Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Prepared for Thurston Regional Planning Council on behalf of the communities of Bucoda and Tenino

August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Executive Summary

Background Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC), on behalf of the communities of Bucoda and Tenino, commissioned a feasibility study to extend the Yelm Tenino Trail (YTT). One part of the extension would run south from Tenino City Park to Bucoda, while the other part would run from Tenino City Park to the western city limits of Tenino along Old Highway 99. TRPC hired SCJ Alliance in June 2018 to identify and evaluate alignment options.

Findings The study evaluated four geographical reaches (GR) with a total of eight trail alignments for the extension of the YTT.

Figure A –Yelm Tenino Trail Alignments Overall Map

SCJ Alliance Page i August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Tenino to Bucoda Alignments (North-South) • GR 1 − From Yelm Tenino Trail terminus to 184th Street - 2.5 miles (13,000 lf) • GR 2 − From 184th Street to Bucoda o Alternative A – Along private property east of the railroad - 1.1 miles (6,000 lf) o Alternative B – Along SR 507 – 1.5 miles (8,000 lf)

West Tenino Alignments (East-West) • GR 3 – From Yelm Tenino Trail terminus to north side of Old Highway 99 o Alternative A − 5th Avenue to Wichman Street - 0.3 miles (1,800 lf) o Alternative B − 6th Avenue to McClellan Street - 0.2 miles (1,000 lf) o Alternative C − 6th Avenue to west of the railroad tracks - 0.2 miles (1,000 lf) o Alternative D – Sussex Avenue to the west side of railroad tracks - 0.8 miles (4,000 lf) • GR 4 − From the north side of the intersection of Old Highway 99 and SR 507 to west Tenino city limits -1.6 miles (8,500 lf)

The study concluded GR 2-A (to Bucoda east of the railroad tracks) and GR 3-C (to west Tenino along 6th Avenue) are the preferred alignments as the best value of the alternatives considered.

Recommendations The preferred alignment to Bucoda starts at Yelm Tenino Trail’s terminus in front of the Tenino Depot Museum. The alignment extends the trail south to Crowder Road where it crosses into Thurston County’s jurisdiction. The trail would be standalone for this portion until it connects with Crowder Road. The trail would run parallel on the west side of the road with a five-foot vegetated barrier. The route crosses 184th Avenue at Crowder Road and continues south to Bucoda. This stretch is all on private property, so right of way is needed. The shared-use path would be standalone and would run through undeveloped terrain at grade. This path would be at grade the entire way except for two bridge-like structures: one crossing a culvert and the other crossing a stream. The path would terminate near Bucoda’s maintenance building. The concept-level project cost estimate for the trail from Tenino Depot Museum to the Town of Bucoda is approximately $4.2 million in 2019 dollars. This includes engineering, environmental, construction, right of way, and construction management.

The preferred alignment to west Tenino starts at Yelm Tenino Trail’s terminus in front of the Tenino Depot Museum. The route follows 6th Avenue west and crosses Old Highway 99 at McClellan Street SE. It then follows Old Highway 99 on the north side of the road to the SR 507 intersection. The land along 6th Avenue is undeveloped; however, industrial park development is anticipated. GR 3-B and GR 3-C are identical except for the Old Highway 99 crossing location. With high speeds and road curvature, further investigation is needed to determine the preferred crossing location. The concept-level project cost estimate for the trail from Tenino City Park to west Tenino city limits is approximately $2.23 million in 2019 dollars. This includes engineering, environmental, construction, right of way, and construction management.

SCJ Alliance Page ii August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Process The study began with collecting background data and interviewing stakeholders: Thurston Regional Planning Council, Thurston County Public Works, City of Tenino, Town of Bucoda, and Washington State Department of Transportation.

The background work was followed by two workshops. During Workshop 1, participants identified possible trail alignments, established evaluation criteria, agreed upon the relative importance of criteria (weighting), and set the methodology for scoring the performance of alternatives against the criteria. During Workshop 2, participants reviewed draft results, verified the relative importance of criteria, reviewed the overall performance scores for alternatives, reviewed estimated costs for alternatives, and reviewed the value of each alternative (performance divided by cost). At the conclusion of Workshop 2, participants endorsed Geographical Reach 2-A and Geographical Reach 3-C as the preferred alignments.

Next Steps The study recommends actions to continue developing the Yelm Tenino Trail from Tenino City Park to Bucoda and from Tenino City Park to the west Tenino city limits along Old Highway 99. Recommended actions include:

• Securing additional funding for preliminary engineering and environmental documentation • Conducting the following additional studies: o Geotechnical field investigations – to better determine soil conditions o Biological field studies to determine the presence of Mazama Pocket Gophers o Retaining wall design – for the trail where right of way is limited o Site distance study – to determine the preferred crossing location at Old Highway 99 for Geographical Reach 3 • Develop a local mitigation bank for the local pocket gopher species • Conduct outreach with affected property and business owners to discuss potential impacts and right of way needs

These next steps are anticipated to start as soon as funding becomes available to the City of Tenino, Town of Bucoda, or Thurston County.

This study does not prioritize the implementation of the trail segments. Each community will need to position itself for future funding. The source of funds and the selection criteria will also influence when and how projects proceed.

SCJ Alliance Page iii August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... i Background ...... i Findings ...... i Recommendations ...... ii Process ...... iii Next Steps ...... iii Background ...... 1 Stakeholder Meetings and Data Gathering ...... 1 Stakeholder Meetings ...... 1 Data Gathering ...... 4 Environmental Screening ...... 4 Pocket Gophers ...... 5 Cultural Resources Screening ...... 5 Alternatives Analysis ...... 6 Workshop 1 – Alignment Alternatives ...... 6 Alignments ...... 6 Design ...... 8 Geographical Reach 1 ...... 8 Geographical Reach 2 ...... 8 Geographical Reach 2-A ...... 9 Geographical Reach 2-A (Emergency Vehicle) ...... 9 Geographical Reach 2-B ...... 9 Geographical Reach 3 ...... 10 Geographical Reach 3-A ...... 10 Geographical Reach 3-B ...... 10 Geographical Reach 3-C ...... 11 Geographical Reach 3-D ...... 11 Geographical Reach 4 ...... 11 Workshop 1 Homework – Evaluation Criteria and Scoring ...... 11 Criteria ...... 12 Weighting ...... 12 Scoring ...... 13 Workshop 2 - Scoring and Ranking of Alternatives ...... 13 Performance Profiles for Alternatives ...... 13 Cost Estimating ...... 14 Potential Cost Saving Design Refinements ...... 15 Best Value Alternative ...... 16 Summary ...... 18 Public Information ...... 18

SCJ Alliance Page iv August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Other Considerations ...... 18 Railroad Right of Way ...... 18 SR 507 Roundabout ...... 18 Remapping Floodplain ...... 18 Conclusion ...... 18 Conclusion from the Workshops ...... 18 Conclusion on Alignments ...... 19 Recommendation ...... 20 Next Steps ...... 20 Funding ...... 20 Additional Studies ...... 20 Jurisdictions’ Next Steps...... 21

List of Appendices Appendix A Background Technical Memorandums Yelm-Tenino Trail Critical Area Impacts and Mitigation Summary Report of Cultural Resource Record Search for the Yelm-Tenino Trail Appendix B Alternatives Analysis – Workshop Summaries Workshop 1 – Alignment Alternatives Workshop 2 – Scoring and Ranking of Alternatives Appendix C Plan Sheets Appendix D Project Cost Estimates Appendix E Sample Bridge Designs Appendix F Notes from Stakeholder Pre-Meetings

SCJ Alliance Page v August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Background The Yelm Tenino Trail (YTT) is part of a regional shared-use trail network that connects the cities of Yelm, Rainier, and Tenino to Lacey, Olympia, and points beyond. The regional network offers opportunities for transportation by walking, biking, and other non-motorized means away from cars and trucks. The Town of Bucoda is the only incorporated community in Thurston County that is not connected to the regional trail network by safe, dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities. When travelling between Tenino and Bucoda by foot or bike, users are relegated to the shoulder of State Route 507 (SR 507). Bucoda also desires to evaluate an emergency access ingress and egress route along the BNSF Railway in case of flooding or a train derailment event blocking 6th Street and Tono Road SE.

Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC) hired SCJ Alliance in June 2018 to evaluate extensions of the YTT on behalf of the City of Tenino and Town of Bucoda. One part of the extension would run south from Tenino City Park to Bucoda. The other part of the extension would run from Tenino City Park to the west Tenino city limits along Old Highway 99.

Figure 1 depicts the general work plan for the current study.

Thurston Regional Planning Council commissioned this study on behalf of the communities of Bucoda and Tenino. The study was funded through a $64,875 Federal Highway Administration Transportation Alternatives Program grant award matched with $10,125 in Regional Rural Community Support Program funding. This final report satisfies Washington State Department of Transportation Local Agency Agreement LA-9077.

Stakeholder Meetings and Data Gathering Prior to holding Workshop 1 – Alignment Alternatives, the SCJ Alliance team (Consultant Team) met with several stakeholders of differing perspectives to gather input. The Consultant Team also completed several technical memoranda to provide background data and context before identifying possible alternatives.

Stakeholder Meetings Whitney Holm, SCJ Alliance, met with the following stakeholder representatives to discuss the study and understand individual stakeholder perspectives: o Paul Brewster, Senior Planner, Thurston Regional Planning Council o Scott Davis, Traffic Engineer, Thurston County Public Works o Theresa Parsons, Project Engineer, Thurston County Public Works o Kerry Hibdon, Parks Operations and Maintenance Manager, Thurston County Public Works o Wayne Fournier, Mayor, City of Tenino o John Millard, Clerk/Treasurer, City of Tenino o Alan Carr, Mayor, Town of Bucoda o Katrina Van Every, Planner (former), City of Tenino

SCJ Alliance Page 1 August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

o Theresa Turpin, Multimodal Development Manager, Washington State Department of Transportation – Olympic Region o T.J. Nedrow, Transportation Demand Management Coordinator (Retired), Washington State Department of Transportation – Olympic Region

Notes from each of the meetings are included in Appendix F.

SCJ Alliance Page 2 August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Figure 1 – Work Plan for Yelm Tenino Trail Alternatives Analysis

SCJ Alliance Page 3 August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Data Gathering The Consultant Team prepared the following technical memoranda during data gathering:

Environmental Screening SCJ Alliance prepared a technical memorandum to highlight environmental features and regulatory/permitting considerations for the study area. (Appendix A)

Significant environmental features include the following:

Natural Features • Scatter Creek • Wetlands • Mazama Pocket Gopher soils/habitat • Floodplains

Built Features • Railroad trestle over Old Highway 99 SE • Scatter Creek Bridge • State Route 507 • BNSF Railroad

The memorandum identified probable regulatory permits required to construct the trail: • Thurston County Codes • Washington State Department of Ecology o Section 401 – Clean Water Act • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife o Hydraulic Project Approval • Washington State Department of Natural Resources o Forest Practice Rules • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers o Section 404 – Clean Water Act o Section 106 – National Historic Preservation Act o Section 7 – Endangered Species Act o Magnuson Stevens Fishery Management Act o Migratory Bird Treaty Act • Washington State Department of Transportation – permits and agreements • BNSF Railroad

Summary of Memorandum The extension of the Yelm Tenino Trail system to Bucoda and to the west Tenino city limits will cross some areas with Mazama pocket gopher habitat, wetlands, streams, and floodplains. Mitigation will be required for any impacts.

SCJ Alliance Page 4 August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Mitigation required for impacts to wetlands will be defined after assessing the types and quality of wetlands impacted, and typically requires wetland creation at a minimum of 2:1 replacement ratio and monitoring for 10 years. Mitigation for wetland buffer impacts usually requires a 1:1 replacement on an area basis (i.e., buffer expansion) or enhancement of an existing buffer. The buffer width and mitigation area will be defined by the type of wetland, as higher quality wetlands have larger buffers.

Mitigation required for direct impacts to streams will be related to the type of crossing and whether the stream is fish-bearing. Mitigation for stream buffer impacts usually require a 1:1 replacement on an area basis (i.e., buffer expansion) or enhancement of an existing riparian buffer. The buffer width and mitigation area will be defined by the type of stream, as larger buffers are assigned to fish-bearing and perennial streams. According to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife SalmonScape mapping, the stream north of Bucoda contains salmon species. See Appendix A for SalmonScape maps.

Mitigation required for direct impacts to floodplains will typically require creation of an equivalent floodplain storage volume on a minimum 1:1 volume basis in an adjacent area that is not currently floodplain. This often requires revegetation of the new floodplain surface and monitoring.

The above impacts can be minimized by using pin pile technology to construct the path, significantly reducing mitigation requirements. While this type of construction can be expensive, it is usually less than mitigation.

Pocket Gophers Mitigation for impacts to occupied pocket gopher habitat may take the form of purchase of mitigation credits from an existing bank. However, no banks are currently approved for the Tenino subspecies. Therefore, it may be prudent to encourage developing a local mitigation bank now to be ready for this future project.

Cultural Resources Screening Historic Research Associates (HRA), as a subconsultant to SCJ Alliance, prepared a technical memorandum to summarize known cultural resources for the study area (Appendix A).

The HRA memorandum lists the previously identified features: • No previously recorded archeological sites within a quarter mile of the study area. • Project is within or near the traditional territory of the Nisqually and the Squaxin Indian tribes. • No cemeteries within a quarter mile of the study area. • Six historic-period properties within a quarter mile of the study area.

Using the Department of Historic and Archeological Preservation predictive model, HRA determined the study area as Moderate to Very High Risk for encountering cultural resources in the lowland portion of the project along Old Highway 99 and in Tenino. They determined Low to Moderate Risk in the upland portion of the project—the lower slope of Blumaer Hill along its northeastern margin.

HRA recommends that an archaeological survey be conducted along all currently unpaved portions of the trail route for the segment from Tenino to Bucoda and the segment to west Tenino city limits.

SCJ Alliance Page 5 August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

The trail is in a previously developed area and will be unobtrusively located along the ground surface. This will result in little impact to historic-period buildings, structures, or objects. Further study is not recommended.

Alternatives Analysis The analysis of alternatives was completed through a series of two workshops: • Workshop 1 – Alignment Alternatives – September 21, 2018 • Workshop 2 – Scoring and Ranking of Alternatives – December 18, 2018

Workshop 1 – Alignment Alternatives Workshop 1 was held at the Thurston County Emergency Coordination Center on September 18, 2018. (Appendix B.1)

During Workshop 1, participating stakeholders reviewed the background data and brainstormed possible alternative alignments. At the conclusion of Workshop 1, stakeholders agreed to two alignments from Tenino City Park to Bucoda and four alignments from Tenino City Park to west Tenino city limits.

Alignments Based on the feedback from Workshop 1, SCJ Alliance refined the draft alignment alternatives to the final study alignment alternatives to be evaluated. To simplify the different alignments, they have been broken into geographic reaches (GR) (Figures 2.1 and 2.2).

