The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About042 04 ~ i).e ;-=> (¥.3·{\({ J-~(ß-J- / STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF JEFFERSON In the Matter of: Chimacum Creek Estuary Restoration Proposal Relating to the Standard Vacation of a Portion of E. Moore Street in the Plat of Irondale ) ) ) ) RESOLUTION NO. 42-04 WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners passed Resolution 54-03 vacating E. Moore Street in the plat of Irondale; and, WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners included a condition in the resolution requiring a shoreline substantial development for future proposals; and, WHEREAS, the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife has proposed a restoration proposal for the Chimacum Creek Estuary that has undergone public review subject to the State Environmental Policy Act; and, WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners acknowledge the restoration proposal meets the shoreline exemption criteria outlined in Section 3.402(19) of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program; and, WHEREAS, the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife has provided a letter to the County offering to investigate the feasibility of providing a public access trail. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the aforementioned Chimacum Creek restoration proposal can be processed as a shoreline exemption pennit in accordance with Section 3.402(19) of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. NOW, THEREFORE IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the shoreline pennit exemption pennit shall contain the following conditions: 1) A Recreational Access Advisory Committee (RAAC) shall be created to evaluate an appropriate design and location for a pedestrian trail that spans from the WDFW parking area to the mouth of Chimacum Creek. The RAAC shall be comprised of the Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, North Olympic Salmon Coalition, WDFW, and citizens at large. The RAAC shall provide a recommendation within two (2) years following the adoption of this resolution. 2) If the RAAC recommendation includes proposed development, pennits shall be obtained and construction ofthe trail shall commence within one (1) year following the date of the RAAC recommendation. 3) WDFW shall prepare an inventory of parcels along the riparian corridor currently under WDFW ownership. WDFW shall take all reasonable steps to sell as surplus any parcels not directly utilized for restoration proj ects. .A:D9PTEI;> }his ;< ~~ay of f-lùtu<-d.r ,2004. .' , - -;-" () /' ,,' , Jot. · ~...',. ,_ '~ JEFFERSON COUNTY ,/::\t ...;,"~f-:.:. BOARD OF CO M SI ¡;;.\ ~. /- r~ \ : \' I ._ ,/ : -; Gte: H tmg or , ATTEST' ", 4. ~ ~. " ,~. . ; .... J '.."- ). h .,. 3 '.~. ;."t.-"'-" '-I / ~/71 · . -~ r..... .¡ ~ . ) ,. ~~. " ~,'t:j 0" ..~,. .'>- Julie Matthes, CMC -..,' Deputy Clerk of the Board SEAL: JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA REQUEST TO: BOCC FROM: Al Scalf, DCD DATE: 7/28/04 SUBJECT: Resolution for the WDFW Chimacum Creek Restoration Project STATEMENT OF ISSUE: WDFW has requested the BOCC create a new resolution allowing the proposed Chimacum Creek estuary restoration project to be reviewed and processed as a shoreline exemption permit pursuant to Section 3.402(19) of the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. Permitting for restoration and fish enhancement proposals have been codified as exemptions from shoreline substantial development. ANALYSIS: WDFW has drafted a letter addressing several concerns including parking, drainage, and sanitation. In addition, the county has received the $11,000 from WDFW as stipulated through Resolution No. 54-03. WDFW has submitted a letter dated July 26, 2004 providing three (3) options regarding the placement of a pedestrian trail (see attached). FISCAL IMPACT: RECOMMENDATION: Staff would like to recommend Option 2, with a time limitation spanning no more than two (2) years for the trail to be constructed. REVIEWED BY: ~1,~ John schbach, County Administrator 7 /2t1f JoV Date f)e vi IàúJJ ~<X Y . ~ U dJyoCŒ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF JEFFERSON In the Matter of: ) Chimacum Creek Estuary Restoration Proposal ) Relating to the Standard Vacation of a Portion ) ofE. Moore Street in the Plat of Iron dale ) WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissio rs passed Resolution 54- 03 vacating E. Moore Street in the plat of Irondale; and, WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Co the resolution requiring a shoreline substantial development fo ssioners included a condition in ture proposals; and, WHEREAS, the Washington State Dep restoration proposal for the Chimacum Creek Estuary th the State Environmental Policy Act; and, nt of Fish and Wildlife has proposed a