HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 Quilcene/Dabob Bays Watershed Action PlanH
WP T
ACTION PLAN
DepartmenE- of Cc oLogy Approved June, 1991
Prepared by
Qui1cene /Dabob Bays Watershed
Management Committee,
Jefferson County
Lead agency contact:
Cj -ai.g Ward, Di.reet -car
Jefferson County Planning and Building
Department
PO Box 1220
Port Townsend, WA 38368
(206) 385 -3140
This project was funded in part by a grant
from the
Washington State Department of Ecology
w
II I i
l
(,
W A S H I N 6 T 0 N STATE
I
0 E P A R T M E N T OF
E C O L O G Y
cc P t CC-6p, rb) 10-10 - q1
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
STATE OF WASHINGTON
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PLANNING 9 RIJII_DING DEPT,
OCT 10 1991
In the matter of the adoption RESOLUTION NO. 96 -91
of the Quilcene /Dabob Bays
Watershed Action Plan
WHEREAS, the Puget. Sound Water Quality Authority has
-
,dentified nonpoir:t source pollution as a significant contaminant
Of Pucaet Sound, and has called for local governments to plan for
the contro': of nonpoi r't source pollution and for the Washington
State De!:�,artmert. of Ecology to provide funds to assist this effort;
and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Ecology
established an Early Action Watershed Program and invited
apal i cat ions from local governments for grant assistance to prepare
watershed action plans for the control of nonpoint source
pollutior; and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County nominated Quilcene /Dabob Bays
Watershed as the candidate early action watershed and in October
1 9S7 entered into a grant agreement with the Washington State
Department of Ecology to prepare an action plan for the
Quilcene %Dabob Bays Watershed; and
WHEREAS, the Ouilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Management
Cor-r,ittee, consisting of community, tribal, county and other
governmental representat.ive�, was established to guide development
of t.t-re Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Action Plan: and
WHEREAS, a public review process was carried out consisting
Of direct mailings, newpaper publications, comments on draft
recommendations, and a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, a Determination of Nonsignificant Impact has been
prera ed and issued for the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Action
P 1 F,Ii f c., i 1 ow-i no the c rocess set forth in Chapter 197-11-340 (2) of
the WaFr;not.on State Administ.rat.ive Coce and the Jefferson County
-:t, nc? Ut-c i nay -,ce State Env i ronmer.tal Policy Act, Ordinance
No, 7 -c.4 ; ano
WHEREAS, all community orgarizatiors, county departments and
other oovernmenta-i agenc.es responsible for implementing
recommendations in the Action Plar have formally concurred with the
Ouilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Action Plan and its recommendations;
NOW, THER 'EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF JEFFERSON COUi T`r
COMr11SSI0NERS: that tree Quilcene /Dabob B�::ys Watershed Action Plan
for the control and prevention of nonocint source water pollution
is hereby adopted. A fectec county departments and implementing
agencies shall wort together to ir,plement. the Action Flan
recommerdat.i ons for which they are responsible. The Qui 1 cene /Dabob
Bays Watershed Action Plan shall also serve to guide Jefferson
County and ether governmental or community organizations in the
protection or improvement of water quality in the Quilcene /Dabob
Bays Watershed.
ADOPTED THIS DAY OF / - -- 1991.
SEALz' r
1 +
ATTE T -
orna L. Delaney,
Clerk of the Board
JEFFERSON C UNTY
;BOARD OF COMM cIONERS
Larry Dennison, Chairman
B.G. Brown, Member
Excused Absence
Richard E. Wojt, Member
V
STATE OF W?SHINCON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Mai! Stop PV -11 . Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459.6"
June 18, 1991
7e�ferson County Board of C01-1117 Commissioners
Post Office Box 1220
Port To ,w-nse^d, WA 98363
Dear Commissioners:
hTy compliments to the QuiiceneiDabob Bay Watershed bfanagement Corn. ^•.ir•e - and its staff
for all the hard work that has ;one into the preparation of the final version of the
Quilcene/Dabob Bay Watershed Action Plan.
The most recent revision has greatly improved the plan. The staff s efforts are especially
noteworthy given our extensive comments on earlier drafts.
The plan has been reviewed by staff from Ecology's Office of Water and Shorelands and
found to meet applicable requirements of the rule for Local Planning and Man cement of
Nonpoint Source Pollution (Chapter =A0 -12 WAC). While 11-2 re are severa- it ,.-'s described
in the Ecology staff report that should be addressed, these are not significant enough to
warrant further delay or to apply conditions prior to plan approval. Therefore, the plan is
approved. Please note the enclosed Ecology Review Committee report prior to reprinting the
plan so that the changes described in the report can be made. We would like to see your
progress in addressing the other comments discussed in your annual reports to Ecology.
As the lead isglementt g enti j, 7efferson County will have responsibility to oversee plan
implementation, submit annual reports to Ecology, and meet the other requirements l conduct an
implementation set forth in the Nonpoint Source Pollution Rule. Ecology
audit of plan implementation and effectiveness every two years. The first audit is anticipated
in June of 1993.
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
Page 2
We look forward to the successful implementation of the plan and its water quality protection
benefits in Jefferson County and Hood Canal. On behalf of Ecology, I extend a special thank
you to everyone involved in the development of the plan.
Sincerely,
Wirector
A
Water and Shorelands
CJ :lb
Enclosures
cc: Kathy Minsch, PSWQA
a
A REPORT OF THE ECOLOGY REVIEW COMMITTEE ON THE FINAL QUILCci�IE /DABOB BAY
WATERSHED ACTION PLAN,- MAY 1991 VERSION
An Ecology review committee, consisting of Tim Determan and Bob Duffy
met during the months of May and June, 1991 to discuss and evaluate the
Quilcene/Dabob Bay Watershed Action Plan.
The plan was read by Ecology reviewers, comments on previous drafts of
the plan were examined, plan revisions were analyzed, statements of
concurrence were evaluated, and the plan was compared with the
requirements of Chapter 400 -12 WAC.
Ecology `s review committee report consists of two sections:
"Determinations Pursuant to the Process for Final Approval of Watershed
Action Plans, November 19$9," and "Detailed Comments." The Process for
Approval provides procedural guidance to Ecology staff regarding the
review of watershed management committee approved plans. Detailed
comments are developed as a result of review committee analysis of'a
olan.
Because the 7-colog-y review committee feels the plan is as consistent as
practicable with the rule and meets t::e criteria in the Ecology Process
for Final Approval of Watershed Action Plans, we recommend that the plan
be approved. However, we have some concerns with the plan which are
described in the detailed comments section of this report. We feel that
our minor concerns could be easily addressed prior to the final printing
of the plan and that our other concerns should be addressed within the
upcoming years.
Tim Determan, Committee-Member
Bob Duffy, Comm ttee Member
' Date of Report: June 4, 1991
File: Management Section - BDQDRPT
FINAL QUILCEN /DABOB BAY WATMSHED ACTION PL ;; - F-AY 1991 VM SION
ECOLOGY PLAN REVIEW DETERMINATIONS PURSUANT TO ECOLOGY PROCESS FOR FINAL
APPROVAL OF WATERSHED ACTION PLANS (NOVEMBER 1989)
1. The Plan has been reviewed against the provisions of Chanter 400 -
12 WAC. The Plan is as consistent as practicable with Chapter 400 -
12 WAC. (This follows the provisions of WAC 400 -12 -120.)
2. The Plan is consistent with the goals and requirements of the
Puget Sound Water Quality Hanagement Plan (PS;:Qh?) , and
specifically, the Nonpoint Source Pollution chapter of the PSwQ'�.P.
3. The imtlementation strategy is feasible and adequate to control
nonpoint sources of pollution and protect beneficial uses.
/ IWtlemEn =_ e ^•t�t_e5 tarOL'�� t El s �= -` =e .t5 0= c0^ �_ = C' ,
..
have tti 1t L"^..
ie auzho V and c01t�e:it t0 1= =le=e ^.t t 2 Pla ^.
S. The public has been involvad and has participatad in the
development of the Plan. Public participation is doc e::_Ed i ^-
the Plan.
6. The Plan complies with applicable state and federal laws.
File MS:BDQDRPT
FINAL QUILCENE/DABOB BAY WATERSHED ACTION PLAN - MAY 1991 VERSION
DETAILED DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY COMMENTS ON THE PLAN
General Comments
The Review Committee feels that a workable plan has been produced
despite the several staff changes and other constraints the watershed
committee faced. Therefore, we recommend that the plan be approved. We
feel that only a few minor changes, as noted below, need to be made
prior to the final printing of the plan. Our longer term concerns are
also described below.
Specific Comments
Changes made now should be included in a final (not draft final)
printing of the Plan• ibe minor changes we recommend are that in any
addendum and /or reprint oL L
the Plan, the Plan should rearenCe that
Ecology has approved, the Plan and tLa approval date, ir, or-der- to a-.oia
confusion with earlier editions of the plan.
S of the p1a ^ ^. that wi _ 7 ter
In our opinion, the area
include wOr
possible refinement of the plan implementation strategy and
enhancement of the plan assessment methodology. Some actions may need
to be revised, if adequate progress is not made, especially in two key
areas: on -site sewage disposal and agricultural practices. In
addition, we are concerned about the long term adequacy of sediment
control actions, and believe that forestry and development categories
may also require revised actions if current problems do not improve
significantly. The status and progress in these areas of the plan
should be carefully tracked and reported to Ecology in the County's
annual reports. Ecology staff should be consulted as longer terra work
is conducted.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose of the Watershed Action Plan .......................... .............................1.
Background................................................................... .............................1.
Nonpoint.Source Pollution in the Puget Sound ............. .............................1.
NonpcintSource Controls .............................................. .............................2.
WatershedRanking ........................................................ .............................2.
Watershed Management Committee and Public
Participation............ ................................................... .............................3.
ActionPlan Goals and Objectives .................................. ..............:..............5.
BeneficialUses of the Watershed .................................. .............................5.
Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in the
QuiI cane/ 3abob Bays Wat ershed .................................... .............................5.
Recommended kcticn Pian for
Quilcere /Cabo b S-=ys Waters, ed ................................... ..............................7
Summary cf Estimated Costs of Reccmmenda icnc ........ ...............................
3G.
A�r tic'. clan i;ev�e�,v and rip lJ royal ' ir�rvCc. S. i ...................... ............................16.
Acoo^�clisn m:2nts . LaI_ ................................................ ............................16.
Action Plan Evaivatic n ................................................... ............................17.
ActionPlan `= a'al uatJon Committee ................................... ............................17.
Lead Agency Implementation Status Report ................... ............................13.
.m.piamenting Agency Implementation Status Report .................... ..............
; 8.
'
Long Term Water Quality Assessment ............................. ............................18.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF EXISTING WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS AND POLICIES
Federal........................................................................... ............................19.
State............................................................................ ............................... 20.
Local............................................................................... ............................21.
Recommendations............................................................ ............................22.
CHAPTER THREE
WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION AND WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
WatershedCharacterization ............................................ ............................26.
Locationand Topography ............................................... ............................26.
Geology........................................................................... ............................26.
Climate............................................................................ ............................27.
Existing Patterns of Land and Water Use ....................... ............................27.
WaterQuality Assessment .............................................. ............................31.
Jefferson County Monitoring Program Parameters ......... ............................32.
GeneralConclusions........................................................ ............................34.
SiteSpecific Conclusions ................................................ ............................35.
Source Activities and Impairments to Beneficial Uses .... ............................46.
RecommendedResearch ................................................... ............................56.
PAGE
CHAPTER FOUR
ACTION PLAN SOURCE CONTROLS
ImplementationStrategy ................................................. ............................57.
'
ImplementingAgencies .................................................... ............................57.
SourceControls ........ ............................... .................... ............................57.
On -Site Septic Systems ................................................... ............................58.
AgriculturalPractices ..................................................... ............................62.
Sedimentation, Erosion and Flooding ............................... ............................65.
Seals................................................................................ ............................69.
Marinasand Boats ........................................................... ............................70.
HazardousWaste .............................................................. ............................73.
Wetlands.......................................................................... ............................74.
Stormwater...................................................................... ............................74.
OtherAction Plan El ements ............................................. ............................7A.
CHAPTER FIVE
ACTION PLAN EVALUATION
ActionPlan Evaluation .................................................... ............................78.
Action Plan Evaluation Committee ................................... ............................79.
LeadAgency Annual Reports .......................................... ............................79.
Implementing Agencies Status Reports ........................... ............................79.
Evaluation of Alternatives Should Source
ControlsProve Ineffective .............................................. ............................79.
LongTerm Water Quality Assessment .............................. ............................SC.
APPENDICES
Statementsof Concurrence....._ ........................................ .............................A"
SEPADocuments ........................................................... ............................... B
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1, Monitoring Station Locations ............................ ............................37.
Figure 2, Shaw Easement Monitoring Station Locations ... ............................38.
Figure 3, Monitoring Data Summary, 1986 - 1987 ................ ............................39.
Figure 4, Monitoring Data Summary, 1986- 1989 ................ ............................42.
Figure 5, Monitoring Data Summary, Shaw Easement ........ ............................44.
iv.
Prologue
The Quilcene and Dabob Bays watershed is comprised of all the lands
and waters that drain into these bays. In days gone b-y, the
natural functioning of the system was sufficient to maintain clean
water in the rivers and bays and the capacity of the watershed to
assimilate wastes was taken for granted.
In the face of population growth and intensive resource management,
water quality can no longer be taken for granted. Many individual
actions within the watershed can and do affect water quality as a
whole. In other words, individual landowner's activities may
affect both private and public property downstream. Since water
quality affects shellfish, groundwater, salmon and trout,
recreation, and other aquatic resources, the maintenance anc
enhancement of water quality has become a priority.
To _ large extent, the rivers and creeks which flow into the
watershed determine its health. One of the most important factors
in maintaining water quality is to maintain healthy riparian zones,
the l and i rnmec i ate 1 y adjacent to rivers and creeks . we l i vegetates
ri car tan zones naturally control erosion and filter cciiutants
before they can enter the creek and thence the bay. They also
increase the value of the land both economically and as fish and
wildlife habitat.
The most important factor to grasp in order to understand planning
for the prevention of non -point pollution is that water, seals,
salmon, and other fish and wildlife are all public resources and
that the public has a right to their conservation. The public's
right to clean water must be weighed against individual freedoms
and private property rights. In the ideal situation clean water,
individual freedoms, anc private prooerty rights will all be
maintained. This ideal can be achieved by instituting fair
management practices and effective public education.
_ In the case of the Quilcene /Dabob watershed, we are fortunate in
that we do not face a crisis situation. However, there are strong
indications of trouble afoot in the streams and in the marine
embayments themselves. If we can all agree that we want to
maintain and enhance our fisheries and continue to harvest
commercial and recreational shellfish, then we must act to correct
existing non -point source pollution problems and act to prevent
severe problems from occuring as they have in other watersheds in
the Puget Sound region.
i.
There are no major point sources of water pollution such as sewage
treatment plants or major industrial outfalls in the watershed.
The focus of this Action Plan is on the control of non - point
sources to maintain water quality in general and to protect
shellfish beds in particular.
The word reap comes from the same root as riparian, and, indeed,
if we have healthy riparian zones, we can continue to reap the
benefits of shellfish, salmon and trout, wildlife, productive
fields and forests, and clean water.
ii.
Chaater One
INTRCDUCT CN AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF THE WATERSHED ACTION PLAN
The purpose of the Quilcene /Dabob Watershed Action Plan is to identify nonpoint _
sources of pollution within the watershed and develop control measures to reduce
or prevent those nonpoint sources, with the objective of protecting or enhancing
water quality within the streams and tributaries of the watershed and,
consequently, Puget Sound.
SACKGROUND
The .watershed planning process followed in the formulation of t..-,;s plan was
develaced by the Puget Sound 'hater Quality Authority in respc ^. =: to requirements
of the Federai C:aan Water Act (1,912), later rea'- chorized as the Federal Water
Quality Act (1937). The Puget Sound W�,t_r Quality Authority was created by the
1985 Washington State under Chapter 90.70 Revised Code of Washington.
The Autncrity zveiopea a Puget Sound Water Ouaiity Management Plan in 1987
(revised in i939 and 1991), which identified key concerns and recommended
remedial St'- ategies for PUgeL SGunc, ;,ncludin_ an innovative watershed action
oianning grogram to identify and rank Puget Sound watersheds for nonpoinc'
pGiIUL':Gn C: nLrCi anc °cr Jeveioping watershed aCticr. plans in prioritized
watersheds.
e =goat Scuric water Cualit./ Authority deveiaced a State regulation to govern
the waters. ^,ec Planning program, effective 1988; C~actar e -00 -1' Washington
Adrinistrative Code, Local Planning and Management of Ncneoint Source Pollution.
The program is to be implemenLec, on the local government level, by each of the
twelve counties, or other appropriate agency, adjoining Puce: Sound.
The watershed action planning program and 400 -12 regulation are administered by
the Washington State Decartment of Ecology. Funding is provided through
Deoar- .went of Ecoiogy's Centennial Clean Water Fund. Seventy five per cant of the
funding for watershed action planning projects are provided by the Depar':m ent I
Ecology grant, the remaining twenty five per cant of the project funds are
provided by the participating county or other lead agency. Most counties adjacent
to Puget Sauna are currentiy participating in this watershed planning grant
p ro g ram.
NCNPOINT SCURCS POLLUTION IN THE PUGET SCUND
Nonpoint source pollution is typically defined as pollution not discharged through
pipes. Consequently, nonpoint source pollution is difficult to identify and isolate
because it derives from numerous,. dispersed activities.
1.
In Puget Sound, research done by the Puget Sound Water . Quality Authority r
indicates nonpoint pollution can be divided into various source activities related
to either land or water use.. These source activities include agriculture, forestry,
on -site septic systems, urban runoff, marinas and recreational boating. The
combination of many small sources of nonpoint pollution from any or all of the
source activities can result in significant water quality degradation within each
watershed. Nonpoint source pollutants can accumulate in sciis or groundwater, are
largely transported by rainfall, surface runoff or streamfiow and ultimately flow
into Puget Sound to damage shellfish and other resources.
NONPOiNT SOURCE CONTROLS
The watershed action planning projects initiated by Chapter 400 -12 WAC document
the existence of nonpoint source pollution problems, identify source activities and
recommend aooropriate control methods. The control methods for nonpoint source
water pollution are referred to as •'best management practices" or BMPS, a term
originated ir: the regulations of the =ederal Clean Water Act. BMPs are a practice
or comoination of oractices determined by an agency to b2 the most effective means
of oreventing or reducing pollution generated by nonpoint Sources. An example
BMP is a strsamside vegctavve ouffer to help filter the sediments and pollutants
,cein % washed I r,re stream from the surrcundirc lane. BMPs can be comoined
reC'..li :v S aric incenvves tC achieve a m X G. bcVi structural and
bei,avic-ral h—, �
or ver,ent8 in the manacement Of source activities contr;muting to
Scurce ccrtrois in eacn '. azersnec must reccgn _c and aCdreSs the Unicue
interacticr of the watersnec's pnysical /bicioCicai properties and its predominant
land an,:: water us-as. 1 *rus, eac: watersred action piar is tailcred to it's own
cnarictaristics and needs.
W F' ZSHE R IAN "I"I (71
tn, ' ?Rv, tine State Decartrnent cf Ecciocy recuestec rorrinaticns from iocai
-:Over nrnent: __ ide ^tif`i early adder. • watersinets to receive immediate grant_
f =;ncing for actior• cunning of -GrtS. The Jefferson County SOard of hcmmissioners
nominated the QuiIcene /Oabob Eays Watershed based on the findings of earlier
water duality grant studies for shellfish protection in that watershed. These
findings recognized the significant natural and commercial shelifisn resources in
Quiicene Say, and the tact that the north portion of Quilcene Say is one of two
sneiifisr, areas in Jefferson County curre!ivy decertified by the Washington State
O,oar-"ien of I"ealtr because of bacterial pollution co"tamiInation lbesices those
mandat' ry si^,silfisn closures for Sewage treatment out-aii and marina areas?.
The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners identified the Jefferson
Planning and Building Department as the lead agency for the "early action"
Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Action Plan project. The Quilcene /Dabob Bays
Watershed Action Plan project was initiated by a grant agreement with the
Washington State Department of Ecology in October, 1987.
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
As per Chapter 400 -12 WAC, the formation of a local watershed management
committee was requisite for meaningful public involvement in the watershed
planning process. A well - balanced representation of local watershed interests was
sought. In January, 1988 public advertisements were placed in The Port Townsend
Leader and The Port Angeles Daily News to inform and invite the public to
par -icipate in the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Management Committee and
watershed planning process. Flyers and letters were written to thirty one local
residents and jurisdictional agencies. In February, 1988 the Jefferson County
Board of Commissioners forinaiiy convened the Watershed Management Committee
(WMC) to develop an action plan for the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed. This
project was accomplished through a series of 13 meetings held in Quilcene from
Feoruary to August 1988. A public meeting was held in Quilcene in September, 1988
to review the Draft Action Plan. Three additional WMC meetings were held in early
1989 to revise the Draft Action Plan based on comments received from affected
agencies and the public. The WMC revised the Draft,Action Plan in March 1989 and
the Plan was adopted by Jefferson County in August 1989.
The Watershed Management Committee made up a broad representation of watershed
residents and affected agencies:
Watershed Residents Barbara Fisk
Dan Foster (Co- Chair)
Jerry Getz
John Pedersen
Marilyn Pedersen (Cc- Chair)
Bernice Phillips
Jerry Phillips
Jan Shriner
Dcn Ward
Lorna Ward
Jefferson County
Board of Commissioners: George Brown
3.
Jefferson County
Conservation District:
Glen Huntingford
Al Jakeway
-
Frank Petrich
Jefferson County
Planning and Building
Department:
John Heal (Secretary)
Point No Point
Treaty Council:
Holly Coccol i
Steve Ralph
Washington State
Department of
Natural Resources:
Bob Burk eiand
Mike Cronin
Washington Forest
Protection Association:
Ken Hillman
Washington State
Department of Fisheries:
Randy Johnson
Washington State
Department of Wildlife:
Mike Ragon
Tim Rymer
Watershed Business:
Coast Oyster Company
Tom Bet-Linger
U.S. Forest Service:
Steve Rickets
4.
ACTION PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Watershed Management Committee developed the goals and objectives of the
Action Plan. The goal of the plan, as stated, is to protect or enhance the water
quality of the watershed and, consequently, Puget Sound.
Objectives identified to achieve that goal were: assess the beneficial uses of the
watershed; assess the nonpoint pollution problems in the watershed; assess the
source activities in the watershed; evaluate alternative source controls; and to
conduct routine monitoring of fresh and saltwater stations in the watershed to
provide both baseline watershed data and a means of determining the success of
source controls over time.
BENEFICIAL USES OF THE WATERSHED
The following beneficial uses of the watershed were identified by the WMC:
I . Shellfish
2. Salmon, trout and other fisheries
3. Forest products
L. Recreation (including sshellfish, swimming, and boating)
5. Residential ( inciuding drinking water and sewage disposal)
6. Agriculture
7. Businesses, employment, and economic stability
3. Wildlife
9. Aesthetics
10. Wetlands
Realizing that all of the watershed uses above were, in some way, dependent upon
clean water gave an important new perspective to the everyday, sometimes
unconcious activities we all engage in that contribute to water pollution.
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION IN QUILCENE /DABOB BAYS WATERSHED
A predominantly rural watershed with over 250 miles of stream and Hood Canal
shoreline, Quilcene /Dabob land use is roughly 60 per cent timberland, 30 per cent
clear cut, 5 per cent urban /residential /commercial and 5 per cent farm /pasture.
There are no major point sources of water pollution such as sewage treatment
plants or major industrial outfails in the watershed.
Water quality in the freshwater streams and saltwater bays of Quilcene /Dabob Bays
Watershed is classified as "AA" or "Extraordinary" by the Washington State
Department of Ecology.
5.