Tenino to Bucoda Alignments (North-South)

GR 2-B Bucoda SR 507 GR 2-A GR 1

NORTH Tenino

Figure 2.1 − Alignments from Existing Trail to Bucoda

• GR 1 − From Yelm Tenino Trail terminus to 184th St (toward Bucoda). • GR 2 − From 184th to Bucoda.

SCJ Alliance Page 6 August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

o Alternative A – Along private property east of the railroad. o Alternative B – Along SR 507 on the east side of the roadway. The route crosses over the railroad tracks at 184th at grade crossing and then follows SR 507 to Bucoda. The route then crosses over the railroad tracks at the West 6th Street crossing.

West Tenino Alignments (East-West) Tenino

GR 3-D

St

McClellan

GR 3-A

McClellan McClellan St NORTH

GR 3-B & GR 3-C &

Figure 2.2 - Alignments from Existing Trail to west Tenino city limits

• GR 3 – From Yelm Tenino Trail terminus to north side of Old Highway 99 o Alternative A1 − 5th Avenue to Wichman Street – The route follows 5th Avenue west and crosses at Wichman Street. It then follows Old Highway 99 on the north side of the road to the SR 507 intersection. o Alternative B − 6th Avenue to McClellan Street – The route follows 6th Avenue west and crosses Old Highway 99 at McClellan Street SE, and then follows Old Highway 99 on the north side of the road to the SR 507 intersection. o Alternative C − 6th Avenue to west of the railroad tracks – The route follows 6th Avenue west and crosses Old highway 99 between the railroad tracks and SR 507. o Alternative D – Sussex Avenue to the west side of railroad tracks – This route follows 5th Street Avenue to McClellan and then heads north to Sussex Avenue. It crosses under the railroad at Sussex and then heads south on undeveloped property on the west side of

SCJ Alliance Page 7 August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

the railroad tracks. Then it follows Old Highway 99 on the north side of the road to the SR 507 intersection.

• GR 4 – From the intersection of Old Highway 99 and SR 507 to West Tenino city limits.

Design All segments of the shared-use path have been designed with a 10-foot width.

Tenino To Bucoda Alignments (North-South)

Geographical Reach 1 Currently, the Yelm Tenino Trail’s terminus is located in front of the Tenino Depot Museum. The alignment for this reach extends the Yelm Tenino Trail south to Crowder Road where it crosses into Thurston County’s jurisdiction. The trail would be stand alone for this portion until it meets with Crowder Road. The trail would run parallel on the west side of the road with a five-foot vegetated barrier. In portions of this stretch, right of way is limited and retaining walls ranging from half a foot to two feet are anticipated. This reach ends at the intersection of Crowder Road and 184th Avenue. If retaining walls are used, it is believed there is enough right of way to incorporate this stretch of trail along Crowder Road.

Figure 3 – Geographical Reach 1: Crowder Road with Shared-Use Path (looking south)

Geographical Reach 2 This reach extends from 184th Avenue SE to the Town of Bucoda. This stretch has high groundwater, floodplain, and existing culverts. For this reach there are two alignments, but one alignment had two alternatives: GR 2-A and GR 2-A Emergency Vehicle (EV). GR 2-A (EV) follows the same route as GR 2-A, except it is raised above the floodplain and would be constructed to accommodate emergency vehicles.

SCJ Alliance Page 8 August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

GR 2-A requires two bridge-like crossing structures and GR 2-A (EV) requires a 4,000-foot-long elevated path.

Geographical Reach 2-A This route crosses 184th Avenue at Crowder Road and continues south to Bucoda. This stretch is all within private property, so right of way is needed. Presently, all parcels crossed by the trail are owned by one family. The shared-use path would be stand alone and would run through undeveloped terrain at grade. This standalone path would be at grade the entire way except for a culvert crossing, 100-feet long, about 1,500-feet south of Crowder Road, and a stream crossing 200-feet long, about 1,500-feet north of Bucoda. The crossing structures will both be designed on pin piles to reduce negative impact. The path would terminate near Bucoda’s maintenance building. The exact location is undetermined, and more design work is necessary to extend the trail further into town.

Geographical Reach 2-A (Emergency Vehicle) This route has the same alignment as the GR 2-A but is designed above the floodplain to accommodate emergency vehicles and other traffic. This requires a 4,000-foot-long elevated path. The entire elevated path will be designed on pin piles to reduce impacts and maintain the function of the floodplain.

Geographical Reach 2-B This reach crosses 184th Avenue at Crowder Road and then heads west over the at-grade rail crossing to State Route 507 (SR 507). The path would then run parallel with SR 507 on either the west or east side of the road. Staying on the east side reduces the number of roadway crossings along SR 507. The roadway cross section includes a 12-foot road lane, five-foot shoulder, concrete jersey barrier (two- feet), and 10-foot shared-use path. Additional right of way may be needed to accommodate the extra width and grading.

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is most concerned about this alignment because of the high speed limit along SR 507 (55 mph). WSDOT prefers to keep a barrier for bikers and pedestrians separated from the road. The concrete barrier would increase maintenance needs for WSDOT.

SCJ Alliance Page 9 August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Figure 4 – Geographical Reach 2-B: SR 507 with Shared-Use Path (looking south)

West Tenino Alignments (East-West)

Geographical Reach 3 This reach connects the existing Yelm Tenino Trail to the north side of the Old Highway 99 and SR 507 intersection. This stretch provides a link to the western portion of Tenino, where future development will occur.

Geographical Reach 3-A This route follows 5th Avenue west and crosses at Wichman Street. It then follows Old Highway 99 on the north side of the road to the SR 507 intersection. While this route provides directness and safer highway crossing location, there is insufficient width along the side streets to allow either a 10-foot shared-use path or two five-foot on-street bike lanes. Therefore, this reach is not feasible. This determination was reached after Workshop 1. Though it may be a good option as a temporary alignment, the cost is similar to GR 3-B and GR 3-C, but it does not perform as well. This alignment has been included in this study to acknowledge that it was examined and considered.

Geographical Reach 3-B This route follows 6th Avenue west and crosses Old Highway 99 at McClellan Street SE. Then it follows Old Highway 99 on the north side of the road to the SR 507 intersection. Along 6th Avenue is undeveloped land; the City anticipates development of an industrial park. GR 3-B and GR 3-C are identical except that this route crosses Old Highway 99 at McClellan Street SE. With high speeds and road curvature, a site distance study is needed to determine the preferred crossing location. It is anticipated that a Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) will be installed to increase the safety of the crossing.

SCJ Alliance Page 10 August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Geographical Reach 3-C This route follows 6th Avenue west and crosses Old Highway 99 between the railroad trestle and SR 507. See GR 3-B for additional information.

Geographical Reach 3-D This route follows 5th Street Avenue to McClellan and then heads north to Sussex Avenue. It crosses under the railroad at Sussex and then heads south over undeveloped property on the west side of the railroad. It then follows Old Highway 99 on the north side of the road to the SR 507 intersection. This route would move users off the main road and onto a more scenic route, but there is not enough width along the side streets to allow either a 10-foot shared-use path or two five-foot on-street bike lanes. Therefore, this reach is not feasible. It was determined infeasible after Workshop 1. This alignment has been included in this study to acknowledge that it was examined and considered.

Geographical Reach 4 This route follows Old Highway 99 on either the north or south side for the road. The cross section includes an 11-foot road lane, three-foot shoulder, five-foot vegetated buffer, and 10-foot shared-use path. Additional right of way may be needed to accommodate the extra width and grading. A short retaining wall may also be needed along portions of the route to limit grading and right of way impacts. The path could be on the north or south side of the road. The northside option eliminates the SR 507 and Old Highway 99 crossing and connects easier to the possibility of future development from the US Fish and Wildlife acquisition near the Alpaca farm. Running the trail on the south side of the road would eliminate the Old Highway 99 crossing and would have better access to the future Southwest Washington Agriculture & Innovation Park that will be located at the City’s wastewater treatment plant.

Figure 5 – Geographical Reach 4: Old Highway 99 with Shared-Use Path (looking west)

Workshop 1 Homework – Evaluation Criteria and Scoring To expedite the process, criteria and weighting were vetted via email.

SCJ Alliance Page 11 August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Criteria During Workshop 1, participating stakeholders discussed criteria to evaluate the performance of each alignment. SCJ worked with TRPC to refine the criteria, which include:

Criteria Description Perceived Safety The trail user's experience. This includes the effects of crossings, barriers along the roadway, and overall feel. Trail Ambience The surroundings, views as well as traffic noise. Water Resources Conflicts Limiting the negative impact to the environment when constructing in the wetlands and floodplains. Directness of Route Length of route as well as the number of roadway crossings. Closure Due to Flooding Building a trail in a location where flooding could occur, causing it to be closed. Figure 6 – Criteria Outline

Each criterion included a definition and measurement process. The criteria outline adopted by the stakeholders is shown in Figure 6 and for more detail see Appendix B.

Weighting The stakeholders weighted the relative importance of the criteria by using pair-wise comparisons. This is a technique to compare each criterion and develop relative importance.

Five out of six stakeholders had very similar viewpoints on the relative importance of the criteria. Initially, two weight schemes were carried forward to model to honor the differences in value-systems for stakeholder participants. Group A weighting scheme represents the majority of the group; Group B weighting scheme represents one stakeholder. However, after discussing the results with that stakeholder, he preferred the Group A weighting scheme. Therefore, only Group A weighting scheme was used (Appendix B: group B weighting scheme).

Weighting Scheme A Figure 7 shows the relative importance of the criteria for Group A weighting scheme, with Perceived Safety, Trail Ambience, and Directness of Route ranking highest.

SCJ Alliance Page 12 August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Figure 7 - Weighting Schemes

Scoring Each of the routes identified in Workshop 1 were scored against the criteria using the metrics shown in the Criteria Outline in Figure 6. For example, Perceived Safety was scored on a scale of 0.0 to 1.0 based on the trail user’s experience including the effects of crossings, barriers along the roadway, and overall feel (Appendix B: scoring scales).

Between Workshops 1 and 2, the Consultant Team evaluated each of the routes to score for each criterion. Three criteria were scored quantitatively, and two were scored qualitatively (see Figure 6). The scores determined for each route are shown in Appendix B.

Workshop 2 − Scoring and Ranking of Alternatives Workshop 2 was held at TRPC’s conference room on December 18, 2018 (Appendix B: workshop summaries).

Performance Profiles for Alternatives SCJ determined a performance profile for each of the routes by multiplying the score for each criterion by the weight.

During Workshop 2, participating stakeholders reviewed the score results, the performance profile of the routes for each weighting scheme, cost estimates for each of the routes, and the overall ranking for each weighting scheme. Stakeholders in attendance agreed with the performance profiles as presented.

Tenino to Bucoda Alignments (North-South)

Geographical Reaches 1 and 4 only have one route, so no comparison is needed for those reaches. Geographical Reach 2 has three routes: GR 2-A (EV) (highest performing), GR 2-A (second), and GR 2-B (third).

SCJ Alliance Page 13 August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

The biggest contributors to the overall performance of GR 2-A (EV) are Perceived Safety, Trail Ambience, Directness of Route, and Closure Due to Flood. GR 2-A has identical performance except scored a zero for Closure Due to Flooding.

West Tenino Alignments (East-West) Geographical Reach 3 has four routes: GR 3-B and GR 3-C (highest performing) GR 3-A (third), and GR 3- D (fourth). GR 3-A and GR 3-D are both infeasible as described on page 10 and 11 of this study.

The biggest contributors to the overall performance of GR 3-C are Perceived Safety, Trail Ambience, and Directness of Route.

Figure 8 shows the performance profiles for weighting scheme.

Figure 8 – Performance Profiles

Cost Estimating Planning-level total project cost estimates for each route were developed using a combination of unit pricing for items that could be quantified (i.e., asphalt) and lump sum judgment for other items. A contingency was applied to each alternative to account for unknown items/risk given the conceptual level of detail. Engineering/Environmental and Construction Management were calculated as fixed percentages of the construction subtotal.

SCJ Alliance Page 14 August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Estimated right of way costs are based on the assessed value of the properties located near the project.

Figure 9 shows the project estimates. A detailed cost estimate for each route can be found in Appendix D.

Conceptual Level Cost Estimate Summary

Figure 9 – Summary of Project Costs

Potential Cost Saving Design Refinements The cost estimates were prepared based on generally conservative assumptions to minimize the risk of underestimating project costs. One potential design refinement could be implemented during preliminary/final design to reduce project costs:

Scatter Creek Bridge – Potential Savings of $500,000 to $750,000 The cost estimates assume a bridge crossing Scatter Creek along Old Highway 99 in Geographical Reach 4. The current roadway bridge is in poor condition and may be replaced in the near future. If that happens, adding a shared-use path on the new bridge could reduce project costs by eliminating the need for a separate new bridge.

SCJ Alliance Page 15 August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Best Value Alternative The total performance score for each alternative was divided by the project cost for each route to determine the performance value index of the alternative (performance value index = performance index/cost index). The performance index was determined by multiplying the score for each criterion by the weight (Figure 8). The cost index was determined by dividing the cost of each route by the total sum of all the costs for each geographical reach.

GR 2-A and GR 3-C are the best value alternatives. Ranking:

Tenino to Bucoda Geographical Reach 2 Alternatives Ranked by Best Value 1. GR 2-A 2. GR 2-B 3. GR 2-A (EV)

West Tenino Geographical Reach 3 Alternatives Ranked by Best Value 1. GR 3-B & GR 3-C 2. GR 3-A (Not Feasible) 3. GR 3-D (Not Feasible)

Figures 10 and 11 provide details of the rankings.

SCJ Alliance Page 16 August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Performance Value

Geographical Reach 2-B

Geographical Reach 2-A (EV)

Geographical Reach 2-A

0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 TOTAL VALUE Performance Index Cost Value Alternatives Score Index Geographical Reach 2-A 0.752 0.069 10.94 Geographical Reach 2-A (EV) 0.835 0.896 0.93 Geographical Reach 2-B 0.361 0.035 10.27

Figure 10 - Best Value Graph for GR-2

Performance Value Geographical Reach 3-D

Geographical Reach 3-C

Geographical Reach 3-B

Geographical Reach 3-A

0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 Performance TOTAL VALUE Value Index Cost Score Alternatives Index Geographical Reach 3-A 0.526 0.255 2.061 Geographical Reach 3-B 0.704 0.214 3.286 Geographical Reach 3-C 0.704 0.214 3.286 Geographical Reach 3-D 0.463 0.316 1.465

Figure 11 - Best Value Graph for GR-3

SCJ Alliance Page 17 August 2019 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Summary GR 2-A is the recommended alignment for Geographical Reach 2. While GR 2-A is estimated to cost $2.25 million and GR 2-B $1.15 million, GR 2-A scores drastically higher on the performance rating. The value index of GR 2-A is 10.94 and GR 2-B is 10.27. Because GR 2-A has a larger value index, we recommend using this alignment.

