Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutShoreline Master Program Landfill Use Regulations - SHR Permit / Conditions - 2/18/2009 Page 2 of 6 To: Joy Lee Subject: Re: Lilliwaup Cr Restoration Joy, Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner--I was out of the office last week. I need you to demonstrate how your proposal meets each of the items listed below. If some of these items have been addressed in documents you have already submitted, please reference where the information can be found. SMP Use Regulations= Landfill 1. Landfills are prohibited waterward of the ordinary high water mark or on biological wetlands, except that they may be permitted as a Conditional Use for aquacultural practices and water dependent uses where no upland or structural alternative is possible. Fill necessary for erosion control bulkheads shall not be considered under landfill. Landfill in biological wetlands (excluding bogs, marshes, swamps, marine and estuarine shore) for non-water dependent uses may be permitted. Such fill may be considered as a Conditional Use PROVIDED the applicant can demonstrate the following: (1) Extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property exist which require the proposed shoreline location; (2) No viable alternative using a different method or structural solution exists. No fill was placed waterward of the ordinary high water mark. In fact, Creek choking sediments were removed from areas outside the wetted channel to restore the Creek flood flow capacity. Some choking upland sediments were graded into upland areas to improve the Flood Channel capacity. The only fill placed was the Diversion Berm next to the Hatchery Rearing Tanks and the large rock armor at the Bridge Abutment. Since these fills were placed for erosion control, they shall not be considered under Landfill 2. Landfills are not permitted on estuaries, tidelands, marshes,ponds or swamps, except that they may be allowed for water dependent uses as a Conditional Use. No fills were placed in any of the above environments, only in upland areas. Even the Bridge Abutment large rock armament was placed above the ordinary high water mar, to complete the erosion control work that had been initiated when emergency conditions existed. 3. Landfills are not permitted in floodplains unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the geohydraulic and floodplain storage capacity will not be altered to increase flood hazard or other damage to life or property. The floodplain geohydrology and storage capacity of Lilliwaup Creek was maintained as discussed within the October 24, 2008 Geotechnical Report. A net increase in Storage capacity was the result of grading the choking sediments into an upland berm, and the large rock riprap simply replaced necessary land mass that was eroded away (no net gain or loss). 4. Landfills shall not disrupt normal surface water drainage. file://C:\Documents and Settings\TammiW\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\499BD28EM... 2/18/2009 Page 3 of 6 None of the sediment, moved from the Lilliwaup Creek flood channel during low flow conditions and placed within creek upland areas, disrupts surface water drainage. In fact, such grading actually restored surface water runoff channels that had been blocked by choking sediments. 5. Permitted fills shall be appropriately sloped and planted with vegetation to prevent erosion. All sediments that were graded from the Creek flood channel into upland areas were seeded with pasture grass and covered with loose straw to arrest erosion until native revegetation is accomplished. 6. Applications for landfill projects shall include the following information (at a minimum): a. Character and source of fill material; Choking sediments, of natural stream environment sands, gravels & rock. b. Method of placement and compaction; Large excavators and front end loaders moved the choking sediments that self compacted, by their nature. c. Type of surfacing proposed, if any; Pasture grass and loose straw. d. Method of perimeter erosion control; Pasture grass and loose straw, with woody debris. e. Proposed use of fill area; Natural upland restoration, revegetation, and activity. f. Location of fill relative to natural or existing drainage patterns; Simply returned natural sands, gravels & rock to the upland areas that they previously occupied. g. Proposed revegetation and/or landscaping: Simply seeded with pasture grass and covered with loose straw to arrest erosion until native revegetation occurs. 7. Perimeters of fills shall be provided with vegetation, retaining walls, or other mechanisms for erosion prevention. Any fill on or adjacent to a tideland or shoreline shall be designed to prevent erosion. These fills were merely the returning of eroded natural stream soils to the upland areas where they came from during the Dec 2007 flood event. These fills were not intrusions into the stream regime to create areas for activity not natural to the regime. 