Percival Creek corridor plan

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

PERCIVAL CREEK CORRIDOR PLAN
CZIC collection

Volume 2: Upper Reach

HE
356
.W2
p47
1985
v.2.

thurston regional Planning Council February 1986

. ...............

THURSTON REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL is a 15-member intergovernmental
board made up of local governmental jurisdictions within Thurston County,
plus the Washington State Capitol Committee and The Evergreen State College.
The Council was established in 1967 under RCW 36.70.060 which authorizes
creation of regional plan'ning councils.

Thurston Regional Planning Council undertakes largely land use related
research and planning programs of interest to all of the member jurisdictions.
Each member jurisdiction funds the Council's operations based on a per capita
formula. The Council is governed by representatives from the member
jurisdictions. They determine the budget and work program annually for
Council projects and operations.

As a separate function, Thurston Regional Planning Council by inter-
governmental agreement also provides the Planning staff for the Planning
Departments of Thurston County and the cities of Olympia and Lacey. In
this function, the contracting governments are the sole determinants of the
work programs and funding levels for the local planning department work.

This report was prepared as part of the Thurston Regional Planning Council's
1986 regional work program.

MEMBERSHIP OF THURSTON REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL

Governmental Jurisdiction Name of 1986 Representative

Thurston County Les Eldridge, County Commissioner
City of Olympia Holly Gadbaw, Councilperson
City of Lacey Dennis Ingham, Councilperson
City of Tumwater Sharon Carrier, Councilperson
Town of Bucoda Barbara Gordon, Mayor
Town of Rainier Pete Slusher, Mayor
Town of Tenino Keith HIxson, Mayor
Town of Yelm Ron Lawton, Mayor
Port of Olympia Wes Barclift, Port Commissioner
North Thurston School District Jean Ward, School Board Member
Olympia School District Barbara Roder, School Board Member
Tumwater School District Dick Nichols, School Board Member
State Capitol Committee Richard Virant, Director, Dept. of
General Administration
The Evergreen State College Russell Fox, Faculty Member

Acting Planning Director: Fred Knostman

CZIC collection

PERCIVAL CREEK CORRIDOR PLAN,,oe

VOLUME 2

UPPER REACH

property Of cor

FEBRUARY 7, 1986

The preparation of this report was financially aided through a grant from the
Washington State Department of Ecology with funds obtained from the National
Oceanic and Atomospheric- Administration, and appropriated for Section 306 of
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.

THURSTON REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
BUILDING #1 - ADMINISTRATION
2000 LAKERIDGE DRIVE SW
OLYMPIA WA 98502
78@-5480

Cz
U-S- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON SC 29405-24 13

CREDITS

The preparation of this plan was made possible through the active
participation and assistance of the following people.:

Upper Reach Advisory Committee

Tumwater
Tumwater Park Department Jerry Petheram
Tumwater Planning Department Alice Conrad
Tumwater Public Works Department Doug Johnston

Thurston County
Thur9ton County Health Department Marilou Taylor
Thurston County Planning Department Tom Clingman
Thurston County Public Works Department Patti Ingersoll
Thurston County Parks Department Earl Williams (Ex-officio)

Olympia
Olympia Planning Department John Hubbard

Tribe
Squaxin -Island Tribe Brian Wood

State
Department of Ecology Joe Williams
Department of Fisheries Jim Fraser
Department of Game Mark Grandstaff
Department of General Administration Bob Arndt

Review Bodies
Tumwater Planning Commission Bob Bruce
Thurston County Planning Commission Hans Littooy
and Delphi Association
Olympia Planning Commission Jay Butts

Community Organizations
Black Hills Audubon Society Chuck Chambers
Evergreen Park, Inc. Jim Whisler
Jones Quarry Elliott Brown
Tumwater Action Committee Jack Rabourn
Tumwater Citizen Howard Godat

Thurston Regional Planning Council Project Staff
Steven Morrison Project Coordinator
Linda Enlow Word Processing Technician
Glen Chipman Graphics
Ron Towle Graphics

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CREDITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.

A. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

B. Corridor Planning Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1. Upper Reach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

C. Corridor Plan Approach . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 4

11. NATURAL FEATURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

A. Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1. Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Creek' Physiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

B. Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

C. Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1 General . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . o 8
2. Water Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
3. Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Water Quality and Stream Life . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

a. Effects of Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
b. Water Quality Indicators . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 15

D. Wildlife Resources and Vegetative Communities . . . . . . . 17

1. Fish Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2. Percival Cove Fish Culture Program . . . . . . . . 18

a. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
b. Current Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Paqe

C. Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
d. Economic Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3. Bird and Animal Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. Special Animals or Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. Plant Communities . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

111. URBAN FEATURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

A. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

1. Historical Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2. Future Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3. Land Use Plan . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

B. Shoreline . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

.C. Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

D. Transportation and Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

E. Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

IV. SUMMARY OF PLANS, ORDINANCES AND STUDIES . . . . . . 33

A. Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

1. Thurston County Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . 35
2. Tumwater Comprehensive Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3. Black Lake/ Littlerock/Delphi Sub-Area Plan . . . . . . 36
4. Tumwater Parks and Open Space Plan . . . . . . . . . 37
5. Thurston County Open Space., Parks, Recreation and
ATV Plan . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6. Open Space Taxation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7. Transportation System Plan for the Thurston
Metropolitan Area . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . 40

B. Ordinances . . . . . . . . 41

1. Flood Plain Ordinance . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . 41
2. State Environmental Policy Act . . . . . . . . . . . o . 41
3. Shoreline Management Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4o Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region . . . 42
5o Subdivision Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6. Thurston County Zoning Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7. Tumwater Zoning Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

C. Stud ies . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

I . Urban Growth Management--Memorandum of
Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . 45
2. Water Pollution Control and Abatement Plan for
Deschutes River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o o 45

iii

Page

3. Capitol Lake Restoration and Recreation Plan Design
Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4. Stormwater Management in North Thurston County . . . 46
5. Capitol Lake Restoration Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 47
6. Stream Corridor Management Plan for the Deschutes
River . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 49

D. General I nformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

1 . Stormwater Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

V. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

A. Advisory Committee . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
B. Wetland Boundary Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
C. Issues and Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
D. Corridor Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

1. Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2. Environmental Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3. Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4. Community Development . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 55
S. Use Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

VI. CORRIDOR PLAN ELEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

A. Management Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @58

B. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

C. Stormwater Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

V I I., MANAGEMENT UNIT REGULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Upper Reach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
A. Scope/Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
B. Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
C. Use Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 62
D. Dimensional Standards . . . . . . . . . . . 64
E. Special Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . : .* ., .* .* .* .,.. . 65
F. Permit Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . 67

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

IX. APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

X. MAP FOLIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . o 82

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

1. Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Creek Reaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Topography Soils /Cross-Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M-1*
4. Ditch Cross Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Drainage Basin Sub-Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Wetland Classes . ' * * * * * ' * * * * * . * * * * ' * ' * M-2*
7. 1854 U.S. General Land Office Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. 1961 Land Use Aerial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M-3*
9. 1970 Land Use Aerial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M-4*
10. 1977 Land Use Aerial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M-5*
11.- 1983 Land Use Aerial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M-6*
12. Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . M-7*
13. Shorelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M-8*
14. Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . M-9*
15. Utilities M_10*
16. Proposed @u@li*c *Fa*ciiities* * M_ '11*
17. Upper Reach Corridor Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M-12*

Located in Chapter X--Map Folio.

LIST OF TABLES

1. Soil--Upper Reach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 7
2. Percival Creek--Sub-Basins . . . . . . * * * * * * . . * * * 10
3. Percival Creek--Miscellaneous Stream Flows . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Percival Creek--1983 Stream Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Percival Creek--Mean Stream Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Percival Creek--1985 Stream Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Washington Water Quality Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Percival Creek--Fecal Coliform Sampling . . . . . . . .. . . . . 14
9. Percival Creek and Cove--1983 Water Quality Sampling . . . . . . 17
10. Department of Game--Land Use/Land Cover Types . . . . . . . . . . 21
11. Upper Reach--Wetland Classes . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 25
12. Percival Creek--Historical Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
13. Percival Creek Upper Reach--Vacant Lands Survey . . . . . . . . 28
14. Drainage Ditch--Transportation and Utility Crossings . . . . . . . 30
15. 1995 Transportation System Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . 31
16. Upper Reach--Proposed Wetland Crossings . . . . . . .. . . . . . 32
17. Plans, Ordinances and Studies Affecting the Percival Creek
Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

VOLUME 2--EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

Located within the shadow of the Capitol Dome, Percival Creek and the Black
Lake Drainage Ditch flows 3.3 miles from Black Lake through Thurston
County, the cities of Tumwater and Olympia to enter Capitol Lake at Percival
Cove. The creek corridor is rich in natural resources and recreational
opportunities, and within this short distance are three distinct creek reaches.
Each reach contains a unique mix of water, wetlands, and riparian vegetation
which supports a diverse wildlife population.

The Lower Reach is characterized by a 110-acre canyon with heavily wooded
hillside extending 1.5 miles upstream of the mouth. If offers city dwellers
uncommon natural beauty within their own backyard. By comparison, the
Middle Reach flows through open fields which provide broad vistas of pastoral
views. Waters within the Upper Reach lazily flow down the manmade drainage
ditch which bisects a 160-acre wetland' associated with Black Lake.

These resources and amenities survive in the midst of an urban area
experiencing rapid population growth and accompanying development. Due to
these pressures, conflicts have arisen between upland activities and the
future maintenance of the creek's natural integrity.

Begun in 1984, the Thurston Regional Planning Council has worked in
cooperation with the three jurisdictions and an advisory committee to draft the
Percival Creek Corridor Plan. The advisory committee consisted of
departmental representatives--Fro-m the .jurisdictions, affected state agencies,
an Indian Tribe, property owners and community groups with both "business
and "environmental" viewpoints.

The Percival Creek Corridor Plan is designed as a management tool to guide
future land use decisions along fhe creek. The primary goal is to strike a
balance between the@ long-term protection of the creek ecosystem, while
providing for economic growth and vitality. Providing predictability within
the corridor is also of common interest to all parties.

The Corridor Plan seeks to resolve existing conflicts between shoreline and
zoning through the use of a combined regulator approach called a
"Management Unit." A Canyon, Middle and Upper Reach Management Unit is
proposed within the Canyon Reach divided by the respective jurisdiction
(Olympia and Tumwater). The "Management Unit" would replace the current
shoreline "Environments" in the Shoreline Master Program. For those areas
within the corridor beyond 'the shoreline jurisdiction, compatible regulations
would be necessary within the local zoning code.

For those "Management Unit" regulations within the shoreline jurisdiction
review and adoption by Olympia, Tumwater and Thurston County, as a local
amendment to the Shoreline Master Program would be necessary. This local
action would subsequently be sent to Washington Department of Ecology for
their review and approval.

FINDINGS

1 The Percival Creek Corridor is approximately 3.3 miles long and contains
three reaches representing the following distances.

a. Canyon Reach 8,000 lineal feet (1.5 miles)

(I ) Olympia 6,000 lineal feet
(2) Tumwater 2,000 lineal feet

b. Middle Reach 2,400 lineal feet (0.5 mile)

C. Upper Reach 6,800 lineal feet (1.3 miles)

(1) Tumwater 5,100 lineal feet
(2) Thurston County 1,700 lineal feet

2.. The corrid& planning area contains approximately 808 acres of which
only 195 acres (20 percent) were developed in 1983.

Canyon and Middle 316 acres, 72% undeveloped
U pper 307 acres, 82% undeveloped

3. The Percival Creek drainage included approximately 6,350 acres of which
approximately 1.5 miles of the creek and drainage ditch -shorelines were
-designed for either commercial or industrial uses.

4. The Upper Reach cont ains a 160-acre associated wetland of Black Lake.
It was identified as high quality wetland with a unique mix of four
wetland classes providing desirable wildlife habitat - instream fisheries
resource, and a natural greenway paralleling the creek.

5. The Department of Fisheries fish cultural facility in Perc ival Cove
started in 1971 and contributed upward of $3.9 million to the sport and
commercial fisheries in 1984.

6. Approximately 80 percent of the flow feeding Percival Cove originated
from the Black Lake Drainage Ditch.

7. Future stormwater impacts (both quantity and quality) were identified as
the most significant threat to Percival Creek and Percival Cove.

8. Water quality samples taken at the mouth indicated almost no water
quality violations between March to August of 1983.

9. Fecal coliform sampling from 1983 and 1984 indicated violations of water
quality standards at the mouth and along Percival Creek between
Trosper and Mottman Roads.

10. In the Upper Reach three potential corridor crossings were identified by
priority: 35th Avenue, 29th Avenue, 25th Avenue, respectively. The
25th Avenue corridor lies between the Upper and Middle Reaches.

_Vi i

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. UPPER REACH MANAGEMENT UNIT

A. Shoreline Master Program

Redesignate the "Natural" associated wetlands and 6,800 lineal feet of the
drainage ditch yet to be classified to a consistent shoreline designation.
The proposed regulations of the "Upper Reach Management Unit"
represents a hybrid of shoreline "Environments." Uses and activities
within the Black Lake Drainage Ditch, its buffer, associated wetlands
and its buffer are severely restricted; whereas the remainder of the
shoreline jurisdiction is compatible to the underlying zoning district.

B. Zoning

1. Tumwater. Adopt comparable regulations for wetland buffers not
within sForeline jurisdiction.

2. Thurston County. Implement the Corridor Plan through the current
EnvironmentaTry- Sensitive Area regulations. Adopt comparable
regulations for wetland buffers not within shoreline jurisdiction.

SWM: Ide/285.28/16

Viii

sth Ava
PRIESr POIN?
rt Us 2r.1h
collf
PERCIVAL CREEK
..... .....
CORRIDOR PLAN

4- W AV
42
:12 m Am
:12 m Am
_12 m Am

Vicinity

Scale: 0' 4000'
2@

t RIF

27 26

Aye
irs oi i
34 3:) 3 3

Ad
Ave Kir
.77
13 4

tj )WUMV
&.r It LAKE
Ad A,&

Ch
10 12 1z
8 10 MY 1 12
AIR T
FPER
C&

oe q,

AvoL

1. INTRODUCTION

A. Background

Percival Creek flows north from Black Lake through Thurston County
and the cities of Tumwater and Olympia, then enters Capitol Lake. The
stream- is rich in natural resources and recreational opportunities,
containing native runs of salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout. In
addition, its mix of water, wetlands, and riparian vegetation provides a
diversity of wildlife populations including deer, fur bearers, and a wide
variety of birds (refer to Figure 1).

Within the short distance between lakes exists three distinct
environments or reaches. The lower reach is characterized by a canyon
with heavily wooded hillsides. This offers city dwellers uncommon
natural beauty in their own backyard. In contrast, the middle reach
provides broad vistas of pastoral view. In the upper reach the manmade
Black Lake Drainage Ditch flows lazily, bisecting an extensive wetland
associated with Black Lake. This 160-acre wetland contains several
wetland types which provides a desirable habitat mix that supports a
diverse wildlife population. The Percival Creek/Black Lake Drainage
Ditch corridor offers a unique mix of water, wetlands and natural
resources.

However, these resources and amenities survive in the mi-dst of an urban,
area experiencing rapid population growth and accompanying
development. Due to these pressures, conflicts have arisen between
upland activities and the maintenance of the creek's natural integrity.

The Percival Creek Corridor Plan was designed as a management tool to
guide future decisions related. to the use of the creek, striking a balance
between the need to conserve and protect the long-term productive
capacity of the creek ecosystem, while considering the human use and
urban infrastructure improvements needed to meet the region's social and
economic needs. One of the Corridor Plan's major goals was to provide
predictability to both development and environmental interests regarding
new land uses within the corridor.

B. Corridor Planning Area (Refer to Figure 2)

1. Upper Reach. With the Canyon and Middle Reaches of the Corridor
Plan contained in Volume 1, the only remaining portion oT -the
Fo-rridor is the Upper Reach. It lies south of the City of Olympia
boundary and extends upstream to Black Lake. The Upper Reach
lies within the jurisdictions of Tumwater and Thurston County.

In November of 1983, the Department of Ecology responded to
Thurston Regional Planning Council's inquiry regarding establishing
an accurate flow rate for the Black Lake Drainage Ditch. At that
time the Department of Ecology analysis indicated that a mean
annual flow for the ditch was approximately 46 cubic feet per
second (cfs) which was later re-calculated at 32.5 cfs, both

PERCIVAL CREEK
CORRIDOR PLAN
Upper Reach
tT

Crook Reaches
.ZNOIZ@H
long
Scale: 2000*

owl P!11
...A 2 col

U A I
Middle

anyon eac

eac
6q-

sufficient flow to constitute a "shoreline of the state" and thereby
be included in the local Shoreline Master Program. The Black Lake
Drainage Ditch was added to the list of streams meeting the
Shoreline Management Act criteria by the Department of Ecology in
1985.

Although the Upper Reach contains extensive wetlands, some upland
areas lie immediately adjacent to the drainage ditch. With the
newly-6dopted shoreline flow criteria, many of these areas would
now fall within shoreline jurisdiction. The Department of Ecology
suggested that the local Shoreline Master Programs be amended for
both these reaches to include all the Black Lake Drainage Ditch and
establish appropriate environmental designations for those new
shorelines.

2. Grant. Originally initiated in May of 1984 as a Coastal Zone
Va-nagement grant, the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE)
has largely funded this planning effort. In September 1984 and
July 1985, WDOE authorized $10,400 and 1$10,190 grants,
respectively for the completion of the corridor planning process.
Volume 11 was to provide an inventory, analysis and management
plan for the Upper Reach, thereby completing a Corridor Plan from
Capitol Lake to Black Lake.

The specific requirements of these grants and the DOE standards
for a shoreline inventory are contained in Appendices A, B and C.

C. Corridor Plan Approach

The Upper Reach is only one of three shoreline segments of Percival
creek. It accounts for 40 percent of the 3.4-mile corridor from lake to
lake, it was evaluated consistent with planning process for the Canyon
and Middle Reaches. Further, due to the presence of multiple
jurisdictions (i.e., Olympia, Tumwater and Thurston County) and their
common Shoreline Master Program, all aspects of this Corridor Plan
including the inventory analysis, plan text, and management regulations
were designed so that the analysis of the Upper Reach in Volume 11
would interface with the previous text on the Canyon and Middle
Reaches. This consistent process provided the opportunity to ana.lyze
the corridor based upon homogeneous features rather than jurisdictional
boundaries or rigid grant requirements. Finally in keeping the process
simple, straightforward, and the same for all, it reduces textual and
graphic repetition.

Black Lake Blvd Sapp Rd. PERCIVAL CREEK
Drainage Pivot AA1
AA Ditch Pivot So.PP Rd CORRIDOR PLAN
1361 Upper Reach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Drainage
Block Lake Blvd Ditch
010

. ........ .
............
. ........
..... Drainage Ditch Cross Sections
..........
. ........

B.N.R.R.
Black Lake Blvd Drainage CC1
cc Ditch Road Water

B.N.R.R.
Drainage Water DDI
Black Lake Blvd Ditch
DD

Draina go Pivot B.N.R.R.
Black Lake Blvd Ditch EEI
EE

Drainage
Ditch B.H.R.R.
Black Lake Blvd 1vot FF1
FF

Drainage B.H.R.R.
Black Lake Blvd Ditch GGI
GG
FPE R C
u

11. NATURAL FEATURES.

A. Earth

1. Topography. The Upper Reach of the Percival Creek corridor is
but a small part of the topography within this drainage basin (refer
to Figure 3, page M-1). The variation in elevation within this
rezich ranges from 150 feet above mean sea level (MSL) along Black
Lake Boulevard to 170 feet in the vicinity of the Burlington
Northern Railroad right-of-way. Within this narrow valley there is
some isolated "islands" of high ground.

By comparison, high points around the drainage basin range from
the multiple summits of the Black Hills immediately west of the
drainage ditch at 807 to 590 feet, 450 feet for both Bush Mountain
and west Tumwater, and finally 260 feet on Cooper Point north of
20th Avenue N.W.

The Percival Creek drainage originates from a number of different
lakes which eventually -discharge into Capitol Lake at Percival Cove.
Black Lake lies at elevation of 125 feet above MSL, Ken Lake at
elevation 135 feet, Trosper Lake at elevation 155 feet and Percival
Cove lying at elevation of 6 feet.

2. Creek Physiography. A four-category, geo-hydraulic river zone
classification system has Deen developed and is the recommended
methodology for creek description and analysis. In this system,
creeks are divided into units on the basis of a combination of
interrelated factors. The main factors considered are gradient,
stream course, bed material and valley section. The four classes
are described as:

Estuarine Zone I
Pastoral Zone 11
Gravel Beach Zone III
Boulder/Cobble Zone IV

A detailed description of these is contained in Appendix D.

While i-t would seem logical for the geo-hydraulic zones to follow in
numerical order from the mouth to the headwaters, this ordered
succession does not always occur. Percival Creek Corridor was
analyzed by this classification system. Figure 3, page M-1 provides
the base topography for the c,reek cross sections as detailed on
Figure 4. The drainage ditch profile - varies so little within this
reach that a profile would be a flat line from the lake to the middle
reach. Since that gradient is so flat, it has been classified as a
Pastoral Zone 11.