Either GR 3-B and GR 3-C, depending on the site distance study, are recommended for Geographical Reach 3. Due to limited space on the existing roadway, GR 3-A and GR 3-D are both infeasible (see pages 10-11); GR 3-B and GR 3-C each have an anticipated project cost of $210,000.

Public Information Public Information efforts will occur subsequent to stakeholder review of this draft report. Findings will be presented to the Board of Thurston County Commissioners and Tenino and Bucoda City Councils.

Other Considerations

Railroad Right of Way BNSF Railway owns the tracks running through the study area between Tenino and Bucoda. SCJ Alliance contacted representatives from BNSF to discuss possible partnerships with a shared-use path inside the railroad right of way. Because the line is active, BNSF was adamant that, for safety reasons, no path be located inside their right of way.

SR 507 Roundabout According to Olympic Region WSDOT staff, in the 2018 draft corridor sketch report it was noted that a signal or a roundabout is needed to address the future traffic demand at the Old Highway 99 and SR 507 intersection. However, an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) study is needed to determine the best option. Typically, a trail crossing at a roundabout is safer than other controlled intersections. Future design of the Geographical Reach 3 trail alignment should be coordinated with WSDOT.

Remapping Floodplain The majority of Geographical Reach 2A is located in a floodplain in the Skookumchuck Basin. GR 2-A is designed at grade, which would be under water during parts of the year. GR 2-A (EV) is designed to be on pin piles at an elevation above the 100-year flood. Additional evaluation is needed if GR 2-A (EV) is pursued. The floodplain can be remapped, which could reduce the required mitigation. Elevations of different flood events should be analyzed to help determine the elevation of the raised path.

Conclusion

Conclusion from the Workshops Stakeholders met during two workshops to evaluate alternatives and select a preferred alignment for the Yelm Tenino Trail from the vicinity of Tenino City Park to Bucoda and west Tenino city limits.

SCJ Alliance Page 18 August 2019 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

• Workshop 1 – Alignment Alternatives: Participants identified different alignments and determined criteria for comparing alternatives: Perceived Safety, Trail Ambience, Water Resources Conflicts, Directness of Route, and Closure Due to Flooding.

• Workshop 1 Homework – Participants prioritized the criteria to determine the relative importance using pair-wise comparison, scoring Perceived Safety, Trail Ambience, and Directness of Route as most important. SCJ then presented methods for scoring the performance of alternatives against each criterion.

• Workshop 2 – Scoring and Ranking of Alternatives: Participants reviewed the draft scoring of alternative performance and ranking of alternatives by best value (performance divided by cost).

Participants agreed GR 2-A and GR 3-C are the best value alternatives. GR 2-A(EV) is the highest performing alternative for Geographical Reach 2; however, the significant cost difference of the raised path lowers the value of this alternative.

Conclusion on Alignments The following section discusses what the next steps for each segment should be. The conceptual project cost for each segment should be verified during preliminary design.

• GR 1 is believed to have enough right or way to advance in project development by beginning preliminary design, environmental documentation, and a geotechnical investigation.

• GR 2-A could be advanced in project development by initiating conversation with the property owner, beginning preliminary design, environmental documentation, and geotechnical and biological investigations.

• GR 3-B and 3-C could be advanced in project development by determining if the trail along Old Highway 99 should be on the north side or south side. A geotechnical investigation for the project, with detailed information on the area around the railroad tracks, should take place to determine path feasibility under the tracks. If the path on the north side is selected, a site distance study is needed to verify the best crossing location. An Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) study should be completed for SR 507 and Old Highway 99. A meeting with BSNF will also need to occur to discuss adding a 10-foot shared-use path below the trestle.

• GR 4 could be advanced in project development by initiating a conversation with the City of Tenino about locating the trail on the north or south side of Old Highway 99. Next, discussions should occur with the property owner for right of way acquisition and beginning preliminary design, environmental documentation, and a geotechnical investigation.

SCJ Alliance Page 19 August 2019 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Recommendation This study recommends pursuing alignments GR 1, GR 2-A, GR 3-B or GR 3-C, and GR 4.

• GR-1 – There is only one alignment, and that anticipated cost estimate is $1.98 million.

• GR 2-A – For Geographical Reach 2, GR 2-A is the recommended alignment. GR 2-A is estimated to cost $2.25 million and GR 2-B costs $1.15 million. However, GR 2-A scores drastically higher on the performance rating. The value index of GR 2-A is 10.94 and GR 2-B has a value index of 10.27. Because GR 2-A has a larger value index, we recommend using this alignment.

• GR 3-B and GR 3-C – Depending on the site distance study, either GR 3-B or GR 3-C are recommended for Geographical Reach 3. Due to limited space on the existing roadway, GR 3-A and GR 3-D are both infeasible. See Pages 9 and 10 for further discussion. Both GR 3-B and GR 3- C have an anticipated project cost of $210,000.

• GR 4 – The route can either be on the north or south side of Old Highway 99. This alignment has an anticipated cost around $2.02 million.

Next Steps

Funding The next project development activities are preliminary design and environmental documentation. The most likely sources for funding:

• WSDOT Pedestrian/Bicycle Grant Program • Federal STBG and STBG set-aside (Enhancement) Funds through Thurston Regional Planning Council • Real Estate Excise Tax (Thurston County segments only) • Conservation Futures Fund (Thurston County segments only) • Impact fees (developer funded portions along Old Hwy 99 in Tenino)

Additional Studies

Geotechnical Investigation Preliminary design should begin with a detailed geotechnical investigation along the recommended alignment. The investigation will provide data to allow for selection of bridge design, wall types, and preliminary grading design to minimize retaining wall costs.

Trail Profile Grade A vertical profile for the recommended alignment has not been prepared, but the project site is relatively flat, with no stretches exceeding 8%. The final design must comply with Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Accessible Design.

SCJ Alliance Page 20 August 2019 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Traffic Barrier Versus Vegetated Buffer Some areas along the selected path have limited right of way. For this study, it was assumed additional right of way would be purchased to accommodate a two-foot shoulder, five-foot vegetated barrier covered with sod, and a 10-foot shared-use path. A traffic barrier was considered to limit the amount of right of way needed, but the stakeholders strongly preferred a vegetated buffer. In final design, a jersey barrier should be considered where obtaining right of way is not feasible.

Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Request WSDOT fund an ICE at SR 507 and Old Highway 99.

Thurston County Survey Identify and survey the right of way line along Crowder Road. Determine the width available for the shared use path.

BNSF Railway Meet with BNSF Railway regarding adding a shared-use path under the railroad trestle along Old Highway 99.

Private Property Discussion Converse with the property owner to discuss acquiring right of way for the GR 2-A portion of the trail.

Jurisdictions’ Next Steps

Thurston County Thurston County should include the trail extensions in the Parks, Recreation, Trails, and Natural Resource Preserve Plan and in the Parks Impact Fee Program.

City of Tenino The City of Tenino should include the trail extensions to Tenino’s Park Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan.

Town of Bucoda The Town of Bucoda should adopt this study during a Town Council meeting.

SCJ Alliance Page 21 August 2019 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Appendix A Background Technical Memorandums

Regulatory Constraints Memorandum

Summary Report of Cultural Resource Record Search for the Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study

SCJ Alliance Page 23 August 2019

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO: Whitney Holm, P.E., SCJ Alliance

FROM: Lisa Palazzi, CPSS, PWS, SCJ Alliance

DATE: November 13, 2018

PROJECT #: 670.03

SUBJECT: Yelm-Tenino Trail Critical Area Impacts and Mitigation

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SCJ Alliance is providing technical services in a Feasibility Study designed to assess potential limitations associated with alternate alignments for future sections of a regional trail system (Figure 1). The current trail from Yelm terminates in Tenino. Alternate routes for new sections extending south toward Bucoda, and west to the Tenino city limits are being evaluated and compared. The purpose of this technical memo is to provide feedback about potential Critical Area impacts that may affect permitting and project complexity.

Bucoda

Tenino

NORTH

Figure 1. Project Site and proposed alternate paths.

8730 Tallon Lane NE, Suite 200  Lacey, WA 98516  Office 360.352.1465  Fax 360.352.1509  www.scjalliance.com

A-1 Yelm-Tenino Trail Critical Areas November 13, 2018 Page 2 of 8

2.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS

Wetland Delineation Regulations (federal and state) Under the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) section 173-22-035, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) requires wetland identification and delineation be completed following the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements, including but not limited to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2010). Wetland Rating, Classification, and Buffers Thurston County Code defines wetland protection standards in TCC Chapter 24.30, which includes requirements for rating the wetland and making buffer width determinations based on rating score results. Per Thurston County code, wetlands are rated according to the 2014 WRSWW (Ecology Publication #14-06-029). This system scores wetlands based on the functions of water quality, hydrology, and habitat. The Rating Manual also provides a process for assessing the wetland’s sensitivity to disturbance and identifies rare or non-replaceable wetland characteristics. Wetlands are classified according to the USFWS Cowardin classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) and the USACE Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification system (Brinson 1993).

Mazama Pocket Gopher Regulatory Issues The Mazama pocket gopher was federally listed in 2015, and therefore, potential for impacts along the trail routes must be assessed and taken into account when planning. An Incidental Take Permit from USFWS may be needed to build the trail if there is occupied habitat in or near the proposed trail alignment. The assessment of pocket gopher presence must be carried out within the same 1-2 year period as construction. However, early reconnaissance work can be carried out to define relative risks and related habitat characteristics along the ROW, which will help to define costs and permitting timelines.

Workshops and Meetings Periodic meetings to get feedback from stakeholders provide valuable checks and balances and redirection of effort as the project progresses. From this feedback, it appears that the highest priority of desired outcomes of the feasibility study include: • Defining final recommended alignments • Providing a relative cost comparison of the alignments • Provide for trail connectivity to/between Tenino and Bucoda • Ensure that the end result is a community amenity – visually, economically and recreationally Background Materials

To help determine the potential impacts to wetlands or streams, SCJ Alliance staff reviewed the following information: • Previous Trail Costs assessment work, potential need for ROW purchase and mitigation acreage • Thurston County GeoData mapping system. • US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map

A-2 Yelm-Tenino Trail Critical Areas November 13, 2018 Page 3 of 8

• US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic database online Web Soil Service. • Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS). Database (WDFW PHS 2018). • Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) FPARS stream mapping system. • Google Earth historic timeline aerial photos of the project area.

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Project Description

The Project involves extending the Yelm-Tenino Trail system west along Old Highway 99 SE, to about 2 miles west of Tenino – to the City limits, and extending the trail system south along the Bucoda Highway (SR 507) to Bucoda, about 4 miles. Alternate routes to the west along Old Highway 99 are mostly related to when the trail will cross to the north side of the highway – whether to do that within Tenino or on the outskirts of town. Alternate routes toward Bucoda to the south either run along the west side of existing pavement on SR 507 or along the east side of Crowder Road, a local road about 160 feet east of SR 507 on the opposite side of the railroad tracks. Crowder has less traffic than SR 507, and thus is safer, but it does not continue all the way to Bucoda. Therefore, at 184th Avenue, the route must either cross west over the railroad tracks and continue south along Highway 507, or a new trail easement to the south must be negotiated east of the railroad. There are apparently remnants of an old road in this area, but its exact location and condition are not known. Presumably, the old road is not 100% continuous and was possibly damaged in the past by flooding events. However, the remaining fill pad may provide a reasonable base for some sections of the proposed trail system. Filling in a floodplain or in wetlands, or crossing streams will all require permitting and mitigation at a county, state and federal level. However, it is not possible to avoid all impacts with this trail system. Therefore, minimizing impacts will reduce cost, complexity and mitigation requirements.

Proposed Tenino to Bucoda Alignments Geographical Reach 2-A: Crowder Road – continue south from 184th to Bucoda, or cross to SR 507 at 184th • Trail along east side of Crowder Road to 184th, 20’ ROW acquisition is needed • New ROW agreement with landowner south of 184th would be needed to Bucoda. • The new trail section fill impacts to wetland floodplain and streams south of 184th may require ~1.7 acres of mitigation. • Possible emergency route out of town during a train blockage (design issues). Geographical Reach 2-B: Highway 507 to Bucoda • Trail along shoulder on west side of SR 507, but a 10-20’ ROW acquisition is needed. • Widening fill in floodplain, wetland and stream areas may require ~1.4 acres of mitigation • Consider no barrier between Hwy and trail (5-foot buffer instead). • No emergency route out of town during a train blockage.

A-3 Yelm-Tenino Trail Critical Areas November 13, 2018 Page 4 of 8

Tenino

NORTH

Bucoda

Figure 2. Showing locations of wetland, floodplain and stream crossings for the various routes.

A-4 Yelm-Tenino Trail Critical Areas November 13, 2018 Page 5 of 8

Proposed Tenino to Western City Limits Alignments Geographic Reaches 3 & 4, to City Limits west of Tenino • Path along the north side of Old Highway 99 is ideal farther west. • Future commercial development is planned south of SR 99 between railroad and Wichman – which may make the alignment along 6th Avenue more attractive to trail users. • Options for getting from existing trail terminal in Tenino to the north side of Old Highway 99 (Figure 3). o Geographical Reach 3-A: 5th Avenue to cross west at Wichman Street (orange line) o Geographical Reach 3-B: 6th Avenue to cross north at McClellan (yellow line) o Geographical Reach 3-C: 6th Avenue to cross north on Hwy west of railroad (blue line) o Geographical Reach 3-D: From terminus north to cross north at Sussex Avenue, then continue to the west side of the railroad, then down to Hwy (green line) • Crossing to north at the SR 99 and SR 507 intersection would be ideal if there was a roundabout at the intersection; however, there are no current plans for that. The current intersection has poor sight distance, and crossings there are a safety concern.

Sussex Ave NORTH Tenino

Existing Trail Railroad Terminus Wichman Wichman St McClellan St 5th Avenue

6th Avenue

NORTH

Figure 3. Alternate routes from Existing Trail to N side of Old Hwy 99.

A-5 Yelm-Tenino Trail Critical Areas November 13, 2018 Page 6 of 8

Floodplain, Wetland, Stream Impacts and Mitigation Any direct fill or crossing impacts to floodplain, wetland or stream systems along the route will require an impacts assessment and mitigation sequencing approach. No net loss of floodplain storage volume or wetland/stream acreage and associated functions is allowed under federal and County regulations. Figure 2 above showed sections of trail that may unavoidably impact wetland or streams; Figure 4 below shows areas where there may also be floodplain impacts. If impacts to any of these critical areas cannot be avoided, code requires that the impacts are minimized, and requires mitigation for any impacts at a prescribed mitigation replacement ratio. Preliminary assessment indicates that about 1.7 acres of direct impact to floodplains, wetlands and/or streams may result from extending the Crowder Road alignment south from 184th to Bucoda, compared to 1.4 acres of impact for the trail alignment to Bucoda running west of SR 507. However, the relative area of mitigation required for these impacts is a more important measure than initial impacts acreage. The replacement ratio for buffer impacts (on wetlands and streams) is typically 1:1 on an area basis. Mitigation for floodplain fill impacts is typically 1:1 on a volume basis, i.e., compensatory mitigation for filling of floodplain requires replacement of lost storage volume – which may end up being more or less acreage (area), depending on terrain where the compensatory storage is created. Mitigation ratios for wetland fill impacts depends on the type and quality of wetland being impacted and can range from 2:1 up to 20:1 or more, and typically requires at least 10 years of monitoring and maintenance of the mitigation area. Stream crossings also require additional engineering and permitting to define and design an acceptable crossing structure. Therefore, the initial fill acreage value is not as important as the mitigation ratio and engineering requirements, which can only be defined after field work is completed.