8. Fill materials shall be of such quality that they will not cause degradation of water quality. The fills are natural to the stream regime, hence do not introduce water quality degradation elements. SMP Policies - Landfill file://C:\Documents and Settings\TammiW\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\499BD28EM... 2/18/2009 Page 4 of 6 1. Any permitted fills or shoreline cuts should be designed so that no significant damage to existing ecological values or natural resources, or alteration of local currents will occur, creating a hazard to adjacent life, property, ecological values, or natural resources. These fills were merely the retuning of eroded natural stream soils to the uplands where they came from, restoring the stream flood channel capacity. 2. Priority shall be given to landfills for water dependent uses. These fills were the natural restoration of the existing streams natural function or use. 3. In evaluating fill projects and in designating areas appropriate for fill, such factors as total water surface reduction, navigation restriction, impediment of water flow and circulation, reduction of water quality and destruction of habitat should be considered. All elements listed above were improved by moving the eroded choking sediments from the flood flow channel and returning them to the upland areas of the stream regime. SMP Use Regulations - Flood Protection and Shoreline Stabilization (you need to provide this information) 1. The County shall require and utilize the following information during its review of shoreline stabilization and flood protection procedures: a. River channel hydraulics and floodway characteristics up and downstream from the project area; See the October 24, 2008 Geotechnical Report. b. Existing shoreline stabilization and flood protection works within the area; See the October 24, 2008 Geotechnical Report. c. Physical, geological and soil characteristics of the area; See the October 24, 2008 Geotechnical Report. d. Predicted impact upon area shore and hydraulic processes, adjacent properties and shoreline and water uses. The grading of the choking sediments from the stream's flood flow channel and returning them to their natural upland areas, actually allowed the stream to redevelop its healthy pre-flood natural channel and prevent further regime damage during subsequent high flood flows. file://C:\Documents and Settings\TammiW\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\499BD28EM... 2/18/2009 Page 5 of 6 2. Conditions of Hydraulic Project Approval, issued by Washington State Department of Fisheries, may be incorporated into permits issued for flood protection and shoreline stabilization. All Permit conditions were followed. 3. The County shall require professional design of shoreline stabilization and flood protection works where such projects may cause interference with normal river geohydraulic processes, leading to erosion of other upstream and downsteam shoreline properties, or adverse effects to shoreline resources and uses. No adverse environmental impacts resulted. By design, this Permitted work was designed to restore the natural stream regime without inducing unnatural/foreign elements or altering prior existing functions. 4. Not applicable. N/A 5. Diking may be permitted as a Conditional Use PROVIDED: a. diking is set back to the edge of the floodway; The Rearing Pond area diversion berm was placed at the location of the prior existing edge of the floodway. b. Timing and construction shall be coordinated with WDFW; This was done. c. Diking shall be designed and constructed to meet Soil Conservation Service technical manual standards and shall, at a minimum include: (1) layered compaction, The native sands, gravels, & rock were granular coarse self- compacting by nature (no layering necessary). (2) removal of debris (e.e., tree stumps, tires, etc.), Woody debris was incorporated, by design, since this is a stream regime. (3) revegetation and maintenance until ground cover is established. Grass seed and loose straw was placed until natural revegetation occurs. 6. Flood protection measures shall be planned and constructed based on a state approved flood control management plan, when available, and in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program. No formal Plan has been developed for this area, Best Management Practices were followed. SMP Policies - Flood Protection and Shoreline Stabilization 1. Shoreline stabilization and flood protection planning should be undertaken in a coordinated manner among affected property owners and public agencies and should consider entire systems or sizable file://CADocuments and Settings\TammiW\Local Settings\TempAPgrpwise\499BD28EM... 2/18/2009 Page 6 of 6 stretches of rivers, lakes or marine shorelines. Thus planning should consider the off-site erosion, accretion or flood damage that might occur as a result of stabilization or protection structures or activities. The entire reach of the Lilliwaup regime,ime, from the Falls to Hood Canal was 9 evaluated. All completed work was designed to benefit the whole regime. 