIPANDCONTINUED MAINTENANCE.

2. SETBACKSAREFRONT=25',SIDES=10',ANDREAR=15'

3. AMINIMUMOF100'WIDTHPROVIDEDATBUILDINGENVELOPE/PAD.

4.NOWATERMETERSSHALLBELOCATEDABOVEELEVATION630FT.NAVD88.

TIMBERLINEDR(EXIST)

SPIRITLAKEHWY(SR504)

LOT11(COMMERCIALPARCEL)

WILDWOODDR(PVT)

TIMBERLINEDR(EXIST)

SHEETNOTES

1. PRIVATEROADRIGHT-OF-WAYSHALLBE60'WIDE,WITH24'PAVEDWIDTH,ANDROADSIDE DITCHES.COWLITZCOUNTYHASNORESPONSIBILITYTOMONITOR,IMPROVE,ORMAINTAINTHE PRIVATEROADSCONTAINEDWITHINORPRIVATEROADSPROVIDINGACCESSTOTHEPROPERTY DESCRIBEDINTHISDEVELOPMENT.ANYPRIVATEACCESSDRIVEWAY,ROAD,ORSTREETSHALL REMAINAPRIVATERESPONSIBILITYUNLESSITISUPGRADEDTOAPUBLICSTREETORROAD STANDARDSATTHEEXPENSEOFTHEDEVELOPERORABUTTINGLOTOWNERSTOINCLUDEHARD SURFACEPAVINGANDISACCEPTEDBYTHECOUNTYFORPUBLICOWNERSHIPANDCONTINUED MAINTENANCE.

2. SETBACKSAREFRONT=25',SIDES=10',ANDREAR=15'

3. AMINIMUMOF100'WIDTHPROVIDEDATBUILDINGENVELOPE/PAD.

4.NOWATERMETERSSHALLBELOCATEDABOVEELEVATION630FT.NAVD88.

5. EXISTINGANDPROPOSEDCONTOURSSHOWNAT5FTINTERVALS.

LEGEND

DRAINAGEFLOWARROW EXISTINGCONTOUR(MAJOR)

PROPOSEDCONTOUR(MAJOR)

BOUNDARYLINE

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

Cody Cumpton

From: Tyler Pierce <tyler.pierce@nv5.com>

Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 9:07 AM

To: Ingrid Friedberg

Cc: Laura Standridge; Cody Cumpton; Scott McDevitt; TRMCVENTUR-1-01

Subject: RE: Test Pit Locations for Ridge View Subdivision (102 Si Town Road) (JCL001)

Attachments: TRMCVentur-1-01.kmz; 2023-02-13-Geo test pit locations.pdf

Hi Ingrid,

We performed the infiltration testing on Friday.  The results were a mixed bag.  The test pit locations and names are  shown on the attached site plan and the .kmz file.  In general, we observed silt and clay overlying decomposed bedrock  and eventually intact bedrock.

We were unable to test at TP‐2 because the groundwater was approximately 4 feet beneath the surface.

The infiltration rate at TP‐6 was approximately 0.

The infiltration rate at TP‐9 was 4 inches per hour.

Based on the varying test rates and the subsurface conditions, we recommend infiltration not be used as the sole source  for stormwater management.  If infiltration is used we would recommend a short‐term rate of no more than 1 in/hr and  a factor of safety of at least 3 for the long‐term rate.

Let me know if you would like to discuss the results.  We will start the lab testing this week and work on getting you the  report as soon as possible.

Thanks,

GeoDesign is now NV5

Please note the new email address

Electronic Communications Disclaimer

From: Ingrid Friedberg <ingrid.friedberg@standridgeinc.com>

Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 11:05 AM

To: Tyler Pierce <tyler.pierce@nv5.com>

Cc: Laura Standridge <laura@standridgeinc.com>; Cody Cumpton <cody.cumpton@standridgeinc.com>; Scott McDevitt  <Scott.McDevitt@nv5.com>

Subject: RE: Test Pit Locations for Ridge View Subdivision (102 Si Town Road) (JCL001)

Hi Tyler,

Thank you very much for this preliminary information. We will let you know if we have follow‐up questions.

I’m grateful infiltration testing can occur on Friday. Please let me know if I can be of help with coordinating that.

With thanks for your time and assistance,

Ingrid S. Friedberg

Land Use Planner Standridge Inc.

Planning | Civil Engineering | Surveying

Direct/Cell: 360.907.4529

Main Office: 360.597.9240

WBE Certified in Oregon and Washington

Federally DBE Certified

From: Tyler Pierce <tyler.pierce@nv5.com>

Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 10:53 AM

To: Ingrid Friedberg <ingrid.friedberg@standridgeinc.com>

Cc: Laura Standridge <laura@standridgeinc.com>; Cody Cumpton <cody.cumpton@standridgeinc.com>; Scott McDevitt  <Scott.McDevitt@nv5.com>

Subject: RE: Test Pit Locations for Ridge View Subdivision (102 Si Town Road) (JCL001)

Hi Ingrid,

As discussed on the phone, here are our preliminary recommendations based on a desktop review of sites in the  area.  Hopefully this helps and we will try to get you the report ASAP.

The subsurface conditions will likely consist of silt and clay near the existing ground surface.  The clay and silt in the area  appears stiff so foundations bearing on near surface silt and clay will likely have an allowable bearing capacity between  2,000 and 3,000 psf.  The site is likely underlain by decomposed basalt which will consist of gravely silt and clay.  If  foundations are supported by decomposed basalt, the bearing capacity can be increased to 4,000 to 5,000 psf.

Unfortunately, the site likely won’t have very high infiltration rates, I would expect less than 1‐inch/hr for in the  infiltration tests.

Let me know if you need any more info for now.

Thanks,

Tyler

GeoDesign is now NV5

Please note the new email address

Electronic Communications Disclaimer

From: Ingrid Friedberg <ingrid.friedberg@standridgeinc.com>

Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 9:55 AM

To: Tyler Pierce <tyler.pierce@nv5.com>

Cc: Laura Standridge <laura@standridgeinc.com>; Cody Cumpton <cody.cumpton@standridgeinc.com>; Scott McDevitt  <Scott.McDevitt@nv5.com>

Subject: RE: Test Pit Locations for Ridge View Subdivision (102 Si Town Road) (JCL001)

Hi Tyler,

Thank you for your email. We don’t think it makes sense for the proposed test pit for the commercial lot is an existing  road. The proposed test pit location for Lot 1 looks fine to us

Please coordinate with the Jeffries for the excavation. We need to have everything submitted to Cowlitz County by  March 1 and we need the Geotechnical Engineering Report for our preliminary hydrology report that is part of that  March 1 submittal.

Please let me know if you have questions or require additional information.