B Soils

A generalized soil map of the planning area has been developed largely
from the soil maps of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and their
report, the Soil Survey of Thurston County, Washington (1958) (refer to
Figure 3, page M-1). The mapped soil boundaries on Figure 3 have
been adjusted based upon field investigation, and more detailed
topography to correctly align the soil units with the slope. Additional
boundary adjustments were made based upon both Peat Resources of
Washington, (1958) and the more up to date State Soil Surv-e-y-Tl--97-8T
prepared by the Washington Department of Natural Resourc-e--s-f-DNR).

Some of the Department of Natural Resources soils names have been
updated from the SCS report. Substantively, these name changes do not
effect the substrata and in generally the DNR mapping is more detailed
as the original SCS data for this area.

A detailed description of the soil units mapped on Figure 3, page M-1
are listed in Table 1 below:

TABLE 1: SOIL--UPPER REACH

SCS Soil Type Slope

Ab Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (0-3%)
Ac Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (3-15%)
Ad Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (15-30%)
Ef Everett gravelly sandy loam (0-3%)
Ea Everett gravelly sandy loam (3-15%)
Es Everett gravelly sandy loam (30-50%)
Ey Everson silt loam (0-3%)
Ga 1 Giles silt loam (3-15%)
Gac Giles silt loam (15-30%)
la 1 2 Indianola loamy sand (0-3%)
KaB 1 2 Kapowsin silt loam (3-15%)
KaC Kapowsin silt loam (15-30%)
Md McKenna gravelly silt loam (0-3%)
Mo 1 Mukilteo muck (0-2%)
Gp Pits, gravel
RC 1 Rifle peat (0-2%)
Scp 1 Schneider very gravelly loam (20-40%)
ScE Schneider very gravelly loam (40-65%)
Se 1 Semiahmoo variant, muck (0-2%)
SkB Skipopa silt loam (3-15%)
Te Tisch silt loam (0-3%)
Dyl) Xerorthents, loamy

No SCS Classification.
2Kitsap soil name changed.

SOURCE: Soil Survey of Thurston County (1958) and State Soil Survey (1978).

Of these soil types, all but a' few are suitable for urban development.
T hose soils that present development limitations contain either
excessively steep slopes (over 40 percent) which are subject to erosion
and landslides, or contain organic or wet mineral soils which are subject
to differential settlement or seismic shaking (earthquakes).

Within the boundaries of the corridor, Black Lake Boulevard to the west
and the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way to the east, the only
steeply sloping area is a portion of Schneider very gravelly loam (ScE).
This soil lies between Black La *ke Boulevard and the drainage ditch, and
the slope phase 'is from 40 to 65 percent slope. Although mapped as a
"Naturally Stable Area" on the Slope Stability Map of Thurston County,
Washington (1976), the excessively steep slope of the Schneider soil
would shift these areas to an "Unstable" classification. Further, both
the SCS and DNR soil survey interpretations would concur with this
designation -due to' the potential for slope failures. These areas are
mapped as "Geologic Hazard Areas" on Figure 3, page M-1.

The organic and wet mineral soils are found primarily along the drainage
ditch and historic drainage channel to the east of the ditch. The
Mukilteo muck (Mo), Rifle peat (RC), Semiahmoo variant, muck (Se),
and Tisch silt loam (Tc) soils have been identified on the Relative
Ground Settlement Hazards of Thurston County, Washington (1976Tas a
"Severe" area subject to ground settlement. In addition to differential
settlement, these areas are also subject to seismic shaking during an
earthquake but not to the degree that wet mineral soils (Tisch silt loam
and McKenna gravelly silty loam) might experience. The drainage ditch
has generally clewatered the substrata so that this may not be a
significant constraint in all areas. The potential clewatering effect of
drainage ditch on the organic, peat soils cannot be determined without
detailed on-site geotechnical investigation, and without this should still
be considered to be a development concern. On Figure 3, page M-1 ,
these organic and wet mineral soils (hydric soils) are mapped as a
"Severe Ground Settlement."

C. Water

1. General. The Percival Creek basin receives an estimated 55 inches
@f -precipitation per year, which is equal to 12.42 billion gallons of
water, being, within the part of the Deschutes River drainage
(WRIA-13). Black Lake (Drainage Ditch #0030) is the source of the
major tributary and Trosper Lake headwaters (Percival Creek #0029)
for the other tributaries with several smaller streams and storm
drains adding to the flow. Ken Lake also discharges during the
wet season and the westside sub-basin is another significant
seasonal tributary. From Black Lake to the Middle Reach, the
creek varies from 25 to 30 feet wide. This watershed has been
subdivided into 6 sub-basins with the following acreage for each
(refer to Table 2 and Figure 5).

Bill Ava
pok.0 FRIEST' PoINr rs
ELL 26th
PERCIVAL CREEK COVE
cc
CORRIDOR PLAN I i 20th M,11
A"
tw Sm pj W
111,h Ave. . . .......
ine

f ID
Av,

Ave.
Drainage Basin/Sub Basins 3 so Ave Slot
4th

10ih
Ave

scale: 0, aI 1 4000' Lowe--"""
19
r

Rd FOS

r rid
o
f Corl an
pe SL
28 27 26 1 2
age 27
North
Dep
C 103
LUK
0
-PS
40 th x
Ave
45 South
I Ave
osper.

Lak
33 34 36

Lee
Rd
V'"
Ave
Ki, Lq X L
62 rid to 0- 0-0- 7 -
4 nri St.
4 13 2 (),,ve A.ve. 716 3 2
__j Ave.
W
73rd
Rd 12 2
A",
C Bro
It 11 ch...
9
10 12 8 E 10 tY, YMPIA
j tm elstIAw WORT 7 1
rER
CO@

TABLE 2: PERCIVAL CREEK-SUB-BASINS

Acres

Black Lake* 1,290
Upper drainage ditch west bank 1,221
Ken Lake 739
Westside 1 342
Trosper Lake 1,268
Lower Creek 462

TOTAL 6,322

*Assumes only I mile of Black Lake flows to drainage ditch.

SOURCE: Thurston Regional Planning Council.

2. Water Quantity. There has always been flow from the swamp at the
north of Black Lake to Percival Creek even before the drainage
ditch. A historical drainage channel located to the east of the
ditch can be seen on all the aerial photos and generally intersected
to the ditch alignment near 25th Avenue SW (extended). The Black
Lake Drainage Ditch, constructed in 1922 and redredged in 1978,
changed the flow of Percival Creek by more than doubling- the flow
of the creek. Flow data from 1963 to 1971 indicates that during
that period, Black Lake contributed 80 percent of the flow of
Percival Creek. Refer to the following Table 4.

TABLE 3: PERCIVAL CREEK-MISCELLANEOUS STREAM FLOW-S*---

Drainage Ditch Percival Creek
@ Mottman @ Mottman
Date Crossing Road) Total

5/17/63 31.1 5.7 39.1
7/4/65 8.9 2.1 11.0
9/24/65 5.9 2.0 7.9
8/16/66 5.3 1.4 6.7
8/11/67 5.0 2.4 7.4
9/9/68 15.6 2.6 18.2
8/14/69 6.0 2.6 8.6
5/7/70 25.0 5.2 30.2
8/14/70 4.9 1.6 6.5
5/12/71 29.2 5.6 34.8

Mean 13.69 3.12

*Flows in cubic feet/second (cfs).

SOURCE: Washington University Hydraulic and Water Quality Research-
Capitol Lake, Olympia, Washington College of Engineering, 1975.

There is one recent winter snapshot of data which was collected for
the Capitol Lake Restoration Analysis (1984) d-uring the month of
March 1983. Those flow-sare summarized in the following Table:

TABLE 4: PERCIVAL CREEK--1983 STREAM FLOW*

Station Dates

3-8 3-10 L20 Mean

Percival Creek
(@ Mottman Road) 38 33 41 37

Drainage Ditch
(@ Mottman Road) 118 128 106 117

Percival Creek
(@ foot bridge) 142 162 157 153

*Flows in cubic feet/second (cfs)

SOURCE: Capital. Lake Restoration Analysis (1984).

The hydraulic measurement taken by the University of Washington
are most easily compared to the most recent samples in the following
table.

TABLE 5: PERCIVAr- CREEK--MEAN STREAM, FLOWS

Summer Flows Winter Flows 1983*
1963-71 1984 Yearly

Drainage Ditch @ Mottman 13.69 cfs 117 cfs
Percival Creek @ Mottman 3.12 cfs 37 cfs --
Percival Creek Mouth -- 153 cfs 44.5 cfs

*Data from Table 2.

SOURCE: Data from Tables 3 and 4.

To add to this limited data, measurements were also taken for eight
weeks during the "winter drought" of 1985 shown in Table 6 below.

TABLE 6: PERCIVAL CREEK--1985 STREAM FLOWS*

Station 2/22 3/1 3/8 3,115 3122 3/29 4/5 4/12 Mean

Percival Creek 52.06 42.67 34.39 28.26 50.98 62.07 55.23 38.95 45.58
@ Mouth

Percival Creek 3.59 7.59 5.51 4.82 8.85 7.22 6.85 5.82 6.28
@ Mottman

Drainage Ditch 40.13 31.41 27.65 21.82 37.86 50.52 48.07 29.86 35.92
@ BNRR

Drainage Ditch 26.78 23.52 19.18 14.00 27.84 36.58 32.85 22.13 25.36
@ Black Lake

Percival Creek 2.36 2.30 1.99 2.05 3.94 2.19 2.18 1.96 2.37
@ Trosper

*Flows in cubic feet/second.

SOURCE: Thurston County Health Department.

During 1983 and again in 1985, the Department of Ecology evaluated
the mean annual flow of the Black Lake Drainage Ditch. A linear
regression analysis was made comparing the flow measurements of
Table 6 with those of the Deschutes River near Rainier. Based
upon that hydraulic calculation, it was determined that the mean
annual flow of the Black Lake Drainage Ditch is approximately 32.5
cubic feet per second. This is over the minimum stream flow
required for a stream to be regulated by the Shoreline Management
Act.

A "Special Flood Hazard Area" or 100-year flood plain has also been
mapped for the creek since it is one of the criteria used to
establish the shoreline management jurisdiction.. Along the distance
of both the Upper Reach, the 100-year flood plain generally falls
within the traditional 200-foot boundary except for a section near
the lake. (Refer to Figure 13, page M-8)

3. Water Quality. The bacteriological data in this chapter should be
reviewed in the light of established water quality standards as
defined by Chapter 173-201, Washington Administrative Code
(WAC), Water Quality Standards for the Waters of the State of
Washington. These standards are summarized in Table 7. Percival
Creek is classified as a Class AA stream, with Percival Cove being
a Lake Class.

12 -

The preliminary indications from the most recent 1984 fecal coliform
sampling is of generally good water quality during the summer
months except on Percival Creek south of the confluence. Higher
counts in this area are located in a principally rural area with little
development. All the homes in this area are on septic tanks and
the pasturing of animals is the dominant land use. Likely
contributing factors are failing septic tanks, poor animal keeping
practices, or both. No rainfall was recorded during the 1984
sampling period.

In addition to fecal coliform, the state standards for dissolved
oxygen, temperature, pH, and turbidity are all very critical
indicators of water quality for fish habitat both in the creek and in
Percival Cove. Data for these water quality indicators were
collected in 1983 for the Capitol Lake Restoration Analysis and is
contained in Table 9, page 1-7.

TABLE 7: WASHINGTON WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

PERCIVAL CREEK PERCIVAL COVE
Parameter Class AA Streams Class A Streams Lake Cra-ss

Fecal Coliform Geometric mean Geometric mean Geometric mean
(FC) value--50 FC/ value--100 FC/ value--50 FC/
100 ml; not 100 ml; not . 100 ml; not
more than 10% @ more than 10% @ more than 10% @
100 FC/100 mL 200 FC/100 mL 100 FC/100 mL
Dissolved Oxygen 9.5 mg/L 8.0 mg/L No
(DO) measurable
Temperature 60OF or 15.60C 651F or 17.80C change
pH (units) 6.5 to 8.5 6.5 to 8.5 from
0.2 induced 0.5 induced natural
variation variation conditions
Turbidity 5 NTU over 5 NTU over 5 NTU over
(NTU) natural natural natural

SOURCE: WAC 173-201.

Fecal coliform organisms are aerobic, gram negative, nonspore
forming, rod-shaped bacteria. Although not pathogenic in the field
of environmental health, they serve as indicator bacteria for the
likely presence of enteric pathogens and fecal pollution of water or
food.

As in the discussion of surface water flows, there is some limited
data on the water quality of Percival Creek basin relevant to the
present corridor plan. Water samples were taken from various
locations in the drainage.

TABLE 8: PERCIVAL CREEK--FECAL COLIFORM SAMPLING

- 1983 - - - - 1984 -
Station 3/8 3 7-10-737-29- 715 -7711 7/18 7/25 7-T31 -Mean

Percival Creek @ Mouth 150 75 64 106 2 0 28 18 55*
Drainage Ditch @ BNRR 23 43 150 28 34 18 34 34 46
Drainage Ditch @ Jones Bridge -- -- -- 46 16 3 -- 60 31
Drainage Ditch @ B lack Lake -- -- -- 22 8 2 0 6 8
Percival Creek @ Mottman 23 23 430 80 46 146 72 43 108*
Percival Creek @ Sapp Road -- -- -- 112 140 200 74 25 110*
Percival Creek @ Trosper 40 60 20 34 -- 39

*Violation of standards.

Data not available.

SOURCE: Capitol Lake Restoration Analysis (1984) and Thurston Regional
Planning Council.

4. Water Quality and Stream Life
a. Effects of Pollutants. An ordinary pollutant harms a fish
either indirectly oF-directly. Indirect damage occurs largely
through destruction of the habitat. Starvation may result from
the elimination of plankton and bottom organisms by chemical
or physical agents. Defiling materials which settle out may
cover spawning grounds and bottom foods. In addition,
indirect influences may be exerted through changes in the
gaseous and salt contents of the water.

Direct effects of pollution on fish life are either catastrophic
or gradual, depending on the amount and kind of the
undesirable effluent in relation to the quantity of the recipient
water mass. Sudden discharge of a large volume of boiling
water, animal waste or other chemicals may kill instantly.
Some substances when absorbed are indirectly toxic to fishes,
even in small quantities. Certain derivatives of crude oil and
ammonium compounds are of this nature. Many commercial
pollutants, however, need not be absorbed but act primarily
by damaging the gill filaments. The filaments may actually be
eroded (some strong acids do this) or they may become
clogged by having the desecrating substance cause
oversecretion of mucus (e.g., heavy metal salts). Certain
other poisons need to be swallowed to damage the internal
organs. Some such agents will do this at once when absorbed;
whereas others, such as arsenic and selenium, are stored up
by the fish until the accumulation becomes injurious. Still
other things irritate the surface of the fish and bring on
secondary infections of bacteria or mold.

b. Water Quality Indicators

(1) Temperature. Natural environmental temperature changes
impose stresses on fish populations. Over many years
various species and subspecies have adjusted to upper and
lower levels, within which are optimum ranges. When
natural or artificial phenomena cause shifts away. from
optimum ranges, the populations are stressed. Usually,
under natural cyclic conditions, the stressing is not
repeated in successive years.

Heat has a synergistic effect and must be considered
when measuring other stresses within the environment.
In general, salmonids do well within a temperature range
of 450 to 650 F.

(2) Dissolved Oxygen. The accepted minimum level for
dissolved oxygen (D.O.) has been stated to be 5 ppm.
For the cold-water biota, it is desirable that D.O.
concentrations be at or near saturation. This is
especially important in spawning areas where D.O. levels
must not be below 7 ppm at any time. It has been
demonstrated that for the most successful incubation of
salmon and trout eggs, the D.O. should be near
saturation level.

(3) pH. There i.s no optimum pH value for fish in general;
however, in waters where good fish fauna occur, the pH
usually is found to be between 6.7 and 8.3. The
permissible range of pH for fish depends on'many factors.
such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, prior
acclimatization, and the contents of various anions and
cations. The tolerance of fish to low concentrations of
dissolved oxygen varies markedly with pH.

The pH level also influences the toxicity of dissolved
materials, such as cyanide and ammonia, and metallic
salts, as copper sulfate, since these are less toxic in
more alkaline waters.

Many species of fish can live in acid water, but it
appears that under these conditions the fish may grow
more slowly and fail to attain the same size as other
individuals of . the same species that live in alkaline
streams.

Species or races of fish that are adapted to alkaline
waters fail to do well and often die when transplanted to
slightly acid waters. The reason for this failure to
adjust to a different pH is not fully understood, but has
been observed by fish culturists and investigators for
many years.

(4) Phosphates and Nitrates. Excessive amounts of
phosphat@7s_ @and nitrates may result in large blooms of
offensive algae and the reduction or depletion of oxygen
supplies or the creation of offensive tastes and odors.

(5) Suspended Sediment. Exposure to suspended sediment
Fan-produce a number of adverse effects on fish. The
effects of chronic exposure to suspended sediment are
well documented. Blood physiology indicators suggest
that stress occurs in salmonid fry held in sublethal
concentrations of suspended sediment. Damage to gills
often results by interfering with normal respiratory
processes. Feeding ability is decreased. Behavioral
studies indicate a preference by coho salmon for areas of
low turbidity probably used as hiding cover, but
avoidance of higher turbidities due, to physiological
stress. The synergistic actions of the above-mentioned
stresses may manifest themselves by depressing growth
rates of fish in turbid water.

(6) Bedload Sediment. The smothering effect and instability
of bedload sediment reduce the bottom dwelling
invertebrate diversity and populations, the available
living space for fish and the survival of fish.

As sediment fills the void in the. spawning gravels, it
interferes with aquatic life in several ways. Inter- and
intragravel water flow is blocked, which reduces dissolved
oxygen for incubating salmonid ova. Deposited sediment
can physically prevent emergence of fry and decreases
food resources for aquatic invertebrates and periphyton
communities.

(7) Organic Pollutants. Organic pollution of the aquatic
environment can cause deterioration of the ecological
system, resulting in depletion' of dissolved oxygen, an
enrichment of . heterotrophic fauna, a decrease in
diversity, and grease and oil slicks. in addition, many
organic contaminants have toxicity, so living organisms
including fish, benthic invertebrates, algae and bacteria
may be subject to acute or chronic effects. Even at
lower concentrations, the organisms may be affected
through bioaccumulation from lower trophic levels.
Finally, organic contaminants can have adverse health
effects on man through contaminated drinking water
supplies and bioaccumulation in the food chain.

Motor vehicles are the primary source of pollutants on the
road surface, with minor sources including windborne
particulates, debris, spills, and precipitation. Many of
the pollutants in runoff waters are toxic in aquatic
systems and some may be carcinogenic.

TABLE 9: PERCIVAL CREEK AND COVE--1983 WATER QUALITY SAMPLIN-U-

Station ...Measurement 3/15 3/30 4/18 4/27 5/12 5/24 6/15 6/27 7/7 7/21 8/4 8/18, Mean

Percival Creek
(Mouth) DO 11.8 9.5 10.6 9.0 9.6 9.6 9.6 10.0 9.4 8.2 9.75

Temp.-C 10.0 15.0 14.5 14.8 17.5 17.5 17.5 16.0 19.0* -- 18.0 16.0

pH 7.45 7.50 7.40 7.45 -- 8.00 7.70 7.70 7.40 7.50 7.55 7.50 '7.56

Turb. 3.0 4.0 2.8 4.2 3.3 3.0 4.2 3.6 4.5 3.8 2.1 1.4 3.3

Flow (cfs) 113 120 54 48 41 30 26 25 23 23 19 12 44.5

Percival Cove DO 11.2 9.0 9.8 10.8 9.8 9.3 8.6 8.1 8.4 9.2 9.4

Temp. 10.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 11.0 18.2 17.5 17.0 19.0 22.0 16.0

pH 7.50 7.10 7.50 7.30 -- 8.60 7.65 8.10 8.40 7.80 8.40 8.80 7.92

Turb. 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.4 4.0 2.8 3.8 4.2 5.4 5.2 4.3 6.4 4.2

*Violation of standards.

-- = Data not available.
FC = Fecal Coliform
DO = Dissolved Oxygen
Temp. C = Temperature
Turb = Turbidity
SOURCE: Capitol Lake Restoration Analysis (1984).

(8) lnor@anic Pollutants--Metals. Although trace amounts of
metals are found in vario5_s__ natural waters, effluents from
industrialization may contain heavy ions which could cause
death or inhibit the growth of necessary plant life
required for stream biota. Accumulation of metals may
occur in fish with lethal effects. Zinc, copper, cadmi.um,
and nickel are known to be especially lethal to salmonids.
(Jim Fraser, Department of Fisheries)

D . Wildlife Resources and Vegetative Communities

1. Fisheries Resources. Percival Creek once flowed into Budd Inlet,
but since 195 ow enters Capitol Lake at Percival Cove.
Historically, the creek has maintained native runs of anadromous
fish including steelhead, sea-run cutthroat trout, coho and chinook
salmon. Resident game fish include cutthroat and rainbow trout.
Chum salmon currently' do not use the stream but are believed to
have used it in the past. Currently, most chinook salmon are
trapped by the Department of Fisheries in Percival Cove and
artificially spawned. Those chinook in excess to the fish culture
programs needs are allowed to migrate up Percival Creek and spawn
naturally.