Bucoda

Tenino

NORTH

Figure 4. Showing locations of potential floodplain impacts, with wetland and stream overlays included.

A-6 Yelm-Tenino Trail Critical Areas November 13, 2018 Page 7 of 8

Mazama Pocket Gopher Impacts and Mitigation If there is occupied or high quality pocket gopher habitat in or near the proposed trail alignment, an Incidental take Permit (ITP) process, and associated mitigation at a minimum of 1:1 replacement ratio may be required. Mazama pocket gophers prefer the loose, sandy prairie soils and grassland habitats that are common in some areas around Tenino. However, they do not tend to occupy heavily forested areas; or already developed compacted; or paved areas; or areas with shallow groundwater. Therefore, no occupied habitat is expected in areas with these conditions despite being mapped as a preferred soil type (Figure 5). Soil Survey maps are generalized management tools, and always require ground- truthing before regulatory decisions are final.

Bucoda

Tenino

NORTH NORTH

Figure 5. Showing areas mapped with preferred pocket gopher soil types.

Assessment for occupied habitat must occur within a 12-24-month period prior to starting construction, and this assessment requires three separate site visits at 30-day intervals between June and October when pocket gophers are active, and their burrows and mounds are easy to observe and differentiate from mole mounds. In areas that are occupied, construction cannot proceed until mitigation is defined and an ITP is awarded.

If this work is carried out after Thurston County has completed its currently in-progress Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)1 and has obtained a County-wide ITP, then mitigation for unavoidable impacts to occupied habitat will most likely take the form of purchase of mitigation credits from a nearby approved Mazama pocket gopher mitigation bank. However, because the Tenino pocket gopher

1 Not yet completed, and no projected completion date is defined.

A-7 Yelm-Tenino Trail Critical Areas November 13, 2018 Page 8 of 8

subspecies has a small range, and because the County HCP and local mitigation banks are not likely to be approved within the next 2-3 years, it may be prudent to encourage development of a local mitigation bank, to ensure that habitat mitigation credits are readily available when the time comes. In absence of a County-wide program, writing a local HCP and attaining an ITP from USFWS for a local project can take 1-2 years.

SUMMARY

The extension of the Yelm-Tenino Trail system to Bucoda and to the western edge of Tenino will avoidably cross some areas with Mazama pocket gopher habitat, wetlands, streams and floodplains. Mitigation will be required for any impacts.

Mitigation required for impacts to wetlands will be defined after assessing the types and quality of wetlands impacted, and typically requires wetland creation at a minimum of 2:1 replacement ratio and monitoring for 10 years. Mitigation for wetland buffer impacts usually require a 1:1 replacement on an area basis (i.e., buffer expansion) or enhancement of an existing buffer. The buffer width and thus mitigation rea will be defined by the type of wetland, as higher quality wetlands have larger buffers.

Mitigation required for direct impacts to streams will be related to the type of crossing and whether or not the stream is fish-bearing. Mitigation for stream buffer impacts usually require a 1:1 replacement on an area basis (i.e., buffer expansion) or enhancement of an existing riparian buffer. The buffer width and thus mitigation rea will be defined by the type of stream, as larger buffers are assigned to fish- bearing and perennial streams.

Mitigation required for direct impacts to floodplains will typically require creation of an equivalent floodplain storage volume on a minimum 1:1 volume basis in an adjacent area that is not currently floodplain. This often requires revegetation of the new floodplain surface and monitoring.

Mitigation for impacts to occupied pocket gopher habitat may take the form of purchase of mitigation credits from an existing bank. However, no banks are currently approved for the Tenino subspecies, and therefore, it may be prudent to encourage development of a local mitigation bank now in order to be ready for this future project.

A-8 Proposed stream crossing

A-9 Proposed stream crossing

A-10 Proposed stream crossing

A-11 Proposed stream crossing

A-12 Proposed stream crossing

A-13 Proposed stream crossing

A-14

MEMORANDUM

To: Whitney Holm, PE, LEED AP BD+C, Project Engineer, SCJ Alliance Cc: Matthew Warren, MA, Archaeological Technician and Lynn Compas, MA, RPA, Sr. From: Archaeologist Subject: Cultural Resources Record Search for The Yelm–Tenino Trail Feasibility Study Date: May 1, 2018

1.0 Introduction This archival research memorandum was prepared to assist Thurston County Regional Planning Council, the City of Tenino, and the Town of Bucoda in assessing the feasibility of constructing extensions to the Yelm– Tenino Trail (YTT) in West Tenino and between Tenino and Bucoda. The project is located within the Skookumchuck River and Scatter Creek watersheds as depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Bucoda; Violet Prairie quadrangle in Township 16 North (N), Range 1 West (W), Sections 19, 30, 31, 37, 41, and 42; Township 16 N, Range 2 W, Sections 24, 25, 26, 36, 45, and 46; Township 15 N, Range 1 W, Sections 6, 7, 37, and 38; and Township 15 N, Range 2 W, Sections 1, 12, 39, and 42, Willamette Meridian (Figure 1).

1.1 Background/Project Description The YTT is part of a regional shared-use trail network that connects the cities of Yelm, Rainier, and Tenino to Lacey, Olympia, and points beyond. The regional network offers opportunities for transportation by walking, biking, and other non-motorized means away from cars and trucks. The Town of Bucoda is the only incorporated community in Thurston County that is not connected to the regional trail network by safe, dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Travelling between Tenino and Bucoda by foot or bike, users are relegated to the shoulder of State Route 507 (SR 507). The purpose of this feasibility study is to evaluate extensions of the YTT. One part of the extension would run south from Tenino City Park to Bucoda. The other part of the extension would run from Tenino City Park to the City of Tenino’s western limits. The following are the four alignments envisioned for this study:  Alignment to Bucoda along State Route 507 (SR 507)  Alignment to Bucoda along Crowder Road (Rd.) (Crowder)  West Tenino on-street shared path on Old Highway 99 (Shared OH 99)  West Tenino separate multi-use trail (Separate Multi-Use OH 99)

Historical Research Associates, Inc. 1904 Third Ave., Suite 240, Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.343.0226 Fax: 206.343.0249 A-15 Yelm–Tenino Trail Feasibility Study, Record Search Memo May 1, 2019

Figure 1. Project location and extent of area of potential effects.

Page 2 A-16 Yelm–Tenino Trail Feasibility Study, Record Search Memo May 1, 2019

Figure 2. Aerial overview of project location and area of potential effects.

Page 3 A-17 Yelm–Tenino Trail Feasibility Study, Record Search Memo May 1, 2019

1.2 Regulatory Context The funding stream for the project is unknown at this time; therefore, this record search was conducted to comply with eSection 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as well as with Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 27.44 Indian Graves and Records and RCW 27.53 Archaeological Sites and Resources.

1.3 Area of Potential Effects The area of potential effects (APE) for the purposes of this record search consists of the area where surface and subsurface disturbance may occur along each proposed trail alignment, which is estimated to be an approximately 10-foot (ft)-wide pathway (Figure 2). Equipment lay-down areas, staging areas, parking, and construction access is unknown at the moment, but should be included prior to the commencement of construction.

2.0 Records Search Results Historical Research Associates, Inc. (HRA) staff conducted an examination of archival data using the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) online Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) web portal to identify archaeological sites, and previous cultural resource studies in the vicinity of the APE. HRA staff consulted HRA’s cultural resource reference library and online sources for historic maps to estimate the potential for cultural resources in the vicinity of the APE. Given the cultural resource sensitivity of the area around the APE, HRA used a ¼-mi radius for the research limits. 2.1 West Tenino Trail Extension

2.1.1 Previous Cultural Resource Studies

Option 1 No previous cultural resource surveys have been conducted within the APE, and four have been conducted within ¼ mi (Table 2-1).

Option 2 Results are the same as Option 1.

Page 4 A-18 Yelm–Tenino Trail Feasibility Study, Record Search Memo May 1, 2019

Table 2-1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within ¼ mi of the APE. NADB Reference Title Approximate Distance Identified Cultural # from APE (Direction) Resources within APE

1349000 Buffum Cultural Resources Assessment of the City of <0.1 mi (S) None 2006 Tenino Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Project, Tenino, Washington

1351889 Sharley Cultural Resources Survey for the City of 0.24 mi (NE) None 2008 Tenino’s Proposed Central Avenue Road Improvement Project, Thurston County, Washington

1353616 Gilpin Archaeological Monitoring for the Tenino <0.1 mi (S) None 2008 Wastewater Treatment Plant Influent Pipe Scatter Creek Crossing Project, Tenino, Washington

1686598 Munsell NRCS Cultural Resources Survey for the <0.1 mi (N) None 2015 Alpacas of Americas LLC Project, EQIP 2014 Project, Contract No. 7405461404Y

2.1.2 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites

Option 1 There are no previously recorded archaeological sites within the APE or within ¼ mi of the APE. The closest recorded archaeological site is 45TN00383 (Smith 2009), located 1.2 miles southeast of the proposed Tenino Bucoda Trail Extension atop the northeastern end of Blumaer Hill. The site consists of a grove of at least ten culturally modified western red cedar trees. No cultural materials were encountered in the course of the documentation of the site (Smith 2009).

Option 2 Results were the same as Option 1.

2.1.3 Historic Period Buildings, Structures, and Objects

Option 1 There are five historic-period buildings and structures located within ¼ mi of the APE, none of which are located within the APE itself (Table 2-2). These resources are described further in the sections immediately following Table 2.

Option 2 Results were the same as Option 1.

Page 5 A-19 Yelm–Tenino Trail Feasibility Study, Record Search Memo May 1, 2019

Table 2-2. Historic-period buildings, structures, and objects within ¼ mile of the APE. Resource Name Distance from APE Description Time Period NHRP Evaluation (Trinomial) (Direction) Status

Ticknor School <0.1 mi (SE) One-room 1932–1936 Undetermined (45TN00290) schoolhouse

Tenino Stone Company <0.1 mi (E) Former sandstone 1888–1926 Determined eligible for Quarry (TN00110) quarry and current the National Register of municipal swimming Historic Places (NRHP) pool

Tenino Downtown Historic 0.2 mi (N) Collection of buildings 1906–1925 Listed in the NHRP District (DT00177) constructed of locally quarried sandstone

Northern Pacific Depot – <0.1 mi (E) Unoccupied freight 1914–1960 Determined eligible for Tenino (TN00090) and passenger train the NRHP station

Hercules Sandstone 0.2 mi (NE) Former quarrying 1900–present Undetermined Company Office company headquarters (TN00273) and current center of Tenino municipal government

2.1.4 Cemeteries

Option 1 There are no previously recorded cemeteries located within the APE or within ¼ mi of the APE.

Option 2 Results same as Option 1.

2.1.5 Ethnohistoric Places

Option 1 The APE is within or near the traditional territory of the Nisqually and the Squaxin Indian Tribes. The Nisqually villages of Yee-tsawht-tsahbch and Yoh-whahls-tsahbch were located at the outlet of Nisqually Lake and the mouth of Muck Creek onto the Nisqually River, respectively. Village name spellings appear as they do on the Coast Salish Villages of Puget Sound webpage (Dailey 2018). The latter was situated on land that would become part of the Nisqually Reservation, and was thus able to persist relatively longer than most traditional Nisqually villages (Dailey 2018). These villages were both located approximately 12 mi northeast of the APE.

Page 6 A-20 Yelm–Tenino Trail Feasibility Study, Record Search Memo May 1, 2019

The Squaxin village of Staht-sahs-ahbsh was a small, three-house settlement in the mid-1800s whose residents moved to the Nisqually Reservation when it was concentrated (Dailey 2018). The Squaxin recognized the falls of the Deschutes River at present-day Tumwater as SpEkwa’L (“cascade”). Tumwater itself is an Anglicized form of TE’m-wata, which is a Chinook jargon term for a waterfall (Hilbert et al. 2001306). These locations were approximately 10 mi north of the APE, at the southern end of Budd Inlet.

Option 2 Results are the same as Option 1.

2.1.6 Historic-Period Maps

Option 1 As noted in Table 2-3, there are many historic-period maps that include the APE. The oldest depictions of the APE are the 1856 United States Surveyor General (USSG) General Land Office (GLO) plats, four of which include sections of the APE (USSG 1856a, 1856b, 1856c, 1856d). These plats indicate an early trail between Fort Nisqually and “Cowlitz farms” to the southwest, over which was subsequently built a segment of the Northern Pacific Railway; this railway may be observed in all subsequent maps of the region (e.g. United States Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] 1879). They also show a “Road from the Cowlitz River to Olympia” that extended across the prairie land west of present-day Tenino, apparently the predecessor of the present-day Grand Mound Rd. This was previously referred to as Mound Rd. as recently as the 1960s (Metsker 1962b). A “Road from Olympia to Cowlitz Landing” that extends north-northeast from Tenino in the 1856 GLO plats is absent in subsequent maps, although a rail line approximating this route between Tenino and Olympia was constructed shortly thereafter. Now a segment of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, this line was first identified as the Olympia and Tenino Railroad (BIA 1879). It was subsequently referred to as the Port Townsend and Southern Railway (Henry and Henry ca. 1895) and the Olympia and Chehalis Valley Railroad (Plummer ca. 1895). Despite the inconsistent designations, the railway location is consistent throughout the maps. Other features in the vicinity of the APE include the towns of Tenino and Bucoda; Scatter Creek, which crosses under the proposed West Tenino Extension shortly before it enters Tenino; Skookumchuck River, which flows just east of the southern ends of the Bucoda Extension options; Lemon Hill, the southern flank of which extends down to the APE of the West Tenino Extension; Grand Mound Rd.; Rock and Frost Prairies to the southwest of Tenino and north of Bucoda, respectively; and an Oregon Trail monument in eastern Tenino that is identified only in a USGS topographic map of the town (USGS 1944). The locations of the towns of Tenino and Bucoda are consistent across all of the maps in which they are present, the latter first appearing by 1895 (Henry and Henry 1895). A comparison of the 1856 GLO plats with the later regional maps reveals the establishment of a small number of farming households in the vicinity of the present-day locations of Tenino and Rock Prairie by the mid-1800s, after which time the construction of railways through the region attracted increasing numbers of settlers and led to the founding of Tenino and Bucoda.