as undergone public review subject to WHEREAS, the Jefferson County restoration proposal meets the shoreline exempti Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program; ard of Commissioners acknowledge the criteria outlined in Section 3.402(19) ofthe WHEREAS, the Washingto State Department ofFish and Wildlife has provided a letter to the County offering to investigat he feasibility of providing a public access trail. NOW, THEREFORE IT RESOLVED the aforementioned Chimacum Creek restoration proposal can be processe as a shoreline exemption pennit in accordance with Section 3.402(19) of the Jefferson County horeline Master Program. NOW, THERE RE IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the shoreline exemption pennit shall contain the folIo ing conditions 1) A Recreational Access Advisory Committee (RAAC) shall be created to valuate an appropriate design and location for a pedestrian trail. The trail shall serve as pedest' access from the proposed WDFW parking area to the mouth of Chimacum Creek. Con ction shall commence within two (2) years from the issuance date of the shoreline exempti pennit. ADOPTED this _ day of , 2004. JEFFERSON COUNTY SEAL: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Glen Huntingford, Chainnan Dan Tittemess, Member Julie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk ofthe Board Patrick Rodgers, Member · .- - - - - -.... ~ -, -, x. '. pw i 11310'1 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF JEFFERSON In the matter of x RESOLUTION NO. 54...03 The Standard Vacation of a Portion ofE. Moore St. in the Plat ofIrondale x x x WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners has reviewed a road vacation petition submitted by the Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife; and WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the road vacation petition on July 15, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner considered testimony of the public, comments from applicable departments, agencies and offices, and recommendations from the Jefferson County Department of Public Works and Jefferson County Department of Community Development at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Hearing Examiner detennined at the public hearing that the public will benefit from the vacation of this road and such vacation complies with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and other applicable plans, policies or ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners considered said Hearing Examiner's report of the public hearing and his recommendation for the vacation request dated July 30, 2003; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the following be vacated and abandoned pursuant to RCW 36.87.140 and Jefferson County Road Vacation Ordinance No. 07-0809-99: that portion of usage right of way for E. Moore St.lying northerly of that portion deeded to Jefferson County by deed recorded under AFN 410400 for right of way purposes. This vacation affects parcel numbers: 001353003 and 001353004. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that his road vacation is subject to any easements of record, and the following specific conditions 1) compensión of$II,OOO to Jefferson County, 2) obtaining a shoreline substantial development penn it issued by Jefferson County, and 3) allowing public pedestrian access over the above referenced parcels. , ~.-"~ ... ADOPTED J1IÍÍS .. ðAYC9F SEPTEMBER 2003. /' '. . . . '.' oJ, " " . ,,0 " I'" ~~" '''\~ . . ~ \ ... .. .'t .» ì ; \ "fIIt'. " ,. . it SEAL~ ,,~:::.: "'" ~\,;- í ',' : ~ ' " , . ~ ! ATIEST:- .; >.'" ~,!:J <-. .' «~¥~,- / Lorna Delaney, CMC o.MJ2..<.{ - Clerk of the Board Õ JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS r- I L I I ~ I L I I I J- ..~-- '=-=r:w- ... .. J,. -=_ ..r_!f=_ø .... 8&-17. ~ LECENQ 1ElÐ'HcIÑF IIISEJt UIaIJY I'Q£ UIaIJY I'Q£ ... ANOa 1M_ III£IÐt 1M_ _~ CAIQf 8ASIN nury MW«:tC SNr 8LV;t1laH CIIIWIRøUs MŒ ~Itf SIZQ 1EœUout.1RŒ -I$--- ÐISIJC CIQIIRIW cr'MEIMIJ ,. NEW CGIROUt (1' III1ÐWHJ .,a .. ..- . " 0 0 . .... e.. -0 . ŒlIUACUU CREEK ES1UARY RESTORA 110N - O+GO SITE PlAN WASHIN(;TON DEPT. of ASH Ie WlLOUFE 600 CAPITAl WAY N. OLYIotPIA. WA 98501-1091 DIG.. PROJECT NO. IN; M; 03-1 D.\1£=4/5/2004 SHEET ~o ~ ~ I - I I ¡---~ I'AOPOSm CRA1Q. 1URN~ UI£ _1M IWIIIIÐt IIOQ( 1NSTN.l $ICM "1URNWluNO M£A - NO "NIIIl1Ht::" I'AOPOSm CRA1Q. "-.c. lItE _1M IWIRIER ROac . 