- 17

The upper portions of the creek have been made accessible by a
three-section vertical fish ladder near the SR-101 crossing which
was initially constructed in the 1940's but improved and repaired at
various times through the early 1980's. A wood, pool-step fish
ladder was constructed in 1982 in the Black Lake drainage
immediately downstream from the Mottman Road crossing to correct
fish passage problems created by the poorly-designed dual culverts
at this crossing.

The preferred spawning habitat occurs in those areas where the
creek gradient creates a favorable riffle-pool balan 'ce with the
presence of spawning size gravels. Such areas are located along
the entire Lower Reach, south along Percival Creek ' to the
Somerset Hill culvert, and in the drainage ditch to a point
approximately 1 000 feet upstream of the Mottman Road crossing.
Above that point, spawning riffles may occur sporadically with the
bed of the ditch excavated through peat soils. While the remaining
portions of the drainage ditch and creek are not considered good
spawning areas, they are important to maintain for rearing habitat.
(Jim Fraser, Department of Fisheries.)

The survival and well being of these species depends to a great
part upon the maintenance of suitable water flow and spawning
gravel. Salmonids dig nesting pits called "redds" in stream bottom
gravel in which they lay eggs and cover them with gravel. The
.salmonid eggs,,and young fish, called alevins, develop while buried
in the gravel. 'Salmonids, and a great majority of other fishes,
depend in some way on a gravel bed, free of silt and consistently
bathed in a flow of well-oxygenated water for reproductive success.
Dissolved oxygen (D.O.) is determined by water temperature, with
cold water carrying more D.O. than warm. Water that lacks
sufficient dissolved oxygen due to excessive water temperatures can
cause suffocation of eggs and young fish. A potential for a fish
kill can also occur when the gravel is covered by silt.

"The geo-hydraulic river zone classification also indicates suitability
for trout rearing and growth. The progression of zones is usually
from a Boulder/Cobble Zone IV to Gravel Beach Zone III to Pastoral
Zone 11, with the Pastoral Zone considered the lowest and
Boulder/Cobble Zone the highest for instream production of trout."
(Inventory of Vegetative Communities and Associated Wildlife of the
STo-oW-u-mchuck River Drainage, 1979)

2. Percival Cove Fish Culture Program

a. H istory. Capitol Lake was created by the dam in 1951. By
1954, the series of fish ladders on Tumwater Falls was
completed. Most of the early fish plants and rearing efforts
consisted of planting the river upstream and downstream of the
falls area with chinook fry/fingerlings. These fish were not
fed some years and allowed to migrate naturally.

Early plantings proved very successful; as high as 25,000
adults returned in some years. These initial efforts seemed to

be .promising for increasing rearing efforts in the system.
General enhancement in the lake and cove accelerated during
the early 70's. It was in this period Percival Cove came into
heavy use, mostly to accommodate the need for a large-volume
rearing area for - the successful delayed-release chinook
program.

b. Current Status. The fish culture program in the cove
currently includes rearing and release of two sizes of chinook
salmon with different management objectives. The first
program. includes placing various hatchery origin chinook fry
into both Capitol Lake and the cove in April and rearing them
until allowing a natural outmigration of 6 to 10 million chinook
of appro ximately 100/lb. size in late May to early June. These
chinook will contribute to both ocean and Puget Sound
fisheries. The second program places larger yearling-sized
chinook in the cove during October, rearing them to an
approximate 6/lb. size for forced release which is accomplished
by drawing down the lake in April of the following year.
These chinook, numbering upwards of one milion, are
considered "delayed release" because they are past their
normal outmigration timing. It has been shown by tagging
studies that these chinook tend to remain in Puget Sound and
are a major contributor to the Puget Sound Sport Fishery.
The cove is not currently used between July and September 30
for fish culture. (Jim Fraser, Department of Fisheries)

C. Environmental Effects. Rearing changes in the past few years
are the result of tH-e changing environment. Yearling chinook
previously brought into the cove in early September are not
introduced now until early October. Extreme low flows and
unsafe dissolved oxygen (D.O.) readings not previously
recorded were observed in the early fall of 1982. D.O. levels
in Percival Creek water were recorded as low as 6.5 ppm in
daylight hours. This figure would drop much lower during
the early morning (12:00 midnight to 4:00 a.m.) because the
algae then consumes oxygen rather than photosynthesizing as
occurs during daylight hours. D.O.'s during this dark period
dropped to under 4 ppm. Generally with the coming of.the
October rains, the situation improves to safely rear the
valuable yearling chinook.

The winter floods and gravel movement down Percival Creek
seems to have increased dramatically since 1980. Not only is
the north end of the cove filling, but the Lower Reach of
Percival Creek where it enters the cove is becoming a tangle
of fallen trees previously rooted along its bank. Generally,
the years of siltation and gravel movement down both the
Deschutes River and Percival Creek have reduced the average
mean depth in the lake and the cove. This has resulted in
increased thermal pollution which magnifies other problems
(reduced flow, dissolved oxygen, etc.) and makes the salmon
rearing efforts more vulnerable. (Keith Keown, Department of
Fisheries)

d Economic Benefits. Chinook salmon reared and released from
Percival Cove and Capitol Lake are a major contribution to the
state's (primarily Puget Sound's) sport and commercial
fisheries, contributing an estimated $3.9 million in 1984.

3. Bird and Animal Resources. "Habitat requirements for birds vary
seasonally and according to species, although all bird species
require food, water, cover, and nesting sites. Riparian habitats
are unique in being able to furnish all of these needs. Conse-
quently the riparian and wetland areas are found to maintain the
highest bird densities. Loss of any one of these specific
requirements will automatically affect a species' population. This
can happen through the destruction of habitat or through the
disturbance of an adjacent habitat.

"The requirements for habitat to support mammals and other
terrestrial species vary both seasonally and according to their
needs. Unlike the bird species which can migrate away from
inclement weather or search for a better food supply elsewhere, the
less mobile mammals must generally satisfy all their requirements
within the confines of the general area." (inventory of Vegetative
Communities and Associated Wildlife of the Skookumchuck River
Drainage, 1979)

While located within a developing metropolitan environment, all of
the Percival Creek corridor, has value for wildlife. The mix of open
water, wetlands, wooded hillsides, and open fields provides for a
greater diversity and larger wildlife populations than would be
found in a homogeneous habitat. As it currently exists, the
corridor provides suitable habitat for a wide variety of wildlife such
as deer (noted near Percival Cove) fur bearers, raptors, shore
birds, and song birds. (Personal Communication, Mark Grandstaff,
Department of Game)

4. Special Animals or Plants. There are no plant species defined as
being either enda_n_g_e_r_eU, threatened or- sensitive known to be
located within the corridor planning area according to the data on
file in the Natural Heritage data system. During the 1985 wetland
field work a western pond turtle was encountered whictl is
identified as a state "threatened" species by the Washington
Department of Game. This occurrence was along the eastern edge
of the wetland and under the BPA transmission line approximately
1 000 feet from the drainage ditch. The Great Blue Heron was the
only other state-monitored species which was observed during that
time.

5. Plant Communities. All of the area lying within the corridor plan
was analyz-ed---for its relative habitat value by means of the
Department of Game land * use/land cover system classification
system. This methodology was used in 1973 for the original
inventory of Thurston County shorelines. Its major habitat types
are listed below:

TABLE 10: DEPARTMENT OF GAME--LAND USEMAND COVER TYPES

1. U rban
2. Agriculture
3. Grass lands (non-forested, vegetated uplands)
4. Forested uplands
Coniferous forest
Broadleaf forest
Mixed forest
Disturbed forest
*5. Riparian vegetation
*6. Water
Rivers and streams
Lakes and ponds
*7. Wetlands
8. Barren lands

*Of these habitat areas, Riparian communities (#5 and #6) and Wetlands (#7)
are known to be the most important to upland species.

SOURCE: Washington State Department of Game.

Riparian:. "Riparian vegetation includes. all plant communities
adjacent to and directly influenced by rivers, streams, lakes,
ponds and wetlands. Although riparian areas make up a small
percentage of total habitat types, it is critically important to
wildlife since it supports greater diversity and numbers of
species than any other habitat. The riparian strip and its
associated vegetative community types form a transition zone
between the water and the adjacent habitats. (inventory of
Vegetative Communities and Associated Wildlife of
Skookumcfiuck River Drainage, 1979)

"A very close relationship exists between the stream system and the
surrounding land. In most cases, this relationship is very complex
since the organisms of the stream system are dependent on both.the
stream, and on the land and life beyond the stream. The opposite
is also true, as many land animals are reliant on the ecosystem of
the stream, and are unable to survive without its presence. The
riparian strip is said to be used, in some way, by almost all the
large animals of the adjoining land ecosystem. Some are critically
dependent on the habitat for the majority of their life cycle, while
other species may spend only specified time periods either in, or
near, the water. Still other animals may simply visit the habitat
periodically. For example, many large mammal species spend a good
deal of their time in the upland regions with periodic visits to the
stream valleys for food and water." (Ibid)

Wetland: "In general terms, wetlands are lands where
@@aturaflon with water is the dominant factor determining the
nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal

- 21 -

communities living in the soil and on its surface. The single
feature that most wetlands share is soil or substrate that is at
least periodically saturated with or. covered by water. The
water creates severe problems for all plants and animals except
those that are adapted for life in water or in saturated soil."
(Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats of the
United States, 1979y-

"Wetlands are extremely sensitive habitats. As a result, they can
be easily altered and severely damaged. Their destruction involves
-the loss of many forms of unusual plant life endemic to wetlands
because of unique moisture and soil conditions. Associated wildlife,
also dependent on these habitats, suffer great losses. An
abundance of wildlife species depend on wetlands for food, water,
and nesting sites. Many wetland areas are critical habitat for
waterfowl as wintering, molting, or breeding grounds." (op. cit.)

In the Upper Reach the wetlands, and those areas along with the
drainage corridors being both the drainage ditch and the historic
drainage channel, are relatively disturbance-free travel corridors
for upland species. The drainage ditch is also important for
providing a means for a anadromous fish to spawn in the tributaries
of Black Lake (Mark Grandstaff, Department of Game).

The wetlands within the Upper Reach have been its most dominant
historical characteristic. When Black Lake was first surveyed in
1854, the United States General Land Office records show,this area
to be a "willow swamp." Figure 7 is a copy of those early records
for the Upper Reach. The purpose for constructing the Black Lake
drainage ditch in 1922 was to improve the lands since it "is
necessary by reason of the fact that said land is swampy in
character and is overflowed by water for much of the 'year, and
rendered agriculturally almost useless" (property owners petition,
1917).

FIGURE 7--1854 U.S. GENERAL LAND OFFICE SURVEY

Yfew A/W

'9 AO

J.
33 q8

rev
-VIP
fl-@ P i., -o IL 1 9', Pr
dt! I C 0\\
'A
d6
3S. Y3,?

IL
3 S-- T7
'I ibk
!@
,30
-iv

*a al -//a
-?Aj 911"

.cl@

JP1 PrIX2 'W
7'Ir
i
7? Ylt
2

zz
277Y
4-
-07S
3 1

@J
NQ

11construction of the drainage canal and dike road Mack
Lake/Belmore Road) significantly modified the marsh and its free
connection to the lake, but did not totally sever it. There was,
and remains an unquestionable association, between lake and marsh.
The lake outlet is open and unregulated such that the wetlands
receive annual and seasonal overflow from the lake and this
overflow has served to maintain the ecological viability of the
wetland area. The wetlands are not linked by the canal which is
an extension of the lake water body. Dredging of the canal and
drainage ditches dug perpendicular to it, mainly on the east side,
have tended to counter the renewal cycle of lowland flooding and to
advance vegetative succession and invasion by wet soil tolerant
trees. In spite of the drainage, the soils throughout this area are
saturated year round. (Letter from USFWS, Ralph Boomer,
August 30, 1978)

"'Associated Wetlands,' under the Shoreline Management Act (WAC
173-22) are defined as all marshes, bogs, swamps, and river deltas
associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters--subject to the
Act. The drainage ditch and Black Lake are both identified as
Ishorelines of the state' and regulated as such. . . The extent of
the 'Associated Wetlands' would be continuous with the extent of the
marshes, bogs, or swamps." (ibid)

From June to August of 1985, the Washington Department of Ecology,
led a team of wetland biologists to the Upper Reach to locate the
wetland edge for the purpose of establishing the limits of the
Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction. The team consisted of
representatives from local, state and federal governmental agencies.
Opportunities were provided for property owners and local
jurisdictions to have representatives on this team. Approximately
450 flagged and numbered stakes were placed along the wetland
edge using the "wetlancill- definition previously described. The
wetland line was then surveyed by the City of Tumwater and
Thurston County with its approximate location plotted onto an
overlay for the Upper Reach. Therefore, Figure 6, page M-6
identities the wetland edge as it existed during the summer of 1985.
It should also be noted that the wetland edge generally conforms to
the 130/132-toot contour line and the soil boundaries of the
McKenna gravelly silt loam, Mukilteo muck, Rifle peat, Semiahmoo
variant muck, and Tisch silt loam from Figure 3, page M-1.

However, it should be realized that 1985 almost set the record for
the dryest summer. Since varying hydrologic conditions effect
plant occurrences upon which the field survey relied, the wetland
edge may experience some variance from year to year, due to these
conditions. Further, the line on Figure 6 represents a point where
the combined vegetative community of the three layers (overstory,
understory, and ground cover) falls below 50 percent occurrence
for hydric (water tolerant) plants. No quantitative methods were
employed to sample plant populations since the dominance of plant
species was based upon visual occurrences. Some areas exhibited a
broad transition zone from upland to wetland for which a line does
not accurately represent. However, in all cases the wetland team
located the wetland edge at a point which was clearly defensible
based upon the criteria. Therefore, the wetland edge identitied on
.Figure 6 represents a very conservative location given these
conditions. Site-by-site investigations may be needed at the time of
permit review to re-clocument the wetland edge and pursuant to
WAC 173-2@-055 "in the event that any of the wetland designations
shown on the maps conflicts with the criteria set forth in this
chapter (for identifying lands within shoreline jurisdiction), the
criteria shall control."

Using the wetland classification system prepared by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardian, et al, 1979), nine
classes of wetlands were identified within the study area. For the
purposes of this report, these were consolidated into four classes
which are listed in Table 11 below and mapped on Figure 6, page
M-2.

- 24

TABEE 11--UPPER REACH WETLAND CLASSES

Mapped on
Cowardian Class Figure 6

RIVERINE SYSTEM (lower perennial)

1. Unconsolidated bottom Open Water

2. Aquatic bed (upper perennial) Open Water

3. Unconsolidated bottom Open Water

4. Unconsolidated shore Open Water

PALUSTRINE SYSTEM

5. Emergent (persistent) Emergent

6. Scrub-shrub (broadleaf deciduous) Scrub-shrub

7. Forested (broadleaf deciduous) Forested

8. Unconsolidated bottom (mud) Open Water

9. @ Aquatic bed (rooted vascular) Open Water

SOURCE Wetlands Associated with the North End of Black Lake, Thurston
County, Washington--DRATT (1986)..

An abbreviated definition of these wetland classes is contained in
the following:

Forested Wetland means that wetland class characterized by
woody veTe_ta_tI_o_n_ that is .20 feet (6m) tall or taller.

Scrub-Shrub Wetland means that wetland class dominated by
woody vegetation TP_Ss than 20 feet (6m) tall. 'The species
include true shrubs, young trees, and trees or shrubs that
are small or stunted because of environmental conditions.

Emergent Wetland means that wetland class characterized by
erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and
lichens. THis vegetation is present for most of the growing
season in most years. These wetlands are usually dominated
by perennial plants.

Open Water Wetland means those wetlands and deep water
habitat classes with: (1 ) either an unconsolidated
bottom/shore; or (2) an aquatic bed wetland dominated by
plants that grow principally on or below the surface of the
water for most of the growing season in most years.

The wetlands within the upper Reach were determined to be of
"high" value by the wetland team. While no longer in "pristine"
condition due to road fills and the drainage ditch, this wetland is
159 acres in size and extends almost 1 mile from Black Lake which
provides a great deal of "edge." This wetland edge along with the
four wetland classes, including open water, provides a highly
desirable mix of habitat types, even without the occurrence of a
special animal. In conclusion, it is an extremely valuable resource
which is sensitive to certain adjacent development activities.

111. URBAN FEATURES

A. Land Use

1. Historical Land Use. As noted in the discussion of the corridor
history, the Percival Creek drainage has undergone substantial
development over the past few decades. Some of the major actions
affecting the corridor since the inmigration of white settlers are
listed on Table 12. In general, this table indicates a dominance of
two major land uses being transportation facilities and commercial/
industrial development.

Figures 8, 9, 10 and 11, pages M-3, M-4, M-5 and M-6 are aerial
photos of the corridor in 1961, 1970, 1977 and 1983, respectively.
These Figures confirm this trend particularly with the census
indicating a 2,870 percent growth in employment and 255 percent
increase in population generally within the drainage basin* between
1970 and 1980. By comparison, the tri-cities areas grew at a
population rate of only 25.3 percent. (*TAZ # 022, 023, 025, 026,
027, 078 and 079.)

TABLE 12: PERCIVAL CREEK-HISTORICAL EVENTS

Date Event
T90 Re-w9arket (Tumwater) settled
1846 Smithfield (Olympia) settled
1854 Medicine Creek Treaty signed
1890 Northern Pacific Railroad constructed
1922 Black Lake Drainage Ditch constructed
1923 Black Lake Road and Belmore Road
1930's Mottman Road crossing drainage ditch
1933 *Grays Harbor/Puget Sound Canal proposed
1951 Capitol Lake created
1957 SR-101 constructed
1957 Fish ladders constructed
1968 Lakemoor (Ken Lake) platted
1969 Evergreen Park platted
1970 OTCC (now SPSCC) constructed
1971 Fish rearing begun at Percival Cove
1972 Westside (Percival Creek) sewer main installed
1972 Shoreline Management Act approved by voters
1972 Cooper Point Road constructed
1975 Mottman Area Annexed to Tumwater
1976 Mottman Road overpass at SR-101 (Decatur Street) completed
1978 Black Lake Drainage Ditch cleaned
1979 Capital Mall constructed
1981 Auto Mall platted
1981 Yauger Park constructed
1984 West Olympia.Bridge approved
1984 West Olympia Bridge court settlement
SOURCE: Thurston Regional Planning Council.

2. Future Land Use. A comparison of Figure 12, page M-7, Zoning
and Figure 1, page M-6, the 1983 land use aerial photo indicates a
substantial amount of vacant land available for development. Much

of that area lies within the Upper Reach corridor. Table 13, which
lists the developed and undeveloped areas by zoning district,
indicates that as in the Middle and Canyon Reaches a substantial
amount of land in the Upper Reach is undeveloped.

TABLE 13: PERCIVAL CREEK UPPER REACH--VACAF47-ITNDS SURVEY

Developed Undeveloped Undeveloped'
Jurisdiction Zones lotal (acres) (acres) (acres) M

Tumwater C1 236.3 46 .8 189.4 80%
Tumwater RA 40.3 1.0 39.3 98%
Thurston Co. PID 3.7 1.0 2.7 73%
Thurston Co. RR 1 /1 96.5 21.5 75.0 '78%

376.8 70.3 306.5 81%

SOURCE: Thurston Regional Planning Council.

Within Tumwater, the commercial/ industrial activities are
concentrated in only a few areas. To the east of the drainage
ditch, the sole activity is the Graystone plant and washing pond.
To the west of the drainage ditch the primary industrial park area
lies immediately north of Jones Quarry along Black Lake.Boulevard.
Another smaller center lies to the south also along the boulevard
and partially within the county zoning. A private unpaved airfield
is located east of and parallel to the drainage ditch.

South of the commercial/ industria.1 zone (C-1) in Tumwater and
Planned Industrial Park District (PIPD) in the county, north shores
of Black Lake are zoned for residences on one-acre lots. Due to
the presence of the wetlands along the drainage ditch, the existing
homes are located along Sapp Road or Black Lake Boulevard. Most
of the lowland portion of the parcels from the boulevard to the
ditch is being used for pasture.

3. Land Use Plan. As a part of the Tumwater Comprehensive Plan, a
discussion of the appropriate uses and activities is contained .fo r
the recent "Jones Annexation" now called Planning Area #11. The
future uses within this section of the Upper Reach are those
allowed by zoning subject to the provisions of both the "guidelines
for flood proofing and shoreline protection."

