HomeMy WebLinkAboutNov_2008_Final_ICRJEFFERSON COUNTY
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE PROJECT
ECOLOGY GRANT # G0600343
Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised
November 2008
Prepared for:
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Prepared by:
ESA Adolfson in association with
Coastal Geologic Services, Inc.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1
2
3
4
This document was prepared with guidance from a Shoreline Technical Advisory Committee
(STAC) and Shoreline Policy Advisory Committee (SPAC). The County gratefully
acknowledges the committee members for contributing to this effort.
STAC Members: SPAC Members:
Hans Daubenberger
Hugh Shipman,
Jeffree Stewart
Jill Silver
Jim Brennan
John Cambalik
Marty Ereth
Michael Adams (alt. Anne Murphy)
Peter Bahls (Jude Rubin)
Peter Best
Randi Thurston (alt. Jeff Davis)
Richard Brocksmith (alt. Scott Brewer)
Stephen Stanley (alt. Susan Grigsby)
Steve Allison
Steve Todd
Yvonne Dettlaff
Al Bergstein (alt. Cyrilla Cook)
Al Latham
Aleta Erickson (alt. Randy Johnson)
Bill Mahler (alt. Bill Brock)
Bill Miller
Connie Muggli
David Roberts (alt. Hugo Flores)
Dick Broders
Eveleen Muehlethaler (alt. Frank Espy/Alice
McConaughy)
Hans Daubenberger (alt. Steve Todd)
Jeffree Stewart
Jerry Gorsline
John Cambalik
Johnathon Ciesla
Judy Surber
Karen Best (alt. Kevin Tuuri)
Keith Dublanica
Larry Crockett (alt Eric Toewes)
Margie Shirato (alt. Randi Thurston/Jeff Davis)
Marty Ereth
Mike McHenry
Peter Downey
Ross Goodwin
Sarah Krueger (alt. Reed Waite)
Scott Brewer (alt Richard Brocksmith)
Steve Allison (alt. Bob Howell/Tim Snowden)
The County also gratefully acknowledges the following for their contributions to this effort: 5
7
8
10
11
12
13
• Battelle’s Marine Sciences Laboratory - Heida Diefenderfer and her colleagues for 6
providing detailed information on the ecology of the nearshore environment as part of
their effort to rank and prioritize nearshore restoration opportunities.
• Ecology - Stephen Stanley, Susan Grigsby for contributing information, maps, and data 9
and providing technical guidance in assessing and characterizing watershed conditions in
eastern Jefferson County.
• Neil Harrington for researching and compiling much of the baseline inventory
information for the County’s original 2005 Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
1
2
Cover photo: Kala Point, eatern Jefferson County. Courtesy of the
Washington Department of Ecology Shoreline Aeial Photos at
http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/shorelinephotos/index.html
page ii November 2008
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
ACRONYMNS
BPA Bonneville Power Administration NWI National Wetland Inventory
DPS Distinct Population Segment OHWM ordinary high water mark
cfs cubic feet per second ONP Olympic National Park
CGS Coastal Geologic Services ONF Olympic National Forest
CMZ channel migration zone PAHs polychlorinated aromatic
hydrocarbons
DEM Digital elevation model PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls
Ecology Washington State Department of
Ecology
PHS Priority Habitats and Species
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
PNPTC Point No Point Treaty Council
ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit RCW Revised Code of Washington
°F degrees Fahrenheit RM river mile
FEMA Federal Emergency Management
Agency
ROS rain-on-snow
GIS Geographic Information Systems SASSI Salmon and Steelhead Inventory
HCMZ historic channel migration zones SCS Soil Conservation Service
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change
SED Shoreline Environment
Designation
km kilometer SMA Shoreline Management Act
LWD Large Woody Debris SMP Shoreline Master Program
mg/L milligrams per liter SSRFB State Salmon Recovery Funding
Board
MHHW Mean Higher High Water USFS United States Forest Service
MLLW Mean Lower Low Water USGS United States Geological Survey
MRC Marine Resources Committee USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife
Service
NOSC North Olympic Salmon
Commission
WAC Washington Administrative
Code
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
WDFW Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife
NPL National Priorities List WDNR Washington Department of
Natural Resources
November 2008 page iii
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page iv November 2008
NRC Nodal Riparian Corridor WDOH Washington Department of
Health
NRCA Natural Resource Conservation
Area
WFPB Washington Forest Practices
Board
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation
Service
WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area
NSE Nearshore and Estuarine
Jefferson County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revsied November 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgment..........................................................................................................................................i
Acronyms....................................................................................................................................................iii
Table of Contents........................................................................................................................................v
1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Report Purpose.........................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Background and Limitations....................................................................................................1-1
1.2.1 Mapping...................................................................................................................................1-3
1.3 Regulatory Overview...............................................................................................................1-4
1.3.1 Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program...........................................................................1-4
1.3.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction and Definitions.....................................................................................1-5
1.3.2.1 County Shorelines.........................................................................................................1-5
1.3.2.2 Shorelands.....................................................................................................................1-6
1.3.2.3 County Shorelines of Statewide Significance...............................................................1-6
1.3.2.4 Potential Shorelines Not Designated by WAC 173-18 or 173-20.................................1-7
2.0 Methods...........................................................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Data and Information Sources..................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Analysis of Ecosystem-wide Processes...................................................................................2-1
2.2.1 Marine (Nearshore) Shorelines................................................................................................2-9
2.2.2 Freshwater Shorelines.............................................................................................................2-10
2.2.2.1 Step 1 – Identify Aquatic Resources and their Contributing Areas............................2-10
2.2.2.2 Step 2 – Identify Key Processes..................................................................................2-11
2.2.2.3 Step 3 – Identify and Map Process-intensive Areas....................................................2-11
2.2.2.4 Step 4 – Identify and Map Process Alterations...........................................................2-12