5' o.c., nP. j1) Å -' o ~ z ø 10' (T1 z o 4 OF 6 ,þ . ŒX1 JJ.tßX) NOS\Billr . ~~ 1nI' STATE OF WASHINGTON D'EPARTMENT OF FISH AND WlLDUFE 48 Devonshire Road· Montesano. Washi'Igton 98563-9618· (360) 249-4628 FAX July 26, 2004 "1efferson County Department of Community Development Attention: AI Scalf, Director 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 SUBJECT: Chimacum Estuary and Nearshore Habitat Restoration Project = Jefferson County Shorelines Master Program Compliance, Request for Letter of Exemption Dear Mr. Calf{J... The W ington Department ofFish and Waldlife (WDFW) and Jefferson County share an interest in restoring fish and wildlife habitat and providing outdoor recreation opportunities in Jefferson County. We are pleased that the County supports efforts to restore healthy habitat conditions to the shoreline at Chimacum EstuaIy. This is a high quality opportunity for restoration of critical habitat necessary to support the recovery of summer chum salmon, a fish listed under the Endangered Species Act, in Chimacum Creek. We are asking that Jefferson County issue a shoreline exemption for this fish habitat restoration project under Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UDC) Section 3.4.02( 19). Under this section of the UDC, a public or private project qualifies for a shoreline exemptiœ if the primary purpose is to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage. The project qualifies under subsections (a) and (b) oftbe UDC (approval by WDFW and approval ofHP A), and is waiting locaJ,govemmental approval to detennine that the project is consistent with the local shoreline master program. The project does not reasonably qualify under any other Jefferson County shoreline permit venue. The Çhimacum Estuary and near shore restoration project also complies with the findings and intent oftbe 20 January 04, Draft Ironda/e Beach Park Master Pion Report. The plan integrates the WDFW restored beach into the overall attraction of the Irondale Beach Park experience. Last week, WDFW hosted a public meeting to proyide an update on the project to local residents and interested -citizens. During the meeting. a resident suggested that an APA accessible trail was needed to allow easy access to the creek mouth. County officials present at the meeting requested that WDFW consider options for installing an easily accessible pedestrian trail to the mouth of the creek. WDFW staff has examined this issue and we propose the following alternatives: 1. No chan~ to proposed design The project goal is to re-establish the historiCal conditions of the beach and estuary for fISh habitat restoration, thereby no hardened impervious surfaces were considered that would constitute an easily accessed trail. However, infonnal passive recreational activities were already considered and incorporated into the design of the project. A soft surface access trail would lead horn the infonnal parking area over an installed culvert providing pedestrian access fiom that point to the entirety of the subject property. From this informal pedestrian a~ patterns of low-impact, passive recreational use could be established. We continue to work on this aspect of the plan to allow infonnal access for wheelchairs at this site. Mr. AI Scalf Page 2 of3 July 27, 2004 2. Adaptive management for design For a period of two or three years following completion of the restoration work, the restored beach will likely be a fairly dynamic landscape. High tides and waves will work upon the restored beach to create conditions of dynamic equilibrium, ultimately producing a relatively stable beach. Under this alternative we propose the following: a. The project is constructed under the existing proposed design. _ b. A Recreational Access Advisory Committee (RAAC) is coiivened. The RAAC is composed of a representative of the Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, North Olympic Salmon Coalition, Jefferson County, and WDFW. c. During a three-year period of natural beach stabilization the public accesses the beach as envisioned under the existing design. During this period the RAAC monitors patterns of public access and use. , d. Following the tbree-year period the RAAC recommends appropriate access amenities, if any, to establish the best possible design, use, and location of a minor pedestrian trail across the restored beach to the mouth of the creek. e. WDFW and Jefferson County collaborate to implement the RAAC recommendations. 3. InstaJl a trail on the sediment recruitment bench during construction A graveled trail could potentially be built upon the sediment recruitment bench as the final element of the estuary and beach restoration project. This alternative, however, has ooveral weaknesses. a. We are uncertain whether or not our current project funding could be used for this alternative. b. The restored beach itself may prove to be superior to the graveled trail for access to the various parts of the beach, including the creek mouth area. In this case public monies spent on trail conStructioli will have been wasted. c. The trail may become a maintenance liability and also might perpetuate the attractive nuisance concerns raised by neighbors at the public meeting. d. Trail construction might trigger the need for a shorelines substantial development pennit under