With thanks for your time and assistance,

Ingrid S. Friedberg

Land Use Planner

Standridge Inc.

Planning | Civil Engineering | Surveying

Direct/Cell: 360.907.4529

Main Office: 360.597.9240

WBE Certified in Oregon and Washington

Federally DBE Certified

From: Tyler Pierce <tyler.pierce@nv5.com>

Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 9:19 AM

To: Ingrid Friedberg <ingrid.friedberg@standridgeinc.com>

Cc: Laura Standridge <laura@standridgeinc.com>; Cody Cumpton <cody.cumpton@standridgeinc.com>; Scott McDevitt  <Scott.McDevitt@nv5.com>

Subject: RE: Test Pit Locations for Ridge View Subdivision (102 Si Town Road) (JCL001)

Hi Ingrid,

Sorry that I am just getting to this now, I was out last week.  After reviewing the proposed test pit locations, I would  suggest moving at least one of the test pits form the residential area down to the commercial parcel.  The residential  loads will be very light compared to any commercial development and it would be best to have a little more info down in  the commercial area.  I revised a couple locations let me know if this looks acceptable?

I will contact public locates and work with the excavator to schedule a date to dig the test pits.

Thanks,

Tyler Pierce, P.E. | Senior Project Engineer | NV5 703 Broadway Street, Suite 650 | Vancouver, WA 98660 |

GeoDesign is now NV5

Please note the new email address

Electronic Communications Disclaimer

From: Ingrid Friedberg <ingrid.friedberg@standridgeinc.com>

Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 5:27 PM

To: Tyler Pierce <tyler.pierce@nv5.com>

Cc: Laura Standridge <laura@standridgeinc.com>; Cody Cumpton <cody.cumpton@standridgeinc.com>

Subject: Test Pit Locations for Ridge View Subdivision (102 Si Town Road) (JCL001)

Hi Tyler,

Please see the attached for proposed test pit locations within the updated site layout.

With thanks for your time,

Ingrid S. Friedberg

Land Use Planner

Standridge Inc.

Planning | Civil Engineering | Surveying

Direct/Cell: 360.907.4529

Main Office: 360.597.9240

WBE Certified in Oregon and Washington

Federally DBE Certified

PROPOSEDCUL-DE-SAC (EXCAVATE~20FTFORTESTPIT)

PROPOSEDPOND (INFILTRATIONTEST)

CRITICAL AREA REPORT

CRITICAL AREA REPORT

102 Si Town Road Rural Subdivision

102 Si Town Road, Castle Rock, WA 98611

Prepared by: Jim Barnes

Cascadia Ecological Services, Inc.

14205 NW 56th Avenue

Vancouver, WA 98685

(360) 601‐8631

Applicant: TMRC Ventures LLC

18518 NW 41st Avenue Ridgefield, WA 98642

pjeffries3@outlook.com

(360) 597‐5363

Date: June 24, 2022

Executive Summary

This report details the results of a critical areas report conducted by Cascadia Ecological Services, Inc. (CES) on behalf of the applicant, TMRC Ventures LLC, for Cowlitz County Parcel WK3616002. This report identifies the extent of critical areas identified on or in the immediate vicinity of the study area as defined and regulated by the Cowlitz County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO).

The study area consists of one parcel of land, Parcel WK3616002, located in section 36, Township 5N, Range 2 West of the Willamette Meridian, Cowlitz County, Washington. The property is currently unzoned and the total site area of the property is approximately 32.92 acres.

During a site visit completed by Cascadia Ecological Services, Inc. (CES) staff on June 14, 2022, it was determined that two streams are present on the property. Salmon Creek, a DNR Type F water, outlets onto the northeast portion of the site and flows from east to west along the north part of the site. An unnamed Type N stream crosses onto the southwest corner of the property and flows north for approximately 280 feet before flowing off‐site onto the adjacent parcel to the west. This stream converges with Salmon Creek to the northwest of the study area.

No wetlands were observed on the study area. This report documents the investigation, best professional judgment, and conclusions of CES. It is recommended that the findings in this report be verified by Cowlitz County prior to commitment of significant planning and financial resources.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Applicant TMRC Ventures LLC

CAO Critical Areas Ordinance

CES Cascadia Ecological Services, Inc.

DNR Washington Department of Natural Resources

ESA Endangered Species Act

FPARS Forest Practices Application Mapping System

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

RHA Riparian Habitat Area

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WDFW Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife

Chapter 1. Introduction

The applicant contracted with Cascadia Ecological Services, Inc. (CES) to complete a critical area report for Parcel WK3616002. The purpose of the report is to identify and describe wetlands, streams, or other regulated critical areas within the confines of the study area. CES completed fieldwork for this project on June 14, 2022.

This report facilitates the applicant’s efforts to:

1. Avoid or minimize impacts to critical areas during the design process.

2. Document wetland and stream boundary determinations for review by regulatory authorities.

3. Provide early indications to project engineers or designers of sensitive species within the study area.

4. Provide background information for critical area mitigation reports. This report is anticipated to support permits locally through Cowlitz County.

Chapter 2. Proposed Project

2.1 Location

Project Location: 102 Si Town Road, Castle Rock, WA 98611

Parcel Number: WK3616002

County: Cowlitz

STR: SE 1/4 of Section 36, T10N, R2W of the Willamette Meridian

Latitude/Longitude: 46.3024/‐122.8684

Hydrologic Unit Code: 17080005

2.2 Purpose and Description

The Applicant plans to subdivide the 32.92‐acre property into 10 detached single‐family detached lots within the unzoned (UZ) property within Cowlitz County. A site plan for the proposed development was not available as of the date of this report.

Chapter 3. Methods

This chapter summarizes the methods used to comply with local, state, and federal guidance. The presence of critical areas was assessed by traversing the property on foot. Observation of vegetation, hydrology, and soils in conjunction with data from National Wetland Inventory maps of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2022), the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA, 2022), and aerial photos were used to determine the presence of wetlands. The

presence or non‐presence of wetlands were determined by using the Routine Determination Methodology of the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE, 2010). Property data were obtained from Cowlitz County GIS (Cowlitz County, 2022) website. Wetlands were rated according to the guidance of the Washington State Wetland Rating System (Hruby, T., 2014). The local guidance for critical areas was obtained from the Cowlitz County Critical Areas Ordinance (Cowlitz County, 2022).

Critical area locations and features are described in Chapter 5 and shown on Figure 5 of 5. For the purposes of this report, CES used an Arrow 100 Submeter GNSS receiver to map critical area boundaries. The locations and measured areas of mapped critical areas given in this report have been surveyed but not verified by Cowlitz County.

For the purposes of determining the presence of wetlands, observations of indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were made.