2.3 Shoreline Reach-scale Inventory...........................................................................................2-13
2.3.1 Marine (Nearshore) Reaches..................................................................................................2-13
2.3.2 Freshwater Reaches................................................................................................................2-14
3.0 Ecosystem Characterization and Ecosystem-wide Processes.....................................................3-1
3.1 Regional Overview..................................................................................................................3-2
3.2 Overview of Key Species and Habitats in Jefferson County...................................................3-5
3.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitats.....................................................3-6
3.2.1.1 Salmonids......................................................................................................................3-8
3.2.2 Nearshore Habitats and Species...............................................................................................3-9
3.2.2.1 Eelgrass and Kelp.........................................................................................................3-9
3.2.2.2 Shellfish Resources.....................................................................................................3-10
3.2.2.3 Forage Fish.................................................................................................................3-12
3.2.2.4 Marine Mammals........................................................................................................3-14
3.2.2.5 Seabirds and Waterfowl..............................................................................................3-14
3.2.2.6 Estuaries and Intertidal Wetlands/Marshes.................................................................3-15
3.2.2.7 Nearshore Riparian Areas...........................................................................................3-16
3.2.3 Freshwater Habitats and Species............................................................................................3-17
3.2.3.1 Wetlands.....................................................................................................................3-17
3.2.3.2 Riparian Areas............................................................................................................3-18
3.2.4 Terrestrial Wildlife Habitats...................................................................................................3-19
3.2.4.1 Priority Wildlife Habitats and Core Areas..................................................................3-20
3.3 Ecosystem-wide Processes.....................................................................................................3-22
3.3.1 Hydrogeologic Setting............................................................................................................3-22
3.3.1.1 Climate........................................................................................................................3-22
3.3.1.2 Topography and Bathymetry......................................................................................3-23
3.3.1.3 Geology.......................................................................................................................3-26
3.3.2 Shoreline Processes, Process-intensive Areas, and Alterations..............................................3-28
3.3.2.1 Nearshore Processes....................................................................................................3-28
3.3.2.2 Nearshore Process-intensive Areas.............................................................................3-39
November 2008 page v
Jefferson County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revsied November 2008
page vi November 2008
3.3.2.3 Nearshore Process Alterations....................................................................................3-43
3.3.2.4 Freshwater Processes..................................................................................................3-49
3.3.2.5 Freshwater Process-intensive Areas............................................................................3-56
3.3.2.6 Freshwater Process Alterations...................................................................................3-65
4.0 Reach Inventory and Analyses......................................................................................................4-1
4.1 WRIA 16 - Skokomish-Dosewallips........................................................................................4-3
4.1.1 Fulton Creek Nearshore (Hood Canal West Shore Lower).....................................................4-4
4.1.1.1 Overview (Map 1a).......................................................................................................4-4
4.1.1.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 8)..........................................................................................4-5
4.1.1.3 Physical Environment (Maps 11, 14 and 26)................................................................4-5
4.1.1.4 Biological Resources (Maps 17, 20, 24 and 26)...........................................................4-5
4.1.1.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 11 and 21)....................................................4-6
4.1.1.6 Public Access (Map 21)................................................................................................4-7
4.1.1.7 Restoration Opportunities.............................................................................................4-7
4.1.2 Fulton Creek............................................................................................................................4-7
4.1.2.1 Overview (Map 1a).......................................................................................................4-7
4.1.2.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 8).........................................................................................4-7
4.1.2.3 Physical Environment (Maps 14, 21, and 25)...............................................................4-7
4.1.2.4 Biological Resources (Map 17).....................................................................................4-8
4.1.2.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 21 and 25)....................................................4-8
4.1.2.6 Public Access (Map 21)................................................................................................4-8
4.1.2.7 Restoration Opportunities.............................................................................................4-9
4.1.3 Duckabush River and Black Point Nearshore (Duckabush River)..........................................4-9
4.1.3.1 Overview (Map 1a).......................................................................................................4-9
4.1.3.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 8)..........................................................................................4-9
4.1.3.3 Physical Environment (Maps 11, 14 and 26)................................................................4-9
4.1.3.4 Biological Resources (Maps 17, 20, 24, and 26)........................................................4-10
4.1.3.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 11 and 21)..................................................4-11
4.1.3.6 Public Access (Map 21)..............................................................................................4-12
4.1.3.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-12