Page 7 A-21 Yelm–Tenino Trail Feasibility Study, Record Search Memo May 1, 2019

Table 2-3. Historic-Period Maps that Include the West Tenino Extension Portion of the APE. Title Reference Description

Land Status & USSG 1856c Along the West Tenino Trail Extension: Scatter Creek, Road from Olympia to Cadastral Survey Cowlitz Landing, Trail from Cowlitz Farms to Fort Nisqually Records: Township 16 N, Range 1 W, Vicinity: Davenport property Willamette Meridian

Land Status & USSG 1856d Along the West Tenino Trail Extension: Road from Cowlitz River to Olympia Cadastral Survey Records: Township 16 Vicinity: Scatter Creek N, Range 2 W, Willamette Meridian

Nisqually Agency: BIA 1879 Along the West Tenino Trail Extension: Scatter Creek, Northern Pacific Railroad, Nisqually Reserve; Olympia and Tenino Railroad, unnamed road, town of Tenino Chehalis Reserve Vicinity: Skookumchuck River

Map of Thurston Henry and Along the West Tenino Trail Extension: Colvin Creek, Scatter Creek, Grand- County, Washington Henry ca. 1895 Mound Prairie, Main Line of NPRR, Port Townsend & Southern Railway, Tenino Junction, unnamed roads, town of Tenino

Vicinity: Nothing mapped

Map of the Upper Plummer ca. Along the West Tenino Trail Extension: Olympia and Chehalis Valley Railroad, Sound Country 1895 Northern Pacific Railroad, town of Tenino, unidentified river comprising parts of Pierce, Thurston, Vicinity: unidentified river Kitsap, Mason and King, Washington (1889 – 1900)

Thurston Co., Along the West Tenino Trail Extension: Scatter Creek, Mound Prairie, Tenino Jc, Kroll 1912– Washington Northern Pacific Railroad, unidentified railroad, unnamed road 1913 Vicinity: Town of Tenino

Chehalis Topographic USGS 1916 Along the West Tenino Trail Extension: Scatter Creek, Northern Pacific Railway, Map unnamed road, unnamed railroad, town of Tenino

Vicinity: Nothing mapped

Tenino Topographic USGS 1944 Along the West Tenino Trail Extension: Scatter Creek, unnamed roads, unnamed Map railroad, town of Tenino

Vicinity: Rock Prairie, Lemon Hill

Page 012, Maytown, Metsker 1962b Along the West Tenino Trail Extension: Mound Road Rock Prairie, Violet Prairie Vicinity: Rock Prairie, Lemon Hill

Page 8 A-22 Yelm–Tenino Trail Feasibility Study, Record Search Memo May 1, 2019

Table 2-3. Historic-Period Maps that Include the West Tenino Extension Portion of the APE. Title Reference Description

Page 025, Tenino, Metsker 1962d Along the West Tenino Trail Extension: Northern Pacific Railway, Tenino Junction, McIntosh, Deschutes town of Tenino River, Skookumchuck, Cozy Valley Vicinity: Nothing mapped

Option 2 Results are the same as Option 1.

2.1.7 Predictive Model

Option 1 The DAHP predictive model for prehistoric archaeological sites is based on statewide information, using large-scale factors. Information on geology, soils, site types, landforms, and from GLO maps was used to establish or predict probabilities for prehistoric archaeological resources throughout the state. The DAHP model uses five categories of prediction: Low Risk, Moderately Low Risk, Moderate Risk, High Risk, and Very High Risk. The DAHP predictive model map indicated a Moderate to Very High Risk for encountering cultural resources in the lowland portion of the APE along Grand Mound Rd. and in Tenino. The DAHP predictive model map indicated a Low to Moderate Risk for encountering cultural resources in the upland portion of the APE, which consists of the lower slopes of Blumaer Hill and Lemon Hill located in its eastern and northern margins, respectively.

Option 2 Results were the same as Option 1.

2.1.8 Conclusions and Recommendations

Archaeology HRA recommends that an archaeological survey be conducted along all currently unpaved portions of the trail route for both options one and two.

Architecture The trail is located in a previously developed area and will be unobtrusively located along the ground surface. As a result, there will be little impact to historic-period buildings, structures, or objects and further study is not recommended. 2.2 Bucoda Trail Extension

Page 9 A-23 Yelm–Tenino Trail Feasibility Study, Record Search Memo May 1, 2019

2.2.1 Previous Cultural Resource Studies

Option 1 No previous cultural resource surveys have been conducted within the APE, and one has been conducted within ¼ mi of the APE (Table 2-4).

Option 2 Results are the same as Option 1.

Table 2-4 . Previous Cultural Resources Studies within ¼ mi of the APE. NADB Reference Title Approximate Distance Identified Cultural # from APE (Direction) Resources within APE

1351889 Sharley Cultural Resources Survey for the City of 0.24 mi (NE) None 2008 Tenino’s Proposed Central Avenue Road Improvement Project, Thurston County, Washington

2.2.2 Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites

Option 1 There are no previously recorded archaeological sites within the APE or within ¼ mi of the APE. The closest recorded archaeological site is 45TN00383 (Anonymous 2009), located 1.4 miles east of the proposed Bucoda Trail Extension atop the northeastern end of Blumaer Hill. The site consists of a grove of at least ten culturally modified western red cedar trees. The trees exhibited scarring consistent with having been partially stripped, presumably prior to the early 1900s. No cultural materials were encountered in the course of the documentation of the site (Smith 2009).

Option 2 There are no previously recorded archaeological sites are within the APE or within ¼ mi of the APE. The closest recorded archaeological site is 45TN00432 (Nordstrom 2012), located 1.8 miles east of the proposedCrowder alignment. The site consists of a spur of the Blumauer Lumber Company Railroad. No cultural materials were encountered in the course of the documentation of the site (Nordstrom 2012).

2.2.3 Historic Period Buildings, Structures, and Objects

Option 1 There are six historic-period buildings and structures located within ¼ mi of the APE, none of which are located within the APE itself (Table 2). These resources are described further in the sections immediately following Table 2.

Page 10 A-24 Yelm–Tenino Trail Feasibility Study, Record Search Memo May 1, 2019

Option 2 Results were the same as Option 1, but the Shead, Oliver and Mary House (45TN00109) is located 0.11 miles to the south of the southern terminus of the proposed Crowder alignment.

Table 2-5. Historic-period buildings, structures, and objects within ¼ mile of the APE. Resource Name Distance from APE Description Time Period NHRP (Trinomial) (Direction) Evaluation Status

Shead, Oliver and Mary 0.16 mi (SW) Home of the founder of ca. 1887 Undetermined House (45TN00109) Bucoda and his family

Ticknor School (45TN00290) <0.1 mi (SE) One-room schoolhouse 1932–1936 Undetermined

Tenino Stone Company <0.1 mi (E) Former sandstone 1888–1926 Determined Quarry (45TN00110) quarry and current eligible for the municipal swimming NRHP pool

Tenino Downtown Historic 0.2 mi (N) Collection of buildings 1906–1925 Listed in the District (DT00177) constructed of locally NHRP quarried sandstone

Northern Pacific Depot – <0.1 mi (E) Unoccupied freight and 1914–1960 Determined Tenino (45TN00090) passenger train station eligible for the NHRP

Hercules Sandstone 0.2 mi (NE) Former quarrying 1900–present Undetermined Company Office company headquarters (45TN00273) and current center of Tenino municipal government

2.2.4 Cemeteries

Option 1 There are no previously recorded cemeteries located within the APE or within ¼ mi of the APE.

Option 2 Results same as Option 1.

2.2.5 Ethnohistoric Places

Option 1 The APE is within or near the traditional territory of the Nisqually and the Squaxin Indian Tribes. The Nisqually villages of Yee-tsawht-tsahbch and Yoh-whahls-tsahbch were located at the outlet of Nisqually Page 11 A-25 Yelm–Tenino Trail Feasibility Study, Record Search Memo May 1, 2019

Lake and the mouth of Muck Creek onto the Nisqually River, respectively. Village name spellings appear as they do on the Coast Salish Villages of Puget Sound webpage (Dailey 2018). The latter was situated on land that would become part of the Nisqually Reservation, and was thus able to persist relatively longer than most traditional Nisqually villages (Dailey 2018). These villages were both located approximately 12 mi northeast of the APE. The Squaxin village of Staht-sahs-ahbsh was a small, three-house settlement in the mid-1800s whose residents moved to the Nisqually Reservation when it was concentrated (Dailey 2018). The Squaxin recognized the falls of the Deschutes River at present-day Tumwater as SpEkwa’L (“cascade”). Tumwater itself is an Anglicized form of TE’m-wata, which is a Chinook jargon term for a waterfall (Hilbert et al. 2001:306). These locations were approximately 10 mi north of the APE, at the southern end of Budd Inlet.

Option 2 Results are the same as Option 1.

2.2.6 Historic-Period Maps

Option 1 There are many historic-period maps that include the APE. The oldest depictions of the APE are the 1856 USSG GLO plats, four of which include sections of the APE (USSG 1856a, 1856b, 1856c, 1856d). These plats indicate an early trail between Fort Nisqually and “Cowlitz farms” to the southwest, over which was subsequently built a segment of the Northern Pacific Railway; this railway may be observed in all subsequent maps of the region (e.g. BIA 1879). They also show a “Road from the Cowlitz River to Olympia” that extended across the prairie land west of present-day Tenino, apparently the predecessor of the present-day Grand Mound Rd.. This was previously referred to as Mound Rd. as recently as the 1960s (Metsker 1962b). A “Road from Olympia to Cowlitz Landing” that extends north-northeast from Tenino in the 1856 GLO plats is absent in subsequent maps, although a rail line approximating this route between Tenino and Olympia was constructed shortly thereafter. Now a segment of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, this line was first identified as the Olympia and Tenino Railroad (BIA 1879). It was subsequently referred to as the Port Townsend & Southern Railway (Henry and Henry ca. 1895) and the Olympia and Chehalis Valley Railroad (Plummer ca. 1895). Despite the inconsistent designations, the railway location is consistent throughout the maps. Other features in the vicinity of the APE include the towns of Tenino and Bucoda; Scatter Creek, which flows just to the west of both Bucoda Extension options shortly before they enter downtown Tenino; Skookumchuck River, which flows just east of the southern ends of the Bucoda Extension options; Rock and Frost Prairies to the southwest of Tenino and north of Bucoda, respectively; and an Oregon Trail monument in eastern Tenino that is identified only in a USGS topographic map of the town (USGS 1944). The locations of the towns of Tenino and Bucoda are consistent across all of the maps in which they are present, the latter first appearing by 1895 (Henry and Henry 1895). A comparison of the 1856 GLO plats with the later regional maps reveals the establishment of a small number of farming households in the vicinity of the present-day

Page 12 A-26 Yelm–Tenino Trail Feasibility Study, Record Search Memo May 1, 2019 locations of Tenino and Rock Prairie by the mid-1800s, after which time the construction of railways through the region attracted increasing numbers of settlers and led to the founding of Tenino and Bucoda.

Table 2-6. Historic-Period Maps that include the Bucoda Trail Extension Portion of the APE. Title Reference Description

Land Status & USSG 1856c Along the Bucoda Extension: Trail from Cowlitz Farms to Fort Nisqually, Trail to Cadastral Survey Coal Mines Records: Township 16 N, Range 1 W, Vicinity: Road from Olympia to Cowlitz Landing, Davenport property, Chandler Willamette Meridian property

Land Status & USSG 1856d Along the Bucoda Extension: Nothing mapped Cadastral Survey Records: Township 16 Vicinity: Scatter Creek N, Range 2 W, Willamette Meridian

Land Status & USSG 1856a Along the Bucoda Extension: Nothing mapped Cadastral Survey Records: Township 15 Vicinity: Skookumchuck River N, Range 1 W, Willamette Meridian

Land Status & USSG 1856b Along the Bucoda Extension: Nothing mapped Cadastral Survey Records: Township 15 Vicinity: Skookumchuck River N, Range 2 W, Willamette Meridian

Nisqually Agency: BIA 1879 Along the Bucoda Extension: Northern Pacific Railroad, Olympia and Tenino Nisqually Reserve; Railroad Chehalis Reserve Vicinity: Skookumchuck River, town of Tenino

Map of Thurston Henry and Along the Bucoda Extension: Main Line of NPRR, Port Townsend & Southern County, Washington Henry ca. 1895 Railway, Tenino Junction, unnamed roads, towns of Tenino and Bucoda

Vicinity: Skookumchuck River

Map of the Upper Plummer ca. Along the Bucoda Extension: Olympia and Chehalis Valley Railroad, Northern Sound Country 1895 Pacific Railroad comprising parts of Pierce, Thurston, Vicinity: town of Tenino, unidentified river Kitsap, Mason and King, Washington (1889 – 1900)

Thurston Co., Kroll 191– Along the Bucoda Extension: Tenino Junction, Northern Pacific Railroad, Washington 1913 unidentified railroad, unidentified prairie

Vicinity: Towns of Tenino and Bucoda, Skookumchuck River

Page 13 A-27 Yelm–Tenino Trail Feasibility Study, Record Search Memo May 1, 2019

Table 2-6. Historic-Period Maps that include the Bucoda Trail Extension Portion of the APE. Title Reference Description

Chehalis Topographic USGS 1916 Along the Bucoda Extension: Northern Pacific Railway, unnamed railroad, towns of Map Tenino and Bucoda

Vicinity: Skookumchuck River

Tenino Topographic USGS 1944 Along the Bucoda Extension: Frost Prairie, unnamed roads, unnamed railroad, Map towns of Tenino and Bucoda

Vicinity: Skookumchuck River

Page 011, Bucoda, Metsker 1962a Along the Bucoda Extension: Northern Pacific Railway, town of Bucoda Wabash, Skookumchuck River, Vicinity: Nothing mapped Prairie Creek

Page 024, Bucoda, Metsker 1962c Along the West Tenino Trail Extension: SS Highway 1-N, Northern Pacific Skookumchuck River, Railway, Skookumchuck Road, town of Bucoda Tono, Rockwood Creek Vicinity: Skookumchuck River

Page 025, Tenino, Metsker 1962d Along the West Tenino Trail Extension: Northern Pacific Railway, Tenino Junction, McIntosh, Deschutes town of Tenino River, Skookumchuck, Cozy Valley Vicinity: Blomauer Road, Crowder Road, Tenino City Park

Option 2 Results are the same as Option 1.