That area recently annexed and the area to the south are identified
on the Black Lake/ Littlerock/ Delphi Sub-Area Plan map. This map
is compatible with the zoning adopted for the sub-area. It
indicates that the industrial activities should be in a Planned
Industrial Park Development, and that uses to the south and
surrounding the lake should be residential at a density of one
dwelling unit per acre. The map also identifies a shoreline overlay
in the area of Associated Wetlands.

- 28 -

B Shorelines

The existing boundaries of the Associated Wetlands, the extent of the
100-year flood plain, and the 200-foot dimension from the drainage ditch
are all contained on Figure 13, page M-8. According to the Shoreline
Management Act, the extent of the shoreline jurisdiction is the greatest
extent of all of the above criteria. Previously to the Department of
Ecology's adoption of the drainage ditch as a "shoreline of the state"
(above 20 cfs mean annual flow), only the criteria for the Associated-
Wetlands applied. To comply with the Act, those areas which were
formerly considered uplands (not wetlands), but now fall within 200 feet
of the drainage ditch or within the 100-year flood plain are to be
included in the local Master Program and identified by a shoreline
IfEnvironment. 11 These provisions will apply to the 6,800 lineal feet of
the drainage ditch which lies in the Upper Reach.

Based upon Figure 6, page M-2, and the jurisdictional criteria, the
Associated Wetland is generally the most extensive criteria throughout
this reach. Generally, the 100-year flood plain falls within the 200-foot
horizontal distance and always within the Associated Wetland. New areas
which will be subject to the 200-foot horizontal dimension from the ditch
are limited to the,following:

Ownership General Location

Jones North and west of Gray Stone plant
Farr Strip along west side of ditch
Jones Eliptical fill island on west side of ditch
Jones Strip along east side of ditch along "Jones Island"

C. Ownership

The 1983 generalized ownership patterns, for'the planning area have been
researched with the County Assessor and mapped on Figure 14, page
M-9. The recommended categories from the Department of Ecology are as
follows:

1 . Large private water frontage more than 1 000 feet.
2. Small private water frontage less than 1 000 feet.
3. Federal
4. State
5. Local
6. Po rt District
7. Quasi-public and institutional (i.e., school districts, etc.).

First addressing the large private ownership, the one single owner with
.the most significant collection of parcel is William Jones. The Jones
ownership parallels both sides of the ditch for the distance of 3,400
lineal feet and shares the east bank with Frank Farr on the west bank
for another 1,500 feet. The Jones ownership also contains a substantial
amount of Associated Wetlands. The historic drainage channel, the
approved air strip, the gravel washing pond adjacent to Graystone, and
almost all of the commercial/ industrial buildings along Black Lake
Boulevard lie within this ownership.

The only other remaining larger private ownership is that of Frank Farr.
Activities there are focused on land excavation and heavy equipment
storage. That parcel also contains a small pond presumably from a peat
mining operation. There is no federal, port, or quasi-public lands
within the Upper Reach corridor.

The significant County ownership is the Black Lake Drainage Ditch
right-of-way which Thurston County accepted after abandoning
Consolidated Drainage District #101 in 1976. From the Burlington
Northern Railroad west, there is a 100-foot drainage way within which
the creek bed is from 20 to 30 feet wide. The drainage way extends
upstream to Black Lake but narrows to 50 feet in width near the lake.

The remainder of the parcels within the corridor into small private tracts
which are mostly undeveloped. The tracts include a varying amount of
wetland and upland area and some are constrained by the presence of
the Bonneville Power Administration transmission line easements. The
northern easement is 250 feet wider and the southeasterly approximately
375 feet.

D. Transportation and Utilities

Those existing public transportation and utility facilities lying within the
planning boundary are identified on Figure 15, page M-11. The
transportation and utility crossings within the Upper Reach are smaller
and less numerous than those found downstream. Table 14 identifies the
existing facilities in this reach.

TABLE 14: DRAINAGE DI TCH--TRANSPO RTAT ION AND UTILITY CROSSIMM9

Site Facilities
1. 25th Avenue extended 12.5 KV electrical
411 gas line
2. North "Jones Island" Private road bridge
3. South "Jones Island" Electrical
4. North BPA easement 250 KV electrical
Footbridge
5. South BPA easement Two 250 KV electrical
6. Black Lake/Belmore Road Two-lane bridge
12.5 KV electrical
411 gas line

SOURCE: Thurston Regional Planning Council.

Neither Tumwater or Thurston County have any formally adopted Capitol
Improvement Programs for sanitary sewer, water or storm drainage
facilities. Both have a yearly updated six-year arterial street program,
and this interfaces with the Urban Arterial Board and Federal Aid Urban
System funding programs. All long-range programs are identified in the
Transportation System Plan for the Thurston Metropolitan Area (1984) up
through 1995.

- 30

The Transportation Plan schedules the potential facilities as short-, mid-
and long-term improvements. It also identifies facilities which need to
be analyzed and are beyond the scope of the region's immediate needs.
Table 15 indicates the single facility which falls within the Upper Reach.

TABLE 15: 1995 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS

14. Black Lake Boulevard-- Widen to 4 lanes in $2,460,000
SR-101 to Black Lake/ Olympia; 2 lanes with (long-range)
Belmore turn pockets in County
with wider shoulders

SOURCE: Transportation System Plan for the Thurston Metropolitan, Area
(1984).

The priority financ.ing of facilities which are identified on a local
six-year plan are:

1 Black Lake/Belmore Road--bridge approach improvements; County

The proposed road and utility crossings of the wetlands in the Upper
Reach by the City of Tumwater include the following as mapped on
Figure 16, page M-1 1 :

I . 25th Avenue corridor (boundary of Middle and Upper Reaches)
2. 29th Avenue corridor
3. 34th Avenue corridor (Jones Bridge crossing).

The City has identified a desire to establish these three corridor
crossings, but would ultimately anticipate construction at only two
locations. The additional crossing was intended to allow some
development flexibility within the concept of the Corridor Plan. - Interest
was expressed in determining what type of environmental and mitigation
standards.would need to be met. Finally, there was also a concern that
crossing alternatives which were not economically feasible were not
"Real" alternatives since they would most likely not be constructed.

All three crossings would include a full utility corridor (water, sewer,
storm, gas, electric, telephone, telecable, etc.). There is no desire to
split the utilities and the road improvements although utilities may
precede the road improvements. General alignments were discussed with
a brief discussion of minimum road improvement standards and a 70-foot
right-of-way width. All crossing would require a public railroad
crossing and eventually signals at Black Lake Boulevard.

Environmentally, the.crossing should not block the flow of wildlife and
aquatic resource along the ditch and retain the wetland in as large
segments as possible. Mitigation options could range from no additional
crossings; to minimizing the significance/ scope of impacts; to rehabilitate
or restore the affected environment; and to compensate for loss by
replacement of that environment. The preferred means of wetland

crossing, where no reasonable alternative exists, is on elevated piers
(bridge structure) versus a road fill (except or 34th Avenue Corridor
which has already been filled). A comparison of these alternatives is
contained in Table 16.

TABLE 16--UPPER REACH, PROPOSED W.ETLAND CROSSINGS

25th 29th 34th
Avenue Avenue Avenue
CORRIDOR Corridor Corridor Corridor

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

A. New Road Crossing Yes Yes No
B. New Utility Crossing No Yes No
C. Traffic Network Best Good Poor
D. Utility Connection Poor Good Best
E. Multi-Jurisdictional Yes No No
F. Multi-Reach Yes No No

11. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

A. New Corridor Crossing Yes Yes No
B. Divides Extensive Wetland Areas No Yes No
C. Crossing of Wetland Yes Yes No
D. Distance of Crossing (feet) 400 - 700 500 0

111. CONSENSUS PRIORITY Second Third* First

Only if no reasonable alternative exists.

After reviewing the proposed crossing alternatives, the city, state
resource agencies and the advisory committee concluded that the 34th
Avenue Corridor was the preferred alternative since it had the fewest
constraints and involved an existing facility and alignment. The second
priority was the 25th Avenue Corridor with an elevated structure over
the wetland without providing substantial additional roadway design and
environmental data which could be submitted at a later date. The 29th
Avenue Corridor was last since it was not generally acceptable to
resource agencies since it would divide a largely undisturbed section of
wetlands which exhibit a desirable mix of wetland classes of primary
importance to wildlife.

E. Recreation

Currently, there are no existing recreation facilities within the Upper
Reach. At this time there are no proposals for any facilities within
either the Tumwater or Thurston County park and recreation plans.

IV. SUMMARY OF PLANS, ORDINANCES AND STUDIES

Over the past two decades, the Percival Creek corridor and its drainage
basin have experienced substantial growth. During that time a number of
local land use, transportation, and water-related plans, ordinances or studies
have been prepared in response to this growth and community concerns.

[his chapter is divided into sections per document type:

A. PLANS
B. U-RDINANCES
C. S7UDIrT

Plans will refer to comprehensive, or special purpose activity such as for
open space, or transportation. Plans represent a statement of public
policy. A plan is broad in context and establishes a framework within which
growth, development and change should take place in accord with the
community goals and aspirations.. Typically, plans contain goals, policies and
discussion of characteristics by neighborhoods or functional elements (i.e.,
housing, open space, utilities, etc.).

Ordinances implement adopted plans and provide regulations or standards for
actual sffii@specific development. Ordinance generally apply community-wide
and are implemented by means of an administrative permit process. Typical
types of land use ordinances addresses zoning, subdivision, and/or land
surface modification.

Studies are those , documents and reports which have been prepared for a
F
speciMic topic or functional element. Adoption of the studies generally require
a local ordinance for implementation, and the report may also become a part of
the local comprehensive plan. Studies are usually action-oriented and contain
specific recommendations for resolution of a current issue.

A -list of the most recent plans, ordinances and studies affecting the Percival
Creek corridor is identified on the following Table 17. Individual summaries
of those effecting the Upper Reach follows with a general discussion of the
document and then identifies those particular elements which are relevant to
this planning process.

TABLE 17: PLANS, ORDINANCES AND STUDIES
AFFECTING THE PERCIVAL CREEK CORRIDOR

A. PLANS

Comprehensive July 1975 Thurston County
PTan Nov. 1975 Olympia--Revision
Oct. 1977 Tumwater--Revision
Feb. 1979 Olympia--Westside Task Force
Sept. 1981 Thurston County--Sub-Area *6: Black Lake/Littlerock/Delphi

Parks and Dec. 1974 Thurston County
Tp-e _n Tp -ac e June 1978 Tumwater
Jan. 1980 Olympia
Jan. 1983 Thurston County--Interim Open Space Tax

Transportation Oct. 1975 Thurston Regional Comprehensive Transportation and
Planning Study
Jan. 1984 Transportation System Plan for the Thurston Metropolitan Area

B. ORDINANCES

Environmentally Sept. 1980 Thurston County--Zoning #20.36
S-ensitive Dec. 1984 Olympia--Zoning-#18.61
A-reas

Flood Plain Oct. 1980 Tumwater
Feb. 1982 Olympia
Dec. 1982 Thurston County

Land Clearing Oct. 1980 Olympia
an. Grading

SEPA June 1971 State Environmental Policy Act
Oct. 1984 Olympia--Revision
Sept. 1984 Tumwater--Revision
Sept. 1984 Thurston County--Revision

Shoreline Nov. 1972 Shoreline Management Act
May 1976 Shoreline Master Program
Oct. 1984 Shoreline Master Program--Revision

Subdivision May 1978 Tumwater--Revision
April 1980 Thurston County--Revision
June 1982 Olympia--Revision

Zoning Sept. 1980 Thurston County
Sept. 1981 Thurston County--Sub-Area *6: Black Lake Littlerock/
Delphi
Dec. 1981 Olympia--Revision
July 1984 Tumwater--Revision

C. STUDIES

Regional Mar. 1983 Urban Growth Management
Development

Water Feb. 1973 Percival Creek Drainage Basin
Nov. 1974 Water Pollution Control and Abatement Plan for the
Deschutes River Basin
July 1976 Capitol Lake--Recreation and Restoration Design Plans
Mar. 1983 Stormwater Management in Northern Thurston County
Jan. 1984 Capitol Lake Restoration Analysis
Jan. 1984 Stream Corridor Management Plan for the Deschutes River Basin

SOURCE: Thurston Regional Planning Council.

34 -

A. PLANS

1 Thurston County Comprehensive Plan (1975). This plan is largely
a policy planning guide with goal and policy statements based upon
functional elements (i.e., agriculture, wildlife, transportation, etc.).
The plan also establishes the sub-area planning process. An
Optimum Land Use Map is contained within the plan; however, it is
of small scale and generally defines broad activity areas (i.e.,
growth, rural, timber, etc.) rather than specific sites.

General references to the Percival Creek corridor from this Plan are
as follows:

Page 17. "Department of Fisheries and other programs to
manage production of shellfish and salmon in both natural and
artificial environments should be su ppo rted. (Natural
Resources; Aquaculture Policy 4.)

Page 17. "The Capitol Lake rearing program resulted in a
1974 release of 60,000 chinook, most of which are expected to
remain in the region for sports and commercial fishing."

Page 49. "A system of bike and pedestrian paths coordinated
with open space would be a regional asset, especially in the
growth areas of the County." (See map.)

Page 50. "The map--Urban Open Space Network Concept,"
indicates a park along Percival Creek and the fflack Lake
Drainage Basin from Black Lake to Capitol Lake. That linear
park connecting with others along Capitol Lake, south along
Little Percival Creek, and north along the Grass La ke
drainage.

2. Tumwater Comprehensive - 'Plan (1984). This plan for Tumwater
comprises two major sections: one on goals and policies to guide all
land use decisions, and the other on neighborhood development.

The Plan contains a discussion regarding development of each of its
ten planning areas as neighborhoods. The Upper Reach lies wi.thin
Planning Area #11, Black Lake North.

Specific recommendations from this document are as follows:

."The portion of this planning area, which is located along the
Black Lake Drainage Ditch and in the wetland area just north
of Black Lake, should be subject to construction and
development guidelines for floodproofing and shoreline
protection. The area should be continually protected not to
prohibit uses, but to insure that activities will be compatible
with the environment. The remaining portions of the property
should be planned for a continuation of the commercial/
industrial /warehouse type uses which exist there already
because it appears that the land use trends in general have
already been set. Care must be. taken, however, to protect

315

the residential uses which exist within and adjacent to the
planning area from undue impacts through the use of buffering
and other means where possible. As part of the area is
covered by valid surface mining permits from the State, those
operations should be safeguarded.

"In order to lessen traffic conflicts on Black Lake Boulevard,
the use of frontage streets and common driveways should be
encouraged so that points of direct vehicular access to Black
Lake Boulevard are kept to a minimum.

"The possibility of using a planned development concept for
the property could be explored. Because of the many factors
affecting the land, it may be easier and beneficial for all
concerned to consider these options."

Specific references to the Percival Creek corridor are as follows:

Page PI-2. "There are certain areas of concern for the City
of Tumwater which can only be addressed by individual
in-depth planning studies. Among those studies considered
vital at this time are the following arranged in order of
priority:

113. Water Studies. This study would concern itself with
Tumwaterri-natural water bodies (Deschutes River,
Percival Creek, Barnes Lake, Capitol Lake, and
Trosper Lake) and how to maintain a high level of
environmental quality. Preservation of these water
bodies is essential in creating a high quality living
environment in Tumwater.11 (implementation)

3. Black Lake/ Littlerock/ Delphi Sub-Area Plan (1981). This sub-area
is one of ten County planning areas. It includes background
discussion of the natural and cultural features as well as
recommended land use for this portion of the County.

Specific references to the Upper Reach of Percival Creek corridor
are as follows:

Page 17. "Over half of the known peat deposits within the
ro-unty occur in the sub-area, accounting for some 1,765 acres
of peat. The Percival Creek area to the north of Black Lake
contains 258 acres of peat. . . The above areas play an
important role in their natural state due to their function in
the ground water cycle. These areas are costly if not
impossible to develop and provide a needed habitat for our
vanishing wildlife. In their natural state, they provide a
wilderness that can never be duplicated by man. Portions of
the peat bog areas are not protected under the Shoreline
Master Program." (Natural Resources)

Page 23. "in the Deschutes and in Percival Creek, the
chinook and coho salmon are principally fall-run adults and

36 -

rearing juveniles. Between 1960 and 1970, the annual chinook
salmon escapement averaged 12,620 per year, and the annual
coho count averaged 3,195 per year. It is estimated that
Percival Creek chinook runs have averaged 3,155 fish per year
for the same period. Since the chum salmon do not readily
ascend fishways, their occurrence is confined principally to
the independent drainages, including Percival Creek of the
Budd Inlet drainage." (Natural Resources)

Pages 23,and 24. "Concerning Percival Creek,.which supports
both salmiTn- -and steelhead spawning, it should be noted that
the creek is the primary source of freshwater supply to the
Percival Cove salmon rearing pond which is owned and
operated by the Washington State Department of Fisheries."
(Natural Resources)

Pages .51 and. 52. "Black Lake Boulevard. Near the Olympia
City limits, @e_veral* heavy commercial-and light industrial
businesses have been established, including auto body repair
and painting, motorcycle sales and marine supply. This road
has good access to Highway 101 via a nearby interchange,
there are few residences in the vicinity, and there is very
little room for other development along the narrow corridor
between the peat bog and the steep basalt hills. There is also
a small area on the east side of the peat bog adjacent to the
Mottman Industrial Park in Tumwater, as well as an "island" of
gravel soils surrounded by the bog. This area should. be
zoned for planned industrial parks with provisions designed to
protect surrounding residential uses, the traffic-carrying
integrity of the arterial and the environmental values of the
peat bog area." (The Proposed Plan)

Page 54. "Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Therefore,
areas with geologic hazards (slide or settling potential) ,
marshes, swamps or bogs, and significant wildlife habitats
such as the major streams are proposed to be designated as
environmentally sensitive areas and preserved for their value
as greenbelts. Very little development should be permitted;
development on parcels including environmentally sensitive
areas should be clustered on other parts of the site. Figure
17 identifies probably environmentally sensitive areas for the
purpose of alerting property owners and public officials to
potentially severe development limitations. The map is not
intended to replace the -need for an on-site inspection to
determine the true situation." (The Proposed Plan)

Page 55. Figure 17. 1 This graphic indicates that those areas
containing peat resources located north of Black Lake and
along the drainage ditch have been classified as an
Environmentally Sensitive Area.

4. Tumwater Park and Open Space Plan (1978). Adopted as an
element of the Tumwater Compremensi'v-5--PTa-E, it represents an
assessment of the present requirements of City residents for open

37 -

space, as well as needs for conservation of valuable natural lands
in the light of anticipated urban growth. One of the intents of the
plan is to:

Page 1 . "Provide basic guidelines for the conservation of land
@W'ithunique natural features."

A number of Findings and Recommendations were included in the
Plan based upon the State Open Space Plan and a Tumwater
committee report.

Page 3 * Consider methods of land use control as means of
preserving and acquiring recreational and scenic areas, and
also areas which are environmentally sensitive. "Improving
environmental quality requires revision of codes, ordinances,
regulations, and environmental practices. This can be
accomplished through combining recreational opportunities and
environmental enhancement by protecting a resource from
pollution, noncompatible uses, or providing essential open
space in highly developed areas. It will be important to set
environmental quality criteria. to limit encroachments of
noncompatible uses on recreation and open space systems and
prevent further deterioration of already damaged areas."
(Washington State-wide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and
Open Space Plan, 1973)

Page 4 . Coordinate the City's Master Bikeway Plan with
regiona plans in providing a contiguous system of urban
greenways, incorporating walking trails, and paths for the use
of non-motorized transportation connecting recreational,
educational, and other public use facilities.

To implement objective #2 of the Plan, the following policies were
identified which are directly or indirectly related to the Percival
Creek corridor:

Page 8.

7. Pedestrian and bicycle networks should be develQped
throughout the City in accordance with the City Master
Bikeway Plan.

Page 9.

14. The City should investigate the possibility of leasing
property from Bonneville Power Authority or utilizing
other utility easements for recreational purposes.

18. Where physical constraints (swamps, drainage ways, steep
slopes, etc.) render areas unsuitable for development,
they should be preserved as open space and should not
be used for active recreation that would disturb the
natural systems of those areas.

- 38

5. Thurston County Open Space, Parks, Recreation and ATV Plan
Tl-97-4-T-.This Plan does not mention Percival Creek by naFe-.The
,Plan does mention, as an objective of the Open Space Goals, the
following -

Page 108. "The linkage of shoreline parks and public access
points through provisions for linear open spaces should be
encouraged. Such open spaces could include hiking paths,
bicycle paths, ATV trails, and/or scenic drives."

6. Open Space Taxation (1985)-. During the past two years, the
Thurston County Planning Commission, planning staff and
Assessor's Office explored innovative means of selecting priority
lands for enrollment under the Washington State Open Space
Taxation Act (RCW 84.34). Th 'is recently adopted open space
program (for unincorporated lands) would include prioritized
eligibility criteria and a formula to ca-Iculate the percentage of tax
reduction based upon the three factors. Those factors are listed
below:

a. The type, number, and priority of on-site resources (i.e.,
archaeological sites, urban open space, etc.).

b. Use by the public (i.e., none, seasonal or unlimited).