4.1.4 Duckabush River (Duckabush River).....................................................................................4-13
4.1.4.1 Overview (Map 1a).....................................................................................................4-13
4.1.4.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 8).......................................................................................4-13
4.1.4.3 Physical Environment (Maps 14, 21, and 25).............................................................4-13
4.1.4.4 Biological Resources (Map 17)...................................................................................4-14
4.1.4.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 21 and 25)..................................................4-14
4.1.4.6 Public Access (Map 21)..............................................................................................4-15
4.1.4.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-15
4.1.5 Dosewallips River and Brinnon Nearshore (Dosewallips River)...........................................4-15
4.1.5.1 Overview (Map 1a).....................................................................................................4-15
4.1.5.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 8)........................................................................................4-15
4.1.5.3 Physical Environment (Maps 11, 14 and 26)..............................................................4-15
4.1.5.4 Biological Resources (Maps 17, 20, 24, and 26)........................................................4-16
4.1.5.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 11 and 21)...................................................4-17
4.1.5.6 Public Access (Map 21)..............................................................................................4-18
4.1.5.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-18
4.1.6 Dosewallips River (Dosewallips River).................................................................................4-19
4.1.6.1 Overview (Map 1a).....................................................................................................4-19
4.1.6.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 8).......................................................................................4-19
4.1.6.3 Physical Environment (Maps 14, 21, and 25).............................................................4-19
4.1.6.4 Biological Resources (Map 17)...................................................................................4-20
4.1.6.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 21 and 25)..................................................4-21
4.1.6.6 Public Access (Map 21)..............................................................................................4-22
4.1.6.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-22
4.2 WRIA 17 - Quilcene-Snow....................................................................................................4-22
4.2.1 Jackson Cove (Hood Canal West Shore Upper).....................................................................4-25
4.2.1.1 Overview (Map 1a).....................................................................................................4-25
Jefferson County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revsied November 2008
4.2.1.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 9)........................................................................................4-25
4.2.1.3 Physical Environment (Map 12, 14, and 26)...............................................................4-25
4.2.1.4 Biological Resources (Maps 18, 20, 24, and 26)........................................................4-26
4.2.1.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 12 and 22)..................................................4-26
4.2.1.6 Public Access (Map 21)..............................................................................................4-27
4.2.1.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-27
4.2.2 Quilcene Bay (Hood Canal West Shore Upper, Big Quilcene River, and Little Quilcene River)4-27
4.2.2.1 Overview (Map 1a).....................................................................................................4-27
4.2.2.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 8)........................................................................................4-28
4.2.2.3 Physical Environment (Maps 11, 14, and 26).............................................................4-28
4.2.2.4 Biological Resources (Maps 18, 20, 24, and 27)........................................................4-29
4.2.2.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 12 and 22)..................................................4-30
4.2.2.6 Public Access (Map 21)..............................................................................................4-31
4.2.2.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-31
4.2.3 Rice Lake (Hood Canal West Shore Upper)...........................................................................4-31
4.2.3.1 Freshwater Reaches (Map 8).......................................................................................4-31
4.2.3.2 Description..................................................................................................................4-31
4.2.4 Big Quilcene River (Big Quilcene River)...............................................................................4-32
4.2.4.1 Overview (Map 1a).....................................................................................................4-32
4.2.4.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 9).......................................................................................4-32
4.2.4.3 Physical Environment (Map 15, 22, and 27)...............................................................4-32
4.2.4.4 Biological Resources (Map 18)...................................................................................4-33
4.2.4.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 22 and 25)..................................................4-33
4.2.4.6 Public Access (Map 21)..............................................................................................4-34
4.2.4.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-35
4.2.5 Lake Leland and Lords Lake (Little Quilcene River).............................................................4-35
4.2.5.1 Freshwater Reaches (Map 9).......................................................................................4-35
4.2.5.2 Description..................................................................................................................4-35
4.2.6 Little Quilcene River (Little Quilcene River).........................................................................4-36
4.2.6.1 Overview (Map 1a).....................................................................................................4-36
4.2.6.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 9).......................................................................................4-36
4.2.6.3 Physical Environment (Maps 15, 22, and 27).............................................................4-36
4.2.6.4 Biological Resources (Maps 17 and 18).....................................................................4-37
4.2.6.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 22 and 25)...................................................4-37
4.2.6.6 Public Access (Map 22)..............................................................................................4-38
4.2.6.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-38