2.2.7 Predictive Model

Option 1 The DAHP predictive model for prehistoric archaeological sites is based on statewide information, using large-scale factors. Information on geology, soils, site types, landforms, and from GLO maps was used to establish or predict probabilities for prehistoric archaeological resources throughout the state. The DAHP model uses five categories of prediction: Low Risk, Moderately Low Risk, Moderate Risk, High Risk, and Very High Risk. The DAHP predictive model map indicated a Moderate to Very High Risk for encountering cultural resources in the lowland portion of the APE along Grand Mound Rd. and in Tenino. The DAHP predictive model map indicated a Low to Moderate Risk for encountering cultural resources in the upland portion of the APE. This consists of the lower slope of Blumaer Hill, located along its northeastern margin.

Option 2 Results were the same as Option 1.

Page 14 A-28 Yelm–Tenino Trail Feasibility Study, Record Search Memo May 1, 2019

2.2.8 Conclusions and Recommendations

Archaeology HRA recommends that an archaeological survey be conducted along all currently unpaved portions of the trail route for both options one and two.

Architecture The trail is located in a previously developed area and will be unobtrusively located along the ground surface. As a result, there will be little impact to historic-period buildings, structures, or objects and further study is not recommended.

3.0 References Buffum, Amy L. 2006 Cultural Resources Assessment of the City of Tenino Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Project, Tenino, Washington. Historical Research Associates, Inc., Portland, Oregon. Prepared for Gibbs & Olson, Inc. Dailey, Tom 2018 Coast Salish Villages of Puget Sound. Electronic document, coastsalishmap.org, accessed on October 2, 2018. Gilpin, Jennifer 2008 Archaeological Monitoring for the Tenino Wastewater Treatment Plant Influent Pipe Scatter Creek Crossing Project, Tenino, Washington. Historical Research Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Prepared for Gibbs & Olson, Inc. Henry, D. S. B. and Francis Henry ca. 1895 Map of Thurston County, Washington. Henry & Henry, Engineers and Surveyors. Electronic document, http://content.libraries.wsu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/maps/id/1295/rec/2, accessed September 10, 2018. Hilbert, Vi, Jay Miller, and Zalmai Zahir (editors) 2001 Puget Sound Geography. Original Manuscript from T. T. Waterman. Lushootseed Press, Federal Way, Washington. Kroll Map Company 1912–1913 Kroll’s Map of Thurston Co., Washington. Kroll Map Company, Inc. Electronic document, http://content.libraries.wsu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/maps/id/1293/rec/3, accessed September 10, 2018. Metsker, Chas. F (Metsker) 1962a Page 011, Bucoda, Wabash, Skookumchuck River, Prairie Creek. In Thurston County 1962, Washington. Metsker Maps, Seattle, Washington. Electronic document, http://www.historicmapworks.com, accessed September 11, 2018. 1962b Page 012, Maytown, Rock Prairie, Violet Prairie. In Thurston County 1962, Washington. Metsker Maps, Seattle, Washington. Electronic document, http://www.historicmapworks.com, accessed September 11, 2018.

Page 15 A-29 Yelm–Tenino Trail Feasibility Study, Record Search Memo May 1, 2019

1962c Page 024, Bucoda, Skookumchuck River, Tono, Rockwood Creek. In Thurston County 1962, Washington. Metsker Maps, Seattle, Washington. Electronic document, http://www.historicmapworks.com, accessed September 11, 2018. 1962d Page 025, Tenino, McIntosh, Deschutes River, Skookumchuck, Cozy Valley. In Thurston County 1962, Washington. Metsker Maps, Seattle, Washington. Electronic document, http://www.historicmapworks.com, accessed September 11, 2018. Munsell, David A. 2015 NRCS Cultural Resources Survey for the Alpacas of Americas LLC Project, EQIP 2014 Project, Contract No. 7405461404Y. Natural Resources Conservation Service. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Plummer, Henry G. ca. 1895 Map of the Upper Sound Country comprising parts of the counties of Pierce, Thurston, Kitsap, Mason and King, Washington (1889 – 1990). Mason Mortgage Loan Company. Electronic document, http://content.libraries.wsu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/maps/id/54/rec/1, accessed September 11, 2018. Nordstrom, Noelle 2012 Archaeological Site Record for 45TN00432. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Sharley, Ann 2008 Cultural Resources Survey for the City of Tenino’s Proposed Central Avenue Road Improvement Project, Thurston County, Washington. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington. Prepared for the City of Tenino. Smith, Dan 2009 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form for Site No. 45TN383, Thor U5 CMT. On file, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Indian Affairs, Puyallup Agency 1879 Nisqually Agency: Nisqually Reserve; Chehalis Reserve (1879). Government Printing Office. Electronic document, http://content.libraries.wsu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/maps/id/28/rec/5, accessed September 10, 2018. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1916 Chehalis. Washington 1:125,000 topographic quadrangles. Washington, D.C. 1944 Tenino. Washington 1:62,500 topographic quadrangles. Washington, D.C. United States Surveyor General (USSG) 1856a General Land Office Map, Township 15 North, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian. Electronic document, http://www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/survey/ySrvy1.php, accessed September 11, 2018. 1856b General Land Office Map, Township 15 North, Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian. Electronic document, http://www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/survey/ySrvy1.php, accessed September 11, 2018. 1856c General Land Office Map, Township 16 North, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian. Electronic document, http://www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/survey/ySrvy1.php, accessed September 11, 2018. 1856d General Land Office Map, Township 16 North, Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian. Electronic document, http://www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/survey/ySrvy1.php, accessed September 11, 2018.

Page 16 A-30 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Appendix B Alternatives Analysis – Workshop Summaries

Workshop 1 – Alignment Alternatives

Workshop 2 – Scoring and Ranking of Alternatives

SCJ Alliance Page 24 August 2019

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO: Paul Brewster

FROM: Whitney Holm, PE

DATE: September 21, 2018

PROJECT #: 670.03

SUBJECT: Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study Summary of Workshop 1 – Alignment Alternatives

PURPOSE The purpose of this technical memorandum is to summarize the discussion from Workshop 1 for the Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study.

WORKSHOP 1 – ALTERNATIVES Workshop 1 was held at the Thurston County Emergency Coordination Center on September 18, 2018, to discuss and select alignment alternatives to be considered and evaluated as part of the study.

Attendees The workshop was attended by the following stakeholder representatives:

• Scott Davis – Thurston County • Kerry Hibdon – Thurston County • Wayne Fournier – City of Tenino • John Millard – City of Tenino • Katrina Van Every – City of Tenino/Thurston Regional Planning Council • T.J. Nedrow − Washington State Department of Transportation – Olympic Region Planning • Theresa Turpin - Washington State Department of Transportation – Olympic Region Planning • Paul Brewster − Thurston Regional Planning Council • Whitney Holm – SCJ Alliance • Scott Sawyer – SCJ Alliance • Lisa Palazzi – SCJ Alliance • Monte Smith – Sargent Engineers

Stakeholders Other stakeholders not in attendance at Workshop 1 include: City of Bucoda • Alan Carr

8730 Tallon Lane NE Suite 200  Lacey, WA 98516  Office 360.352.1465  Fax 360.352.1509  www.scjalliance.com

B-1

September 21, 2018 Page 2 of 4

Meeting Summary The following is a summary of the discussion from Workshop 1:

• Stakeholders’ highest priority of desired outcomes of the feasibility study include: o Final recommended alignment o Cost estimate of the alignments o Provide connectivity to/between Tenino and Bucoda o End result is a community amenity – visually, economically and recreationally

• Stakeholders concerns about the objective of this study: o Cost o Timeline for construction o Funding options o Right of way o Safety o Balancing needs of the City of Tenino with the needs of the collective community o Securing an alignment that provides adequate separation between pedestrians and traffic o Environmental constraints

• Alignment Option 1 to Bucoda o Jensen is the land owner of the right of way that would be needed for this option. o There is a possible existing county road on his property. o Fill in the floodplain will be a challenge. o Flood money may be available if the path provides access for emergency service vehicles. o City of Bucoda is still pursuing an emergency route within the rail right of way. o Railroad said a hard “no” about a shared-use path in the railroad right of way. • Alignment Option 2 to Bucoda o Maintain existing shoulder widths along SR 507. o Consider no barrier (5-foot buffer instead). o This option doesn’t achieve another route out of town during a train blockage. • Alignment Option 1 and 2 to West Tenino o Path along the north side of Old highway 99 is ideal. o Multiple ideas on getting from existing trail terminal to the north side of Old Highway 99. . 5th Avenue to Wichman Street . 6th Avenue to McClellan . 6th Avenue to wsest of railroad . Sussex Avenue to the west side of the railroad o Kaufman Brothers planning a development south of SR 99 between railroad and Wichman. o Crossing at the SR 99 and SR 507 intersection would be ideal if there was a roundabout at the intersection; however, there are no current plans for that. The intersection as it is today has poor sight distance and crossings here are a safety concern. • Environmental constraints were discussed.

B-2

September 21, 2018 Page 3 of 4

o Wetlands are mapped in the area of the alignments; however, there are some that are mapped that Lisa Palazzi disagrees with. She suggests a site visit would be needed to verify. o A new bridge crossing for the trail is needed at Scatter Creek. o Gophers will need to be addressed. It typically takes six months to two years for a Habitat Conservation Plan. o There are no existing mitigation banks in Tenino. It’s our understanding that there is a proposal for a mitigation bank in an area west of Tenino north of Old Highway 99 that has been annexed by the City. • Structures were discussed o Scatter Creek Bridge is owned by City of Tenino and is functionally obsolete. o Monte Smith recommends a standalone bridge for the shared-use path; it would need to be about 75-feet long. o There is a culvert south of 184th that appears to be used only for a drainage area and is not fish bearing. . Monte is not clear if this would need to be a bridge or just a continuation of a culvert o There is another existing culvert north of Bucoda that is fish bearing and a feeder into the Skookumchuck River. This area would need to be a bridge and would need to be about 90-feet long. o Will these bridges be for emergency vehicles? If so, we need to know what the design vehicle will be. • Concrete barrier can be expensive. Obtaining right of way may be a cheaper solution to provide the necessary vegetated buffer instead of a concrete barrier. • Updating floodplain maps may be a way of mitigating the impacts of filling in the floodplain. • Fill is much cheaper than pin piles. • FEMA is remapping the floodplain for the Skookumchuck Basin. SCJ will follow up with TRPC on a possible FEMA contact. • Four alternatives for crossing SR 99 in Tenino will be looked into. The four alternatives are listed above. • SCJ will look into whether a culvert can be used or if a bridge is required for the existing culvert south of 184th.

Final Study Alignment Alternatives Based on the feedback from Workshop 1, SCJ Alliance refined the draft alignment alternatives to the final study alignment alternatives to be evaluated. To simplify the alignment options we have broken up the extension into geographic reaches (GR). The geographic reaches are shown on Attachment 1 in plan view.

• GR 1−From Yelm Tenino Trail terminus to 184th St (Towards Bucoda) • GR 2 − From 184th to Bucoda o Alternative 1 – Along private property east of the railroad o Alternative 2 – Along SR 507 on the east side of the roadway • GR 3 – From Yelm Tenino Trail terminus to north side of Old Highway 99 o Alternative 1 − 5th Avenue to Wichman Street

B-3

September 21, 2018 Page 4 of 4

o Alternative 2 − 6th Avenue to McClellan Street o Alternative 3 − 6th Avenue to west of the railroad o Alternative 4 – Sussex Avenue to the west side of railroad • GR 4 − From the north side of the intersection of Old Highway 99 to West Tenino city limits

NEXT STEPS SCJ Alliance will develop a draft set of criteria and a scoring methodology. Stakeholders will meet for Workshop 2 to review and endorse the criteria/scoring methodology and assign weighting (relative importance) to the criteria.

B-4 8730 TALLON LANENE,SUITE 200,LACEY,WA98516 P: 360.352.1465 F:360.352.1509 SCJALLIANCE.COM

TENINO W. PARK AVE. PARK W. EXISTING YELMTENINOTRAIL GEOGRAPHICAL REACH3(GR3) DRAWING FILE No.: DATE: HORIZONTAL SCALE: JOB No.: 1"=750' 670.03 AUGUST 28,2018

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS OLD HIGHWAY 99 HIGHWAY OLD

GEOGRAPHICAL REACH1(GR1) SR 507 SR GEOGRAPHICAL REACH4(GR4)

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS

TENINO CITYLIMITS CROWDER ROAD CROWDER TRPC TENINO BUCODATRAIL EXTENSION BUCODA EXTENSION OPTION1

184TH AVE. GEOGRAPHICAL REACH2(GR2)

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS

BUCODA N MAIN ST. MAIN N 0 SCALE INFEET 750 B-5 W 6TH ST. 1500 EXHIBIT No: SHEET No: 1 OF4 EX-01 8730 TALLON LANENE,SUITE 200,LACEY,WA98516 P: 360.352.1465 F:360.352.1509

SCJALLIANCE.COM TENINO WEST PARK AVE. PARK WEST EXISTING YELMTENINOTRAIL DRAWING FILE No.: DATE: HORIZONTAL SCALE: JOB No.:

1"=750' 670.03 AUGUST 28,2018 OLD HIGHWAY 99 HIGHWAY OLD

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS SR 507 SR CROWDER ROADCROSSSECTION TRPC TENINO BUCODATRAIL EXTENSION

GEOGRAPHICAL REACH1 CROWDER ROAD CROWDER 0

184TH AVE. LEGEND SCALE INFEET 750 B-6 1500 EXHIBIT No: SHEET No: 2 OF4 EX-02 0 300 600 SCALE IN FEET

LEGEND

OPTION 1 CROSS SECTION CROWDER ROAD

184TH AVE.

SR 507

BUCODA

N MAIN ST.

W 6TH ST.

OPTION 2 SR 507 CROSS SECTION

HORIZONTAL SCALE: EXHIBIT No: 1"=750'

DATE: EX-02 AUGUST 28, 2018 TRPC TENINO BUCODA TRAIL EXTENSION JOB No.: BUCODA EXTENSION OPTION 2 SHEET No: 670.03 B-7 8730 TALLON LANE NE, SUITE 200, LACEY, WA 98516 DRAWING FILE No.: P: 360.352.1465 F: 360.352.1509 2 OF 4 SCJALLIANCE.COM 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET

LEGEND

TENINO EXISTING YELM TENINO TRAIL

W. PARK AVE.

MCARTHUR ST

CROWDER ROAD S WICHMAN ST S 5TH AVE

MCCLELLAN ST SE SUSSEX

SR 507

OLD HIGHWAY 99

HORIZONTAL SCALE: EXHIBIT No: 1"=750'

DATE: EX-04 AUGUST 28, 2018 TRPC TENINO BUCODA TRAIL EXTENSION JOB No.: GEOGRAPHICAL REACH 4 SHEET No: 670.03 B-8 8730 TALLON LANE NE, SUITE 200, LACEY, WA 98516 DRAWING FILE No.: P: 360.352.1465 F: 360.352.1509 4 OF 5 SCJALLIANCE.COM SR 507 SR

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS OLD HIGHWAY 99

0 300 600 SCALE IN FEET

LEGEND

TENINO CITY LIMITS OLD HIGHWAY 99 CROSS SECTION

HORIZONTAL SCALE: EXHIBIT No: 1"=750'

DATE: EX-05 AUGUST 28, 2018 TRPC TENINO BUCODA TRAIL EXTENSION JOB No.: GEOGRAPHICAL REACH 5 SHEET No: 670.03 B-9 8730 TALLON LANE NE, SUITE 200, LACEY, WA 98516 DRAWING FILE No.: P: 360.352.1465 F: 360.352.1509 5 OF 5 SCJALLIANCE.COM

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO: Paul Brewster

FROM: Whitney Holm, PE

DATE: December 21, 2018

PROJECT #: 670.03

SUBJECT: Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study Summary of Workshop 2 – Scoring and Ranking Alternatives

PURPOSE The purpose of this technical memorandum is to summarize the discussion from Workshop 2 for the Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study. During this workshop, stakeholders reviewed the performance scores for each alternative, the project costs for each alternative, and the ranking of alternatives by best value (performance / cost).