Jefferson COunty Code. As mentioned above, we believe that the project otherWise qualifies for a shoreline exemption under Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UOC) Section 3.4.02(19). Because of the time required to secure this pennit, our project funding would probably be lost. To best.meet resource and community needs, WDFW recommends the adaptive management alternative. While the current design may be found to be quite adequate, modest changes as suggested by a monitoring effort may improve public use without compromising the site's environmental values. If significant changes are recommended, time win be needed to develop grant sources for implementation of a more formal trail, as WDFW does not currently have these funds. WDFW looks forward to continue our cooperation and partnership working with Jefferson County on a future beach access trail for pedestrians to enjoy the restored Chimacwn Estuary and nearshore environment. Our funding time line for the restoration project is stretched to its extreme limit We appreciate your continued support and cooperation in the restoration of the Chimacum Creek Estuary. In the spirit"ofthis IJ JUL to . r~nN r.mINlY OCO Mr. AI Scalf . Page 3 of3 July 27, 2004 support and coopeiation. we ask that the County issue the Shoreline Exemption in a timely manner. We are confident that the issues that prompted this letter shall be resolved through our continued efforts to provide pedestrian access to the Ïestoration area. If you have any questions or concerns, please call me at (360) 249-1223. ' ude Region 6 Director Cc: Jefferson County Commissioners Doris Small Randy Johnson Gina Carr and Curtis Wambach JUt !ð . JEFFERSON COUNTY DCe .. State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF ASH AND WlLDUFE , Mailing AdhS$: 600 Capitd Way N· Qympia. WA 98501-1091· (360) 902-2200. TOO (360) 902-2207 Main 0Ifice location: NaUaI Aescuœs BuiIcing. 1111 Washilgk)n 5net SE · 0IymfIia. WA ~pril2, 2004 Mr. Kevin Russell Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 APR -8-,. ~'''P"I\' ~O~ mft1'V ~!; r...,r;~iif ~ tfU r UCIJ Dear Mr. Russell: This letter addresses issues and concerns discussed at the March 31, 2004, meeting with Jefferson County. I am confident that the Washington Department ofFish and WIldlife (WDFW) and Jefferson CoWlty can work together to form a mutually beneficial agreement regarding the advancement of the Chimacum Estuary Restoration Project. As we discussed during our meeting, funding and ultimate project success depend on a very tight schedule. It is essential tbat we work together to admini~ an exemption from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. At Jefferson c.ounty's request, the following items are enclosed: 1) Revised SEP A Checklist addressing concerns expressed by the County. 2) Revised drawing showing water quality improvement swale. 3) Two copies of color drawings from the Coastal Engineering Report. WDFW recognizes the County's legitimate concerns regarding issues related to this project. These issues are addressed below. I) Shoreline Exem{)tion: It is our understanding that an exemption from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is contingent upon addressing concerns regarding adequate public notice, stormwater and erosion control issues, reduced parking, and necessary public services. WDFW is willing to work closely with the County to resolve these issues (see #2 through #5 below). As we discussed during our meeting, we are ' hopeful that an expanded SEP A notification would replace the need for a Substantial Development notification. By addressing the County's concerns regarding this project and the comments generated by the expanded SEP A notification, it is our hope that a Shoreline Exemption will be issued by the County. Mr. Kevin Russell April 2, 2004 Page 2 2) Expanded SEP A Notification: WDFW will provide an expanded SEP A notification to address the County's concerns over public participation in the permitting process. WDFW has withdrawn the current SEP A public notice and will post a revised õne. The revised public notice will have an expanded distribution to include the following: · Print in the local newspaper. . Post at the project site. · Mail to neighbors within the vicinity of the project site. . Mail to tribal authorities. · Mail to other interested parties that would typically receive a SEP A notification. · Post on the Internet. The newspaper listing will include the Internet address for public viewing of the revised SEP A Checklist and permit drawings. 