2. Shoreline stabilization and flood protection works should be located, designed, constructed and maintained to provide: a. Protection of the physical integrity of the shore process corridor and other properties which may be damaged by interruptions of the geohydraulic system; This work restored the geohydrology. b. Protection of water quality and natural ground water movement; This work reduced erosion and restored natural groundwater movement. c. Protection of valuable fish and other life forms and their habitat vital to the aquatic food chain; This work restored habitat. d. Preservation of valuable recreation resources and aesthetic values such as point and channel bars, islands and other shore features and scenery. This work restored these elements. 3. Non-structural flood control solutions should be used wherever possible, including prohibiting or limiting development in historically flood prone areas, regulating structural design and limiting increases in peak flow runoff,from new upland development. Structural solutions to reduce shoreline damage should not be allowed after it is demonstrated that non-structural solutions would not be able to reduce the damage. Non-structural measures were employed by moving choking sediments back to their natural upland locations. The large rock rip-rap simply restored prior existing land mass that had been eroded away, where it was necessary to maintain the natural stream channel shape. 4. Not applicable. N/A 5. Not applicable. N/A file://C:\Documents and Settings\TammiW\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\499BD28EM... 2/18/2009 Page 1 of 6 Tammi Wright - SMP Use Regulations Response as Requested From: "Kenneth W. Martig Jr." <martigengr@worldnet.att.net> To: "'Joy Lee"' <JLee@lltk.org> Date: 2/16/2009 8:23 AM Subject: SMP Use Regulations Response as Requested CC: <TammiW@co.mason.wa.us> Good Morning: Here is the information that has been requested by Mason County. Have a Great Day! Ken Martig, Jr. PE From: Tammi Wright [mailto:TammiW@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 8:39 AM To: Joy Lee Subject: Re: Lilliwaup Cr Restoration Joy, Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner--I was out of the office last week. I need you to demonstrate how your proposal meets each of the items listed below. If some of these items have been addressed in documents you have already submitted, please reference where the information can be found. _SMP Use Regulations - Landfill 1. Landfills are prohibited waterward of the ordinary high water mark or on biological wetlands, except that they may be permitted as a Conditional Use for aquacultural practices and water dependent uses where no upland or structural alternative is possible. Fill necessary for erosion control bulkheads shall not be considered under landfill. Landfill in biological wetlands (excluding bogs, marshes, swamps, marine and estuarine shore) for non-water dependent uses may be permitted. Such fill may be considered as a Conditional Use PROVIDED the applicant can demonstrate the following: (1) Extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property exist which require the proposed shoreline location; (2) No viable alternative using a different method or structural solution exists. No fill was placed waterward of the ordinary high water mark. In fact, Creek choking sediments were removed from areas outside the wetted channel to restore the Creek flood flow capacity. Some choking upland sediments were graded into upland areas to improve the Flood Channel capacity. The only fill placed was the Diversion Berm next to the Hatchery Rearing Tanks and the large rock armor at the Bridge Abutment. Since these fills were placed for erosion control, they shall not be considered under Landfill 2. Landfills are not permitted on estuaries, tidelands, marshes, ponds or swamps, except that they may be allowed for water dependent uses as a Conditional Use. file://C:\Documents and Settings\TammiW\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\49992264Ma... 2/17/2009 Page 2 of 6 No fills were placed in any of the above environments, only in upland areas. Even the Bridge Abutment large rock armament was placed above the ordinary high water mar, to complete the erosion control work that had been initiated when emergency conditions existed. 3. Landfills are not permitted in floodplains unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the geohydraulic and floodplain storage capacity will not be altered to increase flood hazard or other damage to life or property. The floodplain geohydrology and storage capacity of Lilliwaup Creek was maintained as discussed within the October 24, 2008 Geotechnical Report. A net increase in Storage capacity was the result of grading the choking sediments into an upland berm, and the large rock riprap simply replaced necessary land mass that was eroded away (no net gain or loss). 4. Landfills shall not disrupt normal surface water drainage. None of the sediment, moved from the Lilliwaup Creek flood channel during low flow conditions and placed within creek upland areas, disrupts surface water drainage. In fact, such grading actually restored surface water runoff channels that had been blocked by choking sediments. 