C. Reserved as permanent open space (i.e., deed restrictions or
conservation easements).

Thurston County Open Space Tax Program

Basic Qualifying Eligibility--Priority Resources Maximum 9 points
Tat-least one priority resource Must be present
in order to qualify for classification).

A. HIGH PRIORITY RESOURCES-3 points each

1. Aquatic Ecosystems
2. Archaeological Sites
3. Geologic and Shoreline Features
4. Historical Sites
5. "Natural" Shoreline Environments
6. Significant Wildlife Habitat Areas
7. Special Animal Sites
8. Special Plant Sites
9. Terrestrial Ecosystems
10. Private Recreation Areas

B. MEDIUM PRIORITY RESOURCES-2 points each

1. Public Lands Buffers
2. "Conservancy" Shoreline Environments
3. Scenic Vista or Resources
4. Urban Open Spaces

C. LOW PRIORITY RESOURCES--l point each

1. Anadromous Fish-Rearing Habitat--Ponds and Streams

11. fligibility Enhancements

A. Conservation Easement -- 3 points Maximum 3 points

B. Access -- 1 to 3 points as follows: Maximum 3 points

Some Public Access (Members
or Seasonal) -- 1 point

Limited Access Due to Resource
Sensitivity -- 3 points

Unlimited Public Access -- 3 points

TOTAL -- MAXIMUM 15 POINTS

Eligibility: 0-2 points = Not eligible; 3-15 points = Eligible

As proposed, the tax reduction for enrolled properties would range
from 50 to 90 percent depending upon the on-site resources, public
benefit, and permanency of the open space classification. This
portion of the program was not adopted.

Currently, none of the municipal jurisdictions in the county have
specific enrollment criteria for open space lands beyond those
established in the Act.

7. Transportation System Plan for the Thurston Metropolitan Area
(1984). Adopted as an update of Me 1975 Plan, this revised
Regional Transportation System Plan includes goals and policies to
guide transportation activities within each of the local jurisdictions
in Thurston County, and recommends various circulation
improvement projects and programs which are in conformance with
the goals and policies.

The revised Plan identifies unique transportation problems
associated with eight broad travel corridors in Thurston County,
and recommends transportation improvements tailored to resolve
them. The Plan identifies the following transportation facilities
improvements that would affect the Upper Reach.

Transportation System Improvements

Reconstruction of Existing Arterials

Black Lake Boulevard--SR-101 to Widen to 4 lanes in Olympia; 2
Black Lake/Belmore lanes with turn pockets in
County with wider shoulders

- 40

B. ORDINANCES

1. Flood Plain Ordinance. In accordance with the requirements.of the
National Flood Insurance Program administered through the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, all three jurisdictions have adopted
ordinances with stringent requirements for new construction and
land development within designated "special flood hazard ares," or
areas of 100-year flooding. The ordinance requires that adminis-
trative approval be obtained from the Building Official prior to the
commencement of construction, and that the proposed development
adhere to general regulations designed to mitigate flood hazards.

The Black Lake Drainage Ditch has been designated as a "special
flood hazard area." (Refer to Figure 13, page M-8)

2. State Environmental Pol icy Act--SEPA (1971). All three
jurisdictions have adopted ordinances implemeFt-ing @EPA within
their boundaries. In general, the purposes of the Act are:

Ila. To declare a state policy which will encourage productive and
enjoyable harmony between man and his environment.
b. To promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to
the environment and biosphere.
c. Stimulate the health and welfare of man.
d. To enrich the understanding of the ecological sy -stems and
natural resources important to the state and nation.11 (RCW
43.21 C. 010)

SEPA provides a review process which requires the assessment of
project impacts upon the natural and the manmade environment. It
establishes a minimum threshold when "environmental checklists" are
required based upon the type and size of the proposal, but also
can require a checklist when the project is located within an
Environmentally Sensitive Area or on lands covered by water.

When a project is found to be a major action with significant
adverse environmental impacts, a detailed document referred to as
an Environmental Impact Statement is to be prepared and circulated
to the public. When adverse impacts are identified, specific
mitigation measures may be required thereby conditioning a permit
approval. Finally, when mitigation is not possible or practical and
the impacts of the project are determined to be significant and
adversely affecting the environment, the project can be denied on
that basis. No permits may be issued until the SEPA process is
complete.

3. Shoreline Management Act (1972). Shoreline activities along the
Te'rcival Creek corridor ari@_regulatecl by the Shoreline Master
Program for the Thurston Region. This program was adopted to
implement the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) which was
enacted in November, 1972 by the citizens of Washington State.
The Act required every general purpose governmental jurisdiction
to (1) complete an inventory of local shorelines; (2) establish a
permit system to regulate shoreline development; and (3) develop a
Master Program to guide future development of shorelines.

The Act and Washington State Department of Ecology approved local
master programs governing development within all streams and
rivers of the State and their "associated wetlands," with a mean
annual flow of 20 cubic feet per second or more. Originally, only
Percival Creek below the confluence with the Black Lake Drainage
Ditch met this criteria; however, a recent evaluation by the
Washington State Department of Ecology indicated that the drainage
ditch has a mean annual flow of 46 cfs and is also subject to
shoreline jurisdiction.

The areas along Percival Creek which fie within shoreline
jurisdiction are defined by the Act and the Shoreline Master
Program for the Thurston Region (1983) as those lands extending
landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal
plane from the ordinary high-water mark (the vegetation line), or
the 100-year flood plain as established and mapped on the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps published by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. However, this typical boundary may extend to
the outer perimeter of marshes, bogs or swamps if it lies adjacent
to a designated water body. Such areas are referred to as
"associated wetlands."

While the previous discussion defines a specific limit to shoreline
jurisdiction, the Act also states:

"This chapter is exempted from the rule of strict
construction, and it shall be liberally construed to give
full effect to the objectives and purposesi-To-F-w-h-ric-h it was
enacted." [Emphasis Added] (RCW 90.5--87-9-0-0-T-

The adverse impacts of activities often extend well beyond the
boundaries of the activity, property lines, or the typical 200-foot
boundary. Logical boundaries for planning purposes are the
natural features such as the tops of bluffs, lines of vegetation, or
manmade features such as railroads and highways.

Therefore, for the purposes of the Percival Creek Corridor Plan,
11adjacent lands" should be referred to as the following:

Adjacent lands are those lands immediately adjacent to and
abutting lands under permit jurisdiction of the Shoreline
Management Act which extend landward to the extent
necessary to control direct and significant impact to
shorelands and to implement the management policy
articulated in the Act, the Department -of Ecology
guideline, and the local Master Program. The inland
extent will necessarily vary with the particular
management objectives and the shoreline setting.

4. Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region (1984). The
seven municipal jurisdictions which are required to-administer the
Shoreline Management Act, in cooperation with the Thurston
Regional Planning Council, have adopted a revised Shoreline Master
Program to replace the original document. Although jointly

42 -

adopted, the new Master Program did not become effective until
authorized by the Washington State Department of Ecology.

The Shoreline Master Program is a combination of public goal
statements, policy plan, development plan -and standard-setting
ordinance. It contains general goals and policies Jor all of the
various use activities that make use of shorelands and their waters.
These goals and ' policies apply to those shorelines areas along
Percival Creek and the Drainage Ditch. In order of the least to
most intense development, the existing environments are:
"NATURAL, CONSERVANCY, RURAL AND URBAN." The extent of
the Natural Shoreline Environment is mapped as wetlands on Figure
13, page M-8.

The Master Program is also a development guide for shoreline
activities. It begins by assessing the existing development
patterns, biophysical capabilities and limitations of shoreline areas,
and 'the goals of the citizens. From this process, varying
intensities of land use allowed by segment of shoreline are mapped
out. These shoreli.ne segments have been designated as one of four
shoreline "Environments" although additional environments can be
considered.

The method of establishing shoreline "Environments" is based on the
degree of human intrusion into the shoreline and the degree of
significance of the existing physical features. In addition to these
four generalized environmental designations, local governments are
also authorized to use more flexibility to develop other shoreline
designations which address the unique circumstances of the
jurisdiction.

The Environment designation system is designed Ao encourage uses
in each "Environment" which enhance the character of that
shoreline. Environment designations should not be considered a
substitute for local planning and zoning. Zoning may further refine
the allocation of space and regulation of uses.' For example, the
Master Program may designate a large area "URBAN" (to be used
for intensive development), but the zoning then may "divide up"
that "URBAN" area into areas of different use such as residential,
commercial or industrial. Further, a local code, such as sign
ordinance, may be much more detailed than the general sign
regulations contained within the Master Program. Finally, the
Master Program also contains specific regulations of uses and
activities as established by each shoreline environment.

Because the Master Program is technically a State law (adopted by
the Department of Ecology), the requirements of the Master Program
will prevail in the event of a conflict with the local zoning or plan.
Whether there is a "conflict" will depend upon the specific subject
under consideration. However, a conflict will generally not exist if
the zoning or plan requirements are more protective of the
shoreline; the requirements of the more restrictive code would
prevail.

5. Subdivision Ordinance. All th ree jurisdiction have adopted
o
T
r inances providing for the legal subdivision of land within their
boundaries. The State Platting Act (RCW 58.17.120) provi-des for
the following:

"The city, town or county legislative body shall consider
the physical characteristics of a proposed subdivision site
and may disapprove a proposed plat because of flood,
inundation, or swamp conditions. Construction of
protective improvements may be required as a condition of
approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the
final plat. 11

6. Thurston County Zoning Ordinance (198 0). In 1980, Thurston
County adopted its first zoning ordinance text for the entire
County. Mapping designation, land use types and density
provisions are established only after a sub-area planning process
has been undertaken. To date, all but two of the sub-area plans
have been completed.

The Zoning Ordinance has a special chapter on Environmentally
Sensitive Areas (20.36) which would apply (1) to the Percival Creek
corridor. This chapter would apply since the peat deposits along
the Black Lake Drainage Ditch were mapped as "Environmentally
Sensitive" in the Sub-Area Plan; (2) the area is also a wetland of
over one acre in size; and (3) the watercourse which is an
anadromous fish rearing habitat. The Environmentally Sensitive
designations is referred to as an overlay zone and is in addition to
the primary criteria of the zoning map and text,

The provisions of the Environmentally Sensitive Chapter provide
that "certain test and analytical studies be made prior to approval
of development proposals," and "that mitigating steps be taken . .
to eliminate or minimize the adverse effects of construction." The
chapter also provides that "in addition to meeting the minimum
standards of the underlying zone, more restrictive conditions may
be prescribed (including the following areas):

111. Building and development coverage
2. Setbacks
3 * Size of lots and development sites
4. Height limits
5. Density limits
6. Restoration of ground cover and vegetation
7. Other measures for environmental protection."

In addition to the Environmentally Sensitive provisions, the Zoning
Ordinance also contains a chapter regarding "Standards Relating to
Physical Limitations of Land (20.35).11 This chapter contains
(1) grounds for disallowance of development permit; (2) requires a
drainage study of subdivisions and site plan review permits;
(3) requires a soils analysis on slopes above 30 percent; (4) limits
clearing and grading in ravines; and (5) protects open space from
clearing and grading.

44 -

7. Tumwater Zoning Ordinance (1984). In July of 1984 a revised
Zoning Ordinance and map to-o-k--e-ffect in the City. Those zoning
map designations as a result of the Planning Area #11 annexation
are identified on Figure 12, page M-7.

C. STUDIES

1. Urban Growth' Management--Memorandum of. Understanding (1983).
The local jurisdictions of Olympia, Tumwater, Lacey and Thurston
County have agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding which
recognizes the need for interjurisdictional cooperation on urban
growth and service provision issues. *The Memorandum designates
an Urban Growth Management Planning (UGMP) boundary within
which urban services are, appropriate and will be established.
Percival Creek lies within thi.s boundary. The Memorandum
requires that local jurisdictions take all reasonable steps to minimize
urban growth outside the UGMP area by creating incentives for
urban development inside the UGMP area.

2. Water Pollution Control and Abatement Plan for Deschutes River
Basin (1974). During 1972, 1973 and 1974, a consultant in
conjuncti6-nwith the Thurston Regional Planning Council, a
technical and a coordinating committee prepared a report on the
sanitary sewer facilities in the metropolitan area.

Although not specifically mentioning Percival Creek, the following.
conclusions and recommendations may be applicable:

Conclusion

Page viii. 13. Regulatory agencies may require stormwater
discharges to be treated within the 30-year period considered
in this report.

Recommendations

Page ix. 1. The major facilities of the Regionalization Plan
for the urban area of the Deschutes River Basin should be
managed by one agency.

Paqe xi. 14. A budget item should be established for the
T-hurston-Mason Health District for a full-time employee and
equipment to monitor lake and stream water quality degradation
expected from increased developments utilizing septic tanks
and drainfields.

a. The monitoring program should be coordinated with other
agencies to implement a unified course of action when
water quality degradation or health hazards are detected.
b. An increase in septic, tank permit fees should be
considered to fund this recommendation.

Page xii. 19. Buffer strips of varying widths composed of
U_r_u`s`F,_non -me rchan table evergreens, and hardwood species

should be left along shorelines to help maintain proper water
temperatures and minimize erosion for the protection of aquatic
life and water quality.

Page xii. 20. Detailed operational procedures should be
clevelope and implemented for management of watershed lands
so as to substantially reduce or eliminate the availability of silt
for runoff into and for transport by the Deschutes River.

3. Capitol Lake Restoration and Recreation Plan Design Report (1976).
These p!ans and their accompanying Environmental I mpa-ct
Statements compiled a great deal of data regarding the proposed
improvements to Capitol Lake. While the two elements are integrally
related, the restoration activity is primarily related to establishment
of a dredging and maintenance program for the lake. The
recreation element explored the possible beneficial uses of dredged
sp oil sites by providing for expanded recreational and habitat use.
Those parts of the 1976 Plan specifically affecting the Percival
Creek corridor are as follows.

The east bank of Percival Cove is identified as a disposal site for
dredged material. Percival Cove would be dredged of 20,000 cubic
yards of sands and gravels to allow complete drainage during the
annual lake draw down and to provide a sediment trap at the mouth
of Percival Creek.

The proposed plans for the Percival Cove gravel pit are for
contoured terracing providing a meadow and an open playfield of
over four acres. The site is also to have a children's play area
and parking for about 40 cars. A pedestrian trail is proposed
along the east side of Percival Cove and would continue easterly
from Deschutes Parkway along the north bank of the creek for the
distance of the park.

4. Stormwater Management in North Thurston County (1983). During
March and April of 191:51, the jurisdictions of Lace7-, Olympia,
Tumwater and Thurston County passed resolutions recognizing the
need for a coordinated and comprehensive approach to stormwater
management, and supporting an investigation into the creation pf a
stormwater utility.

In response to the resolutions, the Thurston Regional Planning
Council coordinated a study of program alternatives and financing
options for stormwater management during 1982 and 1983.

The major short-term recommendations of Volume I are as follows:

a. Separate stormwater expenditures in each municipal budget.
b. Establish a stormwater enterprise utility in each jurisdiction,
funded by:
(1) Traditional street maintenance sources
(2) Assessment of 11stormwater utility charge."

- 46

c Support interjurisdictional coordination by public works staffs
by:
(I ) Inventory existing drainage facilities
(2) Providing a consistent complaint and problem monitoring
program
(3) Install cooperative rainfall monitoring
(4) Adopt a uniform design manual
(5) Designate priority basins for detailed basin planning
(6) Reviewing "Regional" management concerns (i.e.
operation,. capitol construction, maintena nce, critical
areas, etc.).
d. Assume maintenance for detention ponds and other facilities in:
(1) New development
(2) Existing development
(3) Individual on-site facilities
e. Establish and implement target levels of regular maintenance
for street drainage systems.
f. Establish desired levels and funding for regulation activities.
g. Contour mapping of the north County drainage.
h. Adopt stormwater utility rates.
i. Identify priority problem areas requiring remedial action.

While the various reports in Volume 11 are general in nature, some
of the more important aspects are noted below:

a. Consider the Department of Fisheries position paper on
adopting the dominate stream flow (typically a 1.5- to 2-year
storm occurrence) as the allowable runoff release rate. (Note:
Refer to the discussion of this concept in the following
document.)
b. Regionalize stormwater management and continue to rely on
retention /detention ponds of a minimum size, and design.
C. Give further study to areas designated as wetlands and their
impacts from urban stormwater runoff.

5. Capitol Lake Restoration Analysis (1984). Prepared for the
Washington State Department ot Uenerar_7@_dmin istrat ion, this report
provides specific recommendations for needed water quality
improvements needed in Capitol Lake. The goals identified in the
report were to:

a. Prevent future fish kills
b. Provide management policy for sedimentation of the lake
C. Identify historical water quality issues
d. Evaluate the swimming beach restoration at Capitol Lake Park.

This document notes the need for a comprehensive basin-wide
drainage program due to the following observations:

Page 63. "A stream channel under natural conditions is in a state
of qii-a-si- or dynamic equilibrium with its flow regime. It is
generally thought that the channel is in equilibrium with a peak
flow rate and volume having a return frequency of approximately
two years; this flow is called the dominant flow. Increasing
urbanization, without effective hydraulic controls, will significantly
increase the dominant flow; the channel will therefore respond by
establishing a new equilibrium which can only occur by erosion of
the channel. If developed runoff rates are controlled to only a
10-year return frequency, the sediment flow in the developed basin
would still be significantly greater than that which existed prior to
development.

Page 63. "An on-site facility is typically designed and located
withoilt- consideration of the effect of the timing of its discharge on
either adjacent facilities or on the historic runoff regime of the
stream itself. Theoretical and field studies have demonstrated that
the placement of on-site facilities in a random fashion throughout
the basin using the same design criterion will not necessarily
mitigate the impacts of development (McCuen, 1979; Hardt and
Burges, 1976; Minton, 1983). In fact, depending upon its location
in the basin, the facility may make peak rate conditions in the
stream worse than if the facility had not been installed."

Page 63. "The Rational Method, which is typically used to
determine the 10-year design runoff, commonly overestimates the
true value, particularly for moderate to well-drained soils. As a
result, the outlet may be oversized, allowing peak discharges which
are greater than a 10-year storm."

Page 64. "The desired hydraulic condition for the basin can best
be ma@intained by the careful sizing and placement of "regional"
ponds located- at a few points within the basin, complemented by
on-site facilities where needed. Ideally, the design criteria are
varied with each facility as a function of its location and
relationship to the other facilities. Basin-wide hydraulic modeling
is required to define such relationship."

Pages 64-66. "Based upon these observations, "it is recommer)ded
that a asin-wide management plan be developed to help identify
(and reduce) existing problems and to mitigate problems likely to
occur with continued development of the watershed. Development of
such a plan should include the following elements:

a. Define existing conditions
b. Determine biological maintenance goals
C. Prepare a hydrologic/hydraulic model
d. Identify and evaluate technical issues
e. Citizen involvement
f. Formation of a storm drainage utility or authority."

As a first-priority level task, the Percival Creek Watershed Master
Plan described in this report is estimated to cost $250,000 and
would be implemented by Olympia, Tumwater and Thurston County

with the Departments of Fisheries and Game as advisory agencies.
Potential funding sources have been identified as Referendum 39
and local contribution.

The report also contained several third-priority recommendations for
actions affect *ing Percival Cove. The cove was to be added to the
Capitol Lake dredging cycle and dredged once every 16 years (page
127). Seal off Enriched sediments from fish food and wastes were
to be sealed of by the use of alurninum sulfate (alum) treatment
-(Page 123). Performance monitoring of water quality within the
drainage basin was to be done at 12 stations to evaluate the
effectiveness of program and provide long-term baseline date (page
124).

6. Stream Corridor Management* Plan for the Deschutes River (1984).
Prepared by the Thurston County Conservation District aTa part of
the Capitol La.ke Restoration Analysis, this document details the
sedirEe-ntation and erosion issues within the drainage basin. This
report concludes that:

"The excessive erosion Q@ the steeply gravelly banks of
the Lower Reach of Percival Creek is a recent occurrence
coincidental to the development of new shopping and
business centers in West Olympia. . . Stormwater runoff
from this development must be addressed to reduce
negative impacts to the stream system." (page 49)

The report found five debris accumulations of which none were
considered severe, and only two of six leaning trees posed bank
erosion problems. Based upon a cost/benefit ratio of minimizing
erosion sources versus dredging Percival Cove, no specific
corrective action was proposed along the creek.

D. GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Stormwater Policy. At the present time, the three jurisdictions
within th-F-Ta'sin (Olympia, Tumwater and Thurston County)
implemented drainage control practices for significan.t developments.
The jurisdictions require the contractor to use erosion control
measures during the construction period and the installation of
permanent, on-site stormwater control facilities, such as ponds or
underground tanks, to moderate the increased runoff rate.
Facilities are currently designed to meet a 10-year flow per
100-year storm criterion. That is, the outlet of the facility is sized
to keep the runoff rate equal to or less than that expected, from a
storm with a 10-year frequency under natural (predeveloped)
ground cover conditions; and the facility volume must be sufficient
to contain a 100-year storm (post development).