Three major perennial streams discharge into the head of Quilcene Bay. During
periods of moderate to high precipitation the combined discharge of -the Big
Quilcene River, the Little Quilcene River, and Donovan Creek can exceed 1,000 cfs.
Numerous small or intermittent streams also discharge into the bay.
One major stream, Tarboo Creek, discharges into Dabob Bay. Numerous small or
intermittent streams also discharge into this bay.
Both Quilcene and Dabob Bays support commercial shellfish operations. Much of the
state's shellfish industry relies on the two bays' natural production of oyster seed
for culture operations. Manila clams are also harvested by oyster growers in Dabob
Bay.
Though water quality tended to degrade during a storm event, primarily due to
pollutants being flushed into stream bodies by surface water runoff, water quality
monitoring initiated by the Jeffersor. County Planning and Building Department's
Water Quality Program generally confirmed a high level of water quality, with the
following exceptions:
in 1985, Washington State Department of Health initiated a decertification (closure;
for commercial growing /harvest of shellfish in the north portion of Quilcene Bay
owing to fecal coliform bacterial contamination attributed to the freshwater inputs
of the Little Quilcene River and Donovan Creek (1).
Water auality monitoring conducted by Jefferson County Planning and Building
Department in the watershed from February 1986 to
December, 1988 found that fecal coliform levels violate state standards for Class AA
waters at the north end of Quilcene Bay intermittently and are occasionally high,
although not in violation of state standards, at the north end of Dabob Bay ( Tarboo
Bay). Water quality generally tested as excellent at stations througout the
remainder of both bays.
Fecal coliform levels violate state standards at various freshwater stations along
Donovan, Jakeway and Tarboo Creeks, and Cemetery Drain. Violations in these
stream segments were generally attributed to adjacent agricultural properties,
particularly where animals had unrestricted access to the stream, and to
malfunctioning on -site septic systems (2).
1. Cook, Kirk, 1984. Water Quality Study of Quilcene Bay, Jefferson County
Department of Social and Health Services, Office of Environmental Health
Programs, Shellfish Program.
2. Pat Rubida, Jefferson County Water Quality Technician, personal communication.
6.
CHAPTER TWO
ANALYSIS Or EXISTING PROGRAMS
A
Adding to the bacterial loading of the marine water -from freshwater inputs that
flush into the north end of Quilcene Bay, is the bacterial input from an estimated
200 and growing population of harbor seals utilizing a Pope and Talbot logging
company log boom, which is also located in the north end of Quilcene Bay (3).
Other marine input of bacteria is assumed to derive from the Quilcene Marina,
Tribal and non- Indian recreational and commercial boating related to Hood Canal's
annual shrimp and salmon fisheries, and pleasure boating in the bays.
RECOMMENDED ACTION PLAN FOR QUILCENEIDABCS BAYS WATERSHED
The source control programs in this Plan will correct and prevent problems with
septic systems, assist landowners in controlling agricultural wastes, involve local
government and the public in forest practices and stream enhancement, more
preciseiy detarmine the impact of seais, lead to better control of pollution from
boats and from hazardous wastes, and support environmental education programs
that inculcate an understanding of the importance of water quality and renewable
resource management.
The foliowing is a summary of the Action Plan source controls as negotiated with
a variety of implementing agencies. The summary includes a description of the
recommended actions, estimated implementation costs, the source(s) of funding, and
and notes the completion, when applicabie, of the recommended actions to date.
3. Cascadia Research Collective, 1987. Harbor Seal Populations and Their
Contribution of Fecal Coliform Pollution in Quilcene Bay, Washington.
7.
�t
0
�.0
a �1
O�L
n
r
I
'D
¢A
o N
Lo S>`}'pN +)O S���s C O 0 N 4a� N� C °o C')
o1 o° t-F+c�3t � aon.o by �'j g � ooao
�.;�) joy N 001 C `Lu � Ui+u O :p "O�+ '���� po pM
-• � � fn IL � OD —E � 8 O� .D � � � Q� �] � u1 J � • ,
a�
X640
m a• o00
4J
4.1 N O
V N "0 . -)
c'm °'a.r
2oALu
i
N
U)
LL .'
'..
4A
-4j
on.,
In
-0�
U 1
2
�
N
U7 II II '
.0 ro
L 0
co
C
73 to
Z
A4'
rg
a �1
O�L
n
r
I
'D
¢A
o N
Lo S>`}'pN +)O S���s C O 0 N 4a� N� C °o C')
o1 o° t-F+c�3t � aon.o by �'j g � ooao
�.;�) joy N 001 C `Lu � Ui+u O :p "O�+ '���� po pM
-• � � fn IL � OD —E � 8 O� .D � � � Q� �] � u1 J � • ,
a�
X640
m a• o00
4J
4.1 N O
V N "0 . -)
c'm °'a.r
2oALu
r
C
a.
Z. Zl
A A
' ,
E
N
pO
p�O
U
g0
b
N
bo
-P u 0.
- 9 +.
bo
o � �
p `a n3
N
0
�
u11 1
�-5
ro
cs _
E
� L
In O U
�O
O
Iri
k4 —
Ul
�41
CL
C
0
M
bag
-41 41
A A pg. 8
i
N
U)
LL .'
'..
4A
-4j
on.,
In
-0�
2
�
N
.D
.0 ro
r
C
a.
Z. Zl
A A
' ,
E
N
pO
p�O
U
g0
b
N
bo
-P u 0.
- 9 +.
bo
o � �
p `a n3
N
0
�
u11 1
�-5
ro
cs _
E
� L
In O U
�O
O
Iri
k4 —
Ul
�41
CL
C
0
M
bag
-41 41
A A pg. 8
It
•
-�
LU 4J �� •J F3
a c Q• o _
E
t
� a
rn
C1Z Z Ld41 4-1
J°boN
1g I
rn
— N J
0
v
CN
°o to
o
D
Lt -jO41�W•J �
OD�Okt
�U
jj
CC
L
N�
J
0
cd
} O 111
O td
4-
{
N
c O
t
.J (1
00
.
4-1 In
'Q
•Q
0
v
41
°o to
o
D
Lt -jO41�W•J �
OD�Okt
�U
jj
CC
L
N�
QU q-
cd
} O 111
O td
1�
N
-0 .
t
.J (1
-i S
_-
4J 1- �L
088 ul
•Q
.J 4J
(n N O J
�o -jrn
C� Srd�'
44-- J
1 V 41 41 ° ld
O D
CL
.� LL
o
O .J .�
z ;1
C -1
J�
�"(�-
J .
,-1
L
CC
L
N�
cd
} O 111
O td
1�
N
-0 .
-i S
.J
c"
•Q
o�
�o -jrn
N
O D
CL
.� LL
o
N
C -1
.N
N
_
2
4.J
U
-�
U
9
.a
(3
cl a
n
p�p
C \
J
4
Ln U
�I
J
CD
ul
N E N � N O LL 4 LL 4)
.S � " (�
J a� 1� N t � L
�! .J F mo
N QN O -
C N N N U
O
Lit J•4l J J JLtJ[110 ...IG�
LL roro
.J 4- j O O y
O LL.
O O °O -j
N L E O .J N Eft (n -1-+ L
7t' �u U��Ni u N cep
N O ui LO
�} r �] tU EFr IJ LL U e4
a.J
'L N
> L by cJU 41 N J �J
iJ O C N IJ
J 4- U
En sc -En
�o ���'-�
oc��
..j O ni
J L
ca
� Q..c c -C -4J
U
) Q
� U
N4J N� � I �
IA
6 "J 1 2 �4� 1.
pg . 10
i
o
A
U
N
N
J �
U)
N
J
N
N
J
J
J
tJ� �Q
V V4J
U
41ZI�
Z,
A
pg . 10
i
0
ba-
b0� • pJG� . 1d + 46 Zq + DO ro po 4..1
L 4- (13 y 0
J .
4J F- p . p F+ 4) 4+ .y
t9
_- bt
�- r�
LO
LO �� � 4
- .J 4 Q N -
. v 4.3
LL
-D
4-
O
{1 ( C-0
cans
WOE- DO
-�S ro CL
�'
O > 4-3 o O L CN
4- U q--
I L
o � �§
J Q J J 41 ro r' C
Ul
d
r
1+ "O L J r
DO� J �40 U
a u�L .S c 0 CL LL 02) -° dpi
N th r r to c0
r r r
4J
.�
U a � i D°
1 C
(g V p UU1
J
• �J �m c °O10, � CL
M ov -C P 0 m c pg. ,1
r�
In
IL • •
� O
•
•
•
O
b8�
�Jj Z7
J
-418
UI ^
4J
O
cn
o
`F-
.J
a3i U
LJc.
E, � L
cn Oro0
In
-N
r
J
N
U
N
C
m
O
Ll
N
U
L
r
N
CN
L
ro�
N
i
ro
L1
U 0]
U
J
NJ
5�
N
>a�
O
r
N
o �N
JOL
(a o
ro
'o
tQ
M L
� U
c 0
�0 c
ro
-5
O s
GO
DAD
�
N
..Xi
J
�xx 0
p CTI cn
� �
N
.J
w 0
c o
X
41
r
L6
s
U1
Q
J
�.Jx
-418
UI ^
4J
O
cn
o
`F-
.J
a3i U
LJc.
E, � L
cn Oro0
In
-N
r
J
N
U
N
C
m
O
Ll
N
U
L
r
N
CN
L
ro�
N
i
ro
L1
U 0]
U
J
NJ
5�
N
>a�
O
r
Gl
N
pp
JOL
(a o
ro
�g
tQ
M L
� U
c 0
�0 c
N
U
U
Ul
�
a
�
J
'f
CL
N
.J
J
c o
1 3
41
-�
ro
s
U1
Q
Gl
N
pp
JOL
(a o
ro
�g
tQ
M L
� U
c 0
�0 c
cNC
U
U
Ul
�
a
�
-ld
00
bD
N
.J
J
� A bso
1 3
4J .
D
W
ro
U1
C
.J
J
�.Jx
�
¢¢
t
It
L4L+ti
G
b�'
m .{
—
Ill
_
to GK to c a .D .
N
CN
N
pp
1
U)
(a o
N
O
�g
tQ
� W
� U
c 0
�0 c
J .11 L
a
�a: m pg. 12
ro L°n a
b
� °
,o
O �
N m
J >
U
.0
,o
J
Flo
�.J
ro
U1
C
.J
vi
V L .J
O
4-1 n
C
t1) 0
L4L+ti
G
N
CN
N
1
U)
(a o
N
O
�g
N4J L
� W
2
c 0
�0 c
J .11 L
a
�a: m pg. 12
u
O
:
r
J Q
• �.� N L L
O O C tD >• 4O- (4- 4-
po�
Q� N t �
E} Q.� W X W � W F A .n . � ad
4- J R
I O
O
.�
N J
N .J
O -
CL 4-
C�
t� C
ul
s J
N
N -j
J .J [ J
N
J
lV
M
fV
I
1
++
C.
Ooo.V)jj
�o a 4J
U"1 11� O
N
—j
4
O1 uj
Nss
-P
an.c
N�
Oro
_0
L
ro �
SL
bo
1 QL
4
U1
^
j c�
-J
J
�y�•
L
O
4-��
r
U -D
J.J
.O
W
ro
ca
°D
W
O
Q l
c L.
M
fV
I
N
�i
J Ly
a+ N
U
J
N
D�
i�
t
pg. 13
6
Ooo.V)jj
U"1 11� O
N
—j
6'0 O
T
O1 uj
-P
an.c
N
�i
J Ly
a+ N
U
J
N
D�
i�
t
pg. 13
L
l N �� LL - o
D E O cn t 7 Ul 41 LL
4" 4- O o 41 b0
1 cd �J Ol [ it o q F- 0 --1 4J F- .J 4; •i-e 1 l—
=D U, N N D Uf N �' n N b N 0 U) b
hLn :
a a
ro A
'� LA 4- 4-
N OLD L r W ro
43 ; c Q
LO
-�
o8 aLLI
a
++ c—'d L
�U4
4.
�(
� �
1rt
4 ; •iQ
N N N O
al
o
b N N
N N U1 .
O 8
pg- 14
'D
4. -P S iN "p •-per o -2 0
c� 0
0
S.+ 8
°�� w4j o o q_ 401
;� 0
tn
C
0
j
o� CL
{ J
Uo
C
_ ka
Q
cn
:{ M
N
C�
co
M
o
-N
.J
O UI
O�
z
�
•
J
t9
CD
co
o
41
O
� •J
o
O
O
.J
N
O
�
1
C
7
Q.
L
J
U1
u
O
"0
�cd L
b0
L
Ul
O J
0
:l1 (4—
O
000
old
J
Q
cn
:{ M
N
C�
co
M
e.
-N
.J
c
�
U
J
J
t9
pg. 1Jr
ACTION PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS
The Action Plan review and approval process is as follows:
1. Jefferson County submits Draft Action Plan to the Department of Ecology.
2. Within 60 days of receipt, Department of Ecology reviews the Draft Action Plan.
3. Affected agencies provide their comments to the County; the County
consolidates the results and presents them to the WMC.
4. The Department of Ecology meets with the WMC to discuss comments from
Ecology's preliminary review.
5. The Watershed Management Committee considers recommended revisions and
makes changes to Draft Action Plan as necessary.
6. The Revised Action Plan is forwarded by Jefferson County to affected
agencies.
7. A joint public hearing is conducted with affected agencies and the WMC.
°. Eaci^ a ency submits a statement of concurrence or nonconcurrence t0 the
WMC.
9. Within 60 days the WMC attempts to resolve stataments of nonconcurrrence and
prepares final revisions to the Action Plan.
10. The final Action Plan is forwarded to Jefferson County for review, approval,
and su=ittal to the Department of Ecoiogy.
11. Within 60 days, the Depart.m ent of Ecology approves all or any part of the
Action Plan.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE
• Jefferson County Water Quality Improvement Fund (low to moderate income
loan program for on -site septic repair or instailazion of agricultural
BMPs), set up and operating, June, 1990.
• Jefferson County Conservation District field technician hired 1990 and
1991.
• Jefferson County Conservation District pesticide monitoring program;
ongoi n g.
• Jefferson County Health Department identifying and mapping priority
areas for on -site septic system technical /financiai assistance efforts;
ongoing.
* Jefferson County Health Department implementing active water quality
education program including public and special interest group workshops,
Earth Day participation, reproduction and distribution of septic system
information phamphlets; ongoing.
16.
* Jefferson County Board of Commissioners complete Draft Jefferson County
Hazardous Waste Plan, spring, 1991.
* Jefferson County Public Works Department upgraded the Donovan Creek
culvert, fall, 1989.
* Jefferson County Planning and Building Department awarded
Department of Ecology Centennial Clean Water Fund grant for
Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Action Plan implementation, 1990.
* Jefferson County Public Works Department completed sediment transport
analysis of Big Quilcene River, winter, 1989.
* Jefferson County Planning and Building Department and Jefferson County
Health Department permit process /computer network completed, October,
1990.
• Hood Canal Coordinating Council completed one of two timberland
management workshops, fail, 1990; water quality workshop for tribal and
county staff, summer, 1590; Quilcene school education proiec„ spring,
1990; and installed boater's educational sign at the Quilcene Marina,
fal 1, 1989.
• Pleasant Harbor Marina installed new boar sewage dumpout facility and
replaced older, existing boat sewage pumpout facility, 1990.
* Jefferson County Water Quality Program presented an educational booth
at Jefferson County Fair, Spring Tree Extravaganza, and Quilcene Fair,
1990; co- sponsored Earth Day activities in 1990; published water quality
and Water Quality Improvement Fund articies in three area newspapers,
1990; co- soonsored two septic system/ water quality loan program
presentations in 1991; co- authored and presented conference paper on
the Jefferson County Water Quality Improvement Fund, spring, 1991.
ACTION PLAN EVALUATION
As time and physical changes in the watershed environment come to pass, an active
evaluation of the effectiveness, practicality and sustainability of Action Plan source
controls is important. Part of this evaluation process should be spent on
researching and considering alternative funding sources for effective source
controls and updating existing source controls with newly available technology.
ACTION PLAN EVALUATION COMMITTEE
An evaluation committee will be created to oversee the implementation of the Action
17.
Plan. The committee will evaluate the success of the Action Plan, its source
controls, and recommend changes or improvements to the Action Plan.
LEAD AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION STATUS REPORT
The Lead Agency for the Quiicene /Dabob Bays Watershed Action Plan process will
submit an annual status report on the implementation of source controls to the
Washington State Department of Ecology. Copies of this report shall also be made
available to the Action Plan Evaluation Committee and members of the original
Quiicene /Dabob Bays Watershed Management Committee.
IMPLEMENTING ^,GENCY STATUS REPORTS
=�Ch Imp €ementin agency responsible fcr effectng a source controi measure as
CGniirMad in in�;viduai Statements of Concurrence /Non-Concurrence will submit a
brief bi- yearly status report to thie Action Plan Evaluation Committee. The status
reports will preside a .:.leans or evaluating the success of each cf the source control
measures.
LONG TERM WAT =R QUALITY ASSESSMENT /MCNITORING PROGRAM
As lead agency for the watershed action planning project, Jefferson County
Planning and Building Department's Water Quality Program will be responsible for
coordinating all County monitoring programs in the Quiicene /Dabob Bays Watershed.
These monitoring programs may include data collected by the Washington State
Department of Health, the Washington State Department of Fisheries, and the
Timber /Fish /Wildlife stream survey process conducted by the Point No Point Treaty
Council.
A continuation of the watershed's ambient and storm event monitoring program will
be designed for the proposed Action Plan Implementation project, estimated. to take
place from 1990 to 1992.
18.
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners and the Quiicene /Dabob Bays Watershed
Management Committee undertook an active commitment to achieve an improvement
in water quality in the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed. As part of the
development of the Action Plan, a review of other agency efforts, programs and
regulations was made to recognize gaps or needs yet to be addressed, and
successes to be replicated or supported.
The following is a synopsis of that review.
FEDERAL
Federal Water Quality Act -
Provisions to eliminate pollutant discharges to U.S. waters. Section 401 requires
that federally permitT_ed activities comply with state water quality Standards.
SeC.ion 404 regulates discharge of dredged cr fill matariais into .U.S. waters.
Administered by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Provides the statute for
Washington State to respond individually to federal pollution control requirements;
a necessary overall framework for the state's Puget Sound watershed action
planning process.
National Environmental Policy Act -
Provisions for review cf environmental impac_s of federal projects or private
projects requiring federal permits Administered by the U.S. Council on
Environmental Quality. Provides the statute and guidance for state environmental
impact assessment: SEPA.
Coastal acne Management Ac-, -
Provisions to guide and reguiate activities that affect federal coastlines.
Administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal license and
permit applicants mus,. cerify compliance with �: State Coastal Zone Management
I i th
Program. Provides the statute and guidance for Washington State Coastal Zcne
Management Program.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act -
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service can
review and comment on Sec. 404 applications and project mitigation.
River and Harbor Act, Section 10 -
Permits for construction affecting navigable waters of the U.S. Administered by
the Environmental Protection Agency.
Flood Disaster Protection Act -
Provides the National Flood Insurance Program which integrates state government
programs in an effort to reduce flood damage.
19.
Food Security Act -
Denies U.S. Department of Agriculture programs to farmers who convert wetlands
to cropland.
STATE
State Environmental Policy Act (Sc-:PA)-
Process of analyzing environmental impacts of state project or private project
requiring state permit. Administered by the Washington State Department of
Ecology.
Shoreline Management Act -
Shoreline Master Programs are designed and administered by local governments and
reviewed by the State Department of Ecology.
State hydraulic Code -
Permits for construction and other activities within hieh water areas.
Ad;:,inistered by Washington Stag of Fisheries or Washington State Department
of Wildlife depending on project type and location.
Ficodpla;n Management Program -
Through a Flood insurance Study, development In a floocoian must meet certain
state construction standards. Administered by the Federai Emergency Management
Agency.
Forest Practices Act -
Regulatory and permitinc process for forest practice activities on state and private
lands, including logging, application of pesticide, and road construction.
Administered by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, a SEPA
review of applications is sent to affected agencies for comment.
Puget Sound Water Quality Plan /Chapter Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.70 -
RCW 90.70 provides the statutory authority for the Puget Sound Water Quality Plan.
The plan, developed by the Puce- Sound Water Quality Authority, mandates the
deveiooment of actions and programs to restore and protect the waters and water -
related resources of Puget Sound. These mandates are directed to federal, state
and local, such as county and tribal, authorities. The plan recommends minimum
state standards and policies for stormwater, groundwater, hazardous waste, and
wetlands management be developed by the state Department of Ecology. These
standards and policies must be either adopted as minimums or adopted and
augmented by the local county governments of Puget Sound. The plan also
recommends the adoption and exparsion of the state's Timber /Fish /Wildlife
Agreement; an agreement to integrate local government, agency and private review
of commercial forestry practices.
Chapter 400 -12 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) -
WAC •400 -12 are the regulations guiding the Puget Sound watershed planning
program as recommended by the Puget Sound Water Quality Plan. Administered by
the Washington State Department of Ecology.
20.
COUNTY
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, 1979 -
Outlines goals and policies for county growth and development. The plan
prescribes goals and policies for transportation, energy and facilities, housing and
residential development, commercial development, industrial development, and open
space. It also identifies and maps Optimum Land Use Designations (Industrial,
Suburban, Rural, Resource Production). The plan does not prescribe a long range
review process for growth and development. Under the current ongoing Growth
Management planning process, the plan must be udpdated by 1992.
Jefferson County Development Code; An Implementing Ordinance -
The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan did not adopt a county zoning regu!a.icn,
hence growth and development is regulated by the county's Optimum Land Use
Designations; the minimum standards for industrial, commercial and residential
development from the county Development Code; the Jefferson County Subdivision
Ordinance: and State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) permit application review
process. Development standards for setbacks from water bodies and wetlands, for
drainage, for steep slopes and for geo!ogia!ly unstable areas are described in the
Development Code. Subdivision regulations are described In the county Subdivision
Ordinance. Development permits, conditionai uses, variances and appeals are
administered by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners.
Local SERA Review -
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, through the Jefferson County Planning
and Building Department, require private development projects to complete an
Environmental Checklist to determine if the project is in compliance with federal,
state and local programs and assess the project's environmental impacts. Public
notice and input is required in this review process. If a Determination 07
Significance is found by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, the ju - local
body, a project must prepare an environmental Impact assessment cr 6nviron mentai
impact statement and state agencies and the public are nc ` =,c�d as per t "e State
Environmental Protection Act. SERA review is -,so customarily conducted by the
Jefferson County Commissioners over- project applications submitted to Jefferson
County as an affected agency, by another agency.
Jefferson County "0creline Management Master Program -
T he Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program is implemented through
a permit process and an evironmentai impact (SEPA) review in association with the
Jefferson County Shorelines Commission. Permits for substantial development,
conditional uses and variances are issued by Jefferson County. The permits are
reviewed by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Appeals are heard by
the Washigton State Shorelines Hearing Board.
Jefferson County Floodplain Management Ordinance -
County flood prevention ordinance as required by Nation Flood Insurance Program.
Regulates development within 100 year floodplains.
21.
Jefferson County Sewage Disposal Code -
The county Sewage Disposal Code describes minimum standards for setbacks, design _
standards, placement and maintenance for on -site septic systems. The code is
administered by the Jefferson County Board of Health and has adopted the state
standards as minimum. The code requires a mandatory maintenance agreement for
all alternative on -site septic systems be signed between Public Utility District #1
and the property owner. The code does not require a mandatory maintenance
agreement for conventional on -site septic systems; maintenance for this class of
septic systems is on a voluntary regime.
Jefferson County Growth Management -
Jefferson County, as an identified "high growth" county, is voluntarily
participating in the requirements of the Growth Management Bill (SHB 2929). The
county must establish comprehensive long range planning goals; designate
agricultural lands, timberlands, and "critical areas ", such as wetlands, fleodplains,
aquifir recharge areas and fish and wildlife habitat for conservation; and update
the Jefferson County Comnprehensive Plan by 1992 to reflect this planning effort.