5. Permitted fills shall be appropriately sloped and planted with vegetation to prevent erosion. All sediments that were graded from the Creek flood channel into upland areas were 9 p seeded with pasture grass and covered with loose straw to arrest erosion until native revegetation is accomplished. 6. Applications for landfill projects shall include the following information (at a minimum): a. Character and source of fill material; Choking sediments, of natural stream environment sands, gravels & rock. b. Method of placement and compaction; Large excavators and front end loaders moved the choking sediments that self compacted, by their nature. c. Type of surfacing proposed, if any; Pasture grass and loose straw. Pasture grass and loose straw, with wood debris. d. Method of perimeter erosion control; as e y p9 e. Proposed use of fill area; Natural upland restoration, revegetation, and activity. f. Location of fill relative to natural or existing drainage patterns; Simply returned natural sands, gravels & rock to the upland areas that they previously occupied. file://CADocuments and Sett1ngs\Tamm1W\Loca1 Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\49992264Ma... 2/17/2009 Page 3 of 6 g. Proposed revegetation and/or landscaping: Simply seeded with pasture grass and covered with loose straw to arrest erosion until native revegetation occurs. 7. Perimeters of fills shall be provided with vegetation, retaining walls, or other mechanisms for erosion prevention. Any fill on or adjacent to a tideland or shoreline shall be designed to prevent erosion. These fills were merely the returning of eroded natural stream soils to the upland areas where they came from during the Dec 2007 flood event. These fills were not intrusions into the stream regime to create areas for activity not natural to the regime. 8. Fill materials shall be of such quality that they will not cause degradation of water quality. The fills are natural to the stream regime, hence do not introduce water quality degradation elements. SMP Policies - Landfill 1. Any permitted fills or shoreline cuts should be designed so that no significant damage to existing ecological values or natural resources, or alteration of local currents will occur, creating a hazard to adjacent life, property, ecological values, or natural resources. These fills were merely the retuning of eroded natural stream soils to the uplands where they came from, restoring the stream flood channel capacity. 2. Priority shall be given to landfills for water dependent uses. These fills were the natural restoration of the existing streams natural function or use. 3. In evaluating fill projects and in designating areas appropriate for fill, such factors as total water surface reduction, navigation restriction, impediment of water flow and circulation, reduction of water quality and destruction of habitat should be considered. All elements listed above were improved by moving the eroded choking sediments from the flood flow channel and returning them to the upland areas of the stream regime. SMP Use Regulations - Flood Protection and Shoreline Stabilization (you need to provide this information) 1. The County shall require and utilize the following information during its review of shoreline stabilization and flood protection procedures: a. River channel hydraulics and floodway characteristics up and downstream from the project area; fiIe://C:ADocuments and Sett1ngs\Tamm1W\Loca1 Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\49992264Ma... 2/17/2009 Page 4 of 6 See the October 24, 2008 Geotechnical Report. b. Existing shoreline stabilization and flood protection works within the area; See the October 24, 2008 Geotechnical Report. c. Physical, geological and soil characteristics of the area; See the October 24, 2008 Geotechnical Report. d. Predicted impact upon area shore and hydraulic processes, adjacent properties and shoreline and water uses. The grading of the choking sediments from the stream's flood flow channel and returning them to their natural upland areas, actually allowed the stream to redevelop its healthy pre-flood natural channel and prevent further regime damage during subsequent high flood flows. 2. Conditions of Hydraulic Project Approval, issued by Washington State Department of Fisheries, may be incorporated into permits issued for flood protection and shoreline stabilization. All Permit conditions were followed. 3. The County shall require professional design of shoreline stabilization and flood protection works where such projects may cause interference with normal river geohydraulic processes, leading to erosion of other upstream and downsteam shoreline properties, or adverse effects to shoreline resources and uses. No adverse environmental impacts resulted. By design, this Permitted work was designed to restore the natural stream regime without inducing unnatural/foreign elements or altering prior existing functions. 