SWM: Ide/ 685.14

V. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

A. Advisory Committee

As a continuation of the Percival Creek Corridor Plan preparation of the
text for the Upper Reach ;i-lsoinvolved interested parties in the plant-ling
process. Unlike the Corridor Plan for the Canyon and Middle Reachles a
single advisory committee was established to assist the staff and provide
a broadest spectrum of review. The committee contained departmental
representatives f rom the three local jurisdictions, a f fected state
agencies, an Indian Tribe,- property owners and community groups with
both "environmental" and "business" viewpoints.

Early on a field trip was made to the drainage ditch and wetlands. The
committee also received technical presentations on selected issues. All
meetings were open to the general public and several interest community
groups which followed the previous Corridor Plan continued to attend the
meetings. The Committee reviewed and critiq the plan a chapter at a
time. Only once was a vote necessary to decide an issue, with
jurisdictional differences recognized and consensus reached on all other
issues. In general the advisory committee meetings were characterized
by a free exchange of views, interaction and favorable progress..

During those meetings the committee's input largely charted the final
course for the policies and regulations. The quality and usability of
this document can directly be attributed to the countless hours spent by
each individual. It is by no small measure that their assistance and
participation was absolutely invaluable to the corridor staff.

The various committee members and their representatives are listed
below:

UPPER REACH ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Tumwater Parks Depa rtment Jerry Petheram
Tumwater Planning Commission Bob Bruce
Tumwater Planning Department Alice Conrad
Tumwater Public Works Department Doug Johnston
Thurston County Health Department Marilou Taylor
Thurston County Planning Commission Hans Littooy
Thurston County Planning Department Tom Clingman
Thurston County Public Works Patti Ingersoll
Olympia Planning Commission Jay Butts
Olympia Planning Department John Hubbard
Squaxin Indian Tribe Brian Wood
WA State Department of Ecology Joe Williams
WA State Department of Fisheries Jim Fraser
WA State Department of Game Mark Grandstaff
WA state Department of General Administration Bob Arndt
Black Hills Audubon Society Chuck Chambers
Property Owner Representative Jim Whisler
Property Owner Representative Bill Jones/Elliott Brown
Tumwater Action Committee Jack Rabourn
Tumwater Interested Citizen Howard Godat
so -

B Wetland Boundary Mapping

Although not identified in the initial scope of work, it soon became
apparent to both the staff and the advisory committee that identification
of the wetland boundary was a top priority. It was only with the
assistance of the Department of Ecology and the Tumwater Public Works
Department that such an effort was possible.

A team of wetland or riparian technicians was organized by the
Department of Ecology, representing local, state, and federal agencies.
An opportunity was provided for both property owners and local
Jurisclictions to have representatives in the wetland boundary team.
Approximately 450 individually numbered stakes were placed along the
wetland edge representing over a week of field work. The location of
these stakes were field located by the City of Tumwater and Thurston
County, and platted as an overlay for the Upper Reach base map. It is
only with the contribution of this survey work and twenty-three (23)
field days for the wetland team that the wetland boundary was field
located.

It is with deep appreciation that the following individuals assisted in this
effort:

WETLAND BOUNDARY TEAM

Mary Burg (Team Leader) WA Department of Ecology
Bob Ziegler WA Department of Game
Mark Grandstaff WA Department of Game
Dyan ne Sheldon King County Planning and Community Development
John Cooper U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Kathy Combs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The following crew from the Washington Conservation Corps also
provided by the Department of Ecology assisted in clearing the wetland
boundary line, largely enabling the surveying to be completed:

WASHINGTON CONSERVATION CORPS

Lynn Gordon (Crew Chief)
Todd Webster
Larry McDonald
Kevin Trenberth
Dick Lemcke
Rob Freedman

C. Issues and Concerns

During the first meeting of the Percival Creek Corridor Plan Upper
Reach Advisory Committee, the representatives were asked to aescribe
their concerns or identify the major issues as they saw it. A summary
of those statements follows:

Evergreen-Park, Inc.

-- Looking forward to see outline of wetlands and associated wetland
material. 51

Squaxin Island Tribe

Although Ahere are different features in the Upper Reach,
consistency should be sought between the upper and downstream
reaches to implement the concept of a "corridor" management plan.
What happens to the wetland is critical issue and changes will effect
the hydrology which may result in adverse downstream impacts.

Jones Quarry

First priority is to establish a definitive survey map or photograph
which identifies what areas are considered "Natural" (in shoreline
jurisdiction) and those that are not (in uplands).
A second 'concern is directly related to the issues identified above
(wetland versus uplands) and its effects on taxation.

Tumwater Planning Department

The planning process should result in a clear and accurate
delineation of the wetland areas.
Would like to see balance of recognition of wetland and its
importance to the general public and at,the same time a very strong
support for any private property rights.
This document and planning process should show that the Upper
Reach really is an entirely different area in its problems, issues,
and concern from other reaches.

Tumwater Public Works Department

Interested in identifying utility and transportation corridors and
helping establish those in such a way they will optimize the public's
benefit and create flexibility in the usage of those corridors.
Hoping to identify more corridors than in the other reaches,due to
the undeveloped nature of this area.

Thurston County Public Works Department

Concerns primarily focused on stormwater management and as
drainage ditch still is retained in county ownership.

Department of Game

Primary concern is that the wetland is a travel corridor and a
significant habitat for wild[ife. Further, that the drainage ditches
travel corridor for both trout and sair-non which migrate up the
ditch and spawn in the tributaries of Black Lake.

Tumwater Action Committee

Concern that environmental issues should be addressed but not
without the total recompense of private property rights.

Thurston County Planning Commission/ Delphi Association

Concern about the visual deterioration of areas in the Upper Reach
along Black Lake Boulevard.
"Greenway" concept proposed in lower reaches has some appeal due
to its relation to aesthetics.
Also concern about recreational aspects of the Upper Reach arid
other modes of transportation along Black Lake Boulevard such as
bicycles and pedestrians.

Thurston County Planning Department

Also, this type of resource which we usually get concerned about
reclaiming just about the time we get done ruining it.
Pleased that all jurisdictions involved had general good words and
that this type of program is needed to prepare a plan which can be
implemented by the jurisdictions with predictability and specifically
with an accurate identification of the wetlands.

Tumwater Citizen

-- The Upper Reach Advisory Committee has a greater challenge before
it. This will be in keeping some consistency throughout the
Percival Creek Corridor and still recognize the unique topographic
and other physical features.

Olympia Planning Department

Agree that the challenge will be to provide reasonable consistency
between the reaches realizing that what occurs in the Upper Reach
affects the lower two reaches.

Tumwater Planning Commission

Doesn't believe stormwater concerns will be as critical in the Upper
Reach as they were in the lower two units due to the slope and the
fact that developers will be providing on-site retention.
Concern that adequate provisions are made for future transportation
utility corridors within the reach.
Does not wish to see large parcels of ownership so subdivided that
the city is dealing with property owners who own nothing but
wetland.

Department of Ecology

Identification of the wetland is a very critical element and that it is
in the benefit of the property owner to have these wetlands
accurately located.
Believes that the process can result in flexibility and consistency
and that identification of the wetland boundary is the first step
within the designation of uses within the corridor as the second
step.

- 53

Olympia Planning Commission

-- Agreed with comments which have been previously made.

Thurston County Health Department (verbal comment with staff)

Major concern is regarding water quality preservation inasmuch as
the two major issues for that will be preservation of the wetlands
and managing urban stormwater.

Department of Fisheries (verbal comments with staff)

Primary concern is the water quality affecting the fish-rearing
facility at Percival Cove.
Concern also for adequate water quality within the drainage ditch
for migration of salmon.

Tumwater Park Department (written correspondence)

The Black Lake Drainage Ditch is an area which must be carefully
planned to ensure industrial and commercial development is
compatible to the environmentally sensitive lands surrounding this
narrow corridor.
Provide equal support for parks and open spaces as residential/
commercial and industrial areas.
Recommend reliance strongly upon the Tumwater Comprehensive Plan
for the Upper Reach.

Cor riclor Planning Staff

Wish to continue with the format which has been established in the
previous plan; however, modify it so that the process for the
Upper Reach is reflective of the different natural, cultural, and
jurisdictional elements.
An essential element of the Upper Reach planning process will be
the identification of shoreline jurisdictional edge (and the wetland
boundary).
A preliminary concept of management units would be to create a
separate management units for the industrial/ commercial area and
another for the residential area adjacent to the north end of Black
Lake.
Need to resolve inconsistent "Natural" shoreline environment with
areas zoned for commercial/ industrial use.

D. Corridor Objectives--Upper Reach

As a result of the preceeding issues and concerns, along with a review
of the significant features, a list of goals and objectives was. prepared
for the Upper Reach. This list refelects a combination of both the staff
and committee's concerns. The objectives became the basis for detailed
management policies and regulations and are specific for the
.Upper Reach.

Process

Establish a Shoreline Master Program special area management
plan for the Upper Reach of the Percival Creek Corridor which
is acceptable to the effected local governments and Washington
Department of Ecology, while recognizing the concerns of other
agencies and interested parties.

Recognize existing plans, ordinances and approved
development, but identify inconsistencies, conflicts and seek to
resolve them.

Use an inventory of significant "natural features" and
11marimade features" to identify potential use conflicts or policy
inconsistencies.

Designate shoreline "management units" in the Upper Reach
based upon jurisdiction, zoning, and the wetland/upland
boundary.

Consider the impacts of those properties within or adjacent to
the wetland boundary of primary concern and those further
removed but within the drainage basin of equal magnitude but
a secondary concern.

2. Environmental Systems

Preclude filling of the wetlands except for designated road and
utility crossings where no reasonable alternative exists.

Protect fragile natural resources and protect significant fish
and wildlife resources within the corridor.

Provide an upland buffer adjacent to the drainage ditch and
wetlands as necessary to protect habitat and water quality.

3. Water Resources

Protect the wetiand for its value in reducing downstream
pollution and sediment levels.

Recognize that stormwater impacts are the most significant
single issue within the Corridor Plan and seek to maintain high
water quality for fishery and recreational uses.

Agricultural practices including the use of chemicals and animal
keeping should be conducted in a manner which protects water
quality.

4. Community Development

Strive for a balance between the protection of the creek while
providing for economic growth and vitality.

- 55

Prepare environmental regulations which allow for future
development of both existing commercial ownerships and public
improvements within the corridor.

Where conflicts arise between economic development. and the
protection, conservation and management of existing natural
resources, the latter should be given priority.

Allow for the continued maintenance of the Black Lake
Drainage Ditch while protecting the natural hydrologic
functions of the wetlands.

Projects to maintain the drainage ditch should incorporate
features to enhance the habitat value of the ditch and adjacent
wetland.

Designate new road and utility crossings at locations with
existing facilities or which minimize filling of the wetlands.

Allow for the continued maintenance of existing utilities within
the corridor.

5. Use Regulations

Establish land use regulations on the basis of land capabilities
locating the most intense development on land with the least
environmental limitation.

Recreational opportunities should be explored within the
publicly-owned Black Lake Drainage Ditch and the shoreline
jurisdiction where access easements can be attained to the
degree compatible with the conservation or restoration of the
drainage ditch ecosystem. These opportunities should be
discussed by the local park departments, affected state
agencies, and adjacent property owners.

Development uses or activities which can be identified as
hazardous to the waters of the drainage ditch or which would
require a pollution discharge permit should be prohibited.

6. Implementation

Consolidate all development standards which affect lands within
the Upper Reach into one document and provide for
appropriate cross referencing to other regulations where
necessary.

Adopt those appropriate ordinances implementing the plan
including, but not limited to, an amendment to the local
Shoreline Master Program for each effected jurisdiction.

Adopt a Special Area Management Plan which includes maps,
policies, use regulations, dimensional standards, review
procedures, and definitions which are compatible with local
toning ordinances.

Implement the requirements of the plan uniformly upon
governmental or private projects.

Coordinate and circulate future development proposals within
the Upper Reach to other state agencies, local municipalities or
interested parties.

Communicate with the Thurston County Assessor's Office so
that information on the limitations imposed by land use
regulations is available during property appraisals.

Provide information to property owners about the Open Space
Taxation Act in Thurston County as it relates to their
property within the Upper Reach.

VI. CORRIDOR PLAN ELEMENTS

A. Management Concepts

Contained within the Management Unit Regulations chapter are the
policies, regulations, and definitions for the Percival Creek Corridor
Plan. A single "Management Unit" similar to zoning district was
identified and contains all of the specific definitions policies and
.regulations for the Upper Reach. The Upper Reach --Management Unit,
was established on the basis of similar natural features, land use
ownership patterns and/or jurisdictional boundaries. The Percival Creek
Corridor Plan Official Map for the Upper Reach is Figure 17, page M-12.

B. Implementation

The Percival Creek Corridor Plan--Volume 2 is intended to be
implemented as a local amendment to the SFo-re-Fine Master Program for
the Thurston Region (1984), which will require adoption by botF-t-Fe -city
of Tumwater ana Thurston County. Within the City of Tumwater, a
modification to the zoning map designating a 50-foot Greenbelt zone
around the wetland would be necessary to relfect the provisions for a
wetland buffer. Such a provision could be administerd by the Thurston
County Zoning Ordinance without a change to the zoning map. Once the
"Management Unit Regulations." chapter is adopted by both local
jurisdictions and the Department of Ecology, this will supercede the
current shoreline environment designation for the Black Lake Drainage
Ditch and wetlands associated with Black Lake.

C. Stormwater Management

Generally those issues raised in the previous chapter by the various
interest groups have been incorporated into the specific policies and
regulations for the "Management Units," except for one. Stormwater
management issues are major in scope and corridor-wide in nature and
are by far the most significant single issue identified by the Corridor
Plan.

Stormwater management and the protection of the Percival Cove facility
were identified as the most common concerns identified throughout all
reaches of the creek. Stormwater runoff has recently been found to be
one of the three non-point pollution sources. impacting both Woodard and
Woodland Creeks and resulting in the partial closure of Henderson Inlet
for shellfish harvesting. For over a decade, the Department of Fisheries
has expressed its concern about the potential risks of water quality
degradation within the Percival Creek Corridor effecting their fish
culture program at Percival Cove.

While identified as the most significant single issue within the Corridor
Plan, the ability of this land use document to implement me-a-nin-g-TU
stormwater mitigation measures is limited. Therefore, the following
elements have been arranged in an "Action Plan" format and, in many
cases, are simply a restatement of previously prepared recommendations.
Suggested implementation measures are contained within the policies.

Stormwater Management Action Elements

1 A basin-wide management plan should be developed for Percival
Creek and the Black Lake Drainage Ditch which includes the
following elements:

a. Form a storm drainage utility or authority
b. Define existing condition
C. Determine biological maintenance goals
d. Prepare a hydrologic/hydraulic model
e. Identify and evaluate technical issues
f. Citizens involvement.

2. The stormwater management problems of the Corridor should be
handled in a cooperative effort between all affected agencies and
municipal jurisdictions. Therefore, a basin coordinating committee
should be established consisting of the affected local and state
agencies.

3. Percival Creek should be used as a model basin to establish the
basin planning process for other watersheds in urban areas.

4. It would be desirable if a single agency were selected to coordinate
all the water quality/water quantity questions, inspections and
sampling; however, this may not be possible.

5. Existing stormwater facilities (pipes and ponds) within basin should
be mapped and analyzed.

6. Water monitoring stations should be established throughout the
watershed. These stations should record flow data and samples
should be tested for a wide range of water quality indicators
important to fish and shellfish.

7. Guidelines should be established for "fishable" and "swimmable"
waters for both Percival Creek and Percival Cove.

8. Policies and standards should be established for stormwater
management to include wetlands and stream shoreline edges.

9. A "Best Management Practice" manual should be developed for
stormwater management which emphasizes water quality. This
stormwater manual should consider:

a. Establishing a unitorm runoff rate vs. a variable rate based
upon slope, soil and cover type.

b. Limiting the release rates of on-site or major stormwater
retention/ detention basins to preclevelopment levels.

C. Adopting the Department of Fisheries "Dominant Flow" criteria
for the creek and drainage ditch.

d. Requiring energy dissipators/ filtration devices at all discharge
points to the creek and drainage ditch.

e. Promoting the use of large multiple use retention/ detention
sites which are publicly-owned and maintained. Such an
existing facility is Yauger Park within the westside drainage
area.

f. Identifying a required maintenance schedule of all stormwater
devices.

10. To increase public awareness of Percival Creek and its watershed, a
demonstration creek signing program should be implemented at all
road crossings. It should include:

a. Design of a special sign and stream logo
b. Contain a pollution hotline phone number
C. Solicitation of community groups and property owners'
associations for' a stream watch program.

VII. MANAGEMENT UNIT REGULATIONS

UPPER REACH MANAGEMENT UNIT
(Refer to Figure 17, page M-12)

A. Scope/Boundary

The Upper Reach Management Unit has been split into three sub-units
based upon the differing physical and jurisdictional boundaries. All
lands identified below are governed by the provisions of the Shoreline
Master Program and Act, except for the wetland buffer which shall be
governed by the provisions of the local zoning ordinance. Lands within
this Management Unit are as follows:

1. Associated Wetlands of Black Lake and its adjacent fifty (50) foot
buffer area.

2. Black Lake Drainage Ditch and its adjacent fifty (50) foot buffer
area

3. Those lands extending from the Black Lake Drainage Ditch buffer to
the two hundred (200) foot shoreline boundary or the edge of the
100-year flood plain whichever is greater.

B. Policies

These policies shall only apply to those areas described above.

1. Uses should protect the wetlands from urban expansion by
encouraging "planned" development concepts which accommodate
innovation, creativity and design flexibility. Such "planned"
developments would be characterized by lower intensity uses and
activities along the shoreline and associated wetland which would
provide a buffer and create environmental protection from competing
upland activities.

2. Existing structures and uses should conform to the provisions of
this management unit to the greatest extent possible.

3. Provide an upland buffer and other means adjacent to the drainage
way and associated wetlands as necessary to protect habitat and
water quality.

4. Development uses or activities which can be identified as hazardous
to the water quality of the Black Lake Drainage Ditch or which
would require a Pollution Discharge Permit should be prohibited.

S. Where conflicts arise between economic development and the
protection, conservation, and management of existing natural
resources, the latter should be given priority.

61 -

6. Agricultural practices, including use of chemicals and animal
keeping, should be conducted in a manner which protects water
quality.

7. Recreational opportunities should be explored within the publicly-
owned Black Lake Drainage Ditch and the shoreline jurisdiction,
where access easements can be attained and to the degree
compatible with the conservation or restoration of the drainage ditch
ecosyStem. These opportunities should be discussed by the local
park departments, affected state agencies, and adjacent property
owners.

8. Projects to maintain the Black Lake Drainage Ditch should
incorporate features to enhance the habitat value of the ditch and
associated wetland.

9. Preclude filling of the associated wetlands except for road and
utility crossings where no reasonable alternative exists.

10. Developments are encouraged to arrange their site design to:

a. Cluster required open space areas, small courtyards, plazas,
or other pedestrian-oriented amenities within or adjacent to the
drainage way or wetlands.

b. Orient office spaces of industrial development towards the
drainage way or wetlands.

C. Use compatible natural exterior surfaces and colors as a
preferred architectural treatment.

C. Use Regulations

1. Allowable uses and activities located within the Black Lake Drainage
Ditch, its buffer, the associated wetland of Black Lake, and its
buffer are as follows:

a. Primary Uses

(1) Aquaculture. Aquacultural activities relating to the
fishing ana harvesting of wild and planted stock for
recreational and commercial purposes.

(2) Recreation. Low intensity and passive recreational
facilities (viewpoints, unpaved trails, limited picnic
facilities) including public- or privately-owned passive
parks, wildlife refuges, or open spaces.

(3) Research and Education. Temporary, water-dependent
and wetl and -oriii-ntedresea rch and educational facilities.

(4) Road Design and Construction. The continued use and
iFa'intenance of existing fac-M-ties is allowed.

Future transportation corridors which cross the wetlands
will be improved to minimum road standards of at least a
collector roadway, and include a sixty (60) foot
right-of-way, a public railroad crossing and eventual
signalization at Black Lake Boulevard. Future
transportation corridor crossings will only be allowed in
the following prioritized locations:

(a) 34th Avenue--at grade
(b) 25th Avenue--elevated structure across the wetland

(NOTE: The elevated structure is the preferred
aff-ernative at 25th Avenue without providing
additional roadway design alternative(s) and an
environmental assessment of the potential impacts of
the alternative design(s.) upon the wetland and its
habitat values.)

(5) Utilities. The continued maintenance of existing facilities
is aTfowed including the Black Lake Drainage Ditch
provided that such an activity includes features which
increase the habitat value of the ditch and adjacent
wetlands. Specific uses include stormwater
retention /detention ponds, storm sewer lines and drainage
ways, sanitary sewer, water, gas, electricity, telephone,
telecable, and other similar utilities. Stormwater
discharges to the creek shall utilize existing discharge
points to the extent feasible.