3) Stormwater. Erosion. and Related Issues: · At the County's ~ WDFW intends to apply for a StormwaterManagement Permit 1Ì"om Jefferson County. · At the County's request, WDFW has revised the project site plan to eliminate an 18- inch culvert located on the southern portion of the property and replace it with a water quality treatment swale (see Drawings - Sheet 4 of 6). WDFW proposes to plant the swale with willow and grasses to provide some water quality benefit, and prevent direct discharge to marine waters as recommended by Jefferson CoWlty during the March 31 meeting. · The shoreline of~ proposed site and Jefferson COWlty'S adjacent park property has been subject to erosion from wave action. A Coastal Engineering Study was prepared by Coast and Harbor Engineering (October 31.2003) to evaluate whether the removal of the riprap and fill on the site could affect the stability of the shoreline on the adjacent shorelines, including the Jefferson County property. Coast and Harbor Engineering (2003) performed a baseline assessment of the beach and an analysis of the anticipated _ effects on beach dynamics after completion of the proposal. This information was submitted to the CoWlty during the March 31 meeting at the Jefferson Cowrty Planning and Permit Center. Coast and Harbor Engineering (2003) concluded that the "site ~ ~ stable shoreline." Also. the project ca1Is for an erosion barrier consisting of a buried boulder wall to provide additional shoreline stability on adjacent properti~ including private property and the County's adjacent park property (see enclosed Drawing, Sheet 4 of 6 - Riprap Trench). This wall structure will be buri~ and therefore not visible to the eye. Mr. Kevin Russell April 2, 2004 Page 3 4) Reduced Parking: The County has expressed concerns that additional traffic generated by the combined WDFW and County projects, and e1imination of informal (unregulated) parking on the WDFW site will result in the need for additional parking spaces at the adjacent Jefferson County Park. At the request of Jefferson County~ WDFW would allow some informal parting on 1he unimproved southernmost portion of the subject property located adjacent to the park property. This wòuld provide some remedy to 'the County~s loss of parking area on WDFWs proposed estuary restoration site. This area is not included in the estuary restoration project. At the County~s request, WDFW would also allow signage to designate a passive vehicle turnaround area in this location. No improvements or restoration activities are proposed for this area. WDFW intends to work closely with the County to resolve any traffic or parking concerns generated by the Estuary Restoration Project. 5) Public Services: The County has expressed concerns that the estuary restoration project would increase the public recreationaJ use of the site and the adjacent Jefferson County park property. WDFW will e1iminate road access to the estuary restoration site~ and no formal pedestrian access will be established. Only passive pedestrian access will be allowed on the property. The elimination of vehicular access and formal pedestrian access is expected to reduce the use intensity and lessen the ~ for public services over existing conditions. The adjacent County Park future improvements are expected to generate a greater need for public services. However, WDFW intends to work closely with Jeff~n County to form an agreement to support Jefferson County's provision of public services that will serve the WDFW site. WDFW addressed additional concerns that were expressed by the County in the revised SEP A Checklist during the March 31 meeting and in a March 29 memorandum. If you have any questions, please call me at (360) 902-8426. Sincerely, ~~, ~(: Wambach ~ Wildlife Biologist/Permit Specialist Capital Programs & Engineering Division CW:sIm Enclosures cc: Gina Carr 3.40 EXEMPTIONS 3.401 ADMINISTRATION Whenever a development is eligible for exemption under Subsecti~~ 3.402 of this Master - Program, the proponent shall secure an exemption from the Planning and Building pepartment prior to the commencement of the development. All applications for exemptions shill be made on forms supplied by the Planning and Building Department., The application shall be accompanied by a drawing of the proposed project. Projects receiving exemptions shall be bound to the plan upon which the exemption is granted, an exetÍtþtiOli shall expire one year after the date of issuance. u. Exemptions from the substantial development permit requirements do not exempt a proposed development from compliance with the applicable poliåes and standards of this Master Program or other applicable federal, state, or local permit or license requirements. A cOnditional use or variance permit may also ·be required. Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. 3.402 PERMIT EXEMPTIONS Those developments that-do, not require issuance of a shoreline substantial development permit are· as foll<?ws. These developments require formal exemption approvål by the Pl3n~ing and Building Department. 