4. Not applicable. N/A 5. Diking may be permitted as a Conditional Use PROVIDED: a. dikingis set back to the edge of the floodwa The Rearing Pond area diversion berm was 9 Y� 9 placed at the location of the prior existing edge of the floodway. file://C:\Documents and Settings\TammiW\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\49992264Ma... 2/17/2009 Page 5 of 6 b. Timing and construction shall be coordinated with WDFW; This was done. c. Diking shall be designed and constructed to meet Soil Conservation Service technical manual standards and shall, at a minimum include: (1) layered compaction, The native sands, gravels, & rock were granular coarse self- compacting by nature (no layering necessary). (2) removal of debris (e.e., tree stumps, tires, etc.), Woody debris was incorporated, by design, since this is a stream regime. (3) revegetation and maintenance until ground cover is established. Grass seed and loose straw was placed until natural revegetation occurs. 6. Flood protection measures shall be planned and constructed based on a state approved flood control management plan, when available, and in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program. No formal Plan has been developed for this area, Best Management Practices were followed. SMP Policies - Flood Protection and Shoreline Stabilization 1. Shoreline stabilization and flood protection planning should be undertaken in a coordinated manner among affected property owners and public agencies and should consider entire systems or sizable stretches of rivers, lakes or marine shorelines. Thus planning should consider the off-site erosion, accretion or flood damage that might occur as a result of stabilization or protection structures or activities. The entire reach of the Lilliwaup Creek regime, from the Falls to Hood Canal was evaluated. All completed work was designed to benefit the whole regime. 2. Shoreline stabilization and flood protection works should be located, designed, constructed and maintained to provide: a. Protection of the physical integrity of the shore process corridor and other properties which may be damaged by interruptions of the geohydraulic system; This work restored the geohydrology. b. Protection of water quality and natural ground water movement; This work reduced erosion and restored natural groundwater movement. c. Protection of valuable fish and other life forms and their habitat vital to the aquatic food chain; This work restored habitat. d. Preservation of valuable recreation resources and aesthetic values such as point and channel bars, islands and other shore features and file:HC:\Documents and Sett1ngs\Tamm1W\Loca1 Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\49992264Ma... 2/17/2009 Page 6 of 6 scenery. This work restored these elements. 3. Non-structural flood control solutions should be used wherever possible, including prohibiting or limiting development in historically flood prone areas, regulating structural design and limiting increases in peak flow runoff from new upland development. Structural solutions to reduce shoreline damage should not be allowed after it is demonstrated that non-structural solutions would not be able to reduce the damage. Non-structural measures were employed by moving choking sediments back to their natural upland locations. The large rock rip-rap simply restored prior existing land mass that had been eroded away, where it was necessary to maintain the natural stream channel shape. 4. Not applicable. N/A 5. Not applicable. N/A fileWCADocuments and Settings\TammiW\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\49992264Ma... 2/17/2009 Page 1 of 2 Tammi Wright - RE: Lilliwaup Creek Restoration Project From: Tammi Wright To: Joy Lee Date: 2/4/2009 4:21 PM Subject: RE: Lilliwaup Creek Restoration Project Joy, The applicant is responsible for showing how their project meets the outlined criteria. It is not enough just to reference the documents. You need to respond to each regulation and you can reference specific pages of documents to support your response. I was having difficulty finding most of the required information. You may need to get help from the engineer. Tammi >>> "Joy Lee" <JLee@lltk.org> 2/4/2009 2:26 PM >>> Tammi, After trying to satisfy this request and falling short numerous times, I feel I am not comprehending what it is that I am supposed to respond with. I thought I had responded to each regulation and policy specifically by referencing the document (s) where the info could be found. If this is appropriate, are you requesting the specific page number, exerpt, or section? If possible, could you please provide me with the typical response you are looking for? I would really like to accomplish this but feel I do not know what it is I am trying to accomplish as I keep falling short. Or is the falling email re the berm the only place where you have questions: "I was looking for information regarding #6 under Use Regulations for Landfill (specifically a, b, c, d, and g) and could not find this information in the Habitat Management Plan. It does appear this fill is placed within the stream buffer." Thanks for any help and I apologize if I am consuming too much of your time, this is just totally confusing me. Joy *Maybe there is a document I you could reference me to that may act as a guide for me to follow. From: Tammi Wright [mailto:TammiW@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 9:14 AM To: Joy Lee Subject: Re: Lilliwaup Creek Restoration Project Joy, It would be very helpful if you could respond to each regulation and policy specifically instead of just referring to the documents. I have reviewed them and am having some trouble in identifying that all of the policies and regulations have been adequately addressed. Thanks. Tammi >>> "Joy Lee" <JLee@lltk.org> 1/28/2009 2:22 PM >>> file://CADocuments and Settings\TammiW\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4989C080Mas... 2/4/2009 Page 2 of 2 Good afternoon Tammi, Here are the SMP Policies and Use Regulations for the Lilliwaup Cr project. As you will see, most all of the information is referencing plans or permits submitted. I hope the reference is enough, but if you need more please advise me accordingly. I hope to get this all done and I must thank you for all of your work and attention through this process. With regards, Joy Waltermire Steelhead Fisheries Biologist Long Live the Kings Lilliwaup Hatchery (360) 877-6960 (360)877-9690 (Fax) PO Box 205 Lilliwaup, WA 98555 jlee@lltk.org fileWCADocuments and Settings\TammiW\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4989C080Mas... 2/4/2009 Page 1 of 6 Tammi Wright - Re: SMP Use Regulations Response as Requested From: Tammi Wright To: Kenneth W. Martig Jr. Date: 2/18/2009 9:19 AM Subject: Re: SMP Use Regulations Response as Requested CC: ilee@Iltk.org Ken, Thank you for your responses to the use regulations and policies for landfill and bank stabilization/flood protection. In reviewing your responses I some comments. Many of your responses refer to the dredging that took place. The dredging was permitted under the emergency Shoreline Exemption. The Substantial Development/Conditional Use permit is for the riprap (bank protection near bridge abutment) and the berm. All responses will need to address the riprap and berm. The berm is considered landfill and flood protection, not an erosion control bulkhead and those responses to those specific policies and use regulations should include the berm. The riprap is considered as landfill and bank stabilization/flood protection, not an erosion control bulkhead, and all responses for fill and bank stabilization/flood protection should include the riprap. Many of your responses do not directly discuss the riprap or the berm, only the dredging of the deposited material. Please include these portions of the project in your responses. Also, you refer to the Geotechnical Report for information. Please provide page numbers where this information can be found. Please don't hesitate to call or email if you have any other questions. Tammi Wright, Planner Mason County DCD PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 ext. 295 tammiw@co.mason.wa.us >>> "Kenneth W. Martig Jr." <martigengr@worldnet.att.net> 2/16/2009 8:22 AM >>> Good Morning: Here is the information that has been requested by Mason County. Have a Great Day! Ken Martig, Jr. PE From: Tammi Wright [mailto:TammiW@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 8:39 AM file://C:\Documents and Settings\TammiW\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\499BD28EM... 2/18/2009 Page 1 of 1 Tammi Wright - Lilliwaup Cr Restoration From: "Joy Lee" <JLee@lltk.org> To: "Tammi Wright" <TammiW@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 12/23/2008 4:15 PM Subject: Lilliwaup Cr Restoration Tammi, per your request for additional information needed for our Lilliwaup Cr Project permitting. The Lilliwaup Creek Restoration Project meets the applicable use regulations and policies in the shoreline master program for landfill (for the berm)and flood protection and bank stabilization (for the berm and rip rap). 1. The berm is proposed to be constructed to act as a velocity barrier for floodwaters to protect the facility and the outdoor rearing tanks which will contain listed ESA salmonid species. This consideration meets the Mason County Shoreline Master Program Use Regulations Chapter 17.50 Landfill, #1 defining the exception to "be permitted as a Conditional Use for aquaculture practices and water dependent uses where no upland or structural alternative is possible". The berm will continue to allow the parcel to act as a floodplain and will not require additional structures to be constructed. All plans will be designed by trained professionals and will abide by WDFW'S and Mason County Shoreline Master Program standards, and all practices shall incorporate conservation measures contributing to the current and future overall health of the Lilliwaup Creek drainage. 