Vegetation was divided into three strata; tree, shrub, and forb, and each layer was classified using the prevalence index (a weighted‐average wetland indicator status of all plant species in the sample plot) and the dominance test (more than 50% of the dominant plant species across all strata are rated obligate, facultative wet or facultative). The 2021 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Wetland Plant List – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region was used to classify plants. Hydrology was determined using two methods: (1) visually, if the water table is at or above the surface, or (2) with a soil pit. The presence of standing water, depth to free water in the soil pit, and depth to saturated soils were recorded. Other primary and secondary hydrology indicators were recorded, such as presence of watermarks, sediment deposits, drift deposits, iron deposits, hydrogen sulfide odor, geomorphic position, and drainage patterns in wetlands. Soil pits were dug to a depth of 12‐18 inches to determine if indicators of hydric soils were present. Soil colors were determined from a moist sample with the Munsell Soil Color Chart. This information is all recorded on the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Corps Routine Wetland Determination Data Form that is filled out for each sample point and included with this report.

The condition of buffers within 150 feet of the critical areas was qualitatively assessed using the following criteria:

 Dominant land use (e.g., agriculture, residential, commercial, industrial).

 Dominant buffer vegetation type (tree, shrub, herb, vine, un‐vegetated).

 Dominant cover of invasive plants by species.

Chapter 4. Existing Conditions

4.1 Project Area and Landscape Setting

The property is located to the south of Highway 504 in rural Cowlitz County, Washington. Si Town Road is along the east boundary of the study area. Most of the surrounding area consists of forestland, open space farmland, and large lot residential properties.

The entire study area consists of mature upland forest with areas of steep slopes leading to a

hilltop in the center of the site at an elevation of approximately 600 feet above mean seal level. Salmon Creek flows from east to west across the north part of the site through a ravine which is about 200 feet lower in elevation than the hilltop.

The study area is in the Cowlitz watershed ‐ Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 26 (Washington Department of Ecology, 2022). The Lower Cowlitz basin is the Cowlitz watershed below Mayfield Dam, not including the Toutle and Coweeman basins. The basin encompasses approximately 440 square miles in portions of Lewis and Cowlitz Counties. The Cowlitz enters the Columbia at RM 68, approximately 3.5 miles southeast of Longview, Washington. The Coweeman and Toutle are the two largest tributaries. Other significant tributaries include Salmon Creek, Lacamas Creek, Olequa Creek, Delameter Creek, and Ostrander Creek (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 2004).

Chapter 5. Critical Areas

5.1 Mapped Soils and Wetlands Inventory Information

According to the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA, 2022), the mapped soils on‐site are described as follows (Figure 3 of 5):

 146 ‐ Olympic silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

 147 ‐ Olympic silt loam, 8 to 20 percent slopes

 148 ‐ Olympic silt loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes

Olympic soils are on stable summits of foothills and mountains at elevations of 200 to 2,000 feet. Slopes are 0 to 65 percent. The soils formed in residuum and colluvium weathered from basic igneous rocks. Soils are well drained with slow to medium runoff and moderate permeability. Olympic soils are mostly in forests. Native vegetation is Douglas‐fir, red alder, western hemlock, western redcedar, and bigleaf maple and an understory of salal, vine maple, western swordfern, Oregon‐grape, western brackenfern, red huckleberry, trailing blackberry and Pacific trillium.

The site does not contain any mapped wetlands per the local or national wetland inventories other than Salmon Creek and a tributary stream (Figure 4 of 5).

5.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas

Chapter 19, Table 19.15.130‐A of the CAO designates the types of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas identified on the study area as:

 Waters of the state shall be those defined in WAC 222‐16‐031, Forest Practices Board, Definitions, with the following revisions:

(a) Type F Water (Type 2) – means segments of natural waters, which are not classified as Type S or 1 Water and have a high fish, wildlife, or human use. These are segments of natural waters and periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands.

(b) Type Ns Water (Type 5) – means all segments of natural waters within defined channels that are not Type S, F, or Np Waters. These are seasonal, nonfish habitat streams in which surface flow is not present for at least some portion of a year of normal rainfall and are not located downstream from any stream reach that is a Type Np Water. Ns Waters must be physically connected by an aboveground channel system to Type S, F, or Np Waters.

Salmon Creek meets the criteria of a Type F stream and is mapped as such by the DNR FPARS (Washington DNR, 2022). The average width of the stream channel as measured across the study area is 14 to 15 feet. The unnamed stream along the west side of the study area likely is seasonal based on the observation of very low flows at the time of the site visit in late spring.

Section 19.15.130.E. 3.d, Table 19.15.130‐B lists the riparian habitat area (RHA) widths by Cowlitz County.

Salmon Creek (Type F water, channel width less than or equal to 20 feet): 100 feet

Unnamed tributary stream to Salmon Creek (Type Ns water): 50 feet

The RHA widths are to be measured outward in each direction, on the horizontal plane, from the ordinary high water mark, or from the top of bank, if the ordinary high water mark cannot be identified.

5.3 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts

Activities within RHA’s are required to be reviewed and approved through a critical areas assessment which demonstrates the activities will not impact the RHAs’ functions and values.

When the proposed use and development activities would occur outside of the standard RHA widths shown in Table 19.15.130‐B, no critical areas permit is required.

If the proposed use and development activities are to occur in the outer 50 percent of the RHA, a level one critical areas habitat assessment is required. The CAO does not allow for development activities to occur within the inner 50 percent of the standard RHA width.

A habitat conservation area may be altered; provided, that the proposed alteration of the habitat or the mitigation proposed does not degrade the quantitative and qualitative functions and values of the habitat, and provided it is not otherwise restricted or prohibited by the CAO.

Any approval of alterations or impacts to a habitat conservation area shall be supported by the best available science through a mitigation plan.

Chapter 6. Regulatory Jurisdiction

The streams on the study area meet one or more of the designations in Table 19.15.130‐A and are designated critical areas subject to the provisions of the CAO.

Streams are regulated as “Waters of the United States” by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and are regulated. Streams are regulated at the local level by Cowlitz County.

A Cowlitz County critical areas permit is required for any activity proposed within streams or their buffers.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has jurisdiction over discharges to streams and hydrologically connected wetlands under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) has jurisdiction over discharges to wetlands under Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act.

Because several fish species in Cowlitz County are listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), the USACE must review all proposed wetland impacts for potential “takings”. ESA review may take a considerable amount of time because the Corps must consult the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Prior to undertaking any work within regulated critical areas or buffers detailed in this report, it is recommended to consult with these agencies regarding current permitting requirements.

Chapter 7. Conclusion

The study area does not contain any wetlands but does contain streams that are regulated under Chapter 19.15 of the CAO.

This report documents the investigation, best professional judgment, and conclusions of CES. It should be used at your own risk unless it has been reviewed and approved in writing by Cowlitz County under their jurisdictional standards.