WORKSHOP 2 – SCORING AND RANKING ALTERNATIVES Workshop 2 was held at the Thurston Regional Planning Council office on December 18, 2018, to discuss and the results

BACKGROUND Stakeholders met on September 18, 2018 to review and discuss alternative alignments for the trail. The workshop is summarized in a technical memorandum dated September 21, 2018 Summary of Workshop 1 – Alignment Alternatives (Workshop 1 Summary).

Stakeholders established evaluation criteria, assign relative weights to the criteria, and establish metrics to measure the performance of each alternative as part of Worship 1 homework. The stakeholders agreed to two distinct weighting schemes to establish the relative importance of each criterion (see Appendix A).

SCORING Each of the alternatives identified in Workshop 1 were scored against the criteria using the metrics shown on the following Criteria table.

8730 Tallon Lane NE Suite 200  Lacey, WA 98516  Office 360.352.1465  Fax 360.352.1509  www.scjalliance.com

B-10

December 21, 2018 Page 2 of 5

The scores assigned to each alternative for the five criteria (Measures) are shown in tabular form in Appendix B.

PERFORMANCE PROFILES SCJ determined a performance profile for each of Geographical Reaches by multiplying the score for each criterion by the weight. Originally SCJ Alliance had two weighting schemes but during the meeting

B-11

December 21, 2018 Page 3 of 5

(workshop 2) the stakeholder who had a distinct weighting scheme agreed with the other weighting scheme. From that point on the study used one weighting scheme.

Geographical reaches 1 and 4 only have one route so no comparison is needed for those reaches. Geographical reach 2 has three routes, GR 2-A, GR 2-A (EV), and GR 2-B. GR 2-A (EV) Is the highest performing alternative. GR 2-A finished second, and GR 2-B finished third.

The biggest contributors to the overall performance of GR 2-A (EV) are Perceived Safety, Trail Ambience, Directness of Route, and Closure Due to Flood. GR 2-A has identical performance except scored a zero for Closure Due to Flooding,

Geographical reach 3 has four routes: GR 3-A, GR 3-B, GR 3-C, and GR 3-D. GR 3-C is the highest performing alternative, GR 3-B performed second, GR 3-A performed third, and GR 3-D finished fourth.

The biggest contributors to the overall performance of GR 3-C are Perceived Safety, Trail Ambience, and Directness of Route.

Performance Profile of Alternatives Group A

Geographical Reach 4 Geographical Reach 3-D Geographical Reach 3-C Geographical Reach 3-B Geographical Reach 3-A Geographical Reach 2-B Geographical Reach 2-A (EV) Geographical Reach 2-A Geographical Reach 1

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000

Perceived Safety Trail Ambience Water Resources Conflicts Directness of Route Closure Due to Flooding

B-12

December 21, 2018 Page 4 of 5

COST OF ALTERNATIVES The total project cost for each alternative was estimated at a concept level using a combination of unit pricing for items that could be quantified (i.e., asphalt), and lump sum judgment for other items. A contingency was applied to each alternative to account for unknown items/risk given the conceptual level of detail. Engineering/Environmental and Construction Management were calculated as fixed percentages of the construction subtotal.

RANKING OF ALTERNATIVES – BEST VALUE The total performance score for each alternative as divided by the project cost for the alternative to determine the value of the alternative (value = performance/cost).

The best value graph is shown on the next page.

B-13

December 21, 2018 Page 5 of 5

Attendees The workshop was attended by the following stakeholder representatives:

• Scott Davis – Thurston County • Kerry Hibdon – Thurston County • John Millard – City of Tenino • Katrina Van Every – City of Tenino/Thurston Regional Planning Council • T.J. Nedrow − Washington State Department of Transportation – Olympic Region Planning • Theresa Turpin - Washington State Department of Transportation – Olympic Region Planning • Paul Brewster − Thurston Regional Planning Council • Whitney Holm – SCJ Alliance

Stakeholders Other stakeholders not in attendance at Workshop 2 include: City of Bucoda • Alan Carr

B-14 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT MATRIX Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility

Geographical Reach 1 Route along Crowder Road Performance Attributes Rationale Rating This route has one street crossing (-.1)and is along the Perceived Safety road (-.2). 0.7 Trail Ambience Route is located along a low volume road. 0.7 Water Resources Conflicts No part of the route is in the wetlands or floodplain. 1

Directness of Route This route is 12,000 feet long and has one street crossing. 1 Closure Due to Flooding The route is not in the floodplain. 1

Geographical Reach 2-A Crowder to Bucoda east of railroad Performance Attributes Rationale Rating This route has one street crossing (-.1) and is seperated Perceived Safety from a road. 0.9 Trail Ambience Route is seperated and not near a road. 1 The route runs along 3,500 feet of wetland and/or Water Resources Conflicts floodplain. 0

Directness of Route This route is 6,300 feet long and has one street crossing. 1

Closure Due to Flooding If on on existing ground majority of it is in the floodplain 0

Geographical Reach 2-A (EV) Crowder to Bucoda east of railroad (Emergency Vehicles) Performance Attributes Rationale Rating This route has one street crossing (-.1) and is seperated Perceived Safety from a road. 0.9 Trail Ambience Route is seperated and not near a road. 1 The route runs along 3,500 feet of wetland and/or Water Resources Conflicts floodplain. 0

Directness of Route This route is 6,300 feet long and has one street crossing. 1 Closure Due to Flooding Raised above floodplain 1

Geographical Reach 2-B Crowder to Bucoda along SR 507 west of railroad Performance Attributes Rationale Rating This route has one street crossing (-.1), two railroad Perceived Safety crossings (-.4) and is along the highway (-.4). 0.1 Trail Ambience Route is located along a high volume road. 0.2 Water Resources Conflicts No part of the route is in the wetlands or floodplain. 1 This route is 8,000 feet long and has 3 street or railroad Directness of Route crossings. 0.3 Closure Due to Flooding The route is not in the floodplain. 1

B-15 Geographical Reach 3-A 5th Avenue to Old Highway 99 Performance Attributes Rationale Rating This route has three street crossings (-.3) and is along the Perceived Safety road (-.2). 0.5 Trail Ambience Route is located along a high volume road. 0.2 Water Resources Conflicts No part of the route is in the wetlands or floodplain. 1 This route is 1,750 feet long and has three street Directness of Route crossings. 0.5 Closure Due to Flooding The route is not in the floodplain. 1

Geographical Reach 3-B 6th Avenue- cross at McClellan Street Performance Attributes Rationale Rating This route has three street crossings (-.3) and is along the Perceived Safety road (-.2). 0.5 Trail Ambience Route is located along medium volume road. 0.5 Water Resources Conflicts No part of the route is in the wetlands or floodplain. 1 This route is 1,000 feet long and has three street Directness of Route crossings. 1 Closure Due to Flooding The route is not in the floodplain. 1

Geographical Reach 3-C 6th Avenue- cross between SR 507 and railroad tracks Performance Attributes Rationale Rating This route has three street crossings (-.3) and is along the Perceived Safety road (-.2). 0.5 Trail Ambience Route is located along medium volume road. 0.5 Water Resources Conflicts No part of the route is in the wetlands or floodplain. 1 This route is 1,000 feet long and has three street Directness of Route crossings. 1 Closure Due to Flooding The route is not in the floodplain. 1

Geographical Reach 3-D Sussex Route Performance Attributes Rationale Rating This route has three street crossings (-.3) and is along the Perceived Safety road (-.2). 0.5 Trail Ambience Route is located along a low volume road. 0.7 The route runs along 650 feet of wetland and/or Water Resources Conflicts floodplain. 0.7 This route is 4,000 feet long and has three street Directness of Route crossings. 0.1 Closure Due to Flooding The route is located in a floodplain for a portion of it. 0

Geographical Reach 4 Old Highway 99 Performance Attributes Rationale Rating This route has no street crossing and is along the road (- Perceived Safety .2). 0.8 Trail Ambience Route is located along high volume road. 0.2

B-16 Water Resources Conflicts No part of the route is in the wetlands or floodplain. 1

Directness of Route This route is 8,500 feet long and has no street crossings. 1 The route will cross a floodplain but it will be above Closure Due to Flooding floodplain elevation. 1

B-17 8730 TALLON LANENE,SUITE200,LACEY, WA98516 P: 360.352.1465 F:360.352.1509 SCJALLIANCE.COM

TENINO W. PARK AVE. PARK W. EXISTING YELMTENINOTRAIL GEOGRAPHICAL REACH3(GR3) DRAWING FILENo.: DATE: HORIZONTAL SCALE: JOB No.: 1"=750' 670.03 AUGUST 28,2018

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS

GR 3-D GR 3-C GR 3-B GR 3-A OLD HIGHWAY 99 HIGHWAY OLD

GEOGRAPHICAL REACH1(GR1) SR 507 SR GEOGRAPHICAL REACH4(GR4)

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS

TENINO CITYLIMITS CROWDER ROAD CROWDER TRPC TENINO BUCODATRAILEXTENSION BUCODA EXTENSION OPTION1

184TH AVE. GEOGRAPHICAL REACH2(GR2)

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS GR 2-B GR 2-A&EMERGENCYVEHICLE

BUCODA N MAIN ST. MAIN N 0 SCALE INFEET

W 6TH ST. 750 1500 SHEET No: EXHIBIT No: 1 OF4 EX-01

TENINO WEST PARK AVE. PARK WEST

EXISTING YELMTENINOTRAIL OLD HIGHWAY 99 HIGHWAY OLD

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribu GEOGRAPHICAL REACH1

PERFORMANCE PROFILE SR 507 SR

CROWDER ROADCROSSSECTION CROWDER ROAD CROWDER 0 GR 1

184TH AVE. LEGEND SCALE INFEET 750 1500 GEOGRAPHICAL REACH 2

LEGEND

GR-2A AND GRGR-2A 2-A (EMERGENCY & GR-2A (EMERGENCY VEHICLE) VEHICLE) GRGR-2B 2-B

OPTION 1 CROSS SECTION CROWDER ROAD

184TH AVE.

SR 507

BUCODA

N MAIN ST.

W 6TH ST.

PERFORMANCE PROFILE

BEST VALUE 400 BEST VALUE 200 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND GR-3A GR-3B GR-3C GR-3D GR 3-D GR 3-B GR 3-C GR 3-A 0

CROWDER ROAD

SR 507

OLD HIGHW

MCCLELLAN ST SE S 5TH AVE 5TH S PERFORMANCE PROFILE GEOGRAPHICAL REACH 3 REACH GEOGRAPHICAL W. PARK AVE.

S WICHMAN ST

MCARTHUR ST SUSSEX

GEOGRAPHICAL REACH 4 SR 507 SR

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS OLD HIGHWAY 99

0 300 600 SCALE IN FEET

LEGEND

GR 4

TENINO CITY LIMITS OLD HIGHWAY 99 CROSS SECTION

PERFORMANCE PROFILE Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Appendix C Plan Sheets

SCJ Alliance Page 25 August 2019 8730 TALLON LANENE,SUITE 200,LACEY,WA98516 P: 360.352.1465 F:360.352.1509 SCJALLIANCE.COM

TENINO W. PARK AVE. PARK W. EXISTING YELMTENINOTRAIL GEOGRAPHICAL REACH3(GR3) DRAWING FILE No.: DATE: HORIZONTAL SCALE: JOB No.: 1"=750' 670.03 AUGUST 28,2018

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS

GR 3-D GR 3-C GR 3-B GR 3-A OLD HIGHWAY 99 HIGHWAY OLD

GEOGRAPHICAL REACH1(GR1) SR 507 SR GEOGRAPHICAL REACH4(GR4)

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS

TENINO CITYLIMITS CROWDER ROAD CROWDER TRPC TENINO BUCODATRAIL EXTENSION BUCODA EXTENSION OPTION1

184TH AVE. GEOGRAPHICAL REACH2(GR2)

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS GR 2-B GR 2-A&EMERGENCYVEHICLE

BUCODA N MAIN ST. MAIN N 0 SCALE INFEET 750 C-1 W 6TH ST. 1500 EXHIBIT No: SHEET No: 1 OF4 EX-01 8730 TALLON LANENE,SUITE 200,LACEY,WA98516 P: 360.352.1465 F:360.352.1509

SCJALLIANCE.COM TENINO WEST PARK AVE. PARK WEST EXISTING YELMTENINOTRAIL DRAWING FILE No.: DATE: HORIZONTAL SCALE: JOB No.:

1"=750' 670.03 AUGUST 28,2018 OLD HIGHWAY 99 HIGHWAY OLD

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS SR 507 SR CROWDER ROADCROSSSECTION TRPC TENINO BUCODATRAIL EXTENSION

GEOGRAPHICAL REACH1 CROWDER ROAD CROWDER (LOOKING SOUTH) 0 GR 1

184TH AVE. LEGEND SCALE INFEET 500 C-2 1000 EXHIBIT No: SHEET No: 2 OF4 EX-02 0 300 600 SCALE IN FEET

LEGEND

GR 2-A & GR 2-A (EMERGENCY VEHICLE) GR 2-B

OPTION 1 CROSS SECTION CROWDER ROAD

184TH AVE.

SR 507

BUCODA

N MAIN ST.

W 6TH ST.