4.2.7 Dabob Bay (Hood Canal West Shore Upper).........................................................................4-38
4.2.7.1 Overview (Map 1a).....................................................................................................4-38
4.2.7.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 8)........................................................................................4-39
4.2.7.3 Physical Environment (Maps 11, 14, and 26).............................................................4-39
4.2.7.4 Biological Resources (Maps 17, 20, 24, and 26)........................................................4-40
4.2.7.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 11 and 21)..................................................4-41
4.2.7.6 Public Access (Map 21)..............................................................................................4-42
4.2.7.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-42
4.2.8 Tarboo Lake, Sandy Shore Lake, and Wahl Lake (Hood Canal West Shore Upper).............4-42
4.2.8.1 Freshwater Reaches (Map 9).......................................................................................4-42
4.2.8.2 Description..................................................................................................................4-43
4.2.9 Southern Toandos Peninsula, Thorndyke Bay, and Squamish Harbor (Hood Canal West Shore
Upper).....................................................................................................................................4-44
4.2.9.1 Overview (Map 1a).....................................................................................................4-44
4.2.9.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 9)........................................................................................4-44
4.2.9.3 Physical Environment (Maps 11, 12, 14, 15, 26, and 27)...........................................4-44
4.2.9.4 Biological Resources (Maps 17, 18, 20, 26, and 27)...................................................4-46
4.2.9.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 11, 12, 21, and 22).....................................4-48
4.2.9.6 Public Access (Maps 21 and 22).................................................................................4-49
4.2.9.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-50
4.2.10 Hood Canal Bridge to Tala Point (Admiralty Inlet)...............................................................4-50
4.2.10.1 Overview (Map 1a).....................................................................................................4-50
November 2008 page vii
Jefferson County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revsied November 2008
page viii November 2008
4.2.10.2 Nearshore Reaches......................................................................................................4-50
4.2.10.3 Physical Environment (Maps 12, 15, and 27).............................................................4-50
4.2.10.4 Biological Resources (Maps 18, 20, 24, and 27)........................................................4-51
4.2.10.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 12 and 22)..................................................4-52
4.2.10.6 Public Access (Map 22)..............................................................................................4-53
4.2.10.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-53
4.2.11 Port Ludlow (Admiralty Inlet)................................................................................................4-54
4.2.11.1 Overview (Map 1a).....................................................................................................4-54
4.2.11.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 9)........................................................................................4-54
4.2.11.3 Physical Environment (Maps 12, 15, and 27).............................................................4-54
4.2.11.4 Biological Resources (Maps 18, 20, and 27)..............................................................4-55
4.2.11.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 12, 22, and 25)...........................................4-56
4.2.11.6 Public Access (Map 22)..............................................................................................4-57
4.2.11.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-57
4.2.12 Mats Mats Bay (Admiralty Inlet)...........................................................................................4-57
4.2.12.1 Overview (Map 1a).....................................................................................................4-57
4.2.12.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 9)........................................................................................4-57
4.2.12.3 Physical Environment (Maps 12, 15, and 27).............................................................4-58
4.2.12.4 Biological Resources (Maps 18, 20, 24, and 27)........................................................4-58
4.2.12.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 12, 22, and 25)...........................................4-59
4.2.12.6 Public Access (Map 22)..............................................................................................4-59
4.2.12.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-59
4.2.13 Oak Bay (Admiralty Inlet)......................................................................................................4-59
4.2.13.1 Overview (Map 1a).....................................................................................................4-59
4.2.13.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 9)........................................................................................4-60
4.2.13.3 Physical Environment (Map 12, 15, and 27)...............................................................4-60
4.2.13.4 Biological Resources (Maps 18, 20, 24, and 27)........................................................4-61
4.2.13.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 12, 22, and 25)...........................................4-61
4.2.13.6 Public Access (Map 22)..............................................................................................4-62
4.2.13.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-62
4.2.14 South Indian Island and Marrowstone Island (Admiralty Inlet).............................................4-62
4.2.14.1 Overview (Map 1a).....................................................................................................4-62
4.2.14.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 9)........................................................................................4-63
4.2.14.3 Physical Environment (Maps 12, 15, and 27).............................................................4-63
4.2.14.4 Biological Resources (Maps 18, 20, 24, and 27)........................................................4-65
4.2.14.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 12, 22, and 25)...........................................4-66
4.2.14.6 Public Access (Map 22)..............................................................................................4-68
4.2.14.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-68
4.2.15 Port Townsend Bay (Admiralty Inlet)....................................................................................4-69
4.2.15.1 Overview (Map 1a).....................................................................................................4-69
4.2.15.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 9)........................................................................................4-69