1. Any development of which the total cost or fair market'value, whichever is higher, does not exceed $2,500, if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public uSe of the water or shorelines of the state. 2. Those developments lawfully established prior to the effective date of the Shoreline Management Act (Rew 90.58), which was June 1, 1971. Substantial development started but not completed prior to the effective date of the act shall not continue without a permit. I 3. 'Those ongoing developments established after the effective date of the Shoreline Management Act that have already obtained permits in full compliance with the act and related rules adopte4 thereafter, pursuant to WAC 173-27~ 4. Developments undertäken 'by the federal government on lands ownèd in fee by the federal government, unless the federal government grants or reserves to the state or local government substantial jurisdiction over activities on those lands. 5. Construction by an owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of a single family residence for the owner's or owner's family's use; provided the residence: a. Does not exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet above average grade level. b. Does not involve over-water construction and is located 'landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). 23 3.30 APPucÁBIIlTY 1. This Master Program shall apply to every person, iñdividual, firm, partnership, association, organization, corporation, local or state goveri1J:µental agency, public or municipal corporation~ or othernonfederal entity that ..devèlops, owns, ·leases, or administers lands, wetlands, or waters subject to this Master Program. 2. The applicability of this Master Prograin to federal agencies is as follows: Federal agencies shall not be required to obtain permits for developments undertaken by the federal government on lands owned in fee by the federal government unless the federal government grants or reserves to the state or local government substantial jurisdiction over activities on those lands. The substantial development permit system shall apply to nonfederal activities constituting developments undertaken on lands subject to nonfederal ownership, lease, or easement, even though such lands may fall within the external boundaries of federal ownership. The substantial development permit system shall apply to developments undenaken on lands not federally owned but under lease, easement, license, or other similar federal propeny rights shon of fee ownership to the federal government. , Federal agency actions shall be consistent with the approved WashiÍ1gton State Coast3l Zone Management Program subject to cenain limitations set forth in the Federal Coastal Zone Management Aa (16 U.S.C. 1451 «. seq.) and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. 3. This Master Program, including its. definition, purposes, goals, policies, and performance standards, shall apply to all development that is within in whole or in pan wetlands and shorelines as defined under subsection 2.121 of this Master Program. Fprther, all substantial development within the scope of this Master Program sh.all obtain a shoreline substantial development permit from Jefferson County or the City of Pon Townsend in full compliance with the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act, appropriate provisioJIIS of WAC 173-27, and this ~er Program, with the exçepuon of those developments consistent with Subsection 3.40 of this MaSter Program. a.,/· b. c. d. 22 8. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. An emergency is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment that requires immedi~te action within a time too short to allow full compliance with this Master Program. Emergency construction does not include develop~ent of new permanent protective structures. where none previously existed. Where new protective struètUres ~e deemed by the" administrator to be the appropriate meanS to address the emergency situation, upon abatement of the emergency situation the new structure shall be removed or any permit obtained which would have been required, absent an emergency, under RCW 90.58 and this Master Program. As a general matter, flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur but that are not imminent are not an emergency. 9. Construction of a barn or similar agricultural structure on' shorelands. Construction and practices normal or necessary for farming, irrigation, and ranching activities including agricultural service roads and utilities on shorelands, and the construction and maintenance of irrigation structures, including but not limited to head gates, pumping facilities, and irrigation channels. However, a feedlot of any size, all processing plants, other activities of a cOmmercial nature, and alteration of the contour of the shorelands by leveling or filling other than that which results from normal cultivation shall not be considered normal for necessary farming or ranching activities. A feedlot shall be an enclosure or facility used or capable of being used for feeding livestock hay, grain, silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not include land for growing crops or vegetation for livestock feeding and! or grazing, nor shall it include normal livestock 'wintering operatio~. 