REC0MMENDAT_(DNS
Federal and State Programs -
The Federal ar.d State programs and regulations described above are recognized
as excellent broad based laws and analytical frameworks for nonpoint sourca
pollution control in Puget Sound. The major common weakness of these programs
and regulations are seen in the relationship between degree of actual compliance
in the field and the availability of government or agency funding for local program
costs and staff. Effective implementation of nonpoint source pollution control
programs requires funding. On the county level, the lack of surplus revenues to
initiate and fund needed programs and staff can be more of a problem, in terms of
field results, than potential gaos in the federal and state regulatory programs.
County Programs -
Although potential gaps in state or federal regulatory programs are not viewed as
significant for the purposes of this Action Plan, potential gaps in local county
policy are. Water quality impacts in the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed were
chiefly associated with sedimentation and bacterial loading to freshwater systems.
Hence, local county policy affecting on -site septic systems, boating sewage,
agricultural practices, forest practices and growth and development have the
greatest potential to affect the water quality of this rural watershed.
The Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Management Committee identified the following
potential concerns in county policy, based on their estimation of possible impacts
on water quality in the watershed.
22.
* Installation of agricultural Best Management Practices on agricultural
properties in Jefferson County is not enforced; all compliance is
voluntary. A review of the Compliance Memorandum of Agreement between
the Jefferson County Conservation District and the Washington State
Department of Ecology shows that the local district has adopted Level
III. This level of local participation cites an educational and technical
/financial assistance management policy, not an enforcement policy. The
Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Management Committee decided they
supported this management level for the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed.
The Committee's recommendation is to expand voluntary participation by
agricultural property owners in the watershed by expanding education
and incentive programs for the installation of agricultural Best
Management Practices, and the Conservation District's technical staff.
Conventional on -site septic systems in Jefferson County are not required
t,o maintain a mandatory maintenance agreement with Public Utility
District �1 as are alternative on -Site septc systems. The Committee
identified this as a potential concern. In response, the Jefferson
Count;,, Health Department reviewed their voluntary maintenance policy
for conventionai cn -site septic systems. Sanitary surveys in the
Cuiicene /Dabob Bays Watershed had revealed a failure rate of
acproximateiy five per cent. The surveys also referred a majority of the
property owners with problem systems to the county for repair and
correction, assistance. Based on the high rate of operational systems
encountered by both the sanitary surveys (95 per cent success rate), and
the high response to repair and correction assistance, Jefferson County
Health Department determined that a change to a mandatory maintenance
regime for conventional on -site septic system was not warranted at this
time. A future change to the existing county septic system policy would
be based on the ability to show that water quality standards were not
being met as the result of a voiuntary maintenance regime for
conventional systems. The Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Management
Committee recommendation is to expand voluntary compliance of on -site
septic systems maintenance by expanding education and incentive
programs, and the county's technical and financial assistance
for septic system repair in the watershed.
Under local SEPA review, single- family housing is exempt from much of
the development standards with which multi- family, commercial and
industrial development comply. Additionally, large subdivisions of tracts
of land into five acre or larger units were not regulated under the
existing Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinance. Many of these large
subdivisions were "timberland conversions ". Timberland conversions
refer to a type of permit application under the Forest Practices Act,
in which land formerly devoted to commercial timber production is
converted to residential or commercial development. These potential
policy gaps, combined with recent upward surges of activity in the local
23.
real estate market, may contribute to two potential growth trends; a
proliferation of scattered small development parcels, and an increase
in five acre or larger tracts of woodland being converted to residential
/commercial property. This type of growth and development
trend is seen as having a high potential for disturbing native vegetation
and soil over a wide area. The Committee saw this as a potential for
increasing one of the primary sources of nonpoint pollution in the
watershed; that of sedimentation, which can also increase transportation
of fecal coliform bacteria into watershed streams. In response to this
concern, the Jefferson County Planning and Building Department initiated
a moratorium, (County Ordinance 36 -90, April, 1990), on five acre or larger
subdivisions until an expanded county review of large subdivision
applications be Initiated. The moratorium was lifted in May, 1990, with
the adoption of Interim Provisions (County Ordinance 81 -90, May, 1990),
appending the county Subcivision Code. 7he Jefferson County Board of
^^^"
vvnmiJJiGners then d, rect e.' �tea l e Iff so.- County P'anning C om mi , s; n
to update the currert. o;unt,. Subdivision Crdinan,ce to incCrpora__ bct"
the interim orovisons and an, oz;-er r ecommended revisions tG .fie
ordinance. n addition, the cOUnt� Plannin;; and Building Department
has begun tha update Of the ccunty Cc mprenens; e Plan as part of t^°
`-, a-,;. n e rp r7. th Grow-,",f
county's VOilinitary pa �IC�p...� „J. .n the qul� r:�entS of ���e �:. v+`�� f
Management Bill. These growth' patterns and local ociicies will be
addressed in the growth management planning process. The permit
process for timberland conversion applications are administered by the
Washington State ;:epartmert of "latural Resources under the Forest
Practices Act and are circulated to both county and tribal governments
for review. The Quiicene /Dabcb Bays Watershed Management Committee
recommendations for Jefferson County are to require SEPA review for
all timberland conversion permits for tracts of five acres and larger
and for tracts smaller than five acres if a Class I, iI or III stream,
as described in the Forest Practices Act, occurs. The Committee did r.ot
recommend full SEPA review for timberland conversions of five acres and
smaller if those stream types were not present. The Committe further
recommended development of a sediment transport analysis of the Sig
Quilcene River; expand the provision of county technical /financial
assistance for water quaiity protection; update the county's open space
incentive program; and expand education services available through the
Hood Canal Coordinating Council. The Hood Canal Coordinating Council
is comprised of the three counties; Mason, Kitsap and Jefferson, and the
three tribes; Lower Eiwha Klallam, Jamestown Klallam and Part Gam'-el
Klallam, that have jurisdiction on Hood Canal. The Council coordinates
efforts towards water quality enhancement and aquatic resource
management in the Hood Canal basin, with an emphasis on education and
public involvement.
* Jefferson County has no county -wide stormwat =_r .management program.
Pursuant to the Puget Sound Water Quality Plan, the State Department of
-44.
Ecology will develop a policy for stormwater management which will be
required to be adopted as minimum standards for the county. In
response, the county is estimated to begin development of a county-
wide stormwater program in 1990. The Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed
Management Committee agreed that urban runoff and urban stormwater
management recommendations should be deferred to the county's upcoming
development of a stormwater management program.
* Jefferson County has no county -wide wetlands ordinance. Activities that
affect wetlands are administered under the Jefferson County Shoreline
Master Program and Iecal SEPA review of development permit activities.
Pursuant to the Puget Sound Water Quality Plan, the Washington State
Department of Ecology will develop a state wetlands policy which will
be required to be adopted as minimum standards for the county.
Additionally, the county's growth management planning process will be
examining the status of county wetlands and !coal wet!and pe!icy during
designa, :!c of - chticai areas". The Quilcene /Dabob 3ays Watershed
iM . na . rr nt Committee agr eed that wetlands policy r e Co^"° ndat;OnS should
CS deferred to the county's upcoming grol^!ti^, management pianning process.
Ac Jefferson Courty has no hazardous waste :management program. Jefferson
County Public Works Department and the Washington State Department of
cOogy will, during 1990 and 1991, be developing a county -wide hazardous
waste management plan for Jefferson County. The Qui!cene /Dabob Bays
Watershed Management Committee concentrated its recommendations for
hazardous waste management on education and monitoring programs for
the hazardous wastes associated with timber and agriculture practices,
and household use; sources reflecting the primary land use activities
in the watershed.
25.
e-rj p
'v,j A -7 A
� I viii Lir i -1 E
WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
The Quilcene /Dabob watershed has been characterized and assessed by the Dabob
and Quilcene Bays Water Quality Proiect written in 1987 (4). This report is
available from the Jefferson County Planning and Building Department. The
following information, except where noted, recaps the information within that
report.
LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHY
The Quilcene /Dabob Bays watershed is located in Jefferson County on the eastern
shore of the Olympic Peninsula and is part of the Hood Canal Basin. The only large
population center in the watershed is Quilcene, a town of about 600 residents,
located 30 miles south of Port Townsend at the head ,of Quilcene Bay. The townsite
of Quilcene is a weil estaoiished community center supporting a number of
com- me -ciai act'vitles, p'..:bli-c fac'I'tfes, and residential development.
The .major drainages, the Eig Quilcene and the Little Cuiicere Rivers, drain the
eastern portion of the Olympic Mcuntains and have their headwa_ers at elevations
exceeding L:,',00 feet. Tire relatively short, Iow to mocerate gradient Strearr,S of
T arbco, Leland, Jakeway and Donovan: Creeks and Cametary Liraln drain the areas
of near sea level. Ail of the freshwater drainages mentioned drain into Quilcene
?ay with the excepticn of Tarbco Creek which drair:s into Dabob Bay.
GEOLOGY
The geology of the Quilcare /`abob- watershed is comprised of volcanic basalt ridges,
outcrops of tertiary sandstone and shale, alluvial cutwash units of sand and gravel
with localized silt, clay or peat deposits, and widely occurring layers of impervious
glacial till or "hardpan" at depths of from 10 to 40 inches below the surface. The
sedimentary and volcanic rocks of this area are generally considerad to
impermeable. The outwash of predominantly sand and gravel with localized slit,
clay and peat deposits are considered permeable and occur primarily in the valley
bottoms. Throughout mud^ of the valley bottoms the sca =oral his^ water tale
perches at depths of 0 to 24 inches below the surface. Though variable, the basic
soil profile in the watershed is relatively thin soils perched on bedrock. There is
a high potential for erosion throughout the area, particularly on the steep slopes
in the foothills of the upper watershed (5), and along the steep, unstable banks of
the Hood Canal. in the Big Quilcene River drainage, the US Forest Service managed
land averages a 53.3 percent slope (6). Most of the soils in the lowlands are
classified poor or very
4. Welch, Janet, and Banks, Bill, 1987. Finai Report: The Quilcene /Dabob
Bays Water Quality Proiect.
5. U.S. Forest Service, 1986. Proposed Land and Resource Management
for the Olympic National Forest, DEIS.
6. Jim Seymour, Quilcene Ranger Station, USFS, personal communication.
26.
Most of the soils in the lowlands are classified poor or very - poorly suited ,for. -on— =
site sewage disposal (7).
CLIMATE
The Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed has a mild maritime climate characterized by
short, dry summers and long, cool, wet winters. Rainfall data recorded at the
Quilcene Ranger Station shows average annual rainfall from 1950 to 1986 to average
49 inches, over 77 per cent of which occurs from October through March. Average
air temperatures farenheidt are mid seventies in the summer and lower 30s in the
winter.
POPUL,AT =CN AND ECONOMY
-he wa s! -s'led is scars -aly occuiated wit^ an estimated 12-Co residents, aitiicst half
c' YJ ^ich
reside in th e town of nuilCene. Tina eC c nC m� v = the area IS n at r i
reSour c-- based; primarily der wed of private, State and federal tim ;bar product on.
T% =. � S @ - -.:- e Oa r y�^ Station is tlargest ie e mpi0 V
e r i
n v. r_SrviCe a�
the W3��r =iicd. iiCUSt .SS JaSeC on Water resources ^,rOVlde tiie next !arrest
empio-yment oaSe. l en ccmmmerciai she!if:sn growers operate in QUlicene and Dabob
Bays, including Coast Oyster Company, the largest sheiifish hatchery in the world.
Coast C. t. Company, !coated on Quilcene Bay, markets over 350,000 gallons of
oyster ,:eat per year. Annua; Shellfish revenue from, Qui cane Bay alone is
estimated at $0.3 million (8). Other com;m;erciai marine resources include salmon and
out fisheries. Annual fisheries revenue from the Big Quiicene River and the U.S.
fish hatchery located there is estimated at $1.1 million (9). There is a recreational
shrimc fishers that brin.cs recreational spending to the area every year.
Additional economic and empieyment bases are related to the school district,
private ccmmerciai business, brush picking, firewood cutting, small scale
agriculture and the recreation industrv.
EXISTING PATTERNS OF LAND AND WATER USE
The Quiicene /Dabob watershed exhibits the foil range of rural land uses which,
based on 1984 aerial photos, break down roughly as follows:
1. 60 percent timber,
2. 30 percent clearcut,
3. 5 percent urban /residential /commercial, and
4. 5 percent farm /pasture.
7. Jefferson County Planning & Building Department land use maps.
8. Welch, Janet, 1937. Septic System Correction Feasibility Stud`r,
Jefferson County Planning and Building Department.
9. Ibid.
27.
Generally, the higher elevations of the western portion of the watershed are
managed exclusively for timber production; land use "in .the eastern lowlands
includes timber production, agriculture, residential and commercial development
The watershed is bi- sected by the area's major highway, Route 101, in a
north /south direction.
Land and water use patterns in the watershed are examined by the ten categories
of the beneficial uses identified by the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Management
Committee. Additional land /water use categories are identified where appropriate.
1. SHELLFISH
Ten commercial shellfish operations exist in Quilcene and Dabob Bays. Owing to its
gentle circulation and warmer summer temperatures, Quilcene Bay bears the
distinction of being one of only three major areas on the west coast of North
America where a consistent natural summer spawning of Pacific oyster occurs.
Hence, Quilcene Bay is significant not only locally for its shellfish industry but or
a national level for its production of natural Pacific oyster seed.
Shellfish gathering is an historic and accustomed practice of area Tribes.
Washington State Department of Fisheries operates a shellfish laboratory on the
southwest shore of Dabob Bay at Point Whitney.
2. SALMON, TROUT AND OTHER FISHERIES
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service operates a fish hatchery on the Big Quilcene
Rivera The Big Quilcene River produces native run of chum salmon and hatchery
runs of coho, chinook and chum salmon. The Little Quilcene River, Tarboo, Leland,
Spencer and Marple Creeks support limited runs of coho and chum salmon. Ripley,
Howe and Donovan Creeks have historically had small runs of coho (10).
Salmon and other fisheries are an historic and accustomed practice of area Tribes.
3. FOREST PRODUCTS
Approximately 90 per cent of the Quilcene /Dabob watershed' is managed for
commercial timber with an average annual production of 150 million board feet.
Timberlands are managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Washington State Department
of Natural Resources, and by private corporations. Private timber company Pope
and Talbot operate a log rafting area in Quilcene Bay capable of handling up to 30
million board feet per year.
10. Washington Department of Fisheries, 1975. Catalogue of Washington
Streams and Salmon Utilization.
28.
4. RECREATION _
Numerous public recreational opportunities are enjoyed in the watershed including
hiking trails, campgrounds, fresh and salt water fishing, crabbing, shrimping and
shellfish harvest. The Quilcene Marina provides a popular community swimming
beach. Recreational boaters find anchorage in both Quilcene and Dabob Bays.
5. RESIDENTIAL
The highest density of residential development has occurred in the town opf
Quilcene, on the alluvial flood plains of the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers and along
waterfront view property of the shores of Hood Canal (11 ). A large number of the
watershed's residents' private wells and septic drainfields are located in the
lowland flood plains. Because of seasonal flooding, tidal inundation, poor soils and
high water table in these areas, there is a ootential risk of surface and
ground,vater contamination.
The trend towards increased residential development, including retirement and
vacation homnes, is spreading into this rural watershed. This will bring about
increased demands for water diversions for municipal, agricultural and recreational
needs.
6. AGRICULTURAL
Most of the watershed's agricultural activity also takes place in the flat valley
lowlands and flood plains of the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers. These types cf land
use may cause fecal coliform generation, streambank degradation, erosion, and
agricultural and household ha ardous waste generation.
7. BUSINESS, EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC STABILITY
Commentary from residents of the Quilcene / Dabob Bays Watershed communities
concerning the benefits a healthy watershed provides for business, employment and
economic stability focused on wanting to protect environmental values while
preserving economic opportunities.
Though average annual income for the watershed's actual population is
undetermined, the Washington State Office of Financial Management indicates that
the average annual per capita income for 1989 in Jefferson County was less than
$15,000. The county's unemployment rate for 1990 was estimated at 4.8 percent.
The estimated annual poverty rate for 1988 in Jefferson County in 1988 was 12.5
percent. These statistics underscore the local
communities' emphasis on preserving all beneficial uses, including economic
stability, of the watershed with equal consideration.
11. David Goldsmith, Director, Jefferson County Planning and Building
Department, personal communication.
29.
Impairment to beneficial uses from nonpoint sources of pollution to the water
dependent trades such as fisheries and shellfish have the potential to be calamitous
to the area's second largest economic generator. This would impact both Tribal and
non - Indian resource -based economies alike.
Clean water is also an important factor in.the national perception of the area as a
desirable place for business or residential location. With an estimated population
growth of 40 percent by the year 2010 in the Puget Sound region, from 3.2 million
to 4.4 million people (12), area growth is a significant part of the watershed's
economic forecast.
8. WILDLIFE
Both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat is diverse and abundant in the
watershed because of the relatively small ratio of deveioped.or urbanized land use.
Federally protected species present include the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, osprey
and pileated wcodoecker. A national environmental organization, The Nature
Conservancy, has acquired property on Dabob Bay for wildlife habitat Preservation.
In Quiicene Bay, a population of 10C to 400 harbor seals haul cut on the Pope and
Talbot log raft rear the north end of the bay. (Note: the log raft was temporarily
removed by Pope and Talbot in the fall of 1990 until an improved timber market
warrants its re- activation.) This marine mammal concentration contributes to fecal
coliform loading of the bay.
9. AESTHETICS
The physical beauty and appeal of this rural, maritime watershed is well known.
Views of Hood Canal and its bays, of the Olymoic Mountains and, to the east, the
Cascade Mountains: large tracts of woodland harboring a diversity of plant and
animal species; beautiful trails, lakes, rivers and beaches, the absence of large,
crowded urban centers, ...as well as clean air and water, makes this area a visual
treasure for many.
10. WETLANDS
A number of wetlands occur throughout the watershec. Most of these are small
palustrine, riverine and saitmarsh systems. The north end of Quilcene Bay
supports a tidally inundated wetland of over 25 acres. In addition, the 1987
National Wetland Inventory conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
indicates sub -tidal wetlands of submerged eelgrass beds along some of the
watershed shorelines. Eelgrass beds are recognized as valuable fisheries habitat.
12. The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1991. 1991 Puget Sound
Water Quality Management Plan, pp. xiv.
30.
MINING
No consistent mining, other than small gravel _pit operations, occur -in the
watershed. - _ -
BOATING AND MARINAS
Commercial and recreational boating is an active use of the marine water of the
watershed. The Quilcene Marina in Quiicene Bay offers seasonal and year -round
moorage. Commercial Indian and non - Indian fishing boats employ the Marina
facilities annually as do recreational shrimp fisherman.
MUNICIPAL DRINKING WA- R /t:- OUNOWAT�R
ne drinking water or Qu;ica -e and surrounding residences are supplied ,v ^r!r?arl!y
by pri vale We115. i he m:iniCa: dri:ik,ing water for the ti+ily of Port I vr'1 i e, d is
provided cy the Sig Quilcene Fiver and the Big Quilcene Dam. Aperoximately ninety
per carat -
of ne water prov{Cad crt Townsend by the Sig Quilcene River is used
y the Oor_ Townsend PaPer - -•A;: . Lord's 'La ke, a small lake cr eared by anoti.er dam
0n the Little Quilcene giver, lcrevides the municipal ',Hater supply back up to the
City of Port Townsend. The U.S. Forest Service and the City of Port Townsend
have an agreement to cro-ect the municipal watershed in the Big and Little Quilcene
drainages (13).
WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Water quality problems in the watershed are neither severe nor insurmountable.
Isolated problems do exist, however, and their correction will require the
cooperation of prooerty oti,iners, agencies of tribal, local, state, and federal
government, water sited rasiden-,s, and industry.
Jefferson County Planning and Building Department's Water Quality Program has,
through grant funding frcm the Washington State Decartm .ent of Ecology, been
collecting data from water quality monitoring stations in the watershed from July
1956 through February 15.39. The monitoring program parameters and water
quality assessment findings follow.
13. ward Hoffman, Forest Economist. U.S. Forest Service. Personal
communication.
31.
JEFFERSON COUNTY MONITORING PROGRAM PARAMETERS
The 1988 Statewide Water Quality Assessment Report prepared by the Washington
State Department of Ecology classified all fresh and marine waters of the
Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Class AA (Extraordinary). This classification is
given the highest level of protection in the state. Therefore, certain criteria must
be met as established in the Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the
State of Washington, Chapter 173 -201 WAC.
The Jefferson County ambient monitoring program was designed to provide a
statistical baseline to determine current water quality conditions, the nature and
extent of nonpoint sources of pollution, and to enable future statistical comparisons
to determine improvement or decline of water quality.
Although the nature of nonpoint pollution makes quantification of pollution sources
difficult, the monitoring program sought to identify and quantify pollution sources
in the watershed to the extent possible, so that correction efforts could be directed
at the most significant issues first.
Water cuality impacts from tributaries, ditches, and overland flows can be
determined by sampiing above and below the inputs, as well as from the input
itself. The ambient monitoring program was designed so that each station
bracketed a predominant land use in the drainage.
Water cuality monitoring in the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed by Jefferson County
Planning and Building Department was initiated in. 1986 under a Shellfish Protection
grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology. The sampling method
consisted of ambient water quality monitoring at eighteen freshwater stations and
nine marine stations on a monthiy basis from July 1986 to April 1987 (see Figure 1 ).
A summary of this period's data is presented in the reports, Quilcene /Dabob Water
Quality Proiect, Technical Report, June, 1987, by Bill Banks, Janet Welch and Michaei
Purser and Dabob and Quilcene Bays Water Quality Proiect, Final Report, June, 1987
by Janet Welch and Bill Banks. in addition, reconnaissance monitoring in which up
to 100 water samples in a particular drainage were taken during the wet season and
again during the dry season for comparison; animal and sanitary surveys conducted
jointly by Jefferson County Planning and Building Department staff and the
Jefferson County Conservation District (14); and storm event monitoring. Because
of winds accompanying storm events, making the use of small craft on the bays
unsafe, only freshwater stations in the watershed were sampled during a storm
event.
14. Purser, M.D. 1987. Animal Survey and Bacteriological Water Sampling
in the Quilcene /Dabob Water Quality Study Area, Jefferson County
Conservation District.
32.
The county's ambient monitoring provided baseflow information for streams; the
storm event sampling p g provided the upper range, or "worse case scena-- rio'. of stream _
hydrological conditions. --
Additionally, twelve shallow test wells were placed in the Big Quilcene River
floodplain in early 1988 to assess river flooding and groundwater contamination by
septic systems in the floodplain and gain information on water table levels. The
test wells were sampled during periods of high river flow when saturation of the
soils and the water table in the floodplain would be highest. Sampling of the test
wells also took place during periods the water table was lower for comparison.
Results of this investigation are presented in the report, Septic System Correction
Feasibility Studv for Shellfish Protection Grant TAX88004, March, 1990, by Janet
Welch.
Monthly ambient water quality monitoring in Quilcene/ Dabob Bays Watershed fresh
and marine stations continued frOM April, 1987 through February, 1989. A summary
report of this period's data is Presented in Factors Affecting Noncoint Source Fecal
Colifor_m Levels in Quilcene and Dabob Watersheds Jefferson County Washington,
April, 1990, by Pat Rubida and John Caiambokidis.
Jefferson County also, during 1988, set up a conservation easement for the tidally
inundated area of approxima-Lely 25 acres at the head of Quilcene Bay. A report
detailing this arrangement and subsequent water quality monitoring of the site is
Presented in Fecal Coliform. Con-�amination in Donovan Creek Quilcene Washington,
December, 1989, by Jane: Welch and Pat Rubida. The area is referred to as the
Shaw Easement.