OPTION 2 SR 507 CROSS SECTION (LOOKING SOUTH)

HORIZONTAL SCALE: EXHIBIT No: 1"=750'

DATE: EX-03 AUGUST 28, 2018 TRPC TENINO BUCODA TRAIL EXTENSION JOB No.: GEOGRAPHICAL REACH 2 SHEET No: 670.03 C-3 8730 TALLON LANE NE, SUITE 200, LACEY, WA 98516 DRAWING FILE No.: P: 360.352.1465 F: 360.352.1509 3 OF 5 SCJALLIANCE.COM 0 200 400 SCALE IN FEET

LEGEND

GR 3-A GR 3-B GR 3-C GR 3-D TENINO EXISTING YELM TENINO TRAIL

W. PARK AVE.

MCARTHUR ST

CROWDER ROAD S WICHMAN ST S 5TH AVE

MCCLELLAN ST SE SUSSEX

SR 507

OLD HIGHWAY 99

HORIZONTAL SCALE: EXHIBIT No: 1"=750'

DATE: EX-04 AUGUST 28, 2018 TRPC TENINO BUCODA TRAIL EXTENSION JOB No.: GEOGRAPHICAL REACH 4 SHEET No: 670.03 C-4 8730 TALLON LANE NE, SUITE 200, LACEY, WA 98516 DRAWING FILE No.: P: 360.352.1465 F: 360.352.1509 4 OF 5 SCJALLIANCE.COM SR 507 SR

© 2018 Microsoft Corporation © 2018 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2018) Distribution Airbus DS OLD HIGHWAY 99

0 300 600 SCALE IN FEET

LEGEND

GR 4

TENINO CITY LIMITS OLD HIGHWAY 99 CROSS SECTION

HORIZONTAL SCALE: EXHIBIT No: 1"=750'

DATE: EX-05 AUGUST 28, 2018 TRPC TENINO BUCODA TRAIL EXTENSION JOB No.: GEOGRAPHICAL REACH 5 SHEET No: 670.03 C-5 8730 TALLON LANE NE, SUITE 200, LACEY, WA 98516 DRAWING FILE No.: P: 360.352.1465 F: 360.352.1509 5 OF 5 SCJALLIANCE.COM Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Appendix D Project Cost Estimates

SCJ Alliance Page 26 August 2019 TRPC Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study Conceptual Level Cost Estimate Summary

Concept Description Total

Geographical Reach 1 $1,980,000

Geographical Reach 2-A $2,250,000

Geographical Reach 2-A (Emergency $29,360,000 Vehicles)

Geographical Reach 2-B $1,150,000

Geographical Reach 3-A $250,000

Geographical Reach 3-B $210,000

Geographical Reach 3-C $210,000

Geographical Reach 3-D $310,000

Geographical Reach 4 $2,020,000

D-1 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study

Geographical Reach 1 Estimate Element Element Based Upon Unit Unit Cost Measurement Trailwork Estimated Quantities $ 1,243,380 Mobilization LS 8% 1 $ 117,130 Clearing and Grubbing ACRE $7,000 3.00 $ 21,000 Roadway Excavation Incl Haul CY $30 2,053 $ 61,600 Erosion Control LF $4 13,200 $ 52,800 Shared Use Path LF $33 13,200 $ 435,600 Wall SF $60 4,000 $ 240,000 Vegetated Buffer SF $5 48,500 $ 242,500 ROW SF $0.75 97,000 $ 72,750

Environmental $ 50,000 Wetland Mitigation ACRE $1,000,000 0.00 $ - Environmental Permitting LS $50,000 1 $ 50,000

Engineering 25% $ 310,845 Design and Permitting 15% 1 $ 186,507 Construction Management 10% 1 $ 124,338

Subtotal $ 1,604,225 Miscellaneous/Contingency (30%) $ 373,014 Total $ 1,980,000

D-2 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study

Geographical Reach 2-A Estimate Element Element Based Upon Unit Unit Cost Measurement Trailwork Estimated Quantities $ 1,133,256 Mobilization LS 8% 1 $ 106,756 Clearing and Grubbing ACRE $7,000 2.00 $ 14,000 Roadway Excavation Incl Haul CY $30 980 $ 29,400 Shared Use Path LF $33 6,300 $ 207,900 Erosion Control LF $4 6,300 $ 25,200 Overflow Bridge LS $300,000 1 $ 300,000 Tributary Bridge LS $450,000 1 $ 450,000

Environmental $ 490,000 Wetland Mitigation ACRE $1,000,000 0.40 $ 400,000 Environmental Permitting LS $90,000 1 $ 90,000

Engineering 25% $ 283,314 Design and Permitting 15% 1 $ 169,988 Construction Management 10% 1 $ 113,326

Subtotal $ 1,906,570 Miscellaneous/Contingency (30%) $ 339,977 Total $ 2,250,000

D-3 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study Geographical Reach 2-A (Emergency Vehicles)

Estimate Element Element Based Upon Unit Unit Cost Measurement Trailwork Estimated Quantities $ 18,624,067 Mobilization LS 6% 1 $ 1,347,567 Clearing and Grubbing ACRE $7,000 2.00 $ 14,000 Roadway Excavation Incl Haul CY $30 980 $ 29,400 Shared Use Path LF $33 6,300 $ 207,900 Erosion Control LF $4 6,300 $ 25,200 Raised Path (For emergency vehicles) LS $17,000,000 1 $ 17,000,000

Environmental $ 490,000 Wetland Mitigation ACRE $1,000,000 0.40 $ 400,000 Environmental Permitting LS $90,000 1 $ 90,000

Engineering 25% $ 4,656,017 Design and Permitting 15% 1 $ 2,793,610 Construction Management 10% 1 $ 1,862,407

Subtotal $ 23,770,084 Miscellaneous/Contingency (30%) $ 5,587,220 Total $ 29,360,000

D-4 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study

Geographical Reach 2-B Estimate Element Element Based Upon Unit Unit Cost Measurement Trailwork Estimated Quantities $ 703,616 Mobilization LS 8% 1 $ 66,283 Clearing and Grubbing ACRE $7,000 2.00 $ 14,000 Roadway Excavation Incl Haul CY $30 1,244 $ 37,333 Erosion Control LF $4 8,000 $ 32,000 Shared Use Path LF $33 8,000 $ 264,000 Vegetated Buffer SF $5 40,000 $ 200,000 ROW SF $0.75 120,000 $ 90,000

Environmental $ 50,000 Wetland Mitigation ACRE $0 0.00 $ - Environmental Permitting LS $50,000 1 $ 50,000

Engineering 25% $ 175,904 Design and Permitting 15% 1 $ 105,542 Construction Management 10% 1 $ 70,362

Subtotal $ 929,520 Miscellaneous/Contingency (30%) $ 211,085 Total $ 1,150,000

D-5 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study

Geographical Reach 3-A Estimate Element Element Based Upon Unit Unit Cost Measurement Trailwork Estimated Quantities $ 154,950 Mobilization LS 8% 1 $ 7,200 Shared Use Path LF $33 1,750 $ 57,750 Bridge Underpass Improvements LS $60,000 1.00 $ 60,000 Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon LS $30,000 1.00 $ 30,000

Environmental $ - Wetland Mitigation ACRE - - - Environmental Permitting LS - - -

Engineering 25% $ 38,738 Design and Permitting 15% 1 $ 23,243 Construction Management 10% 1 $ 15,495

Subtotal $ 193,688 Miscellaneous/Contingency (30%) $ 46,485 Total $ 250,000

D-6 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study

Geographical Reach 3-B Estimate Element Element Based Upon Unit Unit Cost Measurement Trailwork Estimated Quantities $ 132,840 Mobilization LS 8% 1 $ 9,840 Shared Use Path LF $33 1,000 $ 33,000 Bridge Underpass Improvements LS $60,000 1.00 $ 60,000 Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon LS $30,000 1.00 $ 30,000

Environmental $ - Wetland Mitigation ACRE - - - Environmental Permitting LS - - -

Engineering 25% $ 33,210 Design and Permitting 15% 1 $ 19,926 Construction Management 10% 1 $ 13,284

Subtotal $ 166,050 Miscellaneous/Contingency (30%) $ 39,852 Total $ 210,000

D-7 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study

Geographical Reach 3-C Estimate Element Element Based Upon Unit Unit Cost Measurement Trailwork Estimated Quantities $ 132,840 Mobilization LS 8% 1 $ 9,840 Shared Use Path LF $33 1,000 $ 33,000 Bridge Underpass Improvements LS $60,000 1.00 $ 60,000 Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon LS $30,000 1.00 $ 30,000

Environmental $ - Wetland Mitigation ACRE - - - Environmental Permitting LS - - - Engineering 25% $ 33,210 Design and Permitting 15% 1 $ 19,926 Construction Management 10% 1 $ 13,284

Subtotal $ 166,050 Miscellaneous/Contingency (30%) $ 39,852 Total $ 210,000

D-8 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study

Geographical Reach 3-D Estimate Element Element Based Upon Unit Unit Cost Measurement Trailwork Estimated Quantities $ 197,064 Mobilization LS 8% 1 $ 18,564 Clearing and Grubbing ACRE $7,000 0.50 $ 3,500 Roadway Excavation Incl Haul CY $30 233 $ 7,000 Erosion Control LF $4 1,500 $ 6,000 Shared Use Path LF $33 4,000 $ 132,000 Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon LS $30,000 1.00 $ 30,000

Environmental $ - Wetland Mitigation ACRE - - - Environmental Permitting LS - - - Engineering 25% $ 49,266 Design and Permitting 15% 1 $ 29,560 Construction Management 10% 1 $ 19,706

Subtotal $ 246,330 Miscellaneous/Contingency (30%) $ 59,119 Total $ 310,000

D-9 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study

Geographical Reach 4 Estimate Element Element Based Upon Unit Unit Cost Measurement Trailwork Estimated Quantities $ 1,268,042 Mobilization LS 6% 1 $ 91,751 Clearing and Grubbing ACRE $7,000 2.00 $ 14,000 Roadway Excavation Incl Haul CY $30 1,322 $ 39,667 Erosion Control LF $4 8,500 $ 34,000 Shared Use Path LF $33 8,500 $ 280,500 Old Hwy 99 Bridge LS $500,000 1 $ 500,000 Vegetated Buffer SF $5 42,500 $ 212,500 ROW SF $0.75 127,500 $ 95,625

Environmental $ 50,000 Wetland Mitigation ACRE $1,000,000 $ - Environmental Permitting LS $50,000 1 $ 50,000

Engineering 25% $ 317,011 Design and Permitting 15% 1 $ 190,206 Construction Management 10% 1 $ 126,804

Subtotal $ 1,635,053 Miscellaneous/Contingency (30%) $ 380,413 Total $ 2,020,000

D-10 Planning Level Estimate Backup Data for Unit Cost

Roadway Cost per Linear Foot of Path $33.00 Cost Quantity for LF of roadway HMA $ 150.00 0.1898 ton $ 29.00 0.25 depth @ 2.05 T/CY CSBC $ 20.00 0.17 ton $ 4.00 0.25 depth @ 1.85 T/CY Striping $ 0.15 Embankment/Excavation $ 5.00

Erosion Control Cost per Linear Foot of Road $4.00 Quantity for each LF of Road Silf Fence $ 3.00 1 LF$ 3.00 Each side of the roadway Seeding and Mulching$ 0.10 10 sf$ 1.00 20' wide section each side of the roadway Inlet Protection 1 structure / 150' = .007 FA Erosion Control $ 0.10 0 LF $ -

Wall Cost per Square Foot of Wall $60.00 Quantity for each SF of Wall Wall $ 60.00 1 sf$ 60.00

Roadway Excavation Incl Haul Cost per Cubic Yard $30.00

Roadway Excavation Incl Haul$ 30.00 1 C.Y. 30 Embankment Compaction$ 6.00 Clearing and Grubbing Cost per Acre $7,000.00

Clearing and Grubbing$ 7,000.00 $7k per acre

Right of Way Cost per SF $0.75

ROW Cost per SF$ 0.75

D-11 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Appendix E Sample Bridge Designs

SCJ Alliance Page 27 August 2019

Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study – Tenino to Bucoda and to West Tenino

Appendix F Notes From Stakeholder Pre-Meetings

SCJ Alliance Page 27 August 2019 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study

Name: Cindy Wilson

Organization: Thurston County Community Development Date: August 15th 2018

Alignments

To Bucoda:

-West side of the road has less wetlands --Cutting Douglas fir could be a positive, regarding the private property along Bucoda

To West Tenino:

Concerns:

-Flood plains -The County has a CRS program level 2, which give the county residents monetary benefits -No fill in wetlands - Would need to do a mitigation hydrological analysis if you could prove it was for safety reasons to put fill in the wetlands.

Valued Criteria:

Suggestions: -Make a case it really is for emergencies Tim Roopert is a good contact for the Chehalis Flood Authority -Stay above the flood plain - Pin Piles - Bridges

Other:

-Chris Chapelut is working on the HCP -Mitigation pocket gopher -Prairie Species requires a different review -There are mitigation areas in Rochester - Pre HCP talk w/ Mazama Meadows -May need to consider acquiring a wetland or other mitigation bank sites -Trans Alta wetland mitigation bank +Talk with Brad Murphy for information on mitigation banks

F-1 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study

Name: Kerry Hibdon

Organization: Thurston County Parks

Date: August 15th 2018

Alignments

To Bucoda:

Railroad may be willing to do a shared use path.

To West Tenino:

Concerns:

-Bucoda may be leery but bring to their attention about the bigger picture of the connectivity -Also very low crime issues with the trail

Valued Criteria:

Suggestions: -Liek to use Big R Bridges, they are prefab concrete bridges +Talk to Matt Unzelman about Big R bridges -A Big R bridge is located at churchhill Road. -Doesn't like wood structures

Other:

F-2 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study

Name: Scott Davis & Theresa Parsons

Organization: Thurston County Public Works

Date: August 23rd 2018

Alignments

To Bucoda: -Not interested in sharing road on SR 507 -Might look into just connecting Bucoda to 184th if nothing else.

To West Tenino: -Expensive to deal with 2 bridges. -No vertical curb because of the high speeds

Concerns:

They will want to know cost of maitnenance

Valued Criteria:

Suggestions: -If you use Jersey barrier make sure there are terminal endings and water can disperse through. -Talk with DOT about how it will improve operations and safety for SR 507 to get bikers off the road and possible get gas tax money for project.

Other:

-Could do 10' and as narrow as 8' with their current sweeper. -Rochester and Groundmound is also doing a trail feasibility study. May want to see how they could possibly connect in the future. +Contact Darin Zenker for R/W lines or widths along roadways.

F-3 Yelm Tenino Trail Feasibility Study

Name: Paul Brewster and Katrina Van Every

Organization: TRPC

Date: August 7th 2018

Alignments

To Bucoda: -WDOT may have concerns with riders on 507 -Talk with Thurston County Mapping for R/W line work -Ideally the path would be 12' wide, however it can vary if there are critical areas to avoid -Would also like to know the cost difference for a bridge 10' wide verse 9' wide

To West Tenino: -Would perfer it straight and not meandering -Sequim has a 10' wide asphalt shared path Paul thought was a good option -For now design trail to western city limits, but may another ending closer in for the final design.

Concerns:

Valued Criteria:

-Wanted to add ROW take as a criteria and remove grade, and most direct route

Suggestions: -In the final report talk about additional field work and geotechnical investigation required

Other:

-Talk with Ellen Venel, a Bucoda council member, to gain more insight for Bucoda's wants -Maybe attend a Bucoda work session to discuss the alignment of the trail -Wanted to proceed with meeting with the stakeholders for the first meeting mid September

F-4