10. Construction or modification, by or under the authority of the Coast Guard or a designated port management authority, of navigational aids such as channel markers , and anchor buoys. This exemption does not pertain to rahs, floats, or docks. 11. Construction of a new dock or placement of a single mooring buoy designed only for pleasure craft and the private non-commercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of an adjoining single family residence; provided said development does not- exceed $2,500 in cost or fair market value and provided the mooring buoys do not extend waterward more than the minus six foot or one fathom tidal elevation as measured from the mean lower low water.*' [..See AdministTatWe Intnpret4~ Page 107] 12. Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterwaYs, drains, reservoirs, or other facilitiës that now exist ~r are hereafter created or developed as part of an irrigation system for the primary purpose of making use of Sýstem waters, including return flow and artificially stored ground water from the irrigation of lands. 13. The marking of property lines or comers on state owned lands, when such marking does not significandy interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water. 14. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on September 8, 1975 (the effective date of an amendment to RCW 90.58), which were created, developed, or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or dike system. 15. Any project with a certification from the governor purSuant to RCW 80.50. 16. Site' exploration aDd investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for development authorÏzationunoo this.Master Pr~ if~ 25 c. M~ ~I other state and. local requirements ?f this Master Program including resIdentIal setback reqwrements set fonh In Section 5.160 of this Master Program. Sin~e f~y .residence means a detached dwelling d~igned for and occupied by one fanul~ I,neluding those strµctures an~ developments within a contiguous ownership that ~e a normal 'appurtenanœ. An appurtenance is necessarily connected to the use , and enjoyment of a single f3mi1y residence and is located landward of the perimeter of ~ w:etland. Normal appurtenances include a garage, deck, driveway, utilities, fen~, and .grading that does not exceed 250 cubic yards and which does not involve pl~~eD.t 'òf fill in any wetland or waterward of the ordinary high water mark. 6. ' Normal maintenance or repair of existing lawful structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire, or elements. Non-conforming uses and developments are regulated according to WAC 17~27-080. Normal maintenance includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. Normal repair means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair involves total replacement that is not common practice or causes substantial adverse effects to the shoreline resource or environment. Common replacement of existing development that has been damaged by accident, fire, or the elemènts means: ' :, ~ a. The new development is essentially the same as the original iÍi location, size, configuration, and external appearance . The development was in existence and use at the time of adoption of the W ashin~on State Shoreline Management Act Oune 1971). The replacement is completed within two (2) years after damage. , i ~.. ! b. c. 7. Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to a single family residence, provided the bulkhead is constructed at or near, and parallel to, the ordinary high water mark. A normal protective bulkhead is constructed to protect land from erosion, not for the purpose of creating land. When a vertical or near vertical wall is being constructed or reconstruéted, not more than one cubic yard of fill per one foot of wall may be used as backfill. Where an existing bulkhead is being replaced, it shall be constructed no further waterward of the existing bulkhead than is, necessary for construction of new footings. When a bulkhead has deteriorated such that an ordinary high water mark has been established by ,the presence and action of water I.andward Q.f the bulkhead, then the replacement bulkhead must be located at or near. the actual ordinary high water mark. Beach nourishment and bioengineered erosion-control projects may be considered a normal protective bulkhead when any structural elements are consistent with the aþove requirements and when the project has been approved by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 