In January 1988, Jefferson County expanded the ambient monitoring program to
continue sampling in the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed and initiate sampling in
five other bays in the county. Most of the freshwater and marine stations
continued to be monitored in the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed on a monthly basis
from Janauary 1988 to February 1989. The sampling programs divided the years
into wet and dry seasons with replicate samples taken at each station.
The primary parameter monitored by the program was the concentration and loading
of fecal coliform bacteria in both fresh and marine waters. The bacteria are found
in the intestinal tract of all warm blooded mammals. While not disease - causing
themselves, fecal coliform bacteria concentration is a nationally recognized water
quality parameter used to indicate the possible presence of disease - causing
organisms. State criteria established for fecal coliform in Class AA waters were
followed. The state criteria are broken into two parts; geometric mean value (GMV),
and per cent exceeding 100 organisms /100 ml. The criteria for the two parts are
as follows:
Freshwater - Fecal coliform organisms shall not exceed a geometric mean value of
50 organisms /100 ml, with not more than 10% of samples exceeding 100
organisms /100 mi.
33.
Marine Water - Fecal coliform organisms shall not exceed a geometric mean value of
14 organisms /100 ml, with not more than 10% of samples exceeding'43 organisms /100
mi.
Fecal coliform conditions were evaluated using two methods; concentration and
loading. It is important to note the difference between these methods.
Concentration is defined as the number of coliform organisms in 100 ml of water.
Loading, on the other hand, refers to the total number of fecal coliform organisms
that flow down a stream over a twenty -four hour period. Loading provides a means
of making a quantitative comparison between streams.
Other water quality parmeters monitored by Jefferson County were salinity,
temperature and stream flow.
GENE?AL CONCLUSIONS
Existing water quality information for the watershed is extremely limited,
particularly regarding water quality parameters other than presenca of fecal
coliform, i.e. assessment of riparian fish and wildlife habitat, presence of metai or
chemicai contaminants; fieid inventory of existing wetlands; and groundwater
research.
Headwaters and stream reaches with little or no development activity upstream were
generally found to be of high quality and well within state standards for fecal
coliform. Lower water quality existed in those reaches which flow through areas
with agricultural and residential use.
Freshwater quality dropped during periods of heavy rainfall, most significantly at
the begining of the storm event. Typical bacterial levels resumed in the week
following the storm event.
While freshwater quality dropped at most monitoring stations during the wet
season, the heavier stream flow increased the dilution factor also; so that total
bacterial loading from the streams exhibited no clear or consistent cattern of
increase or decrease for that period.
Bacterial contamination and sedimentation were the two most prevalent nonpoint
source pollutants observed in the watershed.
Sources of sedimentation accreting in lower stream reaches were difficult to
identify. The long -term observations of some Committee members and watershed
residents attributed a significant portion of the sedimentation source to extensive
timber harvest operations on steep slopes in the upper watershed.
Poor agricultural practices and on -site sewage disposal systems were found to be
the primary sources of bacterial contamination at the freshwater stations monitored
in the watershed.
34.
Sanitary surveys conducted by Jefferson County Planning and Building Department
of 224 properties in the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed over. a _thirteen month
period, from 1986 to 1987, observed a failure rate of approximately 5 percent" of all
septic system surveyed. _
Historic winter flooding, high water table, tidal inundation and soil types
moderately to severely limited for septic systems installation occur in the Big
Quilcene River floodplain, an approximate 170 acre area with a relatively high
density (45 homes) of on -site septic systems, small scale agriculture and private
wells.
General public knowledge of nonpoint source pollution and preventative measures
in the watershed is not adequate.
SIT= SFCiFIC CONC! USIONS
Taking ail Jefferson County water quality monitoring results from July, 1286 to
February, 1939, one or both parts cf the Washington State fecal collform standards
for Class "AA" freshwater were not met at the following watershed monitoring
stations (see Figures 1 and 2 for station locations and Figures 4, 5 and 6 for
monitoring results):
Freshwater Stations
Stations "LL 1" and "LL 3" on Leland Creek during the period from July, 1986 to
April, 1987; and "LL 1" only from the period after April, 1987 to February, 1989;
Stations "SH 6" and "SH 7" on Jakeway Creek during the period after April, 1987
to February, 1989;
Stations "DV 2" on Donovan Creek during the period from July, 1986 to April, 1287;
and stations "DV 1" and "DV 2" from the period after April, 1987 to February, 1989;
Stations "CD 1", "CD 2" and "CD 3" on Cametary Drain during the period from
July, 1986 to April, 1987;
Stations "TB 1", "TB 2" and "TB 3" on Tarboo Creek during the period from July,
1986 to February, 1989;
Station "CY 1" on Coyle Creek during the period July, 1986 to February, 1989.
Station "BQ 3" on the Big Quilcene River during the period from July, 1985 to April,
1987;
Stations %Q 1" and "LQ 3" on the Little Quilcene River during the period from
July, 1986 to April, 1987.
4 5.
All of the tributaries drain into the north end of Quilcene Bay except _Tarboo"'and
Coyle Creeks which drain into the north portion :of Dabob Bay.. -(This northern
portion of Dabob Bay is known as Tarboo Bay). The stations -which violated state
standards also exhibited the highest variance between sample runs, reflecting the
varying degrees of human and animal activity adjacent to those stream reaches.
Sample results from the shallow test wells in the Big Quilcene River fioodplain over
the course of twelve months did not show excessive bacterial concentrations in the
perched groundwater, with a few isolated exceptions attributed to nearby
malfunctioning septic systems. However, the groundwater study, entitled Septic
System Correction Feasibility Study, acknowledged that the study period was a
drought year and conclusions were limited by lack of normal soil saturation in the
p ro j ect area.
Measurements of the level of the streambed of the Big Quilcene River showed a
significant rise in 15 months, resulting from sediment accretion.
Marine Stations
The flushing that occurs in Quilcene and Dabob Bays is very difficult to model and
understand (15). Pollutants that are buoyant have the potential to become stranded
on the tideflats, thereby affecting the shellfish. The freshwater and associated
pollutants tend to lie on too of the marine water, but may mix if the winds are up.
South winds are often associated, with major storm events, when freshwater inputs
to the bays are at their maximum. These south winds tend to increase the
residence time of the freshwater because the bays are both exposed to the south
(16). The sill at the mouth of Dabob Bay impedes flushing and increases the
residence time of water in the bays (17). Prudence requires that we assume that
the bays are not well flushed.
in the marine waters of Quilcene Bay and Dabob Bay, violations of Washington state
fecal coliform standards occurred at the following stations:
Stations "Q 1" and "Q 2" intermittently during the period from July, 1986 to
February, 1989. These stations are located in the northernmost portion of Quilcene
Bay adjacent to both freshwater inputs violating state fecal coliform standards and
an area of marine mammal concentration.
15. Curt Ebbesmyer, Evans /Hamilton Consulting, personal communication.
16. harold Mofjeld, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAH, personal
communiction
li' Strickland, 1983. The Fertile Fiord, Page 63.
36
SO- BIG OUILCENE
LO- LITTLE OUILCENE
LL- LELAND
DV- DONOVAN
TB- TARBOO
CY- COYLE
CO- CEMETERY DRAIN
PROJECT
AREA
Jefferson Co.
Hood Cana
FIGURE 1
NUN I T02 I NG ST"AT I (W LOGNT I CNS
u~i
c;
Z
O
4
�1i
F GUE 3_.
MONITORING DATA aMVIARY, 1936 - 1987
• 0 -1 FC 1100 ml
2-4
• 5 -10
• 11 -22
s 23 -50
-- - --
-�- 51 -110 (Exceeds Standards)
111 -225
-- 226 -550
>551
FRESHWATER CONCENTRATIONS
39.
LQ1
LQ2
LQ3
LL1
LL2
LL3
BQ1 j
BQ2
_ B Q 3
7/7
s
s
s
•
7/28
e
s
•
•
•
•
•
8/11'
--
e
.
•
•
.
9/3
s
!
s
•
0
•
•
•
10/13
•
e
•
•
•
'
'
10/27
s
•
•
•
•
•
11/13
•
•
®
•
•
•
•
•
11/25
•
•
•
i
•
•
12/16
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
1/6
•
•
•
•
1/30
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2/2
•
I •
•
•
•
•
'
'
•
3/11
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4/2
•
•
070
4/28
ip 1
• 0 -1 FC 1100 ml
2-4
• 5 -10
• 11 -22
s 23 -50
-- - --
-�- 51 -110 (Exceeds Standards)
111 -225
-- 226 -550
>551
FRESHWATER CONCENTRATIONS
39.
F
F 1 GUS 3
Y1CN 1 TOR ING DATE SLhMRY,
1986 - 1987
'
CY1
DV1
DV2
CD1
CD2
CD3
TB1
TB2
TB3
7/7
7728
•
S
8 /lI
9/3
10/ 13
10/27
11/ 13
11/25
•
2A
0
•
!
•
•
ZA
S
•
12/16
1/6
0
2A
_
•
1/30
2/2
•-
3/ 11
•
4/2
•
'
4/28
•
0 -1 FC /100
ml-
51 -110
•
2 -4
111 -225
•
5 -10
226 -550
•
11 -22
'
0
23 -50
>551
FRESHWATER CONCENTRATIONS
40.
F GJZ= 3
MONITORING DATA SLMA8,RY, 1986 -1987
s
e
4
4
<1.8 FC /100 ml
1.9 -3.7
3.8-7.3
7.4 -14.0
15 -29 (Exceeds Standards)
30 -59
60 -120
-121 -240
X240 '
MARINE CONCENTRATIONS
41.
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
QS
:D1 -
D2
D3
D4
7/2
•
•
•
.
•
I
S
7/11
1
8/I3
•
•
•
•
•
• �
•
•
'
10/7
-
•
-
•
•
• I
•
•
10/23
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
• I
•
�
•
.
•
I •
•
11/6
11/24
I
•
'
•
12/18
•
•
1/8
•
•
.
•
!
I
2/3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
4/1
4/23
•
•
•
•
•
•
I •
s
e
4
4
<1.8 FC /100 ml
1.9 -3.7
3.8-7.3
7.4 -14.0
15 -29 (Exceeds Standards)
30 -59
60 -120
-121 -240
X240 '
MARINE CONCENTRATIONS
41.
Concentrations,
"
flow rates, and loadings of fecal coliforms in streams.
..................
........
.........................
---- •- ......•
Concentration (per 100 ml)
Flow rates (cfs)
- - - --
Loading (billions /day)
- -- •----- ---•--- - - - - -- "
---------- --- - - - - --
sd interval
- - - -- -- --- -
n mean ad
n mean sd interval
Stream
Sta.
= n mean
•---•---•--•---------
Big ouilcene
1
13 0.99 0 - 3.3
i
2
3
35 3.8 0.67 - 13 -
35 3.6 0.48 - 13
35 173 225
32 6.3
1.3 22 -
Little ouilcene
1
33 9.5 1.8 - 38
36 38 57
33 4.4
0.84 - 15
2
35 T.1 1.5 25
74
38 54 80
35 13.3
3.3 - 46
3
36 18- 3.6 -
Cemetary Drain
1
29 59 11 - 300
2
3
22 65 9.6 - 410
24 674 109 -4124
22 1.2 1.5
21 5
0.73 20
Donovan Creek
1
34 17 2.4 - 90
188 36 - 972
30 4.6 9.7
30 6.6
1.3 24
2
33
Leland Creek
0
19 15 2.6 - 68
1
34 19 3.2 - 97
2
15 10 2.6 - 35
34 13 2.6 - 52
35 13 25
32 1.7
-0.3 - 10
3
laraboo
1
33 35 7 - 186
2
36 174 42 - 724
35 372
32 4.9 4.6
32 10.5
3.1 - 31
3
36 115 -
1
34 23 3.4 - 162
26 2.1 3
26 1
-0.1 -3.6
Coyle---•---------------------------
--- ---------------•-----
---•----•---•--•------•-
---...
Freshwater
F I GLRE 4
M N I TOR I NG DATA Sl MIAAW , 1986 - 1989
42.
52
51
50
4;
4
le
F I GLIDE 4
- H N I TOR I NG DATA SUVIVIAW , 1986 - 1989
d- 5aeometric mean Acal co�iform concentrations at marine
concentrations in Quilcene and Dabob Bays.
43.
Cdinpiled Data by Station
STATION:
SH6 1
STATION:
SH7 1
STATION:
SH8 I
STATION:
21i 1
STATION:
SH13
STATION:
SH1 I
STATION:
SH2 !
STATION:
SH3 I
STATION:
SH4 1
STATION:
Ss5 - -
--------------------------------------------------------
SEASON:
ALL (
SEASON:
ALL I
SEASON:
ALL I
SEASON:
ALL i
SEASON:
ALL
---------------------------------------------------`--------
SAMPLES:
13 14
SAMPLES:
6 1»
SAMPLES:
6 1»
SAMPLES:
6 (x
SAMPLES:
1:
RANGE MIN:
4.00 !RANGE MCI:
2.00 IRANGE MIN:
12.00 !RANGE MIN:
6.00 IRANGE MIN:
S.CO
MAX:
1590.00 I
MAX:
145.00 1
MAX:
250.00 {
MAX.
142.00 !
MAX:
110.00
G.M.V.:
109.33 I
G.M.V.:
30.20
G..M.'1.:
47.:9 !
G.M.V.:
40.15 (
G.M.V.:
33.52
I's > 100:
61.5441
$ > 100:
16.6711
i > 100:
15.Si %l
$ > 100
16.6711
; > 100:
COMPLIES
VIOLATION I
55.54 I
COMPLIES I
37.32 I
COMPLIES (
48.52 ;
COMPLIES I
105.33
COMPLIES
C.O.V.:
41.18 I
C.O.V.:
34.36 I
C -O.V.:
22.29 I
- - - - --
C.O.V.:
25.52 I
C.O.V.:
27.6E
-----------------
OATE
- - - - - -- I-------------------
MEAN
OAT::
----------------------
MEAN I
OATE
MEAN
`
OAT -'
MEAN (
OATE
MEAN
02/11/88
19.80 I
02/11/88
2, 00 1
02/11/88
36.00 1
02/11/88
20.00 i
02/11/88
19.19
04/18/88
1003.51 I
04/12/33
46.00 1
04/18/38
44.00 (
04/13/88
52.00 i
04/13/88
05/08/88
910.05 1
06/08/88
44.00 (
05/08/88
39.00 I
CS /03/88
43.00 1
06/08/58
54.71
01/19/88
1311.01 1
07/19/88
42.00 1
07/19/88
53.30 1
07/19/88
83.00 1
07/19/88
116.19
09/20/88
la5.93 (
09/20/3 "s
145.00 1
09/20/88
250.00 1
09/20/83
142.00 I
09/20/88
149.80
12/05/38
7.15 1
12/0./82
2.00 (
12/05/88
12.00 1
12/0:/38
6.00 1
12/05/38
5. �
(
02/07/89
15.00
02/07/89
4.00 1
(
i
STATION:
SH6 1
STATION:
SH7 1
STATION:
SH8 I
STATION:
21i 1
STATION:
SH13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEASON:
ALL I
SEASON:
ALL I
SEASON:
ALL I
SEASON:
ALL I
SE.'EGN:
ALL
------------------------
SAMPLES:
I--
1 »
- - - - -- - ------------------------------
SAMPLE
10 1»
SAMPLES:
6 1»
:AMPLE!:
3 1»
SAMPLES:
2
RANGE MIN:
0.00 IRANGE MIN:
16.00 !RANG
E MIN:
0.00 (RANGE MIN:
0.00 (RANGE MIN:
3.10
MAX:
2090.00 1
MAX:
15000.00 1
MAX:
46.00 I
MAX:
22.00 1
MAX:
20.30
G.M.V.:
141.02 I
G.M.V.:
379.90 (
G. :M.'1.:
14.44 !
G.M.V.:
2.58 1
G.M.V.:
11.12
> 100:
57.1011
; > 100:
50.00;1
> > 100:
0.0011
> > tOG:
0.0011
It > 100:
0.0�`
VIOLATION 1
VICLATIC:I 1
COMPLIES I
COMPLIES I
COMPLIES
C.O.V.:
55.54 I
C.O.V.:
37.32 I
C.O.V.:
48.52 ;
C.O.` /.:
- - - - --
105.33
- OATE - - -
-------------------------------------------------------------------
- -- MEAN (
OATE
MEAN
I OATS
ME.:N I
OATS
MEAN I
OAT`:
ME :%N
02/11/88
0.00 1
02/11/88
15.00
1 02/11/88
26.30 1
02 /11 /aa
0.00 1
02/11/88
5.00
04/18/88
1500.00 I
04/18/88
1600.00
1 04/18/38
32.00 1
04/18/88
1.00 1
06/03/88
20.00
06/08/88
1000.00 i
05/08/88
1044.00
1 06/08/88
35.00 I
06/08/88
22.00
01/19/88
2090.00 1
07/19/38
10954.45
1 01/19/88
46.00 (
1
09/20/88
620.00 (
09/20/88
1484.92
1 09/20/88
8.00 1
1
12/05/88
5.00 1
12/05/88
32.50
1 12/05/89
0.00 (
1
02/07/89
19.00 1
02/07/89
74.00
1
I
1
FIGLRE 5
NGN 1 TOR I NG DATA SLIV V AW , Sf -1A611 EASENEf T
ED
STATION: SN11 I
SEASON: ALL I i
:_SAMPLES: 1
UNGE AM:
MAX:
G.M.Y.: 0.00
> 100: 0.00 %1
COMPLIES
C.O.Y.:
OATE MW •.
02/11/88 0.00
i
I
i
FIGLRE 5
MTV I TOR I NG DATA SLMvAW , SHA:4 EASEVE*4T
Em
t
As the Quilcene Bay marine water quality violations occurred only periodically, the
Quilcene and Dabob Bays Water Quality Protect report, June, 1987, stated that
consistent correlations between monitoring results in Quilcene Bay and it's
freshwater inputs did not emerge from the data base. Factors Affecting Nonpoint
Source Fecal Coiiform Levels in Quilcene and Dabob Watersheds Jefferson County
Washington, April, 1990, stated that the most constant loading of fecal coliform
to Quilcene Bay comes from the Big Quilcene River (although Class "AA" standards
were met at its stations), and that the Little Quilcene River and Donovan Creek
contributed the highest relative proportion of fecal coliform loading to Quilcene
Bay.
No stations in Dabob Bay violated state standards during the period from July, 1986
to February, 1989.
SCU RC, E ACTiVITI =S AND Ii`f';P,AIR.MENTS TC 3= NEL'C'A.L USES
T he following text summarizes localized areas within the watersi,ed in which
action planning orccess identified noncoint source orobierns.
11PAI. MEN T : SE'DIi' EN i T 7CN, EROS!' A
Big Quilcene River
Measurements taken ",y County Staff at '.1ne _,ncer Longer oriCge on the Big
Quilcene River indicate that the szrea.i bed rose approximately 1.75 feet between
January, 1987 and Acrii, 1988 (18). These measurements and other anecdotal
accounts indicate aggradaticn (raising the level of the streambed by deecsition of
sediment) in the bed of the Bic Quilcene River. Log and debris Jams have caused
floods during the winters of 1986, 1987, and 1988, _incurring damage to private
property and fisheries resources.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in a 1971 report, Unfavorable Section
205 Detailed Protect Report on Big Quilcene River, cited that a river flooding event
may be expected in teat area.ever'y two to `il-ee years, and that a flood of damage
proportions may occur every five to six years.
Leland Creek
Property owners around Lake Leland, the watershed's second largest lake, describe
the lake and Leland Creek, which drains it, flooding increasingly higher ground
each winter over the last several years. Some of this commentary has been
documented in studies the Jefferson County Conservation District has conducted
on this area. The Conservation District analysis cites concern that the rising levels
of water are a result of the creek's riparian zone becoming increasingly choked
18. Janet Welch, Jefferson County Water Quality Program, personal communication.
46.
with an invasive non - native grass species, canarygrass.- Canarygrass's roots form
a clinging mat which holds soil and easily survives beneath the water's surface for
prolonged periods. The bulk of the root mat and the abundant tufts of
canarygrass can obstruct or alter the usual channel of a small creek, particularly
in flat terrain where the creek can pond. Canarygrass has, on the uppermost part
of Leland Creek completely coated the normal sand and gravel textures of the creek
bottom, altering valuable fish habitat.
(Beaver dams also create an obstruction to this segment of the creek being used
as fish habitat. The beaver dams also create a ponding of the normal creek channel
flow in this flat uppermost part of Leland Creek). The Conservation District also
noted the human safety hazard the winter flooding causes to an isiclated section
of Highway 1C1.
Quiicene and Tarbco Bays
Ccm„ercial shellfish are impaired or threatened by ncnpcint pollution in the north
end of Quiicene Say. The Coast Oyster Company, en Quiicene Bay, is specifically
Conferred bYitl'1 and affected by si,tation and, to a lesser extent, fecal CCii.orm
C ntamin l ende' VI-e saltwater are impossible to filter cut
:,, ,� atior.. rart:cu a_es sus�,�. ��.. in ��
completely, which causes three :inaicr probiems. Oyster larvae growth is siC'T /er,
which greatly reduces efficiercy and increases overhead. Secondly, larvae
mortality increases to a level of millions per day during extensive periods of
siita_ior , representing a icss of thousands of dollars. The third problem is that silt
plugs 'up filters, further increasing operating costs (19).
Sedimentation caused by flooding and erosion also affects the adult and seed beds
operated by Coast in east Quiicene Bay. Although thle problem is currently very
minimal, oyster beds are softened by sedimentation, producing a series of growout
Complications (20).
Jefferson County Water Quality stagy identified a s.i;all Culvert in need of
reciacerrent a_ t ^e .:.oath of Dcr:ovan Creek. The Quiicene/Dabcb Bays
Watershed Management Committee recommended the county inspect and replace
the culvert.
Area Fisheries
Long time watershed residents who have made their living fishing and area
sportfishermen commented during the action planning process that they believe
salmon and trout habitat has been negatively impacted by erosion and man -made
alterations of the watershed's stream and marine shorelines.
Data on fish habitat impairment from nonpoint pollution was not collected by
Jefferson County in the Quiicene /Dabob watershed. However, loss of fish production
19. Thomas Bettinger, Coast Oyster Company, Broodstcck Manager, personal
communication.
20. Ibid.
potential due to siltation and associated destruction of spawning and rearing
habitat, and the resulting decrease in reproduction, growth, and survival are all -- _
well documented in fisheries literature. Silt clogs spawning gravel and suffocates
or traps developing embryos, damages gill tissue, blocks light and therefore cuts
down on food production and visibility of prey.
SOURCE ACTIVITIES /SEDIMENTATION, EROSION AND FLOODING:
Forestry
Prevalent sources of sedimentation in the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed are
associated with the major land use pattern in the watershed, which is commercial
Z restry. Poor forestry practices can dramatically exacerbate natural erosion and
may introduce herbicides and other hazardous wastes into the water cycle. Viewed
from aerial photos, the rugged, steep terrain of the upper Quilcene /Dabob Bays
Watershed reveals the Quilt -like pattern of numerous large State, Federal and
private ciearcuts in varying stages of reforestation. Both private and government
timber concerns comply with the water quality /erosion protective measures
specified by the Forest Practices Act; such as leaving timbered buffer strips along
ricarian• zones. `✓owever, QuilceneiDabcb Bays Watershed
Management Committee
participants from, the professional forester sector observed that winter storm
events may largely blow these buffer strips down. Even in unlogged areas on
steep slopes, massive slides and timber blowdown occur naturally, and 10ring
cuantities of sedimentation into the streams during winter storms.
However, forest practices can contribute to nonpoint pollution and negatively
impact beneficial uses in the Quilcene /Dabob watershed. Forest roads and their use
are a source of sediment. Type 4 and 5 basins (extreme upland areas, usually 12
percent slopes or greater) comprise a high percentage of the area. Logging on
these steep slopes produces sediment. This sediment decreases the stream channel
capacity which may increase scouring (erosion of earth or rock by flowing water)
at f'oodstage. Scil erosion, scouring, and sedimentation destroy fish and wildlife
habitat (21).