Chapter 8. References

Cowlitz County. (2022, June 15). Cowlitz County Code Chapter 19.15 Critical Areas. Retrieved from https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/CowlitzC ounty/#!/CowlitzCounty19/CowlitzCoun ty1915.html#19.15.130

Cowlitz County. (2022, June 15). Cowlitz County GIS Retrieved from Cowlitz County GIS: https://cowlitz.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/

Hruby, T. (2014). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. (2004). Volume II, Chapter 8 Cowlitz Subbasin— Lower Cowlitz. Portland, OR: Northwest Power and Conservation Council.

USACE. (2010). Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center.

USDA. (2022, June 16). Web Site for Official Soil Series Descriptions and Series Classification. Retrieved from https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/

USFWS. (2022, June 15). National Wetlands Inventory. Retrieved from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html

Washington Department of Ecology. (2022, June 16). State Wide WRIA Finder. Retrieved from https://waecy.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html

Washington DNR. (2022, June 16). Washington Department of Natural Resources . Retrieved from Forest Practices Activity Mapping Tool: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs‐and‐services/forest‐practices/forest‐practices‐application‐review‐system‐fpars

Appendix A ‐ Methods and Tools

Table A‐1. Methods and tools used to prepare the report.

Parameter Method or Tool

Wetland Delineation Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0)

USFWS / Cowardin Classification System

National Wetlands Inventory – Wetlands Mapper V2

Wetland Classification Washington State Wetland Rating System – 2014 Update

Cowlitz County Municipal Code –Critical Areas

Website

http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals /2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/reg_s upp/west_mt_finalsupp2.pdf

Website

Reference

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/dat a/wetland‐codes.html

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/dat a/mapper.HTML

Western Washington: https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/public ations/documents/1406029.pdf

https://www.codepublishing.com/ WA/CowlitzCounty/#!/CowlitzCount y19/CowlitzCounty1915.html#19.15

.120

Website

Website

Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Effective January 2015)

Website

Wetland Rating and Stream Classifications

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Typing System

Forest Practices Water Typing: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forest‐practices‐water‐typing

WAC 222‐16‐030: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/defaul t.aspx?cite=222‐16‐030

Water Type Mapping: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs‐and‐services/forest‐practices/forest‐practices‐application‐review‐system‐fpars

Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 222‐16‐030. DNR Water typing system.

Soils Data

Priority Habitats and Species

Threatened and Endangered Species

WA Wetlands of High Conservation Value

Cowlitz County Municipal Code –Critical Areas

USDA Web Soil Survey

Washington Priority Habitats and Species

https://www.codepublishing.com/ WA/CowlitzCounty/#!/CowlitzCount y19/CowlitzCounty1915.html#19.15 .130

https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda. gov/App/HomePage.htm

http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsonthe web/

USFWS species lists by County Western Washington: https://ecos.fws.gov/

WA Wetlands of High Conservation Value Map Viewer

https://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPwetla ndviewer

Website

Website

Website accessed on 6/16/22. There are mapped PHS features on the study area. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).

Website

Website

Appendix B ‐ Figures

Figure 1 of 5 – Vicinity Map

Figure 2 of 5 – Site Topographic Contours

Figure 3 of 5 – Soil Survey Map

Figure 4 of 5 – USFWS National Wetland Inventory Map

Figure 5 of 5 – Identified Critical Areas

Study Area

Si Town Rd.

Source: OpenStreetMap

Critical Areas Report

Project: 102 Si Town Road Rural Subdivision Location: 102 Si Town Road, Castle Rock, WA 98611 Parcel: WK3616002

Legal: SE 1/4 of Section 36, T10N, R2W of the Willamette Meridian 46.3024 N. lat. / -122.8684 W long. County: Cowlitz

Cascadia Ecological Services, Inc. 14205 NW 56th Avenue, Vancouver, WA 98685 (360) 601-8631 www.cascadia-inc.com

Applicant: TMRC Ventures LLC 18518 NW 41st Avenue Ridgefield, WA 98642

pjeffries3@outlook.com

(360) 597-5363

6/24/22

Figure 1 of 5 - Vicinity Map

Study Area

Source: GAIA GPS, USGS

Figure 2 of 5 - Site Topographic Contours Critical Areas Report

Project: 102 Si Town Road Rural Subdivision

Location: 102 Si Town Road, Castle Rock, WA 98611 Parcel: WK3616002

Legal: SE 1/4 of Section 36, T10N, R2W of the Willamette Meridian 46.3024 N. lat. / -122.8684 W long. County: Cowlitz

Cascadia Ecological Services, Inc. 14205 NW 56th Avenue, Vancouver, WA 98685 (360) 601-8631 www.cascadia-inc.com

Applicant: TMRC Ventures LLC 18518 NW 41st Avenue Ridgefield, WA 98642

pjeffries3@outlook.com

(360) 597-5363

6/24/22

Figure 3 of 5 - Soil Survey Map

148 - Olympic silt loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes

- Olympic silt loam, 8 to 20 percent slopes

Study Area

146 - Olympic silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

147 - Olympic silt loam, 8 to 20 percent slopes

Source: USDA Web Soil Survey

Source: USFWS National Wetlands Inventory

R5UBH - Riverine, unknown perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded

R4SBC - Riverine, intermittent, streambed, seasonally flooded

of

Report

Salmon Creek

Source: Google Maps 2022

Tributary

to Salmon

100' Buffer Line

50' Buffer Line

Salmon Creek

Appendix C ‐ Site Photos

Photo 1. North part of the study area south of Highway 504 facing northwest.

Photo 2. North part of the study area south of Highway 504 facing south.

Appendix C – Site Photos (cont.)

Photo 3. North part of the study area south of Highway 504 facing southeast.

Photo 4. North part of the study area in the north buffer of Salmon Creek.

Appendix C – Site Photos (cont.)

Photo 5. Salmon Creek.

Photo 6. Salmon Creek.

Appendix C – Site Photos (cont.)

Photo 7. Salmon Creek culvert at Si Town Road facing east.

Photo 8. Seasonal stream in southwest portion of the study area.

Appendix D ‐ Observed Plant Species

Table D‐1. Dominant plant species occurring on the study area.