24 a. The aCtivity does not interfere with the normal public use of the surface waterSj b. The 'activity will have no significant adverse Ï1npact on the environment including but not limited to fISh, wildlife, fish or Wildlife habitat, water quality, and aesthetic values; c. The activitý does not involve the installation of aI)Y structure, and upon completion of the activity the vegetation and land configuration of the site are restored to conditions existing before the activityj 'd. A private entity seeking development authorization under this section first posts a performance bond or provides ~her evidence of financial responsibility to the local jurisdiction to ensure tliat the site is restored to preexisting conditionsj and - , . e. The activity is not subject to the permit requirements of RCW 90.58.550 for oil or natural gas exploration in marine waters. 17. The process of removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds, as defmed in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final environmental impact statement published by the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Ecology joindy with other state agencies under chapter 43.21C RCW. 18. Watershed restoration projects as defined herein. Local gove~t shall review the , projects for consistency with the shoreline master program in an expeditious manner ~d shall issue its decision along with any conditions within forty-five days of receiving all materials necessary to review the request for exemption from the applicant. No fee may be charged for accepting and processing requests for exemption for watershed restoration projects as used in this section. a. "Watershed restoration project" means a public or private project authorized by the sponsor of a watershed restoration plan that implements, the plan or a part of the plan and consists of one or more of the following activities: (1) A project that involves less than ten miles of streamreach, in which less than twenty-five cubic yards of sand, gravel, or soil is removed, imported, disturbed or discharged, and in which no existing vegetation is removed except as minimally necessary to facilitate additional ~antin~j . (2) A project for the restoration of an eroded or unstable stream bank that employs the principles of bioengineering, including limited use of rock as a stabilization only at the toe of the bank, and with primary emphasis n on using native vegetation to control the erosive forces of flowing waterj or (3) A project primarily designed to improve fish and wildlife habitat, remove or reduce impediments to migration of fish, or enhance the fishery resource available for use by all of the citizens of the state, provided that any structure, other than a bridge or culvert or instream habitat enhancement structure associated with the project, is less than 26 two hundred square feet in floor area and is located above the ordinary high water mark of the stream. , b. ·Watershed restoration plan- ¡means a plan, developed or sponsored by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Ecology, the. Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Transportatiqn, a federally recognized Indian tribe acting within and pursuant to its authority; a city, a county, a port, or a cOnservation district that provides a general program and implementation measures or actions for the preservation, restoration, re-creation, or enhancement of the natural tesources, character, and ecology of a stream, , stream segment, drainage ard. or watershed for which agency arid public review has been conducted pursuant to chaptei- 43.21 RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act. . 19. A public or private project, the primary purpose of whiCh is to improve ftshor wildlife habitat or fish passage, when all of the following apply: a. The project has been approved in writing by the Department of Fish and Wildlife as necessary for the improvement of the habitat or passage and appropriately designed and sited to accomplish the intended purpose. b.' The project has received hydraulic project appro~ by the Department of Fish and. Wildlife under RCW 75.20~ c. The local government has determined that the' p~ject is consistent with the local shoreline master program. The local government shall make such determination in a timely manner and provide it by letter to the project proponent. 20. , Hazardous substance remedial actions: The procedural requirements of RCW 90.58 shan not apply to a project for which á consent decree, order or agreed order has been issued under RCW 70.105D RCW or to the Department of Ecology when it conduèts a remedial action under RCW 70.1051]) RCW~ The department shall, in consultation with the appropriate local government, assure that such. projects comply with the substantive requirements of RCW 90.58, WAC 173-26 and this Master Program. 27