Logging has increased erosion and altered runoff patterns in the watershed. Forest
practices have resulted in erosion and scouring of Donovan creek, dropping the
bed three to five feet in places (22).
21. Brenda, Lee. Gradute Research Assistant, Center for Streamside Studies,
College of Forestry, University of Washington, personal communication.
22. Barbara Fisk, Watershed Management Committee Member, personal
communication.
4s.
At least one shellfish grower on Dabob Bay has experienced substantial losses due
to sedimentation from upland forest .management practices. Several._years.ago,
$25,000 worth of oyster -- seed were damaged when a clearcut along 'a creek -
decreased bank stability and a flood covered the seed with one to three feet of silt;
$5,000 worth of singles were also lost (23). -
Sediments may also be a vehicle for bacterial transport and survival. Sediment can
act as a bacteria reservoir and during heavy rains, significant fecal coliform loads
may be derived from streambed sediments (24).
There is some evidence to suggest that sediments in Dabob Bay may be
contaminated with toxicants (toxic materials). Amphipod and oyster larval bioassay
data (survival) suggests some degree of impact by toxicants. The finding of
possibly degraded sediment quality in Dabob Bay may be attributed to the
circulation of contaminants from the main basin of Puget Sound (25).
The forestry practices concerns that the Quilcene /Dabob Watershed Management
Committee examined are discussed in more death, along with agricultural practices
concerns, under the foilowing section.
,Agricultural Practices
Small scale agriculture and hobby farms are found throughout the watershed area.
According to the cited 1987 study conducted by the Jefferson County Conservation
District, there are about 40 landowners with 126 head of livestock in the watershed.
That does not include one large commercial operation that has 100 to 200 head
pastured seasonally during the summer months. The common agricultural Best
Management Practice promulgated by the Conservation District for these properties
is exclusion of livestock by fencing or vegetative buffer from at least 20 feet of the
streambank (26).
23. Jeffery Delia, Owner /Operator. Delia's Broadspit Oysters, personal
communication.
24. Determan, Timothy A., 1985. Sources Affecting the Sanitary Conditions
of Water and Sheiifish in Minter Bay and Burley Lagoon.
25. Strand, John A., et.al., 1988. Reconnaissance -Level Surveys of Eight
Bays in Puget Sound. in Proc. First Annual Meeting on Puget Sound
Research. Seattle: PSWQA, Page 229.
26. Kerry Perkins, District Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service,
personal communication.
49.
Sediment from unrestricted access of farm animals -to-creeks was frequently
observed by Water Quality Program field staff along the riparian zones of the
watershed creeks in which state standards were not met. The fish habitat in
Donovan and Tarboo Creeks have been impacted by livestock, a problem well
documented in other watersheds (27). Removal of streamside vegetation reduces
energy inputs (beneficial organic matter such as leaves), decreases the availability
of terrestrial insects for food and decreases bank stability, and disrupts the
stream's temperature regime (28). The removal of streamside vegetation also
reduces the filtering of pollutants.
The following information on agricultural and siivacultural impacts was researched
by David Campbell of the Department of Ecology. Agricultural and siivacultural
activities that contribute to non - point pollution are primarily the activites of crop
and animal production. The pollution is generally intermittent in nature and occurs
primarily when runoff takes place as a result cf rainfall or snowmelt (29). The
types of the pollutants depends largely on the activites underway at or before the
runoff event.
The following agricultural Or siivacultural activities can cause non -point source
water pollution:
1. Soil disturbance due to tillage or compaction by heavy machinery.
2. Destruction of natural vegetation which leaves the soil exposed.
Application of commercial fertilizers or ar:imai wastes as fertilizers.
Application of pesticides /herbicides.
Tyoes of activities associated with animal production that can cause non -point
pollution are:
1. Concentration of animals and their wastes in holding areas and improper waste
14iscosal.
2. Overgrazing that results in inadequate vegetative coverage.
3. Concentration of animals along streambanks leading to erosion of streambanks
and direct depostion of wastes into streams.
27. Randy Johnson, Washington State Department of Fisheries, personal
communication.
28. Holly Coccoli, Point No Point Treaty Council, Fisheries Biologist,
personal communication.
29. Hamlet, J.M., 1984. Runoff and Sediment Transport within and from
Small Agricultural Watersheds, Society of Agricultural Engineers,
0001 -2351 /84/2705 -1355, Pages 1355 -1363.
50.
Agricultural activities result in five general types of pollutants which can be
discharged into receiving waters:
1. Sediments, by volume, are the largest agricultural pollutant (30). They
form bottom blankets that smother aquatic life, interfere with
photosynthesis and act as carriers of pesticides and nutrients (31).
Sediments also enhance the survival of enteric bacteria and viruses (32).
2. Nutrient pollution results from improper application of fertilizer
or animal wastes. Nutrients may be absorbed by sediments and
transported in runoff to receiving waters (33). Nutrients may also
enter by direct runoff. Excessive nutrients lead to an imbalance in
natural nutrient cycles and can cause excessive plant growth in
receiving waters.
3. Pesticiaes e ^ter sur -ace and grcuna ,,later In mucn -1 he same manner as
nt,–Lr' ant_. Pesticides in water can cause acute toxicity and can accumulate in
'ire $cod chair. (34).
r'Imai wastes arc cr oc debris at-e >r-,v iarcest Cc ibutcrS c' organic
m -Lanais. D ssoived arc organic : -nat rials rrav . =acn sur�ace and ground water
tnrol-,g^ r�ir 7 , sae^ag ana inriitrat!cr. (35).
ni ..crco _.. �sm_ _.re as_oc a -ed wwt-r an,rrai ��r_S`es (36).
'a ,n anima: 'wd'stc .an -ac- s_.. ace arc y ou n .'r /ate'' Lnr cu h tir
same oaths as (37).
31. await?, , 1979. '- Nlonccir _ Scuroe Poi .- cn _on -roi by Soli arc
'vVa'_'e` l:.cnSerV�_tion Practices. <;imeric3r cu, I`_ura.'
Engineers, G ^01 -'3.51 9/2210 1- 1133 -, pa ;es 834 -8'
32. i<a: -er, b.5. 107.,; '1? =foie "�nimat5 4?`e'oor `e I rans.- lssion
_v' "",1ses. 'mater Science ecrnoiogy, 18.. ( 1; ), =ages 241 -20-3.
33. 4vaiter, M.-., 10-79. Tbia.
34. Tbid.
35. ivak, j.A.... 1978. "Best Management Practices to ritroi 'Ncnocint
Source peilu-io^ from. Agricui-ure." Journal c' Sc :1 and Wafar
^onservatien, 1Juiy- August 1978.
36. Pioes, W.')., 1982. eacteriai Tnuicater_ of Moiiu -r.cr.
Eerg, Gerard. 1978. indicators of vi–Uses nmater and Fcoa.
Eittcn, Gabriel, 198D. Tntroduct;on to =nvironmentai Virciogy.
37, rabid.
51.
Local Regulations
Local county regulations are also significant in maintaining water quality in the
watershed. Formerly, the regulations of the county's Subdivision Ordinance did
not provide for review of sub - divisions of five acre or larger units. A number of
these five acre or larger unit subdivisions were Class IV timberland conversions.
Class 1V timberlands are those lands currently classed for commercial timber and,
ucon timber harvest, subject to reforestation requirements. In some cases, after
initiai timber harvest, timberland conversions were proposed without reforestaion.
This situation coupled with an excellent real estate market resulted in a
croliferation of small parcel development. The proliferation of "conversions" from
Class 1V timberland to residential /commercial development tracts represents the
increasing trend from rural land use to urbanization in Jefferson County. This
recent growth trend, when viewed in aerial photos, shows an increase of cleared
land parcels; reducing native vegetation and increasing the potential for erosion
and sedimentation into streams and ditches. A decrease of the landbase in
wcodiand and an increase in urbanization contributes various ncnpoint sources of
pcilution to the watershed.
This gap in county subdivision review was recognized by a recent moratorium on
large subdivisions until Interim Provisions for Large Subdivisions could be
appended to the Jefferson County Subdivision Ordinanca. The Quilcene / Dabob Bays
Watershed Management Committee recommended SEPA review be conducted on ail
euaiified Class IV timberland conversions.
SHELLFISH CONTAMINA T ICN /FECAL COLIFCRM
Closure in--Nor-..h End of Quilcene Bay /Concern in Tarboo Bay
In 1984, ,routine sampling conducted by the Washington State Department of Health
reveaiec that USFDA standards for commercial shellfish growing /harvesting sites
were not met at several sampling stations in Quilcene Bay and particularly in the
north end or head of the bay. This bacterial contamination, indicated by presence
of fecai coliform, resulted in a shellfish decertification (closure) in the north
portion of the bay in 1985. Although the head of the bay was not then utilized by
the commercial shellfish operations, that portion is no longer available for
utilization. Department of Health samples taken from the Little Quilcene River and
Donovan Creek indicated these two tributaries were the main freshwater
contributors to bacterial pollution of Quilcene Bay. Department of Health also
sampled water quality in Dabob Bay and found it to meet standards, though
elevated counts were found near the south shore. The elevated counts were
attributed to a combination of recreational and commercial boating activity and
rural nonpoint pollution (failing septic systems, livestock waste).
52.
Although Coast Oyster does not raise oysters in the now restricted portion of
Quilcene Bay, they are gravely concerned that their intensely used portions of the
bay will someday be contaminated. This would force Coast Oyster to either abandon
their east Quilcene operation, which is very important to their business, or to relay
their product to clean water at great expense (38).
SOURCE ACTIVITIESIFECAL COLIFORM CONTAMINATION
Fai l i na On -Site Septic Systems
Failing septic systems are a source of bacterial contamination in the watershed, but
it is unknown how much failing septic systems are contributing to the fecal coliform
loading in Quilcene and Dabob Bays. As stated in the Quilcere / Dabob Bays Water
Quality Project report, septic systems could be contaminating subsurface water with
no visible indication to either the crooerty owner or other observer.
Jefferson County Planning and Building Department conducted sanitary surveys in
the watershed anc provided tec'nnical assistance for the recair cr upgrade of
identified failing on-sits septic systems. A. detailed account oT Identified
malfunctioning on -site septic systems and resulting remedial actions is available !n
Addendum Report for Shellfish Protection Grant :8800 -1, Jefferson County Planning
and Building Department, March, 1990. This report is available from the Jefferson
County Planning and Building Department.
Agricultural Practices
Agricultural practices have been identified as a primary contributor of the fecal
coliform contamination in the fresh water of Donovan Creek, Cemetery Drain, and
Tarboo Creek. Cemetery Drain and Donovan Creek continue to contribute high
numbers of fecal coliform bacteria to Quilcene Bay. It may take as long as five
years for background levels of bacterial contamination to reflect the implementation
of agricultural Best Management Practices (39).
In 1987, a conservation easement was obtained on the tidaiiy inundated pasture at
the mouth of Donovan Creek. Livestock have been excluded from the entirety of
this 25 acre parcel. Other streams on agricultural properties in the watershed
have been fenced as well; however, several areas of unrestricted livestock access
to streams still impact segments of streams in the watershed.
39. Janet Welch, Water Quality Specialist, personal ccmmunication.
53.
Harbor Seals
The study conducted by Cascadia Research Collective in 1987 concluded that the
population of harbor seals in Quilcene Bay may be as high as 203 animals on
occasion and is capable of producing a very high output of fecal bacteria. A study
of the seals in Quilcene Bay indicated that fecal coliform densities in harbor seat
feces are fairly high and given the population size of seals and their defecation
rates, seals have the potential to be significant contributors to the high fecal
coiiform levels in Quilcene Bay (40). During the Jefferson County water monitoring
study period, harbor seals habitually haul -outed on the Pope and Talbot logging
company log boom in Quilcene Bay. However, the relative amount of fecal coliform
contamination to the bay from the various sources is not known. Neither is the
human health risk -of eating shellfish contaminated by seal feces.
Seal feces may contain human pathogens, but research has not been shown
conciusiveiy that humans can be infected (41). It is wideiy accented that human
and livestock fecal matter also have the potential to contain human pathogens ane
can create a human health hazard if the fecal matter is allowed to contaminate
shellfish bets. erefore, it is necessary to manage all sources of fecal
contammination if the sheliTlsh are to be protected.
There is a strong belief among local citizens that seals and the netting of fish have
seriously impacted the salmon and trout in Quilcene and Dabob Bays.
The significance of the seals impact cannot be known at this time without further
research (42). Upstream activity and seal populations in the bays both contribute
to bacterial loading of marine waters.
H.�. =FOCUS WASTE /PESTICIDES
Jefferson County water quality monitoring efforts have not been able to quantif "/
or track the effect c•f hazardous wastes and the use of pesticides and herbicides -
40. Calambokidis, John and McLaughlin, Brian. 1987. Harbor Seal
Fooulations and Their Contributions to Fecal Coliform Pollution
in Quiicene Bay, Washington. Executive summary.
41. John Calambokidis, Cascadia Research Collective, personal
communication.
42. Calambokidis, John, et.al., 1989. Bacterial Contamination Related to
Harbor Seals in Puget Sound, Washington. Olympia: Cascadia Research
Collective. Exeuctive Summary.
54.
has on the watershed. Traces of 2 -4 -D have been found in surface water (43) and
illegally dumped appliances and other solid waste has the potential to release
hazardous wastes into the watershed (44). The Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed
Management Committee determined an active effort to keep hazardous waste out of
the freshwater tributaries of the watershed was a priority whether or not impacts
were quantified.
THREATENED DRINKING WATER /GROUNDWATER
Groundwater supplies in the watershed are derived from surficial aquifers; that is,
aquifirs that recharge from rainfall to the surface. Therefore, there is a distinct
potential for ground water supplies to be contaminated by non point pollution
(Including bacterial contamination, nitrates, and com.mersiai /household chemical
wastes from failing septic systeims and illegal dumping). This may be a particular
orcbtem in the Big Quilcene river flood plain, where bath drainr "fields and drinking
wells are located.
URBA�� R.Uf�O -P
"io soeciflc da,a. 'Sulidings. roaCS and other paved cr impervious surl-aces
contribute an indeterminant amount of nonpoint source pollution to the watershed's
strea:;,s and cat's. Because the cuilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed is so rural in
character, the `, watarshed Management committee did not prioritize the monitoring
of chemicals or heavy metals n the Streams and bays. The Committee did idertify
an acandoned landfill on the bank o= Donovan Creek as a potential concern and
recommended Jefferson County monitcr for chemicai/heavy metal cortam! nation at
this site.
LOW DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Although the Quilcene /Dabob Says Watershed studies have not conducted tests on
the Pope and Taibot log raft (currently removed) in Quilcene Bay, studies by
Harper and Owes for Pope Resources in Ludlow Bay have shown a clear tendarcy
for the level of dissolved oxygen underneath the operating log raft in that bay to
be lower than the surrounding waters (45).
43. Andrus, Phil. Assistant Supervisor, Jefferson County Conservation
District, personal communication.
44. Phillips, Jerry. Quilcene /Dabob Watershed Management COMmlitte9,
personal communication.
45. Patmont, C.R. Pelletier, G. J. Harper, M.E. 1985. Water Qualm
Investigation of Port Ludlow Technical Reoort, Harper Owes, Seattle,
WA.
G_
This is attributed to the de- oxygenation caused by the decay of an accumulated
amount of organic debris, in the form of tree bark and matter, sinking to the
bottom of the bay. No quantified impact to marine, resources is attached to this in "
this Action Plan, however, it is noted for future reference.
OTHER BENEFICAL USES IMPAIRED
Other beneficial uses threatened or impaired by nonpoint pollution includes fish
and wildlife habitat and wetlands. The extent to which these are impacted by
nonpoint pollution is unknown.
RECD MMENDED RESEARCH
Lnfor, nation that is desirable but unavailable in this wa_ershed includes:
-ne reiative`contrlbutions of seals and otiner sources of fecal Conform;
zurrent data on area fisheries habita_:
scecific sources of sediment production;
the quality of ground water in the QullceneiDabob water shed;
t.e rate of aquifir recnarce and the rate of d aw;
to what extent erosion and sedimentation extend bacteriological survival and
transport;
the extent to which sedimentation in creeks and rivers c,-,tribute to flooding and
septic system failure, although it is strongly suspected in the Big Quilcene flood
plain;
information on water quality parameters other than fecal conform; it is unknown
whether other water quality standards specified in Chapter 173 -201 WAC are being
met.
56.
CHIAPT =R POUR
ACT?CN PL"I SCURCc CCN7RCLS
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan mandated a Puget Sound
watershed management planning program which would result in the development
and adoption of watershed action plans. "The goal of watershed action plans shall
be to meet water quality and shellfish standards in priority watersheds. The
obiectives of watershed action plans shall include reopening closed /correctable
shellfish beds, preventing further closures, protecting fish habitat, and achieving
other objectives appropriate to each watershed." (46)
"The Action Plan shall describe a coordinated program of effective actions Co be
implemented to prevent and abate nonpoint source pollution within the watershed.
This is to be accomplished through local programs that define nonpoint source
oroblems and identify appropriate means to maintain or improve water quality and
protect beneficial uses." (47)
IMPLEMENTING - .GENCIES
Under RCW 90.70.180, the statutory basis c-" the Puget Sound ',Dater Quality
Management Plan, local governments and state agencies are authorized to negotiate
with affected parties, adopt ordinances, rules, and /or reguiations to implement
Action Plans to reduce non -point sources of pollution to Puget. Sound. The
Quiicene/Dacob Bays 'Haters "ed Management Committee identified affected
iurisdictions, groups and agencies within the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed and
negotiated commits ents to implement recommended Action Plan source controls.
The committments and timeframes are documented in the Action Plan Statements of
Concurrence /Nonconcurrence contained in the Appendix A.
SOURCE CONTROLS
These source control strategies were developed and prioritized by the
Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Management Committee.
The Committee agreed that all the sources of non -point pollution contributed to the
degradation of water quality in the watershed. By discussing the water quality
problems and potential solutions, the Committee reached consensus on a wide range
of source controls, both corrective and preventative. Source control strategies
were developed for on -site sewage
46. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1989. Draft 1989 Puget Sound
Water Quality Management Plan, pp. 56.
47. WAC 400 -12 -500.
57.
systems, agricultural practices, boats and marinas, forestry practices,
erosion /sedimentation /flooding, harbor seals and hazardous waste.
Recommendations concerning educational programs, financial assistance and
continuing research were also made.
It was generally felt that urban stormwater runoff was a minor problem in the
watershed at this time and that stormwater problems could be prevented in the
future by careful planning of growth and development. After a discussion of an
ordinance to control erosion from construction sites, the Committee deferred any
recommendation on such an ordinance until the county develops said ordinance as
part of a required stormwater management program being developed by the
Jefferson County PuHc Works Department and the state Department of Ecology. The
Committee did, however, endorse the goals and guidelines of the Hood Canal
Coordinating Council with respect to stormwater management and temporary erosion
and sedimentation control.
Wetlands recommendations were deferred until they can be addressed on a county-
wide basis in response to the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. The
Pucet Sound Water Quality .14arac:ement Plan mandates a state wetlands policy be
formulated by the state Depart:m;en� of _coiogy and adopt -ad as minimum standards
by the county.
The following thirty three recommendatiors are the Source C:,ntrols of the
Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Action Plar.
QN -SIT= SEPT-C SYSTEMS
The Quiicene /Dabob Bays Watershed Management Committee felt quite strongly that
septic systems should perform oroperiy and that the county needs specific policy
to ensure that they are irstalled properly and that failinc systems are corrected.
The implicit agreement was that each homeowner must do their part to protect ,he
environment. As mentioned, soils in the Quilcene /Dabob watershed are generally
Poor for on-site sewage disposal, and both preventative and corrective measures
are needed.
The Committee recognized that low and moderate income homeowners may need
financial and technical assistance for repairing failed septic systems. A program,
recommended by the Committee, The Jefferson County Water Quality Improvement
Fund currently allows qualified homeowners to take out zero to low interest rate
loans for septic repair. The identifying and mapping "critical" or high failure rate
areas within Jefferson County ranked watersheds will provide a basis for
prioritizing technical and financial assistance for sub- standard septic systems in
the county.
58.
Action 1. Jefferson County Planning and Building Department and Jefferson
County Health Department shall pursue funding to assist qualified
low and moderate income homeowners with funding to assist
qualified low and moderate income homeowners with funding for
septic system repairs.
Timeline: During next grant cycle (1990).
Estimated Costs: $100,000 for an estimated 20 homes.
Fund °ng Source: Washington State Dept. of Ecology
State Revciving Fund loan to
Jeff erscn County for $2C0,000 total.
C cm, mittee's
ar;or�ti_a_ior.: nigh.
c-icn '2. ,t escnt. Jeffarson Ccunt' rei;es on .re asning=7, n
I ?in;s- :"alive Code fc,- septic sysTeam policy. T, e Jef,erson
Ccun -,';f 3carO cf ie -aith shail deveio.0 a courzy Sewage ClSposa
system oote . llicn i ay be stricter than the WAC, pursuant to
Chaozer 2?.9 -96. This cede would aapiy to all of Jefferson County
and 4zhcuid address tine follcwing concerns:
A. Prohibiting instaiiat;on of on -Site sewer systems within
ten -year flood plains within the Early Action and Ranked
county watersheds;
S. Updating the policy on variances and the requirements for
enhanced treatment;
C. Updating the policy on system upgraces for ma;or remodels,
replacements, and expansions;
D. Updating the policy on the horizontal and vertical separation
of primary and reserve systems;
E. Updating the present operation, maintenancej and monitoring
program to provide an identification, characterization and
mapping of prioritized "critical" areas which will be
targeted for special provisions, which may include but are
not limited to, enhanced treatment requirements, 100
per cent coverage, and community based treatment technology,
where water quality data indicates a problem.
59.
F. The ongoing septic education program shall continue with a
.50 FTE from the Jefferson County Health Department;
G. A septage management plan shall be developed.
Timeline: December, 1991.
Estimated Cost: $2,CC0 for County staff time.
Funding Source: Existing Count! budget plus Dept. of
Ecology CCWF grant #90094 (grant total
is $160,220).
Committee's
Prioritization: High.
aC iCn Enharce zhe ccer dination betty °a.. the Jefferson County Health
Department, Jefferson County Pianring and Building Department
and the public relative tc permit requirements for new
development, expansions, re-mcceis or repairs of Structures
and septic systems. The recommended action for enhanced
coordination is to network the trio county departments'
computer systems to provide comprehensive information centers
in each department of all set backs, special conditions
and permit requirements from both departments pertaining
to the site(s) in auestion. The Jefferson County Planning and
Building Department will be resoensible for for net,riorking
the departments' computer systems, and for providing training
to county Health and Planning staff in the use of the computer
network.
In addition, it is recommended that the two county departments
evaluate the feasibility of a single plot plan application
system, in which both departments' permit requirements are
documented on a single permit application form. A written
evaluation stating criteria, costs and timeframes or why the
action is not feasible for Jefferson County shall be prepared.
Timeline: Department network - October 31, 1990.
Has been done, October, 1990.
Written evaluation June 30, 1991.
Estimated Cost: $500 for County staff time
$5,500 for computer consultant /hook up.
Funding Source: Existing County budget plus Dept. of
Ecology CCW F grant #90094.
M
Committee's - - -
Prioritization: High.
Action 4. Jefferson County Health Department shall ensure that 100
percent of new septic system installations in Jefferson County
are inspected prior to covering as per current state law.
Additionally, it is recommended that Jefferson County Health
Department, upon Jefferson County Board of Health approval,
identiify, characterize and map prioritized "critical" areas
within the QuilcenelDabob Watershed which will be targeted for
special provisions, which may include but are not limited to,
enhanced treatment requirements, 1C0 per cant inspection
coverage, and community based treatment technoiogy, where water
cuaiity data indicates a problem.