Scientific Name

Common Name

WIS*

Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir FACU

Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC

Acer macrophyllum Big‐leaf maple FACU

Alnus rubra Red alder FAC

Acer circinatum Vine maple FAC

Corylus cornuta Beaked hazelnut FACU

Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC

Polystichum munitum Swordfern FACU

Pteridium aquilinum Brackenfern FACU

Maianthemum dilatatum False Lily‐of‐the‐Valley FACU

Dicentra formosa Western bleeding heart FACU

Urtica dioica Stinging nettle FAC

* Wetland Indicator Status (WIS):

OBL = almost always occur in wetlands

FACW = usually occur in wetlands, but may occur in non‐wetlands

FAC = occur in wetlands and non‐wetlands

FACU = usually occur in non‐wetlands, but may occur in wetlands

UPL = almost always occur in non‐wetlands

WWHM REPORT  (Bioretention Swale for Treatmet)  HYDROCAD REPORT  (Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph modeling for Flow Control)

WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT

General Model Information

Project Name: 2023-01-24-Ridge View

Site Name: Ridge View

Site Address: 102 Si Town Rd

City: Castle Rock

Report Date: 2/27/2023

Gage: Longview

Data Start: 1955/10/01

Data End: 2009/09/30

Timestep: 15 Minute

Precip Scale: 1.429

Version Date: 2019/09/13

Version: 4.2.17

POC Thresholds

Low Flow Threshold for POC1: 50 Percent of the 2 Year

High Flow Threshold for POC1: 50 Year

Landuse Basin Data

Predeveloped Land Use

Mitigated Land Use

Routing Elements

Predeveloped Routing

Mitigated Routing

Trapezoidal Pond 1

Bioretention Hydraulic Table

Surface retention 1

Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2

Trapezoidal Pond 1 Bioretention 1

Trapezoidal Pond 1

Pond Hydraulic Table

Analysis Results

Ranked Annual Peaks

+

Water Quality

Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1

On-line facility volume: 0 acre-feet

On-line facility target flow: 0 cfs.

Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs.

Off-line facility target flow: 0 cfs.

Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs.

Model Default Modifications

Total of 0 changes have been made.

PERLND Changes

No PERLND changes have been made.

IMPLND Changes

No IMPLND changes have been made.

Predeveloped Schematic

Mitigated Schematic

Predeveloped UCI File

> PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags ***

> *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 ***

END PERLND

IMPLND

GEN-INFO

<PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out ***

END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER***

ACTIVITY

<PLS > ************* Active Sections *****************************

# - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ***

END ACTIVITY

PRINT-INFO

<ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR

# - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *********

END PRINT-INFO

IWAT-PARM1

<PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags ***

# - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI ***

END IWAT-PARM1

IWAT-PARM2

<PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 ***

# - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC

END IWAT-PARM2

IWAT-PARM3

<PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 ***

# - # ***PETMAX PETMIN

END IWAT-PARM3

IWAT-STATE1

<PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation

# - # *** RETS SURS

END IWAT-STATE1

END IMPLND

SCHEMATIC

<-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Residential*** PERLND 3

COPY 501 12

501 13

******Routing******

END SCHEMATIC NETWORK

<-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1

<-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # ***

END NETWORK

RCHRES

GEN-INFO

RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out ***

END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES***

ACTIVITY

<PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG ***

END ACTIVITY

PRINT-INFO

<PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR *********

END PRINT-INFO

HYDR-PARM1

RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit *

***

END HYDR-PARM1

HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 ***

<------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> ***

END HYDR-PARM2

HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section ***

# - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit

<------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><--->

END HYDR-INIT

END RCHRES

SPEC-ACTIONS

END SPEC-ACTIONS

FTABLES

END FTABLES

EXT SOURCES

<-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # ***

Mitigated UCI File

> ***************** Print-flags *****************************

> PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags ***

input info: Part 3 ***

PWATER input info: Part 4 ***

> *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95)

<PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags ***

<-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> ***

*** Compute remaining available pore space

2

2

*** Check to see if VPORA goes negative; if so set VPORA = 0.0 IF (vpo2 < 0.0) THEN

2

END IF

*** Infiltration volume

END FTABLE 3

END FTABLES

EXT SOURCES

<-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # ***

END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name>

Mitigated HSPF Message File

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6

DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 13:30

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 13:30

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6

DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 13:45

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 13:45

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6

DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 14: 0

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 14: 0

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6

DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 14:15

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 14:15

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6

DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 14:30

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition.

Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 14:30

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6

DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 14:45

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 14:45

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6

DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 15: 0

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition.

Relevant data are:

NROWS V1 V2 VOL 43 6.8734E+03 6956.3 7294.2

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 15: 0

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0).

Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6 DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 15:15

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition.

Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 15:15

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6

DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 15:30

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 15:30

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6

DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 15:45

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1955/12/21 15:45

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6

DATE/TIME: 1956/12/ 9 19: 0

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1956/12/ 9 19: 0

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6

DATE/TIME: 1956/12/ 9 19:15

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1956/12/ 9 19:15

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6

DATE/TIME: 1956/12/ 9 19:30

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1956/12/ 9 19:30

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6

DATE/TIME: 1959/11/22 13:30

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition. Relevant data are: NROWS V1 V2

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1959/11/22 13:30

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6

DATE/TIME: 1959/11/22 13:45

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition.

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1959/11/22 13:45

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6

DATE/TIME: 1962/11/19 16:45

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1962/11/19 16:45

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6

DATE/TIME: 1962/11/19 17: 0

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1962/11/19 17: 0

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6

DATE/TIME: 1962/11/19 17:15

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1962/11/19 17:15

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6

DATE/TIME: 1962/11/19 17:30

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the

simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition. Relevant data are: NROWS

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1962/11/19 17:30

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 6

DATE/TIME: 1962/11/19 17:45

RCHRES: 1

The volume of water in this reach/mixed reservoir is greater than the value in the "volume" column of the last row of RCHTAB(). To continue the simulation the table has been extrapolated, based on information contained in the last two rows. This will usually result in some loss of accuracy. If depth is being calculated it will also cause an error condition. Relevant data are:

The count for the WARNING printed above has reached its maximum. If the condition is encountered again the message will not be repeated.

ERROR/WARNING ID: 341 5

DATE/TIME: 1962/11/19 17:45

RCHRES: 1

Calculation of relative depth, using Newton's method of successive approximations, converged to an invalid value (not in range 0.0 to 1.0). Probably ftable was extrapolated. If extrapolation was small, no problem. Remedy; extend ftable. Relevant data are:

Disclaimer Legal Notice

This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2023; All Rights Reserved.

Clear Creek Solutions, Inc.