4.2.15.3 Physical Environment (Maps 12, 15, and 27).............................................................4-69
4.2.15.4 Biological Resources (Maps 18, 20, 24, and 27)........................................................4-71
4.2.15.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 12 and 22)...................................................4-73
4.2.15.6 Public Access (Map 22)..............................................................................................4-74
4.2.15.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-74
4.2.16 Chimacum Creek (Admiralty Inlet)........................................................................................4-75
4.2.16.1 Overview (Map 1a).....................................................................................................4-75
4.2.16.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 9).......................................................................................4-75
4.2.16.3 Physical Environment (Maps 15, 22, and 25).............................................................4-75
4.2.16.4 Biological Resources (Map 18)...................................................................................4-76
4.2.16.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 22 and 25)..................................................4-76
4.2.16.6 Public Access (Map 22)..............................................................................................4-77
4.2.16.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-77
4.2.17 Gibbs, Beausite, Anderson, Peterson, Ludlow, and Teal Lakes and Mill Pond (Admiralty Inlet)4-77
4.2.17.1 Freshwater Reaches (Map 9).......................................................................................4-77
4.2.17.2 Description..................................................................................................................4-78
4.2.18 Strait of Juan de Fuca and Discovery Bay..............................................................................4-80
Jefferson County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revsied November 2008
4.2.18.1 Overview (Map 1a).....................................................................................................4-80
4.2.18.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 9)........................................................................................4-81
4.2.18.3 Physical Environment (Maps 15, 22, and 25).............................................................4-81
4.2.18.4 Biological Resources (Maps 18, 20, 24, and 27)........................................................4-83
4.2.18.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 12 and 22)..................................................4-85
4.2.18.6 Public Access (Map 22)..............................................................................................4-87
4.2.18.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-87
4.2.19 Snow Creek and Salmon Creek (Discovery Bay)...................................................................4-88
4.2.19.1 Overview (Map 1a).....................................................................................................4-88
4.2.19.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 9).......................................................................................4-88
4.2.19.3 Physical Environment (Maps 15, 22, and 25).............................................................4-88
4.2.19.4 Biological Resources (Map 18)...................................................................................4-89
4.2.19.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 12 and 22)..................................................4-89
4.2.19.6 Public Access (Map 22)..............................................................................................4-90
4.2.19.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-90
4.2.20 Crocker Lake (Discovery Bay)...............................................................................................4-90
4.2.20.1 Freshwater Reaches (Map 9).......................................................................................4-90
4.2.20.2 Description..................................................................................................................4-90
4.2.21 Additional Lakes in WRIA 17................................................................................................4-91
4.3 WRIA 20 – Sol Duc-Hoh.......................................................................................................4-92
4.3.1 Bogachiel River (Bogachiel River Lower).............................................................................4-93
4.3.1.1 Overview (Map 1b).....................................................................................................4-93
4.3.1.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 10).....................................................................................4-94
4.3.1.3 Physical Environment (Maps 19 and 23)....................................................................4-94
4.3.1.4 Biological Resources (Map 19)...................................................................................4-95
4.3.1.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 23)...............................................................4-95
4.3.1.6 Public Access (Map 23)..............................................................................................4-96
4.3.1.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-96
4.3.2 Goodman Creek (Goodman Creek)........................................................................................4-96
4.3.2.1 Basin Overview (Map 1b)...........................................................................................4-96
4.3.2.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 10).....................................................................................4-96
4.3.2.3 Physical Environment (Maps 19 and 23)....................................................................4-96
4.3.2.4 Biological Resources (Map 19)...................................................................................4-97
4.3.2.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 23)...............................................................4-97
4.3.2.6 Public Access (Map 23)..............................................................................................4-97
4.3.2.7 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-97
4.3.3 Mosquito Creek (Goodman Creek).........................................................................................4-98
4.3.3.1 Overview (Map 1b).....................................................................................................4-98
4.3.3.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 10).....................................................................................4-98
4.3.3.3 Physical Environment (Maps 19 and 23)....................................................................4-98
4.3.3.4 Biological Resources (Map 19)...................................................................................4-98
4.3.3.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 23)...............................................................4-98
4.3.3.6 Restoration Opportunities ...........................................................................................4-99
4.3.4 Hoh River and Tributaries (Hoh River Lower, Middle and South Fork)................................4-99
4.3.4.1 Overview (Map 1b).....................................................................................................4-99