Time! ine: lrspection - ongoing.
irlap' CrltiCal areas - �eCmber 1, i991
t d -C os ' S1�,OCC per year for County staff time for
= St';,�ae�.
inspection.
51,000 for County sta -f time for mapping.
Fundinc Scur:: : Existing County budget plus Dect. Of
Ecology CCWF grant :90094 ($44,C00 portion
Of grant total to County Health Department
over t,.vo year period for water quality
eiements).
Committee's
Prioritization: 'sign.
Action 6. Jefferson County Health Department shall inform homeowners of
County programs which assist them with water quality, including
the funding program for septic system repair (The Jefferson
County water Quaiity Improvement Fund).
Timeline: December 31, 1991
Estimated Ccst: 51,000 for County staff time.
Fundinq Source: Existing County budget plus Dept. of
Ecoiogy CCWF grant :90094.
Committee's
prioritization: Moderate.
61.
AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES
As mentioned, agricultural practices have been identified as a primary contributor
of the fecal coliform contamination in Donovan, Jakeway, Tarboo, Coyle and Leland
Creeks and Cemetery Drain. Exclusion of livestock from streams through use of
fencing and /or vegetative buffer strips along streambanks are examples of
agricultural Best Management Practices.
The Watershed Management Committee considered incentives for agricultural
mangement, but did not reach consensus on tying the Open Space /Agriculture
property tax incentives to the implementation of Best Management Practices. After
implementation of the Action Plan source controls, the Action Plan Evaluation
Committee shail evaluate the agricultural source controls based on water quality
data ar:d the resconse of land owners in implementing Best Management Practices.
Based on t ^is evaluation, the Action Plan Evaluation Committee shall reconsider
making a recc:mrnerDntien to tie -he Open Space tax incentives to Bes_ Managemert
Prac_ices im;:iementatior.
The Guiicene /Dabcd Watershed "management Committee did riot support regulatior
of agr!cu,ture at t'iis _ime, but wi!l consider it in the future if incentives.
education, anc _ecrmcai assistance are evaluated as inadequate for the orotect on
of water Gua! _ Tre Committee fei_ that the best way to manage agricuitura
s✓rac_ cas was crovisicr cf education and technical assistance and financial
=.sSls_ar ?ce or oS_;' harm 'Cr BeSt Yanagemert Practices imolementation.
.izffer �O•`. :: -unt; Ccr'ser' ✓a =ion Dlstr ic_ has Chosen L eve: iII Ian the Compliance -
Memorar m C' agreement with the Washington State ConServa_!cr Commission and
tne'v'J%ashirgto" Sate �epartmentvf Ecology; an agreement -eno :ing themanagemen:
policies and or "ocedures adopted by local conservation districts. Jefferson County
Conservation District has adopted an assistance and information approach to
manacemen- cf agric,ul -ural practices. Under this agreement, if the Department of
Ecology recai yes a valid water' quality compiain_, the owner /operator is referred
to the county conservation distirct for technical assistance. If the owner %operator
does ncz voijntar ily deveioD and implement a water quality management pian, tine
size i_ re :arr eC bac to the Decarcmert of Eco ogy for enforcement action.
2fferson C:.unty will work in ceoceration with the Conservation District anc
bvashingtor, State = ecartment e' = coiogy to achieve remedial action for water quality
violations.
Action 5. T ^e Jefferson County Conservatior Jistr!Ct Snail apply for
furdinq for a field technician to work in eastern Jefferson
County. The fleid technician will assist farmers in identifying
anc solving water cuality problems, including assisting with
Ce• ✓e •Jping and uodating farm plans. educating iancowners about
52.
water quality and financial incentives for Best Management
Practices implementation, and continuing other conservation
district educational programs on groundwater and riparian zone
management.
Timeline: During the next grant cycles (1990 and 1991).
Has been done, 1990 and 1991.
Estimated Cost: $3,656.30 for 1989 to 1990.
$26,532.00 for 1991 to 1992.
Furdira Source: Washinctcn State Department of Ecology
CCWF grant - 89 -02 -06 to 1990.
Washinctcn State Department of Ecology
CCWF prcgram to 1992 and beyond.
CC ;Y_
--
Pr ;cr-- '.- iigr:.
7. _e- -erscn Ccun -, Ccrservation DISC. iCt and the Jefferson
C- 3unll'v Planning and Building Depart: er:t shall jointly develop a
So.ve tie ccnvergi ^g problems Of flooding, ro d ha_ard,
wat =r auallty, 3na flsn anc wi diife -icacitat In tie Leland Creel-
are
;,his may involve clearing cn- native grasses choking the
creek channel, lowering the levei of Lake Leiand, upgrading a
port;cr of Highway 101, plar:ting trees or cther riparian .
ve,3t tion, and excluding livestock from orticn Of Leland Creek.
T he plan Shall be ccordinated with landowrars, Department of
h Dec ,y ` T ^ortati "e Point No Point
FiS erEeS, �..�artmet:� Oi i ranSu�„i �a�IOn, and �;�c
Treaty Council.
T it ;elire: December 31, 1990. Ongoing.
s "'rated Cost: 0-00 hours Of volunteer tulle (ClOnservatPon
` District and local), initial project;
$1,50C for Federal (SCS), State (DOT),
and County staff time, initial project;
S10,000 to $20,000 initial project costs;
50 hours of volunteer time (Conservation
District and local), yearly ,maintenance.
(Jefferson County Water Quality staff
estimate).
63.
Funding Source: Existing Federal, County and District budgets
plus $50,00 State Department of Transportation
funds committed to project.
Committee
Priority: High.
Action 8. The Jefferson County Public Works Department shall analyze the
flooding in the Donovan Creek area and the capacity of the
culvert at the mouth of Donovan Creek on East Quilcene Road. .
If the need warrants, the culvert capacity should be increased.
Timeiine: December 31, 1989. Has been done
Estir„ated Cost: 51, -150.
'andinc Source Existing --ount,j budget.
Committee
Prior`• Moderate.
Action 9. Jefferson County Board of Commissioners shall seek to establish
a loan program for the implementation agricultural "Best
Management Practices" on non - commercial farm properties. The
Jefferson County Conservation District shall continue to
provide technical assistance to both commercial and non -
commercial farms for design and implementation of agricultural
"Hest Management Practices ".
Timeline: July 31, 1990. Has been done, June, 1900.
estimated Cost: $100,000 for an estimated 20 properties;
10 non - commercial /10 commercial
Funding Source: Washington State Department of Ecology
State Revolving Fund.
Committee
Priority: Moderate.
64.
Action 10. Jefferson County Board of Commissioners shall give a maximum
tax incentive to landowners that voluntarily maintain a stream
side buffer of at least 25 feet in width. The buffer must be
preserved from clearing and from intrusion by livestock. The
Jefferson County Conversation District shall provide technical
assistance for stream side buffer design and maintenance.
Timeline: June 30, 1991.
Sti mated Cost: $500 for County staff time.
$1,5CC for Conservation District and SCS
staff time (Jefferson County Water
Qua i ty staff" esti mate ).
- -_= - -_urce: Existing County and District dud7ets.
G0 M, 17 tt -e
n.
`' QSIQN AND r i_r'CDi I.j^
-acing tC r.eSr a; ?d 'n3,"'!rS 'wra -SrS. SECI-nCr^,a-" -.. , ;:s S rn
nor no;nt source cci ;zjz:'Or -
-n nom y,(at:�r`i�p�, Tile mostseve�re
r ct r. Tnc -"u; Gene /Dacco 3a`%s bva °r_ ^ec acce= to 'he
O ser- (ien, ;n t e 'cwer S!g iUl'Cere e The u-ca c4
^r^ .: 4JIi but 3._. :bUte(] TO v�otl: "at!Jral e!'CS.0 8`,..i ';,S an
1- i cow, i_. c;ai for ?_ _rJ raOt'C�S.
e _e,4 rr rme, c•e surr:aces roes ,,c` aocear -c be a :7,a'cr
5 re, t_ _,t p, OD amS 1Got oe creven` d ^y
..c a ��}, _ J a 4 U� tre
W le "'-se ha cor:V rslon cf C SST and a^ ne
anc .."OSjCn re ca ticular - car 'le
• ' a`c = '1 ana -mll nt 'Ic 1 mi :tee ;a;SC ussBd an cr ^I: c_ncc 7o ctrl "^' �
o! er silcn �r cm
referred any recommer,daTion on such an ordinance until
]c::nt`Y develops said Ordinance as oar- Of a rea infer. S- ormWatc
anagemen_ Urcgr a..:.
C i C; -.?e I-e "erSo"? Cc�_In_`� 53oai'c O Cc tmlSSiO "erS s ^ail a"1e 1c.
the ve- ferson County VCen Scace Tax Program sr-) that the
crier ;a for Timoeriands will iriciuce site Soeciflc
r"easureS far the control of erosion and the protection cf
`ioar;ar: _Onas aoa water cualit'y.
Timeline: June 30, 1991.
Estimated Cost: $500 for county staff time.
Funding Source: Existing county budget plus
Department of Ecoiccy CCWF
grant 90094.
Cc m i ttee
Priority: High.
Action 12, The Hcod Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) staff shall
*aci`:itate public participation in timberland management
in the watersned by conducting two workshc^S c7l the
i ; bar, Fish and Wildlife agreement. The purpose of the
workshops is to inform the public of the
i T /F, ', ^r cocas
and how it may ':e utilized for the protection of .pater
auaiity in the cod Canal Easin.
To rr:obilize and train citizen volunteers to identify
cotential or existing water aua!ity problems, HCCC
staff shall provide limited staff support to provide
technical assistance to new and exisiting conservation
organizations, such as the Admiralty and Kitsap
Audubon Sec:ety chapters, Jefferson County Watershed
Council, North Mason Subarea Planning, Hood Canal
Salmon Enhancement Group, Conservation Districts, Wild
Olympic Salmon, and the Mason League of Women Voters.
Through these groups, water quality will be promoted
as a common goal.
Timeiine: Through December, 1991.
Estimated Cost: 55,500 for HCCC staff time (Jefferson
County Water Quality staff estimate).
Funding Source: Department of Ecology CCWF grant
rt90 -340 (grant total $117,340).
Committee
Priority: Moderate.
..
L
Action 13. To address the management of sedimentation, erosion and
flooding in the Big Quilcene River drainage, Jefferson County
Public Works Department shall oversee a consultant analysis of
sediment transport and flood control study.
Timeiine: March 31, 1990. Done, 1990.
Esti mated Ccst: $68181i2.
Fundina Source: Department of Ecology FCAAP grant
KGCC8816C.
wiiif"It
I_e
Priori t`�` I` "Cderate.
Action . =. HC-- s -3f' will facilitate stream enhancement by providing
tec ~nicai assistance and coordinatic, through the Tribes,
Sate agencies. anc existing_ conservation grcucs. 3ucn as
the Conservation ;,,stricts and the Hood Cana! mon
Enhancement Group. This wcr`I wlli be prioritized in
the Quilcene /Dabcb Says Watershed.
Ti rreline: T inrcugh December. 1991. Crigo n'g.
Estimated Cost: $1,500 fcr HCCC staff time (Jefferson
Ccuntv !dater Quality staff estimate).
Fundinc Source: De partrrent of Ecoicgy CI-14F grant
-- n90 -340.
Committee
Priority: Moderate.
Action 15. To' prevent erosion problems from non - forest private roads, the
Department of Natural Resources shall recommend educationai
materials to assist the landowner prior to construction, viz.,
Handbook for Forest Roads. As a corrective measure, the
committee shall work with the Jefferson County Watershed
Council and landowners to identify specific water quality
problems on county and private roads in the watershed (i.e.,
erosion , improper placement of culverts). The Public Works
Department will cooperate with the landowners to solve the
problems.
57.
Timeline: Ongoing.
Estimate Cost: $500 per year for County staff time.
Funding Source: Existing County budget.
Committee
Priority- Moderate.
Action 16. The Jefferson County Planning and Building Department shall
continue to actively participate in the Puget Sound watershed
action planning process and to pursue grant funding for _he
implementation of the - V',uiI cane/ Dabob Bays Watershed Action
Plan from., the Washington State Department of Ecology's
Centenr:iai Clean Water Fund program.
i, ei; r a:
_sti�tato ��d
Pamir, Source:
Committee
Priority:
19C0 grant cycle. Has been done. 1990
5160,220 for two year period.
Department of Ecology's CCWF grant
9C094.
Moderate.
i•Nc-Lion 1 %. The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners shall use its
authority under the Forest Practices Rules and Regulations,
Class 4, General Practices, to recuire State Environmental Act
(SEPA) review of all forest land conversions to non- commerciai
timber use for tracts 5 acres or larger. For conversions of
traces smaller than 5 acres, SEPA review will only be required
if type 1, 21 or 3 streams run through the tract.
Timeline: September 30, 1991.
Estimated Cost: $1,000 per year for County staff time.
Funding Source: Existing County budget
Committee
Priority: Moderate.
68.
HARBOR SEALS
Harbor seals are a source of fecal coliform bacteria in Quilcene Bay. A more precise
determination of the loading of bacteria to the bay by seals would help evaluate the
effectiveness of the recommended source controls.
Cascadia Research Collective has conducted research on the seals and their
contribution to the bacteria in Quilcene and Dabob Bays. The research was funded
by Department of Ecology through Jefferson County. Three reports, Harbor Seal
Pooulations and Their Contributions to Fecal Coliform Pollution in Quilcene Bay,
Washington, Cascadia Reasearch, 1987, ; Bacterial Contamination Related to Harbor
Seais in Puget Sound. Washington, Cascadia Resarch, 1989; and Factors Affecting
Nonooint Source Fecai Coliform Levels in Ouilcene and Dabob Watersheds. Jefferson
County. WashinatOn, Jefferson County and Cascadia Research, 1990 are available
upcn repuest from the Jefferson County Planning and Building Departrment. These
reoorts present findings that harbor seals are the primary cause of bacteriai
poliuticn at two sites in Puget S'un C, '�Il` . ",' se-a! NCpu lati OnS in Hcod Canal a,cnzear
to be increasing, bu: that the primary source of bacterial contamination in Quilcene
=av is dtfficu!t to determine because of the number of other bacterial sources
',Lailing Septic SyS—m:S, dC,ii2S.ziC animal S, boating praCtIC2S) besides seals. I he.
reCCrtS also conclude t: ^.at Current tcC^nicueS to evaluate sea; cor -:ributicn to �ecai
CoilfGrm loading remains fairly crude and Influenced by a number a1 other
environmental factors.
Some Water sited ; %lanag -=ment Committee members felt that a recommendation to
amend the Marine '"armals Protection Act, which prohibits killing or harr assing
harbor seals, to ailow population control methods was not a realistic solution.
Removing the log raft or oyster rafts urcn which the seats haul out did not appear
to be economically or politically feasible as these Operations are important to the
local economy. (Note: Pope and Talbot Logging Company have temporarily
removed the log raft as of winter, 1990).
A potential Solution IS tC prCVide an alter na`�e haUi Gut Site, as is being tested in
the Dosewallips River Delta, where fecal coliform contamination from seals has
resulted in a shellfish bed closure. This alternative haul out site may encourage
the bay's harbor seals to congregate away from shellfish beds. However, there was
no consensus by the Watershed Management Committee and the Cascadia researchers
as to whether the seals would remain in the bay due to the attraction of food
and /or other haulout sites and a recommendation for an alternative haul out site
was not made.
The recommendations agreed by the Committee are as follows:
Action 18. The Jefferson County Planning and Building Department shall
develop a monitoring plan, in cooperation with the State
Departments of Health and Ecology, that more accurately measures
the contribution of seals to fecal coliform contamination in
Quiicene Bay. This plan will be based in part on statistical
analysis of past data by private consultant, Cascadia Research.
Timeline: August 31, 1991.
Estimated Ccst: $500 for County and State staff time
for monitoring plan development.
implementation costs undetermined.
Funding Source: County CCWF grant 90094;
Existing State budget.
Committee
Prioriti_a =iOn: High.
Actor '9. The Washington Stag Department of Health shall review the
ccr relation between !:,a;or seal haul outs in Quiicene Bay and
snel l f is l beds i; t extreme proximity to them. If a Correlation
can be es,abiished that indicates an assumed health risk, The
Department of Heaith shall recommend a closure to public
or ccmmercial use of the affected shellfish beds.
Timeiir:e: December 31, 1991.
Estimated Cost: $2,500 for State staff time;
$2.000 for State lab work ( Jefferson
County Water QuaFity staff estimate)
Funding Source: Existing State budget.
Comm i ttee
Priority: High.
BOATS AND MARINAS
The water quality impacts in the Quiicene /Dabob Bays Watershed from illegal sewage
discharges or other pollutants associated with marinas and boats are not known.
Water quality monitoring by Jefferson County could not isolate the fecal coliform
leading of boats and marinas from other sources, and did not test for pollutants
other than bacteria. However, a study done by the Washington State Department
of Health, Shellfish Section, October, 1989, entitled The Effect of Sewage Discharges
from Pleasure Craft on Puget Sound Waters and Shellfish Quality noted a definate
70.
increase of fecal contamination in shellfish tissues attributable to periods of intense
boating activity. One of the study sites of the report was the Pleasant Harbor
Marina south of Quilcene Bay. Given the importance of commercial and recreational
boating activities in the watershed, the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed
Management Committee reached concensus on the following recommendations for
boats and marinas:
Action 20. The Washington State Departments of Ecology and Health shall
seek to determine the need to apply to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for the designation of Quilcene and Dabob
Bays as "no discharge" areas. No discharge areas are areas
where the discharge of Type I and Type II marine sar,itiation
devices is prohibited. Need will be based on the inability to
achieve and shellfish quality standards in boating areas it Type
I and T!pe II marine sanitation devices are permitted.
Timeline: December 31, 1995.
3oS-J,. _v or State st -_i "m
5- =,000 for State Ian wor`, (Je'farsen
County Water Quality staff estimation).
Furcing Source: Existing State budget.
Committee
Priority: Moderate.
Action 21. The Port of Port Townsend shall evaluate the need to install and
maintain a beater sewage pumpout facility at the Quilcene Marina.
A. written evaluation stating need, conceptual design, costs,
benefits and timeframes or why a pumpout facility is not
feasible fcr the Quilcene Marina shall be prepared.
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission will inform
the Port of Port Townsend about the new grants program for a
new sewage pumpout or dump station at Quiicene Marina.. State
Parks may issue a grant to the Port of Port Townsend for the
installation of such facilities. The grant will depend on
whether or not the Quilcene Marina application meets State
Parks' criteria.
Timeline: Written evaluation - September 30, 1992;
Grant information - ongoing.
Estimated Cost: $2,000 for conceptual design;
$40,000 for project installation.
71.
Funding Source: Existing Port budget or Washington
State Parks and Recreation Commission
boat sewage grants.
Action 22. Hood Canal Coordinating Council staff will promote boaters'
education by distribution of Boater's Guides and Boater's
Education brochures to Hood Canal marinas and other appropriate
locations. Also, an education sign shall be installed at the
Cuilcene Marina to inform the boating community about water
quality and the sensitivity of the bay.
T'meline: Education - Through December, 1991;
Sign - By September, 1989. Has been
done, 1989.
rstirrated Ccst: $500 for HCCC staff fire (Jef`erson
County Water Cvuallty staff estimate;;
plus _1,000 for sign fabrication and
installation.
Fundir� Source: Sign project from 1989 Department of
Ecology PIE grant;
Education element from Department of Ecology
CCW F grant 1#190 -157.
Cc ,1mittee
Priority: Moderate.
Action 23. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and the
Pleasant Harbor Marina should evaluate the need for a dump
station for portable toilets at the Pleasant Harbor Marina.
Timeline: December 31, 1989. Has been done, 1989.
Estimated Cost: $2,000 for repair of existing oumpout station
and instailatir of new dump station.
Funding Source: Existing Marina budget was used.
Committee
Prioritization: Low.
72.
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Although the rural nature of the watershed does not include large industrial or
commercial discharge of waste, the Watershed Management Committee agreed that
the introduction of hazardous wastes into the surface and ground waters of the
watershed must be prevented. The importance of groundwater for residential
drinking supply has been discussed.
Action 24. Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, in coordination with
Washington State Department of Ecology, shall develop and adopt
a Hazardous Waste Plan as a means to delineate state and county
reszonsibilites for hazardous waste management, reported
Incident resconse, coilection and dispcsai. Plan elements snail
inciude b ^v,h education and comp lance provisions.
- meiine: June 30, 1991.
_sti ate Cosy s57,3CC fcr plan crecaraticn.
F:und;na Source: n part, by Department of = colcgy Solid
Waste Program grant. in part, by existing
County budget.
Commit.ee
Prioritization: Moderate.
Action 25. Washington State Cooperative Extension Service shall ensure
continuation of public education to inform Jefferson County
communities about prcper use and disposal of pesticides, about
non -toxic alternatives to common hazardous materials including
herbicides and insecticides and about recycling other wastes
such as oil and anti - freeze. The education effort shall target
raising public awareness as to how poor hazardous materials
management and lack of recycling practices can adversely
affect water quality.
Timeline: Ongoing.
Estimated Cost: $1500 per year for staff time (Jefferson
County Water Quality staff estimate).
Funding Source: Existing State budget plus State
funding for Water Quality field agent
pilot project, 1990 to 1991.
Committee
Priority: Moderate.
7 3.
Action 26. The Quilcene /Dabob Says Watershed Management Committee
encourages the continuation of the present herbicide monitoring '
program. Jefferson County Conservation District shall continue
its yearly census of herbicides or pesticides being used in
Eastern Jefferson County and shall make its information
available to the public. The Jefferson County Conservation
District shall also ensure its continued participation in
educating the public about the proper use of pesticides.
Timeline: Ongoing.
Estimated Cost: $,L00 for costs of monitoring /sampling;
5150 for travel expenses; for a total
yearly cost of 5550.
=t.lr,d "�nq Scurca: EXISt-.ng DI L. I L /CGunty budget.
C0.7 "mittee
rriprity Low.
WETLANDS
Recommendations concerning wetlands are deferred to the develco m ent of a ccunty-
wide Wetlands policy in response to the Washington State Department of Ecology
wetlands policy, now in progress.
STORMWATER
Recemmendatins concerning stormwater and urban runoff were deferred to the
development of a county -wide stormwater management program being developed by
the Jefferson County Public Works Department in response to Washington State
Department of Ecology stormwater policy, new in progress. _
OTHER ACTION PLAN ELEMENTS
Educational programs and continued research were identified by the Quilcene /Dabob
Says Watershed Management Committee as important elements in achieving both
preventative and corrective solutions to water quality degradation the the
watershed.
74.
Action 27. The Washington State Department of Ecology and the Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority shall continue to fund environmental
education projects that target increasing public awareness of
water quality issues and prevention of nonpoint pollution.
Timeline: Ongoing.
Estimated Cost: $92,750 1991 -1993 for Jefferson County;
(Jefferson County Water Quality staff
estimate based on 1991 Puget Sound Water
Quality Management Plan, Education budget).
Fundina Source: Existing State budget.
.cm^^itte°
Ict c^ 23. 'roc -d C?ral Coordinating Council wi'I Implement "wo educ at Cn
i]rcjects in tre Quilcene schools to promote water quality
appreciation and understanding. The first proiect includes a
beach seine, which will be conducted in cor, iuntion with the Port
TOwrsend "larine Science Cehter anc Quilcene Students at
Quilcene Say. 7ne, marine life gathered in the seine will be
maintained by the students in a sait water acquarium at
the school. Students will be taught about the importance of
water cuality in their watershed and its effect on marine �Ife.
The second project will have sixth grade Quilcene students
participate fer the third and fourth years in an oyster planting
Project on Shine Beach to illustrate the importance of water
quality to filtering organisms such as shellfish. This wiii be
done in cooperation with the Jefferson County Conservation
District.
Timeline: Annual events, 1990 and 1981.