6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F

Olympia, WA. 98501

Toll Free 1(866)943-0304

Local (360)943-0304

www.clearcreeksolutions.com

2023-01-25-Ridge View-Preliminary Storm Analysis

Type II 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.54"

Printed 2/27/2023

HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 08941 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Prepared by Standridge Inc. Page 2

Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Pre-Developed Disturbed

Runoff=0.98 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume=0.102 af, Depth>0.52"

Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs

Type II 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.54"

Area (sf)CNDescription

103,00273Woods/grass comb., Poor, HSG B

103,00273100.00% Pervious Area

TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs)

17.53000.40000.29

1.61500.40001.58

19.1450Total

Sheet Flow, Sheet flow

Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.54"

Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concentrated Forest w/Heavy Litter Kv= 2.5 fps

Subcatchment 1S: Pre-Developed Disturbed

Type II 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.54"

Runoff Area=103,002 sf

Runoff Volume=0.102 af

Runoff Depth>0.52"

Flow Length=450'

Slope=0.4000 '/'

Tc=19.1 min

CN=73/0

2023-01-25-Ridge View-Preliminary Storm Analysis

Prepared by Standridge Inc.

Type II 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.54"

Printed 2/27/2023

HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 08941 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Road & Roof (7)

Runoff=3.80 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume=0.242 af, Depth>1.42"

Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs

Type II 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.54"

Area (sf)CNDescription

42,32392Paved roads w/open ditches, 50% imp, HSG C

*6,20098Driveways

17,50098Roofs, HSG C

22,9266950-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B

88,94988Weighted Average

44,0887749.56% Pervious Area

44,8629850.44% Impervious Area

TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs)

7.3600.02000.14

0.23250.140024.46293.57

7.5385Total

Sheet Flow, Building Pad

Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.54"

Channel Flow, Roadside Ditch

Area= 12.0 sf Perim= 12.6' r= 0.95'

n= 0.022 Earth, clean & straight

Subcatchment 2S: Road & Roof (7)

Type II 24-hr

2-Year Rainfall=2.54"

Runoff Area=88,949 sf

Runoff Volume=0.242 af

Runoff Depth>1.42" Flow Length=385'

Tc=7.5 min

CN=77/98

2023-01-25-Ridge View-Preliminary Storm Analysis

Type II 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.54"

Printed 2/27/2023

HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 08941 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Prepared by Standridge Inc. Page 4

Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Roof (3)

Runoff=0.37 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume=0.036 af, Depth>1.32"

Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs

Type II 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.54"

Area (sf)CNDescription

7,50098Roofs, HSG C

6,5536950-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B

14,05384Weighted Average

6,5536946.63% Pervious Area

7,5009853.37% Impervious Area

TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription

17.53000.40000.29 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.54" 0.1200.40003.16 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 17.6320Total

Subcatchment 3S: Roof (3)

Type II 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.54"

Runoff Area=14,053 sf

Runoff Volume=0.036 af

Runoff Depth>1.32" Flow Length=320'

Slope=0.4000 '/'

Tc=17.6 min

CN=69/98

2023-01-25-Ridge View-Preliminary Storm Analysis

Type II 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.54"

Printed 2/27/2023

HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 08941 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Prepared by Standridge Inc. Page 5

Summary for Reach 4R: Treatment Swale

Inflow Area =2.042 ac,50.44% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.42" for 2-Year event

Inflow=3.80 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume=0.242 af

Outflow=3.76 cfs @ 11.98 hrs, Volume=0.242 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 0.6 min

Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs

Max. Velocity= 4.34 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.3 min

Avg. Velocity = 1.39 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 0.9 min

Peak Storage= 65 cf @ 11.98 hrs

Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.30'

Bank-Full Depth= 2.50' Flow Area= 23.8 sf, Capacity= 342.04 cfs

2.00' x 2.50' deep channel, n= 0.025 Earth, clean & straight

Side Slope Z-value= 3.0 '/' Top Width= 17.00'

Length= 75.0' Slope= 0.0400 '/'

Inlet Invert= 527.46', Outlet Invert= 524.46'

Reach 4R: Treatment Swale

Inflow Area=2.042 ac

Avg. Flow Depth=0.30'

Max Vel=4.34 fps

n=0.025

L=75.0' S=0.0400 '/'

Capacity=342.04 cfs

2023-01-25-Ridge View-Preliminary Storm Analysis

Type II 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=2.54"

Prepared by Standridge Inc. Page

Printed 2/27/2023

HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 08941 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Summary for Pond 5P: Pond

Inflow Area =2.042 ac,50.44% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.42" for 2-Year event

Inflow=3.76 cfs @ 11.98 hrs, Volume=0.242 af

Outflow=0.11 cfs @ 15.48 hrs, Volume=0.091 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 210.2 min

Primary=0.11 cfs @ 15.48 hrs, Volume=0.091 af

Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs

Peak Elev= 521.88' @ 15.48 hrs Surf.Area= 0.079 ac Storage= 0.163 af

Plug-Flow detention time= 241.5 min calculated for 0.091 af (38% of inflow)

Center-of-Mass det. time= 133.8 min ( 891.2 - 757.3 )

VolumeInvertAvail.StorageStorage Description

#1519.00'0.371 af 25.00'W x 64.00'L x 5.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0

DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices

#1Primary519.00' 1.6" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads

#2Primary522.00' 8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600

#3Primary523.00' 12.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads

Primary OutFlow Max=0.11 cfs @ 15.48 hrs HW=521.88' (Free Discharge)

1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.11 cfs @ 8.17 fps)

2=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)

3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)

Pond 5P: Pond

Inflow Area=2.042 ac

Peak Elev=521.88'

Storage=0.163 af

2023-01-25-Ridge View-Preliminary Storm Analysis

Type II 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=4.37"

Printed 2/27/2023

HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 08941 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Prepared by Standridge Inc. Page 7

Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Pre-Developed Disturbed

Runoff=3.54 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume=0.321 af, Depth>1.63"

Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs

Type II 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=4.37"

Area (sf)CNDescription

103,00273Woods/grass comb., Poor, HSG B

103,00273100.00% Pervious Area

TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs)

17.53000.40000.29

1.61500.40001.58

19.1450Total

Sheet Flow, Sheet flow

Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.54"

Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concentrated Forest w/Heavy Litter Kv= 2.5 fps

Subcatchment 1S: Pre-Developed Disturbed

Type II 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=4.37"

Runoff Area=103,002 sf

Runoff Volume=0.321 af

Runoff Depth>1.63"

Flow Length=450'

Slope=0.4000 '/'

Tc=19.1 min

CN=73/0

2023-01-25-Ridge View-Preliminary Storm Analysis

Type II 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=4.37"

Printed 2/27/2023

HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 08941 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Prepared by Standridge Inc. Page 8

Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Road & Roof (7)

Runoff=7.77 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume=0.489 af, Depth>2.88"

Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs

Type II 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=4.37"

Area (sf)CNDescription

42,32392Paved roads w/open ditches, 50% imp, HSG C

*6,20098Driveways

17,50098Roofs, HSG C

22,9266950-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B

88,94988Weighted Average

44,0887749.56% Pervious Area

44,8629850.44% Impervious Area

TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs)