4.3.4.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 10).....................................................................................4-99
4.3.4.3 Physical Environment (Maps 19 and 23)..................................................................4-100
4.3.4.4 Biological Resources (Map 19).................................................................................4-102
4.3.4.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 23).............................................................4-103
4.3.4.6 Public Access (Map 23)............................................................................................4-104
4.3.4.7 Restoration Opportunities .........................................................................................4-104
4.3.5 Cedar Creek (Hoh River Lower)..........................................................................................4-105
4.3.5.1 Basin Overview (Map 1b).........................................................................................4-105
4.3.5.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 10)...................................................................................4-105
4.3.5.3 Physical Environment (Maps 19 and 23)..................................................................4-105
4.3.5.4 Biological Resources (Map 19).................................................................................4-105
4.3.5.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 23).............................................................4-105
4.3.5.6 Public Access (Map 23)............................................................................................4-105
November 2008 page ix
Jefferson County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revsied November 2008
page x November 2008
4.3.5.7 Restoration Opportunities .........................................................................................4-105
4.4 WRIA 21 - Queets-Quinault................................................................................................4-106
4.4.1 Kalaloch Creek (Kalaloch Creek).........................................................................................4-107
4.4.1.1 Overview (Map 1b)...................................................................................................4-107
4.4.1.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 10)...................................................................................4-108
4.4.1.3 Physical Environment (Maps 19 and 23)..................................................................4-108
4.4.1.4 Biological Resources (Map 19).................................................................................4-108
4.4.1.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 23).............................................................4-108
4.4.1.6 Public Access (Map 23)............................................................................................4-109
4.4.1.7 Restoration Opportunities .........................................................................................4-109
4.4.2 Clearwater River and Tributaries (Clearwater River Lower and Upper)..............................4-109
4.4.2.1 Overview (Map 1b)...................................................................................................4-109
4.4.2.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 10)...................................................................................4-109
4.4.2.3 Physical Environment (Maps 19 and 23)..................................................................4-110
4.4.2.4 Biological Resources (Map 19).................................................................................4-111
4.4.2.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 23).............................................................4-111
4.4.2.6 Public Access (Map 23)............................................................................................4-112
4.4.2.7 Restoration Opportunities .........................................................................................4-112
4.4.3 Salmon River (Queets River and Salmon River)..................................................................4-113
4.4.3.1 Overview (Map 1b)...................................................................................................4-113
4.4.3.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 10)...................................................................................4-113
4.4.3.3 Physical Environment (Maps 19 and 23)..................................................................4-113
4.4.3.4 Biological Resources (Map 19).................................................................................4-113
4.4.3.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 23)............................................................4-113
4.4.3.6 Public Access (Map 23)............................................................................................4-114
4.4.3.7 Restoration Opportunities .........................................................................................4-114
4.4.4 Matheny Creek (Queets/Matheny Creek).............................................................................4-114
4.4.4.1 Overview (Map 1b)...................................................................................................4-114
4.4.4.2 Freshwater Shoreline Reaches (Map 10)..................................................................4-114
4.4.4.3 Physical Environment (Maps 19 and 23)..................................................................4-114
4.4.4.4 Biological Resources (Map 19).................................................................................4-115
4.4.4.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 23).............................................................4-115
4.4.4.6 Public Access (Map 23)............................................................................................4-116
4.4.4.7 Restoration Opportunities .........................................................................................4-116
4.4.5 Quinault River (Quinault River Upper)................................................................................4-116
4.4.5.1 Overview (Maps 1b and 28)......................................................................................4-116
4.4.5.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 28)...................................................................................4-116
4.4.5.3 Physical Environment (Map 28)...............................................................................4-117
4.4.5.4 Biological Resources (Map 28).................................................................................4-117
4.4.5.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 28).............................................................4-117
4.4.5.6 Public Access (Map 28)............................................................................................4-118
4.4.5.7 Restoration Opportunities .........................................................................................4-118
4.5 Other West End Shorelines (Maps 1b and iC).....................................................................4-118
5.0 Preliminary Recommendations for Designations and Buffers...................................................5-1
5.1 Shoreline Environment Designations.......................................................................................5-1
5.2 Preliminary Buffer Recommendations.....................................................................................5-6