2. The rip-rap is proposed to be added to existing rip-rap installed directly after the December'07 flood, when the bank was eroding at a fast rate. The rip rap will protect the only access to the property, a bridge over Lilliwaup Creek, and will prevent the shoreline from further erosion and consequent increased sediment contribution into the stream. The rip rap shall abide by the the "Flood Protection and Shoreline Stabilization" regulations and policies listed in the Shoreline Master Program Use Regulations, where "The County shall require professional design of shoreline stabilization and flood protection works where such projects may cause interference with normal river geohydraulic processes, leading to erosion of other upstream and downstream shoreline properties". Thank you and please let me know if further explanation is required, or if any direct reference to our work plan or permits is needed. Joy file://C:\Documents and Settings\TammiW\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\49510E96M... 12/29/2008 The Lilliwaup Creek Restoration Project: Addendum Report of SMP Use Regulations and Policies Attn. Tammi Wright Prepared by Joy Waltermire(Long Live the Kings) 26 January 2008. SMP Use Regulations - Landfill 1. Landfills are prohibited waterward of the ordinary high water mark or on biological wetlands, except that they may be permitted as a Conditional Use for aquacultural practices and water dependent uses where no upland or structural alternative is possible. Fill necessary for erosion control bulkheads shall not be considered under landfill. Landfill in biological wetlands(excluding bogs,marshes, swamps, marine and estuarine shore) for non-water dependent uses may be permitted. Such fill may be considered as a Conditional Use PROVIDED the applicant can demonstrate the following: (1)Extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property exist which require the proposed shoreline location; (2)No viable alternative using a different method or structural solution exists. The new "Flood-Flow Diversion Berm"will be installed under a Conditional Use permit, using excess dry sediment to protect the Long Live the Kings Lilliwaup hatchery responsible for raising Puget Sound ESA listed salmonid stocks. Reference the HPA, the "Lilliwaup Creek Restoration Work Plan"submitted with the application packet and the "Geotechnical Report Compliance"prepared by Martig Engineering on 24 October.2008. marshes ponds or swamps, except that the may be allowed for 2. Landfills are not permitted on estuaries,tidelands, , p p , p y y water dependent uses as a Conditional Use. Reference the HPA. 3. Landfills are not permitted in floodplains unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the,geohydraulic and floodplain storage capacity will not be altered to increase flood hazard or other damage to life or property. Reference the `Lilliwaup Creek Restoration W rk Plan"and the "Geotechnical Report Compliance"prepared by Martig Engineering on 24 October 2008. Itr (O - Cr"Fte 1N 4. Landfills shall not disrupt normal surface water drainage. Reference the `Lilliwaup Creek Restoration Work Plan". 5. Permitted fills shall be appropriately sloped and planted with vegetation to prevent erosion: Reference the `Lilliwaup Creek Restoration Work Plan: Floodplain restoration, hatchery protection and re=establishing the hatchery settling pond", the HPA, and the "Long Live the Kings Habitat Management Plan". 6. Applications for landfill projects shall include the following information(at a minimum): a. Character and source of fill material; whA a Inc N wwAtr .4 6)l mo.h.rir l b. Method of placement and compaction; 60 �s � �� bb'knd aAA t�U,y�chd c. Type of surfacing proposed, if any; d. Method of perimeter erosion control; Can't— to c- e. Proposed use of fill area; -Fish +Gn -5 f. Location of fill relative to natural or existing drainage patterns; 5 Lk g. Proposed re-vegetation and/or landscaping. Ad F k;md Reference the HPA, the "Lilliwaup Creek Restoration Work Plan:Floodplain restoration, hatchery protection and re- establishing the hatchery settling pond"and the "Geotechnical Report Compliance"prepared by Martig Engineering on 24 October 2008. legs - -pl�•h. 7. Perimeters of fills shall be provided with vegetation,retaining walls, or other mechanisms for erosion prevention. Any fill on or adjacent to a tideland or shoreline shall be designed to prevent erosion. Reference the HPA, the "Lilliwaup Creek Restoration Work Plan:Floodplain restoration, hatchery protection and re- establishing the hatchery settling pond"and the "Geotechnical Report Compliance"prepared by Martig Engineering on 24 October 2008. 8. Fill materials shall be of such quality that they will not cause degradation of water quality. i Reference the HPA, the `Zilliwaup Creek Restoration Work Plan"and the "Long Live the Kings Habitat Management Plan". SMP Policies - Landfill 1. Any permitted fills or shoreline cuts should be designed so that no significant damage to existing ecological values or natural resources, or alteration of local currents will occur, creating a hazard to adjacent life,property, ecological values, or natural resources. Reference the HPA, the `Zilliwaup Creek Restoration Work Plan: Floodplain restoration, hatchery protection and re- establishing the hatchery settling pond"and the "Long Live the Kings Habitat Management Plan". 2. Priority shall be given to landfills for water dependent uses. Reference the HPA and the `Zilliwaup Creek Restoration Work Plan: Floodplain restoration, hatchery protection and re-establishing the hatchery settling pond"and the "Long Live the Kings Habitat Management Plan". 