7.3600.02000.14

0.23250.140024.46293.57

7.5385Total

Sheet Flow, Building Pad

Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.54"

Channel Flow, Roadside Ditch

Area= 12.0 sf Perim= 12.6' r= 0.95'

n= 0.022 Earth, clean & straight

Subcatchment 2S: Road & Roof (7)

Type II 24-hr

25-Year Rainfall=4.37"

Runoff Area=88,949 sf

Runoff Volume=0.489 af

Runoff Depth>2.88"

Flow Length=385'

Tc=7.5 min

2023-01-25-Ridge View-Preliminary Storm Analysis

Type II 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=4.37"

Printed 2/27/2023

HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 08941 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Prepared by Standridge Inc. Page 9

Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Roof (3)

Runoff=0.77 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume=0.072 af, Depth>2.66"

Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs

Type II 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=4.37"

Area (sf)CNDescription

7,50098Roofs, HSG C

6,5536950-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B

14,05384Weighted Average

6,5536946.63% Pervious Area

7,5009853.37% Impervious Area

TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription

17.53000.40000.29 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.54" 0.1200.40003.16 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 17.6320Total

Subcatchment 3S: Roof (3)

Type II 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=4.37"

Runoff Area=14,053 sf

Runoff Volume=0.072 af

Runoff Depth>2.66"

Flow Length=320'

Slope=0.4000 '/'

Tc=17.6 min

CN=69/98

2023-01-25-Ridge View-Preliminary Storm Analysis

Type II 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=4.37"

Printed 2/27/2023

HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 08941 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Prepared by Standridge Inc. Page 10

Summary for Reach 4R: Treatment Swale

Inflow Area =2.042 ac,50.44% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.88" for 25-Year event

Inflow=7.77 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume=0.489 af

Outflow=7.69 cfs @ 11.98 hrs, Volume=0.489 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 0.5 min

Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs

Max. Velocity= 5.34 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.2 min

Avg. Velocity = 1.74 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 0.7 min

Peak Storage= 108 cf @ 11.97 hrs

Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.44'

Bank-Full Depth= 2.50' Flow Area= 23.8 sf, Capacity= 342.04 cfs

2.00' x 2.50' deep channel, n= 0.025 Earth, clean & straight

Side Slope Z-value= 3.0 '/' Top Width= 17.00'

Length= 75.0' Slope= 0.0400 '/'

Inlet Invert= 527.46', Outlet Invert= 524.46'

Reach 4R: Treatment Swale

Inflow Area=2.042 ac

Avg. Flow Depth=0.44'

Max Vel=5.34 fps

n=0.025

L=75.0' S=0.0400 '/'

Capacity=342.04 cfs

2023-01-25-Ridge View-Preliminary Storm Analysis

Type II 24-hr 25-Year Rainfall=4.37"

Printed 2/27/2023

HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 08941 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Prepared by Standridge Inc. Page 11

Summary for Pond 5P: Pond

Inflow Area =2.042 ac,50.44% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.87" for 25-Year event

Inflow=7.69 cfs @ 11.98 hrs, Volume=0.489 af

Outflow=1.48 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume=0.310 af, Atten= 81%, Lag= 24.2 min

Primary=1.48 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume=0.310 af

Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs

Peak Elev= 522.97' @ 12.38 hrs Surf.Area= 0.098 ac Storage= 0.260 af

Plug-Flow detention time= 153.7 min calculated for 0.310 af (63% of inflow)

Center-of-Mass det. time= 79.4 min ( 833.3 - 753.9 )

VolumeInvertAvail.StorageStorage Description

#1519.00'0.371 af 25.00'W x 64.00'L x 5.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0

DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices

#1Primary519.00' 1.6" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads

#2Primary522.00' 8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600

#3Primary523.00' 12.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads

Primary OutFlow Max=1.48 cfs @ 12.38 hrs HW=522.97' (Free Discharge)

1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.13 cfs @ 9.59 fps)

2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.34 cfs @ 3.84 fps)

3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs)

Pond 5P: Pond

Inflow Area=2.042 ac

Peak Elev=522.97'

Storage=0.260 af

2023-01-25-Ridge View-Preliminary Storm Analysis

Type II 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.17"

Printed 2/27/2023

HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 08941 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Prepared by Standridge Inc. Page 12

Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Pre-Developed Disturbed

Runoff=6.52 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume=0.584 af, Depth>2.96"

Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs

Type II 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.17"

Area (sf)CNDescription

103,00273Woods/grass comb., Poor, HSG B

103,00273100.00% Pervious Area

TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription

17.53000.40000.29

1.61500.40001.58

19.1450Total

Sheet Flow, Sheet flow

Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.54"

Shallow Concentrated Flow, Shallow Concentrated Forest w/Heavy Litter Kv= 2.5 fps

Subcatchment 1S: Pre-Developed Disturbed

Type II 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.17"

Runoff Area=103,002 sf

Runoff Volume=0.584 af

Runoff Depth>2.96"

Flow Length=450'

Slope=0.4000 '/'

Tc=19.1 min

CN=73/0

2023-01-25-Ridge View-Preliminary Storm Analysis

Type II 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.17"

Printed 2/27/2023

HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 08941 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Prepared by Standridge Inc. Page 13

Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Road & Roof (7)

Runoff=11.88 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume=0.749 af, Depth>4.40"

Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs

Type II 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.17"

Area (sf)CNDescription

42,32392Paved roads w/open ditches, 50% imp, HSG C

*6,20098Driveways

17,50098Roofs, HSG C

22,9266950-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B

88,94988Weighted Average

44,0887749.56% Pervious Area

44,8629850.44% Impervious Area

TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs)

7.3600.02000.14

0.23250.140024.46293.57

7.5385Total

Sheet Flow, Building Pad

Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.54"

Channel Flow, Roadside Ditch

Area= 12.0 sf Perim= 12.6' r= 0.95'

n= 0.022 Earth, clean & straight

Subcatchment 2S: Road & Roof (7)

Type II 24-hr

100-Year Rainfall=6.17"

Runoff Area=88,949 sf

Runoff Volume=0.749 af

Runoff Depth>4.40"

Flow Length=385'

Tc=7.5 min

CN=77/98

2023-01-25-Ridge View-Preliminary Storm Analysis

Type II 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.17"

Printed 2/27/2023

HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 08941 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Prepared by Standridge Inc. Page 14

Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Roof (3)

Runoff=1.19 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume=0.110 af, Depth>4.10"

Runoff by SBUH method, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs

Type II 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.17"

Area (sf)CNDescription

7,50098Roofs, HSG C

6,5536950-75% Grass cover, Fair, HSG B

14,05384Weighted Average

6,5536946.63% Pervious Area

7,5009853.37% Impervious Area

TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription

17.53000.40000.29

Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.54" 0.1200.40003.16 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps

17.6320Total

Subcatchment 3S: Roof (3)

Type II 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.17"

Runoff Area=14,053 sf

Runoff Volume=0.110 af

Runoff Depth>4.10"

Flow Length=320'

Slope=0.4000 '/'

Tc=17.6 min

CN=69/98

2023-01-25-Ridge View-Preliminary Storm Analysis

Type II 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.17"

Printed 2/27/2023

HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 08941 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Prepared by Standridge Inc. Page 15

Summary for Reach 4R: Treatment Swale

Inflow Area =2.042 ac,50.44% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.40" for 100-Year event

Inflow=11.88 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume=0.749 af

Outflow=11.77 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume=0.748 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 0.4 min

Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs

Max. Velocity= 6.01 fps, Min. Travel Time= 0.2 min

Avg. Velocity = 2.01 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 0.6 min

Peak Storage= 147 cf @ 11.97 hrs

Average Depth at Peak Storage= 0.54'

Bank-Full Depth= 2.50' Flow Area= 23.8 sf, Capacity= 342.04 cfs

2.00' x 2.50' deep channel, n= 0.025 Earth, clean & straight

Side Slope Z-value= 3.0 '/' Top Width= 17.00'

Length= 75.0' Slope= 0.0400 '/'

Inlet Invert= 527.46', Outlet Invert= 524.46'

Reach 4R: Treatment Swale

Inflow Area=2.042 ac

Avg. Flow Depth=0.54'

Max Vel=6.01 fps

n=0.025

L=75.0' S=0.0400 '/'

Capacity=342.04 cfs

2023-01-25-Ridge View-Preliminary Storm Analysis

Type II 24-hr 100-Year Rainfall=6.17"

Printed 2/27/2023

HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 08941 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC

Prepared by Standridge Inc. Page 16

Summary for Pond 5P: Pond

Inflow Area =2.042 ac,50.44% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.40" for 100-Year event

Inflow=11.77 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume=0.748 af

Outflow=5.20 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume=0.564 af, Atten= 56%, Lag= 11.3 min

Primary=5.20 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume=0.564 af

Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs

Peak Elev= 523.68' @ 12.16 hrs Surf.Area= 0.112 ac Storage= 0.334 af

Plug-Flow detention time= 122.3 min calculated for 0.564 af (75% of inflow)

Center-of-Mass det. time= 60.9 min ( 811.8 - 750.9 )

VolumeInvertAvail.StorageStorage Description

#1519.00'0.371 af 25.00'W x 64.00'L x 5.00'H Prismatoid Z=3.0

DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices

#1Primary519.00' 1.6" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads

#2Primary522.00' 8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600

#3Primary523.00' 12.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads

Primary OutFlow Max=5.19 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=523.67' (Free Discharge)

Area=2.042 ac

Elev=523.68' Storage=0.334 af

Cowlitz County Planning Commission

Cowlitz County Administration Building – Kelso, WA

Minutes

Wednesday, March 15, 2023

Meeting held in person and via ZOOM.US

https://zoom.us/j/92778554082?pwd=OElUcW5TSzNFdlNMb291S2VEakpTQT09

7:01 PM: CALL TO ORDER: Chair Mark Smith calls meeting to order.

1. ROLL CALL:

STAFF PRESENT: Adam Trimble – Senior Planner, Daniel Turner – Senior Planner, Laura Gressett –Assistant Planner, Kailey Maxey – Admin Assistant & Planning Commission Secretary, Patrick Harbison –PW Engineer

Technical Difficulties / Meeting Resumed

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

In person- Chair Mark Smith, Commissioner Robert Sudar, Commissioner Jim Bain, Commissioner Joel Rupley, Commissioner Mary Jane Melink, Commissioner Gregg Hoffman

Remote via Zoom- Commissioner Matt Peters-Commissioner Erica Rodman

Absent- Commissioner C. Phill Hall

CHANGES TO AGENDA: None

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes from 02/15/2023 meeting reviewed.

Motion to approve: Commissioner Ruply, 2nd by: Commissioner Hoffman All approved

3. WORKSHOP (no action): Flood Plan Update

Senior Planner, Adam Trimble provides update on Flood Hazard Management Plan: Information about the plan is available online https://www.co.cowlitz.wa.us/2865/FloodPlan

Interactive Flood Risk Map provides an early modeling being conducted by consultants to understand flood zones and risk see link above.

Survey available to public to form flood preparedness levels in the county. Early results of the survey can be reviewed at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SMpvOEB268i_2B3uHPEkRej_2Brw_3D_3D/

Commissioner Discussion: Flooding in Cowlitz County and creation of the new flood hazard management plan. Survey participation and last time the study was done in the 1990s.

Public Comment: none

4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (action): Case #2270.02 Ridge View Subdivision, 102 Si Town Rd, Castle Rock

Chair Mark Smith re-opened hearing @ 7:20 pm

Commissioner Sudar and Chair Smith disclose that they have visited the site.

5.

Senior Planner, Daniel Turner continued presentation of Proposed 11-lot rural subdivision of 27.32 acres including new private road.

Commissioner and Staff discussion: size of home sites and area needed for utilities; road placement; number of homes that will fit; possible setback issues

Update from applicant: none

Public comment; no additional comments

Commissioner discussion continued: Homeowners Associations (HOAs). Patrick Harbison, PW: reviewed how homeowner associations work and when the County become involved.

Motion to approve Case #2270.02_Ridge View Rural Subdivision: made by Chair Smith and a 2nd Commissioner Bain.

Commissioner Discussion: concern noted for small building sites on large properties

Commissioners Polled: 8 In Favor 0 opposed Motion Carried Subdivision 2270.02 will be forward to BOCC for final approval.

WORKSHOP (no action): Access

Senior planner, Adam Trimble, continues presentation of updates to CCC 18.10.690 and other related code sections regarding access for lots five acres or less. Related code sections were noted.

Commissioner and Staff Discussion: road frontage; private driveways versus private roads; concerns about fire and EMS access, when private roads should be developed; and additional development off of private roads;

Senior Planner, Daniel Turner, presents examples of Cowlitz county short plats.

Commissioner and Staff Discussion: Next steps and continued research by staff; shared driveways and easements vs private roads.

One public comment in favor updating access requirements.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT:

None

7. GOOD OF THE ORDER:

Commissioners comment about: send notifications out re: information being posted to website instead of being sent to commissioner email

Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for April 19, 2023, at 7:00 pm In-Person & ZOOM.

8. ADJOURNMENT:

Motion to Adjourn: Made by Commissioner Bain, 2nd Chair Smith All in Favor Meeting Adjourned: 8:30 PM

Respectfully submitted, Kailey Maxey, Planning Commission Secretary