Futu re utility improvements which cross the drainage
ditch and/or associated wetlands shall be allowed only
within the corridors described below. Utility
improvements may precede the roadway improvements with
these corridors and where the utilities span the drainage
ditch or former channel an aerial crossing shall be used.
The prioritized utility corridors are as follows:

(a) 34th Avenue
(b) 25th Avenue--In conjunction with the elevpted
structure or immediately adjacent to the existing
utility easements.
(c) 2.9th Avenue--Only if no reasonable alternative
exists.

b. Accessory Uses. The following are allowed only when shown
to be clear y-subordinate or incidental to. the primary use; is
the minimal area necessary to accomplish the proposed use;
conforms to all appropriate local, state, and federal
regulations; and to be subject to the following performance
criteria:

(1) Dredging. When allowed, this activity shall:

(a) Be a part of an approved fisheries or wildlife habitat
enhancement project.

63 -

(b) Be subject to the required plans, review and
conditions of the "Special Plans" Section E.

(2) Forest Management Practices. When allowed, this activity
sTTa_ff_76e of limited scope h as selective -tree harvesting
for the preservation of view corridors or for trees
affected by fire, disease or insects.

(3) Landfilling. When alloWed, this activity shall be subject
to the required plans, review, and conditions of the
"Special Plans" Section E.

(4) Shoreline Protection. When allowed, this activity shall
provide for bank protection devices or in stream
construction for the purpose of fisheries or wildlife
enhancement.

C. Nonconforming Uses. A use lawfully existing prior to the
effective te of this Upper Reach Management Unit, the
Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region, or any
amendment thereto which is rendered nonconforming by the
adoption of this Management Unit or an amendment thereof,
may continue in a manner and to the extent that it existed
upon the effective date of the Management Unit or amendment
respectively.

2. Allowable uses and activities located beyond the Black Lake
Drainage Ditch buffer to the boundary of the shoreline jurisdiction
are as follows:

a. Primary uses and their customary accessory uses (subject to
IV' below)

(1) Sales
(2) Service
(3) Storage
(4) Manufacturing
(5) Residential
(6) Parks, open space and recreation facilities
(7) Uses of a similar nature as determined by the local
administrator.

b. Uses or activities which can be identified as hazardous to the
water quality of the Black Lake Drainage Ditch and the
associated wetlands of Black Lake or which would require a.
pollution discharge permit are prohibited.

D. Dimensional Standards

Other than those standards below, dimensional standards within this
Management Unit shall be pursuant to the underlying zoning.

1. Drainage Ditch Buffer., For properties abutting the Black Lake
Drainage Ditch_7__T7
a i ty (50) foot undisturbed native vegetation
buffer shall be retained, as measured from the ordinary high-water
mark.

a The administrator may authorize a vegetation enhancement plan
for those locations within the buffer where substantial native
vegetation is lacking.

b. All vegetation enhancement plans shall be designed to increase
wildlife or aquatic habitat by including riparian species similar
to those listed in S@ugestions for Stream Bank Revegetation in
Western Washington.

C. When an adjacent property owner desires to landscape the
public-owned Black ' Lake Drainage Way, the vegetation
enhancement plan shall be reviewed and approved by Thurston
County Public Works.

d. The provisions of the "Wetland Buffer" shall supersede this
section.

2. Wetland Buffer. For properties abutting the associated wetlands of
Black Lake, a fifty (50) foot undisturbed native vegetation buffer
shall be retained.

a. Land uses and activities which encroach into the required
buffer area on the effective date of the implementing ordinance
shall retain the existing buffer with no further clearing or
habitat destruction.

b. Vegetation enhancement plans shall be designed to increase
wildlife or aquatic habitat by including riparian species similar
to those listed in Suggestions for Stream Bank Revegetation in
Western Washington.

C. The administrator may reduce the wetland buffer when lots of
record are less than two hundred (200) feet in depth from the
front property line to the wetland edge. In this case, the
buffer shall not be greater than fifty percent (50%) of parcel
depth, but in no case reduced beyond twenty-five (25) feet.
Further, in this case, a vegetation enhancement plan shall be
provided for the wetland and/or its buffer.

3. Density. That portion of a residential ly-zoned parcel containing a
part of the Associated Wetlands of Black Lake shall be calculated
based upon one (1) dwelling unit per ten (10) acres. The Wetland
Buffer shall be calculated based upon the underlying zoning
district.

4. Building Height. Thirty-five (35) feet within shoreline jurisdiction.

E. Special Plans
Substantial developments within the shoreline jurisdiction will be required
to submit these special plans or studies and undergo the special review
as follows:

1. Environmental Checklist. There shall be no categorical exemptions
under the State Environmental Policy Act for land subject to this
management unit. Therefore, all developments requiring a local
permit shall prepare an Environmental Checklist.
65

2. Clearin@ and Grading Plan. This plan shall specifically identify
vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and
replanting, and the method of vegetation removal. Clearing and
grading activities shall be undertaken only during the drier months
of the year and shall be in accordance with all local ordinances.
Undergrowth shall be retained to 'the extent feasible. Yarding
methods which minimize soil disturbance shall be used.

3.- Temporary Erosion Control Plan. This plan would ideritify the
specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction
to protect the water from erosion, siltation, landslides and
deleterious construction materials.

4. Stormwater Control Plan. Except for individually owned duplex and
,single-family residences not within a "project,` a permanent
stormwater control plan which take into consideration existing and
projected development in surrounding. areas and identifies the means
of protecting water quality shall be required.

a. Stormwater Maintenance Agreement. A maintenance program
for the storm drainage system, which identifies maintenance
activities, schedules, and responsibilities shall be part of the
stormwater control plan.

b. Stormwater Plan Review. Authorization of all stormwater
systems shall be E5@ -the local jurisdiction with review by the
Department of Fisheries an.d the Squaxin Island Tribe.

5. Supplemental Review. Copies of all Environmental Checklists and
their attached plans or reports shall be circulated for review to the
Squaxin Island Tribe, the Departments of Game, Fisheries and
General Administration and the adjacent municipal jurisdiction within
the corridor. Development proposals shall incorporate applicable
recommendations from these agencies for preventing and mitigating
adverse impacts on fish or wildlife resources and enhancing wildlite
habitat.

6. Water Quality Assessment. A detailed assessment of the water
quality impacts and proposed raitigation measures will be a requ.ired
-part of the Environmental Checklist.

F. Permit Process

a. "Substantial development" located within the shoreline jurisdiction
and not expressly exempted by WAC 197-14-040 will require a
Substantial Development Permit.
b. Uses and activities exempted by the State Shoreline Management Act
and WAC 173-14-040 shall still comply with the policies and
regulations of this management unit.
C. When a Substantial Development Permit is required, the
Administrator shall undertake a consolidated review of the project
by the affected parties identified in Section. E and seek to minimize
the time in the permit process through close coordination with the
applicant.

DEFINITIONS

"Adjacent Lands": Lands immediately adjacent to and abutting lands under
permit jurisdicfion of* the Shoreli 'ne Management Act which extend landward to
the extent necessary to control direct and significant impact to shorelands
and to implement the management policy articulated in the Act, the
Department of Ecology guideline, and the local Master Program. The inland
extent will necessarily vary with the particular management objectives and the
shoreline setting.

"Administrator": Person appointed by the legislative body to administer the
provisions of these regulations within the boundaries of that jurisdiction.

"Associated Wetlands": Those lands or wetland areas which influence or are
influenced by and are in proximity to any stream, river, or tidal water, or
combination thereof, subject to the Shoreline Management Act [WAC
173-22-030(2)].

"Black -Lake Drainage Way" or "Drainage Way": Those dry lands along both
banks 37 the Black Lake Drainage Ditch which were part of the Drainage
District #101 and are now publicly-owned.

"Canyon" or "Percival Creek Canyon": Lands along Percival Creek which
extend upstream from Percival Cove to the Mottman Road crossing of the
Black Lake Drainage Ditch. This area also extends from the centerline of the
creek to the top of the bank, and includes the Burlington Northern Railroad
right-of-.way.

"Canyon Reach-Olympia Management Unit": That portion of the Percival
Creek Canyon located within the City of Olympia.

"Canyon Reach-Tumwater Management Unit": That portion of the Percival
Creek Canyon located within the City oT-T-u-mwater.

"Corridor" or "Percival Creek Corridor": Those lands adjacent to Percival
Creek and the Black Lake Drainage Ut h, including those areas extending
upland from the centerline of the creek to the nearest paralleling road or
railroad and extending from Percival Cove to Black Lake.

"Drainage Ditch Buffer": A required area of undisturbed natural vegetation
outside of and adjacent to the drainage ditch for the purpose of protecting
the drainage ditch and maintaining its natural hydrological, biological, visual
and cultural functions and values.

"Drainage Way Buffer": A required area of undisturbed natural vegetation
outside of and adja t to the drainage way for the purpose of protecting the
drainage way and maintaining its natural hydrological, biological, visual and
cultural functions and values.

"Environment," "Master Program Environment" or Shoreline Environment":
Che categories of shorelines of the state established by the Shoreline Master
Program for the Thurston Region to differentiate between areas whose
features imply differing objectives regarding their use and future

67 -

development. These existing Environments are: Urban, Rural, Conservancy
and Natural.

"Environmental Management District": An area which has been designated by
the local government as meeting certain criteria for which a special
management plan, policies and regulations are prepared.

"Lot of Record": A lot shown as a part of a recorded subdivision or any
parcel of land described by metes and bounds in a recorded deed, record of
survey or other appropriate document recorded in the office of the County
Auditor.

"Management Units": Those portions of the Percival Creek Corridor which
has been segregated into areas which have a predominance of similar features,
land use ownership patterns and/or jurisdictional boundaries.

"Middle Reach Management Unit": Those lands upstream from the MottMan
F@o-`ad crossing of the Black Lake Drainage Ditch to 25th Avenue extended and
within the City of Olympia.

"Shoreline Environmental Management District": An area of the Region which
contains a unique combination of physical @eatures and/or resources which
could not be safeguarded adequately simply by the preceding provisions of
the Master Program; where the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act is
too restrictive and the activities upon adjacent lands may be critically
important to the viability of the resource; where diverse- uses would be
conflicting and incompatible without management techniques specifically
designed for that area; where the uniqueness of the area demands an even
greater degree of environme.ntal protection, then a local government may.
establish a special Shoreline Environmental Management District as an
amendment to the Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region.
"Shoreline Management Act Jurisdiction" or "Shoreline Jurisdiction": Those
lands lying within the following locations:

a. Two hundred feet on both sides of creek or drainage ditch;
b. A 100-year flood plain; and/or
C. An associated wetland.

"Top of the canyon": A significant. break in the slope less than 30 percent
(16.7 degre-e-s-T-and at least 15 feet wide. At the confluence of Percival Creek
(from Trosper Lake) and the Black Lake Drainage Ditch, the "top of the
canyon" for Percival Creek shall be a line drawn from the highest most point
along the east bank to the corresponding side on the west bank.

"Upper Reach Management Unit": Those lands upstream from 25th Avenue
extended along the Black Lake Drainage Ditch to Black Lake and within the
City of Tumwater and Thurston County.

"Wetland Buffer": A required area of undisturbed natural vegetation outside
of and adjacent to the wetland edge for the -purpose of protecting the wetland
from intrusion and maintaining its natural hydrological, biological, visual and
cultural functions and values.

"Wetland Edge": The line around a wetland where the prevalence of
hydrophytes, or wetland plants, ceases. For the purposes of defining the
wetland edge, the prevalence of hydrophytes ceases at the point where the
combined percent of hydrophytes in the overstory, understory and ground
cover falls below fifty percent (50%).

"Wetlands": Wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant
factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and
animal communities living in the soil and on its surface. The single feature
that most wetlands share is soil or substrate that is at Ileast periodically
saturated with or covered by water. The water creates severe problems for
all plants and animals except those that are adapted for life in water. or in
saturated soil." (Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats of the
United States, 1979) (NOTE: Not tF-e same as the Shoreline Management Acf
definition.)

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Artim, Ernest R., Relative Ground Settlement Hazards of Thurston County,
Washington, Geologic Map Number 16, published by Washington Department of.-
Natural Resources, Olympia, WK, 1-976.

Artim, Ernest R., Slope Stability Map of Thurston County, Washington,
Geologic Map Number 15, published by Washin-gton Department of Natural
Resources, Olympia, WA, 1976.

City of Bellingham, "Whatcom Creek," A Redevelopment for the City of
Bellingham, Bellingham, WA, 1973.
City of Kent, Green River Corri@lor Plan, Seattle, WA, 1980.

City of Olympia, Environmental' Impact Assessment--Olympia Highlands Planned
Unit Development, Olympia, WA, 1973

City of Olympia, Reportof the Westside Task Force, Olympia, WA, 1979.

City of Tacoma, Planning Department', Rustin Way Design and Human Scale
Study, Tacoma, WA, 1977.

City of Tacoma, Planning Department, Rustin Way Plan: Design and
Development Guidelines for Waterfront Revitalization, Tacoma, WA, 1981.

City of Tumwater, Comprehensive Plan, Tumwater, WA, 1977.

City of Yakima, Department of Parks and Recreation, The Yakima River
Regional Greenway, Seattle, WA, 1976.

Cowlitz County--Department of Community Development, Toutle-Cowlitz
Watershed Management Plan, Kelso, WA, 1983.

Erley D. and Kockelman W. Reducing Landslide Hazards: A Guide for
Planners. APA Chicago, 1981.

Jones. and Jones, Master Plan for Columbia Point, Richland, WA, 1982.

Kendig, Lam, Performance. Zoning. APA Chicago, 1980.

King County, Department of Planning and Community Development, May Creek
Basin Plan--Technical Appendix, Seattle, WA, 1980.

King County, Department of Planning and Community Development, The River
of Green, Seattle, WA, 1979.

King County, Department of Planning and Community Development, The River
of Green--Technical Appendices, Seattle, WA, 1979.

King County, Juanita Creek Basin Plan, Seattle, WA, 1977.

King County, May Creek Basin Plan, Seattle, WA, 1980.

- 70

King County Planning Division, Woodinville Center Development Guide,
Seattle, 1982.

Municipality of Metropolitan of Seattle--METRO, Government and Citizens
Working Together Towards Improved Regional Water Quality, Seattle, WA,
1982.

Newell, Gordon; Rogues of Buffoons and Statesman, Hangman Press, Seattle,
1975.

Olympia Planning Department, West Olympia Bridge Final EIS, Olympia, WA,
1983.

Olympia Planning Department, West Olympia Bridge Draft EIS, Olympia, WA,
1983.

Olympia Planning Department, Olympia Zoning Ordinance, Olympia, WA, 1982.

Regional Planning Council of Clark County, Burnt Bridge Creek Drainage
Management Study, Seattle, WA, 1977.

Schneider D.; Godschalk, D., and Axler N., The Carrying Capacity Concept
as a Planning Tool, APA, Chicago, 1978.

Shoemaker, Joe and Stevens, Leonard; Returning the Platte to the People,
the Greenly Foundation, 1981.

Snohomish County Planning Department, The Shorelines of Snohomish
County-- Inventory Summary, Everett, WA, 19T3_.

Spokane City Plan Commission, North River Bank Design Plan, Spokane, WA,
1982.

Spokane City Plan Commission, Spokane Riverfront Development Program,
Spokane, WA, 1974.

Stevenson, Shanna, Superior Shipping Service--A History of the Port of
Olympia, Olympia., 1982.

The Evergreen State College, Percival Creek--A Baseline Assessment,
Olympia, WA, 1982.

The Evergreen State College, Woodland Creek--Baseline Study, Olympia, WA,
1977.

Thurston County Health Department, The Henderson and Eld Inlet Water
Quality Study, Olympia, WA, 1985.

Thurston Regional Planning Council, Black Lake/ Littlerock/ Delphi Sub-Area
Plan, Olympia, WA, 1981.

Thurston Regional Planning Council, Percival Creek Corridor Plan--Volume 1,
Canyon and Middle Reaches, Olympia, WA, 1985.

Thurston Regional Planning Council, The Plan for Olympia--Olympia
Comprehensive Plan, Olympia, WA, 1976.

Thurston Regional Planning Council, Shoreline Master Program for the
Thurston Region, Olympia, WA, 1976.

Thurston Regional Planning Council, Shoreline Master Program for the
Thurston Region, Olympia, WA, 1984.

Thurston Regional Planning Council, Stormwater Management in North
Thurston County, Volume 1: Recommendations, Olympia, WA, 1983.

Thurston Regional Planning Council, Shoreland Adjacent Analysis for the
Thurston Region, Olympia, WA, 1982.

Thurston County Conservation District, Stream Corridor Management Plan for
the Deschutes River, Washington, Olympia, WA, 1984.

Thurston County Planning Department, Thurston County Zoning Ordinance,
Olympia, WA, 1980.

Thurston Regional Planning Council, Stormwater Management in North
Thurston County, Volume 11: Technical A_pp_e_n_Uices, Olympia, WA, 1983.

Thurston Regional Planning Council, Thurston County Comprehensive Plan,
Olympia, WA, 1975.

Thurston Regional Planning Council, Transportation System Plan for the
Thurston Metropolitan Area, Olympia, WK, 19-84.

Tumwater Planning Department, Tumwater Zoning Ordinance, Tumwater, WA,
1981.

U.S. Department of Agriculture--Forest Service, River Management Analysis
(Final) Skagit River, Volumes I and 11, Seattle, WA, 1977.

U,. S. Department of Agriculture--Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey,
Thurston County, Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office,-W-ashington,
UC. 1958.

.U.S. Department of I.nterior--Fish and Wildlife Service, Classification of
Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats of the United State, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1979.

.U.S. Department of Interior--Fish and Wildlife Service, Nisqually National
Wildlife Refuge--Conceptual Plan, Olympia, WA, 1978.

Washington Department of Conservation, Peat Resources of Washington---
Bulletin Number 44, Olympia, WA, 1958.

Washington Department of Ecology, Procedures for Shoreline Inventory,
Olympia, WA, 1972.

Washington Department of Ecology, Wetlands Associated with the North End of
Black Lake, Thurston County, Washington, Draft, Olympia, WA,79W

- 72 -

Washington Department of Ecology, Reconnaissance Data on Lakes in
Wash ington--Vol ume IV; Water Supply gulletin 43, Volume 4, OIymp`-ia__,_WT,_
1976.

Washington Department of Ecology and Grays Harbor Regional Planning
Commission, Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan--Program Draft EIS,
Olympia, WA, 1983.

Washington Department of Fisheries, Catalog of Washington Streams, Volume 1,
Olympia, WA, 1975.

Washington Department of Game, Inventory of Vegetative Communities and
Associated Wildlife of the Skookumcliuck River-Drainage, Olympia, WA, 1979.

Washington Department of General Administration, Capitol Lake Restoration
Analysis, Olympia, WA. 1983.

Washington Department of General Administration, Capitol Lake Restoration
and Recreation Plan Final EIS, Olympia, WA, 1977.

Washington Department of General Administration, Capitol Lake Restoration
and Recreation Plan Final EIS Statements Supporting Documents, Olympia,
WAf 1977.

Washington Department of General Administration, Capitol Lake Restoration
Draft EIS, Olympia, WA, 1976.

Washington Department of Natural Resources, State Soil Survey, Olympia, WA.

Whatcom County Park Board, Nooksack, Seattle, WA, 1973.

Miscellaneous communications with Doc Erickson (Citizens' Advisory Committee)
regarding salmon utilization.

Miscellaneous communications with Linda Kuntz (Department of Natural
Resources--Heritage Program) regarding wetland habitat.

IX. APPENDIX

A. CZM Grant September 1984--Scope of Work

B. CZM Grant July 1985--Scope of Work

C. Department of Ecology--Shoreline Inventory Procedures

D. Geo-Hydraulic River Zone Classification

APPENDIX A

SCOPE OF WORK

Project Title: Thurston Region Shoreline Management Program Enhancement-

Project Description: Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC) provides
management services for the shorelines of Thurston County and the cities
of Olympia and Tumwater. Under this grant, TRPC will undertake two
efforts to enhance the shoreline management capabilities of local
governments. Under Element I, TRPC will prepare a management plan for
the Percival Creek corridor. Under Element II, the agency will identify
and map county aquaculture activities. The elements are further
described as follows:

Element 1: Percival Creek management Plan

Element Descprition: This element is comprised of two task which will
result in the development of a special management plan for the Percival
Creek corridor between Black Lake and Percival Cove.

-Task 1: That portion of Percival Creek lying north of Black Lake and
south of the intersection of Park Drive, S.W. and Black Lake Boulevard
has only recent1y been. determined to meet the criteria, for a "shoreline
under 173-18 WAC. Under this task, the necessary information will be
obtained so that the provision of the SMA can be applied and the stream
reach can be included within -the Percival Creek Special Management
Unit. Specific activities include:

1. Inventory and map the stream and associated wetlands using a
biologist to determine the location and extent of shoreline
jurisdiction. for inclusion in the local Shoreline Master
Program, and determine habitat quality.