Estimated Cost: Quilcene education element; $5,547.
Funding Source: Department of Ecology CCWF grant
#90 -157.
Committee
Priority: Moderate.
75.
Action 29. Jefferson County Board of Commmissioners shall evaluate '
designation of the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed as an
"Environmentally Important Area" with recommeded policy
and/or management actions.
Timeline: September 30, 1991.
Estimated Cost: $500 for County staff time.
Funding Source: Existing County budget.
Committee
Priority: Low.
Action 30. Jefferson County Board of Commissioners shall adopt the Hood
Canal Coordinating Council "Water Quality Guidelires," except
those guidelines that pertain to agricultural waste management,
and direct the Departments of Pubiic Works, Health, and Planning
to incorporate the goals and policies contained therein into
their respective duties and responsibilities.
Timeline: July 31, 1991.
Estimated Cost: $500 for County staff time.
Funding Source: Existing County budget.
Committee
Priority: Low.
Action 31. Hood Canal Coordinating Council staff shall deveioo a workshop
on water quality to meet the educational needs of the Jefferson
County Plannning and Building Department, Public Works, Board
of Commissioners. Staff from the Tribes and County Conservation
District will also be invited to participate. Topics will
include septic systems, groundwater, and wetlands.
Timeline: By September, 1990. Has been done, 1990.
Estimated Cost: Jefferson County workshop element;
$2,22 18.
Funding Source: Deoartment of Ecology CCWF grant
90 -157.
75.
Committee
Priority: Low.
Action 32. Jefferson County Public Works Department shall evaluate the
need to assess groundwater contamination near the abandoned
landfill located adjacent to Donovan Creek. A brief summary
stating the Department's determination and criteria shall be
prepared.
Timeline: December 31, 1991.
Estimated Cos-: $60,000 to $100,000, cepending on study
design.
cundinc Source: Undetem1net.
Committee
Low.
Action 33. T he Jefferson County Planning and Building Department shall
design continued water quality monitoring in the Cuilcene /Dabob
Bays Watershed for collecting additional information to
characterize nonpoint source pollution and to help determine the
success of the Ouilcene /Dabob Bays Action Plan source controls
in improving water quality in the watershed.
Timeline: Ongoing contingent on Centennial Clean Water
Fund grant funding.
Estimated Cost: $43,000 for estimated two year period.
Funding Source: Department of Ecology CCWF grant program.
Committee
Priority: Low.
77.
CHAPTER FIVE
ACTION PLAN EVALUATION
ACTION PLAN EVALUATION
As time and physical changes in the watershed come to pass, an active evaluation
of the effectiveness, practicality and sustainability of the Action Plan source
controls is important. Part of the evaluation of the Action Plan should be spent on
research and consideration of alternative fundings sources for effective source
control, and on updating existing source controls with new technology, as it
becomes available. Action Plan evaluation will be incorporated into the
Quiicene /Dabob Bays Watershed Action Plan implementation process, anticipated to
take place over an estimated two year period. Evaluating the success of the Action
Plan source controls will be based, in part, on the following measures:
* implementation of the recommended source control by the implementing
agency(ies);
X Findings of ongoing County water quality monitoring;
X Partic;pat;en by the Qublic and number of vciunzeer hours ..=vcte
to watershed programs;
X Referrals to the Jefferson County Water Iwuaiity %mprovemeht
Fund;
Responses _o public inquiries for techrical assistance from Jefferson
County Water Cuaiity Program;
* Public coinicn surveys or workshops regarding water quality issues;
Results of local educational programs focusing on water quality
issues;
* Jefferson County Fair, Cuilcene Community Fair and Earth Day
participation;
* Maintenance of fish and wildlife habitat in the watershed, such as
use of the Big and Little Ouiicene Rivers and other saimon- bearing
streams by salmon; productive commercial and recreational shellfish
beds in the bays;
* Physical improvements made which affect water quality, such as the
number of on -site septic systems repaired, number of agricultural or
forestry Best Management Practices installed, clogged culverts cleaned
out, etc;
Financial sustainability of the source control program.
18.
The lead agency for implementing this Action Plan is the Jefferson County Planning
and Building Department. As lead agency, the Planning and Building Department
will keep the original Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Management Committee
informed of progress in plan implementation. The Planning and Building Department
will also report to the Department of Ecology on action plan implementation on an
annual basis.
ACTION PLAN EVALUATION COMMIT —_-
In addit _~ to evaluating the indicators above, an Action Plan Evaluation Committee
will be 'cr ned to oversee the implementation of the Action Plan. Tne Evaluation
Committee wiil consist of members of the original Quilcene /Dabob Watershed
t t to serve in this new capacity, community and
�Iar�dgecTi..i�� vO��uTilt�ce 'NriO elect w
agency Planning d Building De .ar=ervt s
c C,! � =preSentatives, and Jefferson County ia.�r�irg ar.
',"later � ally Staff. T lie Action Plan Evaluation Committee will evaluate the ,Action
Piar's success. effectiveness Of Source controls, determine sources of alternative
fu ,d;nq, i` =. P,- cpriate, and recoemend changas or Improvements t0 _he ?!an.
L=AD A E "• -'CY IMRLENIENiTATION ST.ATL'S RE ?OR -S
Jefferson ;Zzun_y Pianninc and Building Cepartment, the Lead Agency for the
Quilcene /Dabob Watershed Action Plan Implementation process, ',Vltl submit an annual
imclemen aticn status report to the Washington State Department of EOOlcgy. Copies
of this report shall also be made available to the Action Plan Evaluation Com- mittee
and to the members of the original Quilcere /Dabob Bays Watershed Management
Committee. The report should inciude accomplishments to date; problems, if any
that have occurred; program costs, and recommendations for charge or update.
I`^FLS- E`�TI ^;G ,AGENCY STATUS REPORTS
Each i„olamerting agency responsible for effecting the source control measures
confirmed in the individual Stazements of Concurrence /Non - Concurrence contained
in the Appendix of this Plan, will submit a brief bi- annuai status report to the
Action Plan Evaluation Committee. The status reports will provide ameans of
evaluating the success of each of the source cortroi measures. The reports should
include accomplishments to date; problems, if any, that have occurred; program
costs; and recommendations for change or update.
SHOULD SOURCE CCNTRCLS PROVE INEFi=ECTIVE
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES S � '
The Action Plan Review Committee shall, in the course of their review of the Lead
Agency and implementing Agencies Status Reports, prepare a statement of
recommendations for an update or revision schedule for the Quilcene /Dabob Bays
Watershed Action Plan.
9.
The findings of the Action Plan Review Committee concerning effectiveness of
source controls, the need for and type of regulatory or programmatic activities to
be employed should educational source controls prove ineffective, and any other
recommendations shall be addressed in the Committee's statement and the Action
Plan update or revision schedule.
LONG TERM WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
As Lead Agency for the Action Plan implementation process, Jefferscn County
Planning and Building Decartment will be responsible for coordination of the Long
Term beater Quality Assessment, a county monitoring program in the
U; 'ce--I--//Dabob = aYS'fVa;.rSiieC. I ne i ionitoring program may inciuCe datacoileCtec
by t"'e WaSni'1gtCn State DIeDar- -LMent cf Health.. the- Washington State ueoart.ner;_ of
anC .ne 7imbc ' ^'s" b'vi'd-i'= S_rearn sur%,ey orCCesS ccnducted by 'tile
?v'C -1.1t Treaty Council.
menitori:-I program wit be to:
me--c,--- ar.d standards being useb arc
a a rn rir^u,,;, e?a, _" eat �colocy's uuidance for Ccrduclin
T-- I
i_.c :i CCS c
wu;It, c`lLr01 -C iielw 2
aCC _.'C ,,ior'i
n Ce'erii ine -ff-r.t`de ecS Of SC�rc2 CC tr7i tr a._'_ieS lid
c-Ozeczi,ig vg ate r ar)d
,curet . hur:or; a nnic`. ", 0,.. -,DCI rn, _!`es: V
- _ rue ._ de7- _ -:, .f ,^ n7 ccurccS ot cc: . ,. oi,
J. �?r;'e :a.. ar ecucatiCr,ai t '�i T� t "e c o!iC ^ - v(- Iunteer
1 Vi e a S 1 ? ^r G$ _. s- 'cr the iu'!Cer. °f �'conr .a ✓c
aterSi,� ^, w k--, will encorro^ss five years ct ca a by '_'ne
egin`il ^^ Or jtau T.
^,c Qa-ac ase = ?c�,�!C cS Vai ab;e T.o a;
covernrr:ertai acenc }es, 'c c AbiiC an- sr: eciai interest grouos
affected b" water cua:; _ Cc.- ?ci -icirs in The watershed.
^.a a . - I =1 .+a -er Q_ ;.akzy Assessment retort to prov :ce
`c+ iDC -11I On. "e ^cS reiat'nq Lo wa_er uua !- lanc use.
'a r _a: and o,olCa-ica! cnci :ns wltn! _.'e Quilcene /Daoob
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Letters of Conccnurrenc /Nonconcurrence
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, Jefferson County Departments of Health,
Public Works, Planning and Building, Board of Health, and Conservation District;
Hood Canal Coordinating Council; Part of Port Townsend; WSU Cooperative Extension
Service; Pleasant Harbor Marina; Washington State Departments of Par!-:s and
Recreation Commission, Ecology, Health; and Natural Rescurces; and the Puget
Sound Watar Quality Authority.
STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE /NONCONCURRENCE_- -
FROM.LEAD AGENCY TO AFFECTED ENTITY---
= = -
TO: Jefferson County Board of Commissioners -"
Items listed in the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Action Plan for
which your organization has primary responsibility.
Action Item Number:
9. Jefferson County Board of Commissioners shall seek to
establish a loan program targeting assistance for the
implementation of agricultural "Best Management Practices"
on non- commmercial farm properties, in addition to
commercial farm properties. The Jefferson County
Conservation District shall continue to provide technical
assistance to both commercial and non - commercial farm
properties for design and implementation of agricultural "Best
Management Practices ".
Timeline: July 31, 1990.
10. Jefferson County Board of Commissioners shall give a maximum
tax incentive to landowners that voluntarily maintain a
stream side vegetative buffer of at least 25 feet in width.
The buffer must be preserved from clearing or intrusion by
livestock. The Jefferson County Conservation District shall
provide technical assistance for stream side buffer design
and maintenance.
Timeline: June 30, 1991.
11. Jefferson County Board of Commissioners shall amend the
Jefferson County Open Space Tax Program so that the criteria
for Timberlands will include site specific measures for the
control of erosion and the protection of riparian zones and
water quality.
Timeline: June 30, 1991.
17. Jefferson County Board of Commissioners shall use its
authority, under the Forest Practices Rules and Regulations,
Class 4, General Practices, to require State Environmental
Protection Act (SEPA) review of all forest land conversions
to non- commercial timber use for tracts 5 acres or larger.
For conversions of tracts smaller than 5 acres, SEPA review
will only be required if type 1, 2, or 3 streams run through
the tract.
Timeline: September 30, 1991.
24. Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, in coordination
with Washington State Department of Ecology, shall develop
and adopt a Hazardous Waste Plan as a means to delineate
state and county responsibilities for hazardous waste
management, reported incident response, collection and
29.
disposal. Plan elements shall include both education
_and.compliance provisions. _ -
-
Timeline: June 30, 1991. _ -- --
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners shall evaluate
designation of the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed as an
"Environmentally Important Area" with recommended policy
and /or management actions.
Timeline: September 30, 1991.
30. Jefferson County'Board of Commissioners shall adopt the Hood
Canal Coordinating Council "Water Quality Guidelines ", except
those guidelines that pertain to agricultural waste management
and direct the County Departments of Public Works, Health and
Planning and Building to incorporate the goals and policies
contained therein into their respective duties and responsi-
bilities.
Timeline: July 31, 1991.
Concurrence
Nonconcurrence
X -
C:4 . - -_ 9-ppi �J_
Larry Dennison, Chairman Date
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE /NONCONCURRENCE
FROM LEAD AGENCY TO AFFECTED ENTITY _ =_-
TO: Jefferson County Health Department
Items listed in the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Action Plan for •
which your organization has primary responsibility.
Action Item Number:
1 . Jefferson County Planning and Building Department and Jefferson
County shall pursue funding to assist qualified low and
moderate income homeowners with funding for septic system
repairs. Timeline: during the next grant cycle.
3. Enhance the coordination between the Jefferson County Health
Department, Jefferson County Planning and Building Department
and the public relative to permit requirements for new
development, expansions,. re- models or repairs of structures
and septic systems. The recommended action for enhanced
coordination is to network the two county departments'
computer systems to provide comprehensive information centers
in each department of all set backs, special conditions and
permit requirements from both departments pertaining to the
site(s) in question. The Jefferson County Planning and
Building Department will be responsible for for networking
the departments' computer systems; and for providing training
to county Health and Planning staff in the use of the computer
network. Timeline: by October 31, 1990.
In addition, it is recommended that the two county departments
evaluate the feasibility of a single plot plan application
system, in which both departments' permit requirements are
documented on a single permit application form. A written
evaluation stating criteria, costs and timeframes or why the
action is not feasible for Jefferson County shall be prepared.
Timeline: by June 30, 1991.
4. Jefferson County Health Department shall ensure that 100
percent of new septic system installations in Jefferson County
are inspected prior to covering as per current state law.
Timeline: ongoing.
Additionally, it is recommended that Jefferson County Health
Department, upon Jefferson County Board of Health approval,
identify, characterize and map prioritized "critical" areas
within the Quilcene /Dabob Watershed which will be targeted for
special provisions, which may include but are not limited to,
enhanced treatment requirements, 100 per cent inspection
coverage, and community based treatment technology, where
water quality data indicates a problem.
Timeline: December 31, 1991
5. Jefferson County Health Department shall inform homeowners of
county programs which assist them with water quality, including
the funding program for septic system repair (The Jefferson=
County Water Quality Improvement Fund) .
'- "Timeline: December 31, 1991. _
Concurrence Nonconcurrence
Jefferson County Health Department
Date
STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE/NONCONCURRENCE
a z7
FROM LEAD AGENCY TO AFFECTED ENTITY
TO: Jefferson County Public Works Department
Items listed in the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Action Plan for
which your organization has responsibility.
Action.Item Number:
8. The Jefferson County Public Works Department shall analyze the
flooding in the Donovan Creek area and the capacity of the culvert
at the mouth of Donovan Creek on East Quilcene Road. If the need
warrants, the culvert capacity should be increased.
Timeline: December 31, 1989.
13. To address the management of sedimentation, erosion and flooding
in the Big Quilcene River drainage, Jefferson County Public Works
Department shall oversee a consultant analysis of sediment
transport and flood control study.
Timeline: March 31, 1990.
15. To prevent erosion problems from non - forest private roads, the
Department of Natural Resources shall recommend educational
materials to assist the landowner prior to construction, viz.,
Handbook for Forest Roads. As a corrective measure, the committee
shall work with the Jefferson County Watershed Council and
landowners to identify specific water quality problems on county
and private roads in the watershed (i.e., erosion, improper
placement of culverts). The Jefferson County Public Works
Department will cooperate with the landowners to solve the
problems.
Timeline: ongoing.
32. Jefferson County Public Works Department shall evaluate the
need to assess groundwater contamination from the abandoned
landfill located adjacent to Donovan Creek. A brief summary
stating the Department's determination and criteria shall be
prepared.
Timeline: December 31, 1991.
Concurrence Nonconcurrence
x
Gary Rowe, Director
Jefferson County
Public Works Department
y- /- 9/
Date
E /NONCONCURRENCE
STATEMENT OF CONCURRENC _yY;
FROM LEAD AGENCY -T0 :AFFECTED - _ENTITY _ --
- TO Jefferson County Board of - Health
Items .- listed in the Quilcene /Dabob-Bays Watershed Action Plan for
which your organization has primary responsibility.
Action Item Number:
2. At present, Jefferson County relies on the Washington
Administrative Code for septic system policy. The Jefferson
County Board of Health shall develop a county sewage disposal
system code which may be stricter than the WAC, pursuant to
chapter 248 -96. This code would apply to all of Jefferson
County and should address the following concerns:
A. Prohibiting installation of on -site sewer systems within
ten -year flood plains within the Early Action and Ranked
county watersheds;.
B. Updating the policy on variances and the requirements for
enhanced treatment;
C. Updating the policy on system upgrades for major remodels,
replacements, and expansions;
D. Updating the policy on the horizontal and vertical separation
of primary and reserve systems;
E. Updating the present operation, maintenance, and monitoring
program to provide an identification, characterization and
mapping of prioritized "critical" areas which will be targeted
for special provisions, which may include but are not limited
to, enhanced treatment requirements, 100 per cent inspection
coverage, and community based treatment technology, where
water quality data indicates a problem.
F. The ongoing septic education program shall continue with a
.50 FTE from the Jefferson County Health Department;
G. A septage management plan shall be developed.
Timeline for items A through G: December, 1991.
Concurrence Nonconcurrence
B. G. Brown, Chairman Date
Jefferson County Board of. Health
STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE /NONCONCURRENCE_
FROM LEAD AGENCY TO AFFECTED ENTITY
TO: The Jefferson County Conservation District
Items listed in the Quilcene /Dabob Watershed Action Plan for which
your organization has primary responsibility.
Action Item Number:
6. The Jefferson County Conservation District shall apply for
funding for a field technician to work in Eastern Jefferson
County. The field technician will assist farmers in
identifying and solving water quality problems, including
assisting with developing and updating farm plans, educating
landowners about water quality and financial incentives for
Best Management Practices implementation, and continuing
other Conservation District educational programs on groundwater
and riparian zone management.
Timeline: during the next grant cycles (1990 and 1991).
7. The Jefferson County Conservation District and the Jefferson
County Planning and Building Department shall jointly
develop a plan to solve the converging problems of flooding,
road hazard, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat in
the Leland Creek area. This plan may involve clearing non-
native grasses choking the creek channel, lowering the level
of Lake Leland, upgrading a portion of Highway 101, planting
trees or other riparian vegetation, and excluding livestock
from portions of Leland Creek. The plan shall be coordinated
with landowners, Department of Fisheries, Department of Trans-
portation, and the Point No Point Treaty Council.
Timeline: December 31, 1990.
10. Jefferson County Board of Commissioners shall give a maximal
tax incentive to landowners that voluntarily maintain a primary
stream side buffer of at least 25 feet in width. The buffer
must be preserved from clearing and from intrusion by
livestock. The Jefferson County Conservation District shall
assist with the development of farm plans for buffer
maintenance.
Timeline: December 31, 1991.
26. The Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Management Committee
encourages the continuation of the present herbicide
monitoring program. Jefferson County Conservation District
shall continue its yearly census of herbicides or pesticides
being used in Eastern Jefferson County and shall make its
information available to the public. The Jefferson County
Conservation District shall also ensure its continued
participation in educating the public about the proper use of
pesticides.. _
Timeline: ongoing.
i
Concurrence
Y
Nonconcurrence
41- 3-1 l
Rcgei4 Short, Chairman Date
Jefferson County Conservation
District
STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE/NONCONCURRENCE
FROM LEAD AGENCY TO AFFECTED ENTITY.
TO: Hood Canal Coordinating Council -
Items listed in the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Action Plan for
which your organization has responsibility.
Action Item Number:
12. The Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) staff shall
facilitate public participation in timberland management
in the watershed by conducting two workshops on the
Timber, Fish and Wildlife agreement. The purpose of the
workshops is to inform the public of the T /F /W process and
how it may be utilized for the protection of water quality
in the Hood Canal basin.
To mobilize and train citizen watchdogs to identify potential
or existing water quality problems, HCCC staff shall provide
limited staff support to provide technical assistance to new
and existing conservation organizations, such as the
Admiralty and Kitsap Audubon Society chapters, Jefferson
County Watershed Council, North Mason Subarea Planning, Hood
Canal Salmon Enhancement Group, Conservation Districts, Wild
Olympic Salmon, and the Mason County League of Women Voters.
Through these groups, water quality will be promoted as a
common goal.
Timeline: through December, 1991.
14. HCCC staff will facilitate stream enhancement by providing
technical assistance and coordination through the Tribes,
state agencies, and existing conservation groups, such as
the Conservation Districts and the Hood Canal Salmon
Enhancement Group. This work will be prioritized in the
Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed.
Timeline: through December, 1991.
22. HCCC staff will promote boaters' education by distribution
of Boaters' Guides and Boaters' Education brochures to Hood
Canal marinas and other appropriate locations. Also, an
educational sign shall be installed at the-Quilcene marina to
inform the boating community about water quality and the
sensitivity of the bay.
Timeline: education - through December, 1991;
sign - by September, 1989.
28. HCCC staff will implement two education projects in the
Quilcene schools to promote water quality appreciation
and understanding. The first project includes a beach
seine, which will be conducted in conjunction with the
Port Townsend Marine Science Center and Quilcene students
in Quilcene Bay. The marine creatures gathered in the seine
wi 11 be maintained by the student_ s :i n a aal t _waterT.aquarj um:.,
U
at the school.' - Students will be taught "abot ;the -importance
s _ • _
of ;water quality in their watershed and _its effect on marine �.
The second project will have sixth grade Quilcene students
participate for the third and fourth years in an oyster
planting project on Shine Beach to illustrate the importance
of water quality to filtering organisms such as shellfish.
This will be done in cooperation with the Jefferson County
Conservation District.
Timeline: annual events, 1990 and 1991.
31. HCCC staff shall develop a workshop on water quality to meet
the educational needs staff of the Jefferson County Planning
and Building Department, Public Works, and Board of
Commissioners. Staff from the Tribes and County Conservation
District will also be invited to participate. Topics will
include septic systems, groundwater, and wetlands.
Timeline: by September, 1990.
Concurrence
I/
Larry Dennison, Chairman,
Hood Canal Coordinating Council
Nonconcurrence
Date
SEPA Document's
Items listed in the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Action Plan for
which your organization has responsibility.
Action Item Number:
21. The Port of Port Townsend shall evaluate the need to install
and maintain a boater sewage pumpout facility at the Quilcene
Marina. A written evaluation stating need, conceptual design,
costs, benefits and timeframes or why a pumpout facility is not
feasible for Quilcene Marina shall be prepared.
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission will inform
the Port of Port Townsend about the new grants program for a new
sewage pumpout or dump station at Quilcene Marina. State Parks
may issue a grant to the Port of Port Townsend for the
installation of such facilities. The grant will depend on
whether or not the Quilcene Marina application meets State Parks'
criteria. The first round of grant applications will be taken
in the spring of 1990.
Timeline: written evaluation - September 30, 1992.
grant information - ongoing.
Concurrence
X
Nonconcurrence
Ken Radon, Operations Manager,
Port of Port Townsend
\4 1 3
Date
STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE/NONCONCURRENCE
FROM LEAD AGENCY TO AFFECTED ENTITY
TO: Washington State University Cooperative Extension Service
Items listed the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Action Plan for which
your organization has primary responsibility.
Action Item Number:
25. Washington State Cooperative Extension Service shall ensure
continuation of public education to inform Jefferson County
communities about proper use and disposal of pesticides, about
non -toxic alternatives to common hazardous materials including
herbicides and insecticides and about recycling other wastes
such as oil and anti - freeze. The education effort shall target
raising public awareness as to how poor hazardous materials
management and lack of recycling practices can adversely affect
water quality.
TLmeLLne: CngoLng.
Concurrence
Nonconcurrence
?Xwv
Sally McDole, Chair /Extension Agent
Washington State Cooperative
Extension Service
,3—,20-9--
Date
STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE /NONCONCURRENCE
FROM LEAD AGENCY TO AFFECTED ENTITY
TO: Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
7 1991
Items listed in the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Action Plan for
which your organization has responsibility.
Action Item Number:
27. The Port of Port Townsend shall evaluate the need to install
and ma i ntai in a boater sewage pum::cu Z facility at the QU i l cene
Marina. A written evaluation stating need, conceptual design,
costs, benefi�s and time-Frames or why a pumpout facility is
not feasible for the Quilcene Marina shall be prepared.