3. In evaluating fill projects and in designating areas appropriate for fill, such factors as total water surface reduction, navigation restriction, impediment of water flow and circulation,reduction of water quality and destruction of habitat should be considered. Reference the HPA, the `Zilliwaup Creek Restoration Work Plan:Floodplain restoration, hatchery protection and re- establishing the hatchery settling pond"and the "Long Live the Kings Habitat Management Plan". SMP Use Regulations-Flood Protection and Shoreline Stabilization 1. The County shall require and utilize the following information during its review of shoreline stabilization and flood procedures:protection p 11p1- iLAAed a. River channel hydraulics and floodway characteristics wand downstream from the project area; b. Existing shoreline stabilization and flood protection works within the area; c. Physical, geological and soil characteristics of the area; and d. Predicted impact upon area shore and hydraulic processes, adjacent properties and shoreline and water uses.`` � Reference the `Zilliwaup Creek Restoration Work Plan:Floodplain restoration, hatchery protection and re-establishing the hatchery settlingpond"and the "Geotechnical Report Compliance"prepared by Martig Engineering on 24 October 2008. 22 Conditions of Hydraulic Project Approval, issued by Washington State Department of Fisheries, maybe incorporated into permits issued for flood protection and shoreline stabilization. Reference the HPA submitted for the restoration project. QThe County shall require professional design of shoreline stabilization and flood protection works where such projects may cause interference with normal river geohydraulic processes, leading to erosion of other upstream and downstream shoreline properties, or adverse effects to shoreline resources and uses. Reference the "Geotechnical Report Compliance"prepared by Martig Engineering on 24 October 2008. 4. Not applicable 5. Diking may be permitted as a Conditional Use PROVIDED: a. Diking is set back to the edge of the floodway; b. Timing and construction shall be coordinated with WDFW; c. Diking shall be designed and constructed to meet Soil Conservation Service technical manual standards and shall, at a minimum include(1) layered compaction, (2)removal of debris (e.e., tree stumps,tires, etc.), and (3)re-vegetation and maintenance until ground cover is established. Should the berm be classified as "diking", reference the HPA, the `Zilliwaup Creek Restoration Work Plan:Floodplain restoration, hatchery protection and re-establishing the hatchery settling pond"and the "Geotechnical Report Compliance"prepared by Martig Engineering on 24 October 2008. L r 6. Flood protection measures shall be planned and constructed based on a state approved flood control management plan, when available, and in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program. Reference the HPA, the "Lilliwaup Creek Restoration Work Plan"and the "Geotechnical Report Compliance"prepared by Martig Engineering on 24 October 2008. SMP Policies-Flood Protection and Shoreline Stabilization 1. Shoreline stabilization and flood protection planning should be undertaken in a coordinated manner among affected property owners and public agencies and should consider entire systems or sizable stretches of rivers, lakes or marine shorelines. Thus planning should consider the off-site erosion, accretion or flood damage:that might occur as a result of stabilization or protection structures or activities. Reference the "Lilliwaup Creek Restoration Work Plan", the HPA and the "Geotechnical Report Compliance"prepared by Martig Engineering on 24 October 2008. 2. Shoreline stabilization and flood protection works should be located, designed, constructed and maintained to provide: a. Protection of the physical integrity of the shore process corridor and other properties:which may be damaged by interruptions of the geohydraulic system; b. Protection of water quality and natural ground water movement; c. Protection of valuable fish and other life forms and their habitat vital to the aquatic food,chain; d. Preservation of valuable recreation resources and aesthetic values such as point and channel:bars, islands and other shore features and scenery. Reference the `Lilliwaup Creek Restoration Work Plan", the HPA, the "Long Live the.Kings Habitat Management Plan"and the "Geotechnical Report Compliance"prepared by Martig Engineering on 24 October 2008., 3.Non-structural flood control solutions should be used wherever possible, including prohibiting or limiting development in historically flood prone areas,regulating structural design and limiting increases in peak flow runoff from new upland development. Structural solutions to reduce shoreline damage should not be allowed after it is demonstrated that non-structural solutions would not be able to reduce the damage. Reference the "Lilliwaup Creek Restoration Work Plan"and the "Geotechnical Report Compliance!'prepared by Martig Engineering on 24 October 2008. 4. Not applicable. 5. Not applicable.