6.0 Literature Cited..............................................................................................................................6-1
Appendix A – Grant Agreement With Ecology....................................................................................A-1
Appendix B – Maps From Neil Harrington’s 2005 Shoreline Inventory And Analysis Report.....B-1
Appendix C – Final Inventory And Characterization Map Folio.......................................................C-1
Appendix D – Assessment Of Conditions For Additional Streams Designated By Ecology’s Updated
List Of Streams/Rivers Meeting The Definition Of Shorelines Of The State In Jefferson
County............................................................................................................................................D-1
Jefferson County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revsied November 2008
November 2008 page xi
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Ecology’s Updated List of Streams/Rivers Meeting the Definition of Shorelines of the State in
Jefferson County..............................................................................................................1-8
Table 1-2. Comparison of 1998 SMP Listed Lakes, WAC 173-20 Listed Lakes, and Bahls et al. (2006)
Results; and Recommended Shoreline of the State Status (Includes Only Lakes within
County Jurisdiction)........................................................................................................1-14
Table 2-1. Jefferson County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Primary GIS / Mapping Data
Sources............................................................................................................................2-3
Table 2-2. Relationship of Nearshore Physical Processes to Habitats and Ecological Functions (adapted
from Williams et al., 2004)...............................................................................................2-9
Table 2-3. Examples of Process-intensive Areas, Mechanisms by which they Operate, and Alterations
for Key Ecosystem Processes.......................................................................................2-12
Table 3-1. Appendix C Map Folio Names and Numbers ..........................................................................3-1
Table 3-2. Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Threatened and Endangered Species Occurring in
Jefferson County..............................................................................................................3-6
Table 3-3. Map Locations for Ecosystem-scale Attributes, including Nearshore and Freshwater Process-
intensive Areas and Alterations.....................................................................................3-28
Table 3-4. Processes and Process-intensive Areas in the Nearshore Zone...........................................3-40
Table 3-5. Map Locations for Key Freshwater Process-intensive Areas and Alteration Themes..........3-49
Table 3-6. Sources of Toxins and Metals by Land Use..........................................................................3-54
Table 3-7. Process-intensive Areas for Hydrologic, Water Quality, and Sediment Processes...............3-56
Table 5-1. Ecology Recommended Shoreline Environment Designation Menu (WAC 173-26-211)......5-1
Table 5-2. Jefferson County Recommended Shoreline Environment Designation Menu........................5-3
Table 5-3. Preliminary SED Recommendations by Shoreline Reach – Marine Shores.........................5-11
Table 5-4. Preliminary SED Recommendations by Shoreline Reach – Rivers......................................5-17
Table 5-5. Preliminary SED Recommendations by Shoreline Reach – Lakes.......................................5-21
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Schematic diagram showing the scales of analysis (watershed, basin, and reach/drift cell)
and report structure..........................................................................................................2-2
Figure 3-1. Jefferson County, Washington, and WRIA Boundaries.........................................................3-4
Figure 3-2. Coastal Watershed Institute, Tribal Marine Cultural Resource Survey for Portions of Western
Jefferson County ( Shaffer and Wray, 2004).................................................................3-11
Figure 3-3. Commercial, Recreational, and Tribal Shellfish Growing Beaches and Harvest Areas in
Eastern Jefferson County..............................................................................................3-13
Figure 3-4. Conceptual Model of Marine Riparian Functions (as described in Brennan and Culverwell,
2004)..............................................................................................................................3-17
Figure 3-5. Eastern Jefferson County Core Habitats and Corridors (Tomassi, 2004)............................3-21
Figure 3-6. Regional Water Masses and Subareas of Puget Sound: (1) Northern Puget Sound, (2)
Whidbey Basin, (3) Main Basin, (4) Hood Canal, and (5) Southern Basin (Gustafson et
al., 2000)........................................................................................................................3-25
Figure 3-7. Net Shore-drift Mapping for Northeastern Jefferson County (from Keuler, 1988)...............3-34
Figure 3-8. Nearshore Refugia in Eastern Jefferson County, WRIAs 16 and 17 (May and Peterson, 2003
)......................................................................................................................................3-44
Figure 3-9. Important Areas for Hydrologic Processes, Eastern Jefferson County (Ecology, 2007)......3-60
Figure 3-10. Salmon Nodal Riparian Corridor and Focal Sub-watershed for Eastern Jefferson County
(May and Peterson, 2003).............................................................................................3-64
Figure 3-11. Areas of High, Medium, and Low Alteration, Eastern Jefferson County (Ecology, 2007)..3-66
Figure 3-12. Lower Hoh River CMZ, Jefferson County (Perkins GeoSciences and TerraLogic 2004).3-69
Figure 3-13. Hoh River CMZ, RM 5 to RM 14, Jefferson County (Herrera and Northwest Hydraulics
2004)..............................................................................................................................3-70
Figure 4-1. WRIA 16 in Southeast Jefferson County................................................................................4-3
Figure 4-2. WRIA 17 (north) in Northeast Jefferson County...................................................................4-23
Figure 4-3. WRIA 17 (south) in Northeast Jefferson County..................................................................4-24
Figure 4-4. WRIA 20 in Northwest Jefferson County..............................................................................4-94
Figure 4-5. WRIA 21 in Southwest Jefferson County...........................................................................4-107
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 REPORT PURPOSE
Jefferson County is updating its existing Shoreline Master Program (SMP) to comply with the
Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA or the Act) requirements (Revised Code of
Washington [RCW] 90.58), and its implementing guidelines (Washington Administrative Code
[WAC] 173-26, Part III), which were adopted in 2003. The County’s SMP includes policies and
regulations for managing all fresh and saltwater shorelines of the state in Jefferson County. This
report provides background information to be used in updating the existing goals, policies, and
regulations for shoreline management.