The +,lashington State Parks and Recreation Commission will
wort L.,r� Townsend about she
new grants proara:;
new sewage pumccut or du.-,,p sza --Ion at Quo i cane Marina.
State Parks may ssue a grant to the Port of Port Townsend for
the installation of such facilities. The grant will depend
on whether or not the Quilcene Marina application meets
State Parks' criteria. The first round of grant applications
will be taken in the soring of 1990.
Timeline: written evaluation - September 30, 1992
grant information - ongoing.
23. The Washington State parks and Recreation Commission and the
Pleasant Harbor Marina should evaluate the need for a dump
station for portable toilets at the Pleasant Harbor Marina.
Timeline: December 31, 1929.
Concurrence
V
Nohconcurrence
Date
April 17, 1991
STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE/NONCONCURRENCE
FROM LEAD AGENCY TO AFFECTED ENTITY
TO: Washington State Department of Ecology—
Items listed in the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Action Plan for
which your organization has primary responsiblity.
Action Item Number:
20. The Washington State Departments of Ecology and Health shall
seek to determine the need to apply to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for the designation of Quilcene and Dabob
Bays as "no discharge" areas. No discharge areas are areas
where the discharge of Type I and Type II marine sanitation
devices is prohibited. Need will be vased on the inability
to achieve water and shellfish quality standards in boating
areas if Type I and Type II marine sanitation devices are
permitted.
Timeline: December 31, 1995.
24. Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, in coordination with
Washington State Department of Ecology, shall develop and
and adopt a Hazardous Waste Plan as a means to delineate state
and county responsibilites for hazardous waste management,
reported incident response, collection and disposal. Plan
elements shall include both education and compliance
provisions.
Timeline: June 30, 1991.
27. The Washington State Department of Ecology and the Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority shall continue to fund environmental
education projects that target increasing public awareness of
water quality issues and prevention of nonpoint pollution.
,Timeline: ongoing.
Concurrence
X
Nonconcurrence
f
Date
STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE/NONCONCURRENCE
- - -- - -- LEAD AGENCY TO AFFECTED ENTITY
TO: Pleasant Harbor Marina --_
Items listed in the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Action Plan for
which your organization has responsibility:
Action Item Number:
23. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and the
Pleasant Harbor Marina should evaluate the need for a dump
station for portable toilets at the Pleasant Harbor Marina.
Timeline: December 31, 1989.
Concurrence
Wayne Harris, Manager
Pleasant Harbor Marina
Nonconcurrence
y—
Date
STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE/NONCONCURRENCE
FROM LEAD AGENCY TO AFFECTED ENTITY
TO: Washington State Department of Health
Items listed in the Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Management Plan
for which your organization has primary responsibility.
Action Item Number:
19. The Washington State Deoartment of Health shall review the
correlation between major habor sea! haul outs in Quilcene
Bay and shel i f 1 sh ,eds in extreme proximity to them. If a
correlation can be established that indicates an assumed
health risk, The Department or Health shall recomme ^d a
closure to public or commercial use of the affected
shellfish beds.
Timeline: December 31, 1991.
20. The Washington State Departments of Ecology and Health shall
seek to determine the need to apply to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for the designation of Quilcene and Dabob
Bays as "no discharge" areas. No discharge areas are areas
where the discharge of Type I and Type II marine sanitation
devices is prohibited. Need will be based on the inability
to achieve water and shellfish quality standards in boating
areas if Type I and Type II marine sanitation devices are
permitted.
Timeline: December 31, 1995.
Concurrence
X
Nonconcurrence
Date
:s
s -
STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE /NONCONCURRENCE FROM "" 14
LEAD AGENCY TO AFFECTED ENTITY
`�
TO:-Department...of Natural Resources.,- - - -
Items listed in the Watershed Action Plan for which your organization
has primary responsibility.
Action Item Number:
15. To prevent erosion problems from non - forest private roads, the
Department of Natural Resources shall recommend educational materials
to assist the landowner prior to construction, viz., handbook for
Forest Roads. As a corrective measure, the committee shall work with
the Jefferson County Watershed Council and landowners to identify
specific water quality problems on county and private roads in the
watershed (i.e., erosion , improper placement of culverts) . The county
Public Works Department will cooperate with the landowners to solve
the problems. Timeline: ongoing.
Concurrence Nonconcurrence
Mike Cronin, Department of Natural
Resources
STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE /NONCONCURRENCE FROM ts7
LEAD AGENCY TO AFFECTED ENTITY
� 7 iK-:3
C i i Y
TO: The Puget Sound Water Quality Sound Authority :c rr.
Items listed in the Watershed Action Plan for which your organization _ - - -'
has- primary - responsibility.
Action Item Number:
27. The Department of Ecology and the Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority shall continue to fund environmental education projects
that include water quality awareness. Timeline: ongoing.
Concurrence Nonconcurrence
J
_a_hy Fletcher, Char /
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
.ILI'I'':R, N (iUUNTY
PLANNING AND BUILDING I)I -N`l'
1'.11. I lux 12211
4 �•'rt r �' b.� • ^ 1 .' ': 1. t'nrl 'Iinvnsl nrl, 1V;lsllinl!Inn 1111:11(14
it
lit
l�' ¢ I'I:uulillr, (206) 388, 9I.1 )
,I "�.,.l. '; ... �'. I c• j r'''h't'• I{tlilrlinl! (21111) :111! -, !11'11
S
.11:11'IiltON GUIINT1 1:111111111011 - E
DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE
AND LEAD AGENCY STATUS
DA'T'E:
PROPONENT: Quilcene /Dabob Bays Watershed Action Plan
PROPOSAL: The project is to describe and coordinate the programs and
implementing agencies to prevent and abate nonpoint source pollution within
the watershed.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The proposal site is described as the Quilcene /Dabob
Watershed covering approximately six square miles within the majority of
the Sections of Townships 26,27, and 28 North, Ranges 1, 2, and 3 West, WM.
NOTICE OF LEAD AGENCY: Jefferson County has determined that it is .lead
agency for the above - described proposal.
NOTICE OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE: Jefferson County has determined that the
above - described proposal would not have a probable significant adverse
Impact on the environment, and an environmental impact statement is not
required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of
a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
Jefferson County Planning and Building Department.
COMMENT PERIOD: This determination is issued pursuant to WAC 197 -11-
340(2). Jefferson County will not act on the above - described proposal for
at least fifteen days from the date of this _determination. Comments must
be fifteen days from the date of this determination. Comments must be
submitted by _Sef)tember 16, 1991 to the Jefferson County Planning and
Building Department (P.O. Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA 98368).
t
Lar p'/ enr .1s n, Chairman
Jeffe(r on County Board of Commissioners
cc: Washington State Department of Ecology
Washington State Department of Fisheries
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Washington State Department of Wildlife
Point No Point Treaty Council
Port Gamble Fisheries
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Jefferson County fie;:-tlth Department
Jefferson County Public Works Department
flood Canal Environmental. Council
Hood Canal Coordinating Council
Olympic Environmental Council
Audubon Society
Port Townsend- Jefferson County Leader
J'EF'FERSON COUNTY
ENV= RONMENTAL CHECKL= S'T
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts
of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable
significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help
you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal; reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done; and help
the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
PROPONENT: OoLl- cease /Dahob 0a- s Watershed Ad-Lon PLa
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE: (home)
(business)
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE/CONTACT: Cr ' n Ward n, roclor
ADDRESS: Jeffersa-i County PLa-v- Lng and BuikdLng Department B d, VA
TELEPHONE: (home) (business) (206) 385 -9140
D= RECT= ONS
This checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The
questions apply to the entire proposal, including those phased over a period of time
or on separate parcels of land.
Answer each question accurately and completely to avoid unnecessary delays in
processing this checklist. If you do not know an answer, write "unknown," or if a
I question does not apply, write "not applicable."
i' Answers to some questions may require special expertise or technical assistance from
qualified persons. The cost of obtaining such information is the responsibility of the
proponent.
Attach any additional information (reports, studies, maps, illustrations, leases, permits,
etc.) that may further describe the proposal or be required by Jefferson County.
Contact the Jefferson County Planning and Building Department for assistance: in
completing the checklist and for information on the administrative procedures for its
processing.
PLEASE PRINT IN INK OR TYPE EACH ANSWER. DO NOT WRITE IN THE AREA DESIGNATED
"EVALUATION."
PROPOSAL AND PROPERTY l7ESCR =PT =ON
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION (include all factors that will give an accurate
understanding of its scope and purpose): '
Plan. This -Lan was aul-horLzed under Chaj:Ler 90.70 RCW and described the state of
the Sound's water cpal,Lty, analyzed sources of non b-IL 1, ,DoLLu Lon and described a
series of acUcmis by Local goverrvients to ackiress sources of nonpoLnt poLLuRon.
U-ider this plan, Local goveri-rnents a -YJ staL-e ago-ici.es are authorized Lo negotiate
wL-Lh affected parties, adopt ordinances, rules and /or regul-al:i.o-is to i.mpLema-it action
_ plans to redk.ice nonpoLnt sources of poLLuLLon to Puget Sound. The QuLl,cene /Dabob
Bays Watersl-x--d AcLLon Plan descrLbes a -id coordu-iates the programs a-id L"pLementLng
entLtLes to prevent and abate nonpoLnt source poLLul:Lon wLthLn that watershed.
PROPERTY* AND AREA DESCRIPTION:
Address: QuLLccne /D )ob flays W- r�tn�F -Fer r,, l '
Legal (from property tax statement): Lot: Block:
Subdivision: Tax Parcel:
Quarter Sections:
Section: IVbst aLL wLL-hLn... Township:26• 27 8 28 N Ranger, 2 3 West WVI
Tax Number:
Land Area (dimensions): >>roxunaL-eL 3 mLLes by 2 mLLes.
Describe the location, physical characteristics, and extent of land area to be
affected; include all factors that will give an accurate understanding of the
property and its environment:
The QuLLcene/Dabob Rays Watershed Action Plan affects aLL property wLthLn the
watershed bc)LjxJary, LneLur&ng aLL fresh and marLne waters.
SCHEDULE (beginning and ending dates of the proposal, including phases):
OngoLng DeveLopnent phase from 1987 to 1989, LmpLementatLon phase from
1990 to 1992. WnLtorLng and pLan revLsLon 1992 on.
OVERALL PLAN (describe future additions, expansions, or related activities or plans by
others that may affect the proposal):
If r vi si on Ls
� +ha
needed Lt wt, L L be made at that Um... Ary �,aL rec r ' s ►�i i L 6 4"'
Cora Lttee and subnLtted to the Co"-ity and State Dept. of EcoLogy.
REQUIRED APPROVALS (all local, state, and federal approvals required for the completions
of this proposal and if any approvals are pending that are related to the proposal):
Board of FleaLth, County
County ConservatLon DLstrLct, County 1leaLth Dept., Cou�rLy --
CornnLssLoners, Dept of Ecol ogy, food Ca aL Coor&naUng CouncLL, County PLannLng
Dept., County PubLLc Works Dept., Port of Port Tomsend, PLeasant Harbor MarLna,
County ExtensLon OffLce, State Parks, D.N.R, P.S.W.Q.A., State Dept. of Health.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA (any existing or proposed environmental information such as
studies or documents related to the proposal):
(1- jLLcene /Dabob Bas Water QuaLLt Pro ject; BacterLaL ContamLnatLon Related to
I nrl-or SeaLs Ln PU,-et Sound
I arbor Seat, PbpuLaL-Lon 8 iheLr ContrLbui:con
to FecaL CoL Lfonn POL LUL LaI Ln tAjL Lcene Ba- y, iNasl jLngLa ,; QuLLce ne /['Xihob [lays
Watershed Action Plan.
-2-
ENV= RONMENTAL COMMENTS
EVALUATION
EARTH
1. Check the item that describes the site:
(31 flat (R rolling Q hilly O steep slopes
@ mountainous 0 other:
• 2. What is the steepest slope on the site? Identify the
approximate percent of the slope: 0 to over 15% '
3. What general types of soils are found on the site
(sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the
classification of agricultural soils, specify them and
note any prime farmland: GraveLLy so LL uiderLain by
compact gL ac LaL t L L L • sl-nL a sandstone • bas aL L . Pr Lme
faun Lands (CLass 11, 111, IV - S C S.) are found Lhrougl-ioul: waL-ershed
river vaLLeys and surrou-i&ng the norL-h End of QuLLcene Bay.
4. Are there surface indications or a history of
unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe them: Yes. 39 active LandsLides on BoLtol
PeninsuLa, LeLand, Toandos Peninsula, aril uistabLe
slopes Ln Donovan and Tarboo Greeks.
5. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate
quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Identify the source of the fill: N/A
6. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
I construction, or use? If so, generally describe it:
N/A
h
t,
7. About what percent of the site would be covered with
Impervious surfaces after construction of the
project (that is, asphalt or buildings)? N/A
8. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control
erosion or other impacts to the earth, if any:
SeveraL organizations have concurred to LapLemenL-
ac Lon requLremen s Ln the 55I EFICH wLLL a Jr•ess
stommuter and forestry erosion.
AIR
9. What types of emissions to the air, if any, would
result from the proposal during construction and
when the project is completed (dust, car odors,
Industrial wood smoke)? Generally describe and give
approximate quantities, if known: N/A
10. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odors
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe them: N/A
-3-
il. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control
emissions or other impacts to the air, if any:
N/A
WATER
Surface Water
12. Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site, including year - round,
or seasonal streams, salt waters, lakes, ponds, and
wetlands? If yes, describe the type and provide
names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it
flows into: Mg A L l _a C LtKe WLLcene LeLand
Ceiinetacy. Tarboo and AL fresl-metter feedL into these;
QuUcene and Dabob f3a�s and aLL freshwater ematvLng 6-to them.
13. Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to the described waters (within 200 feet)?
If yes, describe the work and attach available plans:
N/A
14. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that
would be placed or removed from the surface waters
or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that
would be affected. Identify the source of the fill
material: N/A
15. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals
or diversions? Give a general description and
identify the purpose and approximate quantities, if
known.
16. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year flood plain?
If so, note the location on the site plan: BLg QuLLcene,
L_i.ttLe QuUcene, Donovan and Tarboo Creeks.
17. Does the' proposal involve any discharges of waste
materials to surface waters? If so, describe the
type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge:
No.
Ground Water
18. Will ground water be withdrawn or will water be
discharged to ground water? Give a general
description and identify the purpose and
approximate quantities, if known:
-4-
EVALUATION
i
v
0
19. Describe the waste material that would be discharged
into the ground from septic tanks or other sources,
if any (domestic sewage; industrial wastes and
chemicals contained; agricultural wastes). Describe
the general size of the system; the number of such
systems; the number of houses to be served, if
applicable, or the number of animals or humans the
system(s) is expected to serve: N/A
Water Run -Off
(including storm water)
20. Describe the source of run -off, including storm
water. Describe the method of collection and
disposal, if any, including any known quantities.
Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into
other waters? If so, describe it: N/A
21. Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe how: N/A
22. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control
I surface, ground, and run -off water impacts, if any:
Several deparLmenEs and a encLes wLLL be coorLnALng,
makLm Loan monies for correc gyve measures avaL a e,
and ackhess Lng Ldo-il-Med s L es to correc wa -er run-01-1-
Ln the waL-ershed.
PLANTS
23. Check the types of vegetation found on the site:
Deciduous tree: ® alder ® maple Q aspen
O other:
Evergreen tree: @ fir (3 cedar Q pine
0 other:
® Shrubs G) Grass Q Pasture 0 Crop /Grain
Wet Soil Plants: ® cattail ® buttercup
Q bulrush ID skunk cabbage
0 other.
Water Plants: (Q water lily Q eelgrass Q milfoil
O other:
Other:
24. What kind and amount of vegetation would be removed
or altered? N/A
25. List threatened or endangered species known to be
on or near the site: None know,.
-5-
EVALUATION
26. Describe the. proposed landscaping, use of nature
plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
veggetation on the site, if any:_ �„ arpaR i -F,at l�te_heen/w�-LL be
identified in need of restoratwe vege a Eve worEC, na -rLve
and Ln ro species wL ec se e s
the site and natcra scape.
ANIMALS
27. Check any birds and animals that been observed on
or near the site or are known to be on or near the
site:
Birds: Q hawk ® heron ® eagle songbirds
0 other:
Mammals: (D deer ® bear 0 elk ® beaver
0 other:
Fish: Cad bans ® salmon ® trout ® herring
® shellfish 0 other:
28. List any threatened or endangered species to be on
or near the site: BaLd eagLe, osprey
29. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, how?
Yes Northern migration route for waterfowL.
30. Describe proposed measures to preserve or enhance
wildlife, if any: the poaL of -the Actia-i Plan is to meet
water Lit standards in {:he watershed with the
exception of the restricted portion of QU Gene Bay , and
prevent further marine and freshwater degradation.
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
31. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood
stove, solar) would be used to meet the completed
project's energy needs? Describe whether it would
be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.: N/A
32. Would the project affect the potential use of solar
energy by adjacent properltvies? If so, generally
describe the affect.
33. What kinds of energy conservation features are
Included in the plans of this proposal? List other
proposed measures to reduce or control energy
impacts, if any:
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
34. Are there any environmental health hazards,
including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire
and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe
the hazards: SI
-6-
EVALUATION
Y
r
P
I.
i
EVALUATION
35. Describe special emergency services that might be
required:_ N/A
36. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control
environmental health hazards, if any: (lie AcL-Loii
Man skAt, describe and co(rdLnaL-e prograi► o(' '
CHecLLve ac ti (n to IDe u►pl.c nenL-ed to prevm& aixl.
al) ix�nlx�int sours LtUtLon wi thin Lhe tivtLcr:ched.
NOISE
37. What types of noise exist- in the area that may
affect your project (traffic, equipment, operations)?
.% N/A
38. What types and levels of noise would be created by
or associated with the project on a short -term or a
long -term basis (construction, traffic, operation)?
Indicate what hours noise would come from this site:
N/A
39. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control
noise impacts, if any: N/A
LAND AND SHORELINE USE
h
40. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
t ► properties? ReaLcJc0L' -,I,. rri �1. anricaj(..-►r��L foresl:ry
9
�'ld 3c1Lla�i,�l:�tre.
41. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe the use: Yos. Areas of Lhe waLersl ►ed are
c►.rr(3-ALy Lued for Flutia iL Lure. --
42. Describe any structures on the site: N/A
43. 'Will any structures be demolished? If f ►o, what
structures?
44. What is the but-rent comprehensive plan or community
development plan designation of the site? Identify
the plan:_ Resot.rce pr o(Lic_L L on, Sub rl jn, (d rat. ;
Jorfcr-son CoLrA -y Qxih:g2a1 Lve PLan.
46. If applicable, what Is the current Shoreline Mastr:r .
Prociram designation of the site? U-bon, S&LI-•Ixn ►,
R-Axn-aL, Conservzrx;y, A-ItnUc. _
46. Has any 'part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify the
part:. y ;�I'hr�ai'�nEC1�t lCLan;T .r I _speri es Ix►Iti.1-n1- o(' bald
4091 n 1k 13spr s' 100 non 1 nn I knzarcLa-ce-Lof- Bi_g- a iLLrene
RLver, area:, of 1594 or greater slope, -M-A areas of
ac.i: Lve t aj-OsL i des
-7-
47. Approximately liow many people would reside or work
in the completed project? N/A ---
48. Approximately how many people would the completed ,
project diaplace?
49. Describe proposed measures to avoid or reduce
displacement impacts, if any:_
50. Describe proposed measures to ensure the proposal
is compatible with e'�1` inq on and PLp oJs Cole 4 land Los s Loiio &
and plans, if any: —
exi.sL-i.ne Land Lf,e
HOUSING
51. Approximately how many units would be provided, if
any? Indicate whether the housing is high, middle,
or low income: _
62.. Approximately how many units, if any, would be
eliminated? Indicate whether the housing is high,
middle, or low income: —
63. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control
housing impacts, if any: - --
AESTHETICS
64. What is the tallest height of any proposed
etructure(e), not including antennas? Wr at ged? he
principal exterior building mat rial(s) p p —
55. What views in the immediate vjcn ity would be altered
or obstructed?
66. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control
aesthetic impacts, if any: - --
LIGHT AND GLARE
67, What type of light or glare would the proposal
produce? ' What time of the day would It 1"EdDly
occur? —
68. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views ?_____WA._
-8-
EVALUATION
r
,
EVALUATION
59. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal? N/A
60. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control
u light and glare impacts, if any: N/A
..
RECREATION
61. What designated and informal recreational
opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
%Coup Ly -)arks avid beaclees, D.N.R. lx--aches.
62. Would the proposed project displace any existing
recreational uses? If so, describe the displacement:
63. Describe the proposed measures to reduce or control
Impacts on recreation, including recreational
opportunities to be provided by the project or
proponent, if any: N/A
HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
h
' 64. Are there any places or objects listed on or
+ proposed for national, state, or local preservation
., registers known to be on or next to the site? If so,
generally describe them: Yes QuLLcene leas a rx tuber
of structures i- "nLnated to the NaLLonaL 1-ILsL-orLc
RegLster.
65. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, cultural, archaeological, or scientific
Importance known to be on or next to the site:
QuLLcene Ls one of the oldest towesLtes Ln Lhe
St.-ate-of me roman s s exLs -.
66. • Describe proposed measures to reduce or control
Impacts, if any: N/A
TRANSPORTATION
67. Identify public streets and highways serving the
site and describe the proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on the site plan.
lleere are several cou- y roads and staL-e highways
servi n LI �e watershed.
68. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
no, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? Yes
I=
69. slow many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the// project eliminate?
70. Will the proposal require any new roads, streets, or
Improvements to existing roads or streets, not
Including driveways? If so, generally describe them,
indicating whether they are public or private:
NIA
71. Will the . project use water, rail, or air
transportation, or occur in the immediate vicinity of
these facilities? If so, fg/eAnerally describe the use:
72. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur: N/A
73, ,Describe proposed measures to N/A educe or control
transportation impacts, if any:
PUBLIC SERVICES
74. Would the project result in an increased need ion,
public services (fire protection, police p r
health care, schools)? If so, generally describe the
results : No'
75. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control
direct impacts on public services, if any: 1l-u -OW11
rants and Loan ina Les, programs wi.LL Lx- in lecJ
to address sl:onimiater, a .100% .i.ns
tLori coverts e of
new' se -iLLc s toms and LnstaUa -Kan of voLL.ntary
agrLcuLtuvaL "Bess: Management f'racti.ces" .
UTILITIES
76, Check which utilities are currently available at the
Site: natural gas
0 water (1) electricity 0 system
0 refuse service (S) telephone 0 septic
0 sanitary sewer 0 other:
77. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the
project, the utility providing the service, and the
general. construction activities on the site or in the
Immediate vicinity that might be needed: N/A
EVALUATION ,
U
r
,p,. C; Ii 14 C) W L, ]E
I acknowledge that all information provided in this check1nfori all IQunodersta1 that
knowledge. I understand the lead agency o relying on this SEPA
review under SEPA does
cootituteiappr vat ov(Ch ck withp appropria le agencies�to determine what ap9rovalseerearequlrodp)
to the proposal shall
approval 1s based on the Information 1 have provided. !f found Inaccurate, approval could be wit drawn.
i
7,-(A (date)
(authorized k
qignature) -10-
r
�i
4
r
,p,. C; Ii 14 C) W L, ]E
I acknowledge that all information provided in this check1nfori all IQunodersta1 that
knowledge. I understand the lead agency o relying on this SEPA
review under SEPA does
cootituteiappr vat ov(Ch ck withp appropria le agencies�to determine what ap9rovalseerearequlrodp)
to the proposal shall
approval 1s based on the Information 1 have provided. !f found Inaccurate, approval could be wit drawn.
i
7,-(A (date)
(authorized k
qignature) -10-
r