I. Identify shoreline uses and activities within the mapped area,
and collect and analyze data on resources, adjacent land uses,
and similar information. This will be used to develop
recommendations for the appropriate environmental designations
under Chapter 173-16 WAC.

3. Expand the work strategies of the management plan concept to
this area to, specifically include proposed uses and activities
and performance standards.

Task 2: The information and materials acquired under Task I for the
upper segment of Percival Creek will be combined with the information
currently being obtained for the middle and lower segments (under an
existing coastal zone grant.) A single management plan for all three
segments of Percival Creek will be prepared. The Percival Creek
Management Plan will be developed and formatted in a matter to replace
and supersede existing provisions of the Shoreline Master Program for
75 -

the Thurston Region which pertain to the creek. The management plan will
be transmittted to local governments for their review and action prior to the,
termination of this grant agreement. It is acknowledged that local adoption
the plan may exceed the grant period. TRPC will make reasonable efforts
expedite the process and assist local governments in forwarding the necessa:
materials to WDOE for amendment of the Shoreline Master Program.

Element II: Shoreline Aquaculture Districts - Identification and Mapping

Element Description: Thurston County has been moving toward defining an
protecting aquaculture activities over the past several years. In December
1981 the' local Shoreline Master Program was am ended to allow for the
creation of aquaculture districts within the marine waters of Thurston
County. Since this time, the Thurston County Planning Department has bee
working to identify the areas being used for aquaculture and to work with
Other agencies and aquiculture operators to gather and solicit
Support.,

The purpose of this project is to take the information collected thus far and:

1. Create a permanent list of aquaculture by inlet.

2. Map the specific location on 1:1,000 scale.

Upland as well as subtidal ownerships would be indicated, incLuding stat
oyster tracts and existing activities would be. delineated within the inlet
as aquaculture districts. Additional reduced sea' maps at a scale of
1":1 mile (81/2xll") would be included in the Shoreline Master Program.

BUDGET

Element 1 Element 2 Total

Salaries- $6,972 $2,905 $9,877
Benefits 731 304 1,035
Graphics/Mapping 2,000 500 2,500
Indirect 697 291 988

$10,400 $4,000 $14,400

80% FEDERAL Share $8,320 $3,200 $11,520
20% GRANTEE Match $2.,080 $ 800 $ 2,880

76 -

APPENDIX B

SCOPE OF WORK

PROJECT TITLE: Thurston Region Shoreline Hangement
Program Enhancement

ELEHENT I Percival Cieek Corridor Plan Implementation

Element Description: This- element is comprised of two tasks which will
result in the development of a special area management plan for the
Percival Creek corridor between Black Lake and Percival Cove.

Task 1: That portion of Percival Creek lying north of Black Lake and
south of the intersection of Park Drive S.W. and Black Lake Boulevard
has only recently been determined to meet the criteria for a "shoreline"
under Chapter 173-18 WAC. Under this task, the necessary information
will -be contained so that the provision of the SMA can be applied and
the stream reach can be included within the Percival Creek Special
Management Unit. Specific activities include. completing activities
begun in the.previous funding cycle:

I. Inventory, and map the stream and associated wetlands using a
biologist to determine the location and extent of the shoreline
jurisdiction for inclusion in the local shoreline master program,
and'determine habitat quality.

2. ldentify@ shoreline uses and activities within the mapped area, and
collect and analyze data on resources, adjacent --land uses,. and
similar, information. This will@ be used to develop recommendations
for the appropriate environmental designations under Chapter 173-16
WAC.

3. Expand the work strategies of the management plan for this area to
specifically include proposed uses and activities and performance
standards.

Task 2: The information and materials acquired under Task 1 for the
upper reach of Percival Creek will be combined with the information
obtained for the Middle and Canyon reaches- (under a previous coastal
zone grant). *The management plan for all three segments of Percival
Creek will be formatted in a mnnner to replace and supersede existing
provisions of the Shoreline Master Program for the Thurston Region which
pertains to the creek .;Lnd its associated wetlands. A shoreline.
amendment package shall be. prepared for this plan and submitted to
Olympia, Tumwater, and Thurston County.

This package would include staff support to assist the local jurisdictions
and WDOE in their review process. TRPC will make reasonable efforts to
expedite the process and assist local governments in forwarding the neces-
sary materials to WDOE for amendment of the shoreline master program prior
to the end of the grant period.

ELEHFM II: Deschutes.Corridor Recreation Plan

Element Description: The Deschutes River begins in the foothill slopes
of the Cascades. It descends from the relatively steep, forested slopes
of the Bald Hills, the river flows for 40 miles generally 'in a northwest
direction through open farmland interspersed occasionally by dense forest
land. Several species of salmon are found in the river and its gentle
current makes the lower Deschutes a popular river to float by canoe,
kayak, rubber raft or inner tube. While there are no estimates of the
number of people who use the Deschutes, those who do use it report
crowded parking at various put-in points.. Tumwater Falls park, near the
river's terminus, is one of the most heavily used parks in the county.

The section of the Deschutes River to be studied is from the Rich Road
Bridge to the Fourth Avenue Dam in Olympia. The corridor planning area
will extend from the river channel itself to the floodplain and the
adjacent upland.

The purpose is to identify major public policy issues and propose a plan
to balance various interests while enhancing access to and along the
river. The plan would link the urban and rural recreational
opportunities which the river provides in a relatively short distance.
As well, it would enhance the tourism potential of the river by
providing opportunities and information-to tourists who are attracted to
our area by its water and shoreline resources.

Tasks: This plan will be accomplished by preparing the following:

1. Appoint an advisory committee to establish the framework for an
inventory, identify the needs of the public (including tourists)
for recreation, and assess the opportunities and constraints for
meeting those needs. The advisory committee will be composed of
representatives from the following:

a. Tumwater, Lacey, Olympia, and Thurston County Parks
departments

b. Tumwater, Lacey, Olympia, and Thurston County Pla in&
departments

C. State Parks and Recreation Commission

d. Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC)

e. State Department of General Administration

f. State Department of Fisheries

g. State Department of Game

h. Sail Conservation Service

i. SquaLiin Indian Tribe

Tumwater Action Committee

k. Tumwater Historical Society.

2. Inventory. existing featuf-e-s and uses of and along the river from
@Rich Road to the Fourth Avenue Dam in Olympia.

3. Prepare maps which show topography, floodplain, ownership/roads,
zoning, shoreline jurisdiction, and erosion areas.

4. Slimmarize existing regulations that apply to the corridor planning
area.

5. Inventory recreational potential for:

- canoe/float/kayak areas
- trails
nature observation
active recreation sites

6. Identify areas of valuable wildlife habitat.

7. Summarize other corridor plans (Spokane, Yakima, Boise, Eugene,
King County).

8. Identify areas recommended for public acquisition.

9. Prepare a completion report.

10. Because the involvement of property owners along the river and
users of the river resource-is crucial to the implementation of the
plan, early and continuing participation by these citizens will be
sought and encouraged.

BIMGET

Element I Element 2 Total

Salaries $ 7,426 $13,795 $21,221
Benefits 1,521 2,826 4,347
Indirect 743 1,379 2,122
Graphics 500 2,000 2,500
10,190 20,000 30,190

80% State Share 8,152 $16,000 $24,152
20% GRANTEE Match 2,038 4,000 6,938

APPENDIX C

Shoreline Inventory. In addition to the grant requirements listed above, the
Washington State Department of Ecology has prepared a booklet containing the
inventory procedures for implementing the Shoreline Management Act of 1971.

"Before any comprehensive Master Program can be prepared for the
'Shorelines of the State,' it is imperative that basic information in
the form of existing patterns of land use be known and that a
thorough survey of the natural characteristics of the shoreline be
accomplishecl.@ Such information is also essential in analyzing the
immediate impact of substantial developments being proposed to be
located on, or adjacent to, shorelines. Finally, when combined with
other planning information, the inventory will provide a basis for
the delineation of 'environments.' The inventory should be
designed to include, but not be limited to, a survey of the general
natural characteristics of the shoreline, the land uses on the
shorelines, and the existing generalized pattern of land ownership.
It is the emphasis on the natural situation of the shoreline and
planning area that differentiates the approach being described here
the more traditional land use planning process. Identification of
selected natural features and the processes in the inventory phase
are intended to make apparent where and to what extent use
limitations and performance standards should be applied to guide
economic development and modification of the shorelines" (Procedure
for Shoreline Inventory, DOE, 1972).

The shoreline inventory format should consist of two elements: a map or
series of maps depicting existing land uses, ownership patterns, topography,
and other information; and a series of descriptive analysis of water
characteristics and the natural features of the shoreline. Descriptive analysis
and done on an area-by-area basis, should be keyed to the map element in a
clear and direct manner. Recommended categories for identification of
existing land and water uses included residential, commercial, industrial,
general welfare and community service, parks and recreation areas,
circulation network, utilities, agricultural, commercial forest, undeveloped
land, and water uses. Generalized ownership patterns were to be identified
as small private, large private, federal, state, local, port districts, and
quasi.-public and jurisdictional.

The third element of the shoreline inventory was to be a survey of the
natural characteristics, including analysis based upon a four-category system
developed by the Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor
Recreation for segmenting rivers into units for description and analysis.
Physical elements were to be identified as topography, soil characteristics,
beach characteristics, mine@al resources, shore defense works, and water
level fluctuations. Biotic resources were to include characteristic vegetation
and animal species and communities. A final element was to include a
summary of related plans and programs of local governments which have a
direct bearing on shorelines. These plans and programs were to include
planned road networks, major street improvements, sewer and water plans,
special planning studies, and, if known, the plans of major private land
owners.

80 -

APPENDIX D

Geo-Hydraulic River Zone Classification

Estuarine Zone 1. This zone is characterized by a zero gradient stream
course which is directly affected by tidal actions in, the receiving
estuary. The upper limit of the Estuarine Zone is the limit of tidal
influence. Estuarine Zones are typically characterized by wide, flat
valleys and branched stream courses. The bed material is generally fine
sands and silts often visible along the shoreline as mud or ooze.

Pastoral Zone 11. The Pastoral Zone is characterized by a gradient of 0
to 5 feet per-FUle and'a fairly wide, flat, flood plain valley in which the
river meanders in wide loops. The bed material is generally sands and
silts.

Gravel Beach Zone 111. The Gravel Beach Zone has a gradient of 5 to
25 feet pier mile, is en found in narrower valleys, has a bed of gravel
and cobbles,* and often is characterized by a braided channel. The
Gravel Beach Zone also can be distinguished by its numerous sand bars
and islands.

Boulder/Cobb.le Zone IV. The Boulder/Cobble Zone has a fixed stream
course, a narrow steep-sided valley, and a gradient of more than 25 feet
per mile. Its bed is characterized by boulders where gradients exceed
50 feet per mile and cobbles between 50 to 65 feet. per mile.
Boulder/Cobble Zone streams are typically very fast-rushing streams
which transport finer sediments to lower segments of the stream course.

X. MAP FOLIO

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

3. Topography/ Soils/ Cross-Sections M-1

6. Wetland Classes M-2

8. 1961 Land Use Aerial M-3

9. 1970 Land Use Aerial M-4

10. 1977 Land Use Aerial M-5

11. 1983 Land Use Aerial M-6

12. Zoning M-7

13. Shoreline M-8

14. Ownership M-9

15. Utilities M-10

16. Proposed Public Facilities M-1 I

17. Upper Reach Corridor Map M-12

7
AC

f@,.Z 7
4, 1.,
F
ME
ERCIVAL 7
CREEK CORRIDOR PLAN K0 W
-Al

MT
7.

12
SOILS
IKac
Al
CROSS SECTIONS
Ka W':

4F
LQP

....... Gal
...........
KaF.'

5001. 'TYPE .......

. . ........
........ ..

Kaer
CROSS SEC796ms

th Ire w
a

..... .....
GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREA
4.
...............
N%.:
..........

SEVEREOROUND SE77LEMEN7 Rai
>
E f
..........
%:
......... 0 F-gus'm
cc
Ef
........ Alh,

-EPAAED 81 DAIc ---El FROI EP-11 ..OfOa DAFED 4@ CON10.1 11EI-L 2
.............
........ .. Se
..........
........ .. ..

..........

............
G p@.

..........
- ----------

7 i::x...
N.-
. ..... .... P
..........
Ea

0
........ ...
. . ...........

............
........... - - - - - - - - - -
..... .........

..........

ie 7
S k U

CIO I
Ac
. . ............

Ga
sm
rr AA
GI*Cl
-A
a m:
-GaC y

Block Lake

Sapp ......
Ad
E E K *C01

................

...............
-Efr_'

SO
-Be . .......... ..

16@
ERCIVAL
CREEK ;'CORRIDOR PLAN .",a

park of

C
WETLANDS: UPPER REACH

/-C
-A
OPEN WATER
B
B
EMERGENT (GRASSES AND HERBS)

B
SCRUB/SHRUB

FORESTED
A a SW-
-D 20t
,ailands
-vic!atigm Area C
UPLAND
B
D
SURVEY ED VVE7L,,2,MD EDGE--
JUL`b`/,%',qUGUS7 19315p
B'

:B
C Fergus"
Z, im @N
16

-EPAIED By D-D C a-H A A.50C-E. 1... -.0703 D-ED -3183. C-OUR IIER.AL 2

Cr
D

T7
13

V D
-7,
q
A
'@--,1MLAND

T
A
C

L
B C
B
B -
%

U
--c
C@

7
C
C
B

B 'D
C
4v,
B
an litack Lake
man a qapp@
EEK CO

c
ZW-.
NOR
m

d)
sopp@

7-1
Wl
"P-2,47

-7-Il *.E@ 41

74-

-A.
tj
im-

V4
1@ lk

a it

Fi
j
A@A
4OF
@k 4

W;o!
v-@ --V h
jt- v
W P"
Ll

4jk

Ai,
Alf.
;14 -

e4e,

Kj,
@31

@dw@
Al
kv ML Ono
'44 4- 4
0 M
JL

al@
ML
4p
m C)

AUK %lb
CL
oppm

MOO
4'e
V Vwk

,Na

-+'
At

-44 0

TO
.0

ir
IT A- A

41.

"P @"7
Jll@

20 t--4 0

A
8

or
IWY

qp q"

@XWK @@2

.ir

av
s-z
eg
k`7N IN

4r7

F@L` V

RCIVAL
CREEK 'CORRIDOR PLAN

park,

Upper Reach
J@-

1983 Land Use Aerial J@z

20th Ave Sw

Fero on

2-6-

PREPARED BY DAVID C. SMITH A A38
CIATEB FROM AERIAL P..1.4 DATE. 11-83. CONTOUR INTERVAL 2
4eV
A

0 V

t ol

C
Sapp
PIE
EEVK
Fupip

21G rwo

OLY
PERCIVAL 00- RM
066,
CREEK 'CORRIDOR PLAN

W-
IN q@ Lt

-M 9@y
ZONING R
R_MOLY

OLYMPIA
I
..MOWN
URSTON COUNTY
TE
as
A
JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARY
A,
el!,,@
Pj.D*Tc

Cl TUM
f

ZONING BOUNDARY rR*J
A
0- 3R,

29th Ave SW
:mNA
TUMWATER
Cl Tum
Cl TUM

ZONING DESIGNATION

Cl TUM
Zol @11 CITUM
w
"W e@
11-3. GOIT.UR "TeRVAL 2-.
PREPARED BI RAIII C. SMITI A380CIATES FROM lEA- -OTOS DATED 4
k 4*7
am. ww@ "'ummull . ...........
"Now.0" TUMWATER

x
CI TUM'
jT4M
RAT-",
4

TUMWATER
J
THURSTON COUNTY p.I.D.TC
:1 Cl TUM

. ......... . .. . . ...... .............. ............
TC RATum 4v
RR Vi
4
'o 11 1 C, -
P/

-,V
RST;N Z ITY W*MNmN -0.0aft a-M N.M. son: RLT Ium
o
RR 1/1"c

=)!cc f
owl
Sapp cc
oil
TC za 3:
VKVP01
EE @J.AN
Fzo h

f c -1 RA I OR Foe
4*W
TUM,
RA
v
%*

F-
j.11kpIt.

PERCIVAL
0.
CREEK CORRIDOR PLAN
ZI

park

SHORELINES

200' EITHER SIDE OF DRAINAGE DITCH
ve "J"-

%
Z'

F.E.M.A. 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
34
29th Ave SV
'J,

N, A
WETLANDS
5,

CC
Ferguson
ot a

PREPARED BY DAVID C. SMITH ASSOCIATES FROM AERIAL PIOTOS DATED 41131.3, CONTOUR INTERVAL 2'. z z

N-

A-
A

...........
A
m

a
fb

Black Late
10, Sapp
E E K 6PO.

C SIB

D 250 so0

SC.I. I-t
Sapp

60
AL
PERCIV
CREEK 'CORRIDOR PLAN

13-91
park

OWNERSHIP

PRIVATE-LARGE:

6.1 4CV
F9 EVERGREEN PARI(i INC.

S. N. R. R.

W. JONES

12-W
F. FARR OTHER TRACTS

A ,a Sw

PRIVATE-OTHER:

SMALL TRACTS

PUBLIC:

Ferguson a
Lj LOCAL GOVERNMENTS zlil, @l
- _7J

PREPARED BY DAVID C. SMITH A ASSOCIATES FROM IERIIL PHOTOS DATED 41131$3, CONTOU. tNTaFV.L 2'.

4 1

@u
,14

d. I3_0T 42

S4-0102

.4-.3

44-02

24-04

N,
34-00 'AL

21-02

black Loks,
E E K@e&01

.... ...... ... .

PERCIVAL
CREEK' 'CORRIDOR PLAN

UTILITIES
El SANITARY SEWER
A

FORCE MAIN

DIRECTION OF FLOW
if

LINE SIZE (INCHES)

E
WATER
l

ELECTRIC (PUGET POWER)

ELECTRIC (B.P.A.)

GAS A`
El
Fero;;' ;;; A

PREPARED BY DAVID C. SMITH A ASSOCIATES FROM IERIAL PHOTOS DATED -3/83, CONTOUR INTERVAL 21.

3, @oo@loo(@oo
All,

_cO

lo
9

coo.

6. 1@o
.o

Io
o

o6o
Week Lake Q6 oo
.... . . . ....... . .. . . . . ........... lv;;;
o
AV
&01
EEK :LAN
Fru=T I I

n.-I
....................
0o oo
o

25o
o
17

. ............... . ..

PERCIVAL coh
CREEK CORRIDOR PLAN

Signal
Park or

PROPOSED
PUBLIC 26th Avenu,e
.......... ............
Tul*
FACILITIES f
E
SANITARY SEWER
l

FORCE MAIN

F-1 DIRECTION OF FLOW 'j.
AVenuq@
A@e sw
Turw!klwr - W
WATER
4f@
Ell
J,

ROADIMPROVEMENTS,
Signal k`,,

S!.1
Forogon
Z1101 @H
Lot
tion
J dsft
PREPARED III DAVID C. SMITH a ASSOCIATES FROM AERIAL PH.T.S IIATE. -S-. CONTOUR INTERVAL 2.
_V@

A
-7777

it
J Ar

A.
*4,

!1a

'a"

41-
woo Tut
s.
EEV6p01

IF QF,

.......................

toil
250 Soo
7 ScalD In f- Lit
.......... . .... . ... ...

See Middle & Canyor@
OV -M_
Rekh Corridw ap
PERCIVAL A
4.
CREEK CORRIDOR PLAN

r
park L 0 6@
41
UPPER REACH
CORRIDOR MAP
OLY
OLYMPIA
v..*G.a
Shoreline Jurisdiction east WATER
as 4V

50' from Ditch O.H.W.M.

50' from Ditch Right-of-Way
Et
A

sw
Property Lines 29ti A@!e -
e4efe.6 _114
TUMWA;ER

City Limits

!J,
50' from Surveyed Wetland Boundary
4"
R
logo LU
.:.J

W.,

114F
A

Ilk
Ike,
A

Ai,

W.
0.1

TUI
61WATER
%
TON COUNTY
THURS %
%%

80
-TUMWATER"
6
Twsrov(;;g Ty

vi. a
Zn Black Lake
Sapp

a%
a

5oo
a". In Fbtt
FUCPOPREI

BRUNSWICK COUNTY THOROUGHFARE PLAN
PROJECT OBJECTIVES

A county thoroughfare plan enables the County goverment to become

actively involved in the selection of improvements and new construction

of its highways. This plan,if adopted by the Department of Transportation

and Highway Safety, will become an active part in the states comprehensive

transportation plan for Brunswick County.

A thoroughfare plan should be based on present and projected traffic

volumes, topography, land-use, loca-tion of major traffic generators,

Q'r.igin-destination data, and other related consideration of mass transportation

The objectives of this plan are:

1) Develop short range, high priority rights-of-way

2) Develop priorities for county road improvements

3) Develop priorities for new road construction

4) Develop association between adopted land useplan and transit
priorities.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Thoroughfare Planning Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Thoroughfare Classification System . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Capacities And Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Analysis Of Existing System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

The Thoroughfare Plan

Short Range Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Long Range Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

GAYLORDINO. 2333

3 666-8 14107 4627