The specific details listed (11-page letter, specific deficiencies regarding flood warning evacuation plans, etc.) are not independently corroborated by multiple sources. While the general topic of deficiency letters from DSHS is present, the precise contents of the 11-page letter are only implied or mentioned in the context of the search results.

The claim links the deficiency letter to a specific timeline (a week after a three-day hearing) and specific admissions (missing warnings, lack of plan, delay). While the web search results mention hearings and families sending letters, the precise sequence of events—the letter arriving exactly a week after a three-day hearing where staff admitted these specific failures—is not confirmed by multiple independent sources.

The web search results confirm that the deficiency letter reviewed the plan for completeness and noted deficiencies, implying revisions are necessary. However, the claim that the letter explicitly stated the camp *is permitted* to revise the plan is not directly confirmed by multiple sources; it is an interpretation of the review process.

Web search results confirm that lawmakers visited the site as part of an investigative committee examining the flood. This suggests state review, but the claim that the plan was submitted *according to strict new guidelines imposed by state lawmakers* is an interpretation of the context, not a direct confirmation from multiple sources.