The purpose of the report is to describe current shoreline conditions and characterize the
ecosystem processes (also referred to as watershed processes) that shape and influence shoreline
environments. As outlined by the state shoreline guidelines (see WAC 173-26-201(3)), shoreline
inventory and analysis are two steps of the multi-step SMP update process. The other required
steps are:
• Invite and encourage public participation in the development of shoreline goals and
policies;
• Establish shoreline environment designations (SEDs);
• Establish shoreline policies; and
• Prepare shoreline regulations.
The County is in the process of completing all of the required steps in accordance with the terms
and conditions of a grant agreement (Grant # G0600343) with the Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology) (Appendix A). The County has also prepared a cumulative impact analysis and
a shoreline restoration plan as required by the state shoreline guidelines. The cumulative impacts
analysis and restoration plan were prepared as separate documents.
1.2 BACKGROUND AND LIMITATIONS
This report is based on published and unpublished literature pertaining to Jefferson County
shorelines and shoreline management in general. Much of the information was derived from aerial
photography, including the 2001 and 2006 shoreline oblique photos provided by Ecology
(available at: http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/shorephotos/), and existing Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) data compiled and collected primarily by Jefferson County Department of Community
Development. This report updates the May 2007 and September 2006 Draft Shoreline Inventory
and Characterization Reports (SICRs)(ESA Adolfson et al., 2007; Adolfson et al., 2006) as well as
the County’s previous shoreline inventory report titled Jefferson County Shoreline Master
Program Update: Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report, CZM306 Grant G0400080, prepared
by Neil Harrington in October 2005. Much of the text from the Harrington report is included here
verbatim, and maps referenced in that report are provided in Appendix B. Readers are advised that
November 2008 page 1-1
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
the numbering convention for the maps used here (for the 2008 Inventory) differs from the
numbering used in the Harrington (2005) report.
Although the scope of this effort did not include field verification of shoreline conditions,
considerable effort was put forth to ensure that the information presented is complete and accurate
as of the date of publication. This included soliciting information from numerous reliable sources
and requesting peer review from local, state, and federal agency representatives, tribes, and non-
governmental organizations with knowledge of the local shoreline conditions. Department of
Ecology Staff and the County’s Planning and other Department staff provided pertinent reference
materials and reviewed the May 2007 STAC Draft Inventory and Characterization Report for
accuracy and completeness. In addition, members of the County’s Shoreline Technical Advisory
Committee (STAC, see Acknowledgements section for a list of members) previously provided
pertinent reference materials and reviewed the September 2006 Draft Inventory and
Characterization Report. This final report addresses comments and suggestions provided by the
Department of Ecology, County staff, and STAC members and incorporates new information
brought to light by committee members, as well as previous STAC-requested revisions that could
not previously be accommodated due to schedule and/or budget limitations.
This report provides a general inventory description of existing conditions along approximately
250 miles of marine shoreline and approximately 22 miles of lakeshore on 14 lakes that are
designated as shorelines of the state in Jefferson County. In addition, this report provides a general
inventory of more than 742 ‘river miles’ of stream and river shoreline, of which approximately 238
river miles are within County-regulated (non-federal and non-tribal) lands (based on 20 cubic feet
per second [cfs] mapping from USGS, 1998). It also characterizes, in a general manner, the
ecosystem processes that shape and influence conditions along each reach of the County’s
shoreline. A goal of the watershed or landscape-scale analysis is to determine which of the key
shoreline-influencing processes have been altered or impaired, even if the factors contributing to
the impairment occur outside or beyond the jurisdiction of the SMA. The intent of the shoreline
reach-scale analysis is to identify how existing conditions at or near the shoreline have responded
to watershed alterations, and how the alterations have affected the functions and values of the
SMA-regulated shorelines.
While this report provides a basis for updating the policies and regulations contained in the
County’s SMP, it does not provide a complete blueprint for managing each individual shoreline
parcel or property over time. Readers are reminded that much of the information presented herein
(concerning water quality, protected/priority habitats and species, land cover, etc.) is from
government-maintained databases, which are frequently updated to reflect changing conditions.
Furthermore, some of the shoreline characteristics described or mapped in this report are
ephemeral or seasonal. For example, eelgrass beds can change in response to changing weather or
circulation patterns, and forage fish can commence spawning in areas where they have not
previously been known to spawn. In many cases, decisions on how or whether specific shoreline
areas should be used, developed, or restored will require additional, site-specific/time-specific data
and/or analyses.
Finally, this report is not intended as a full evaluation of the effectiveness of the SMA or County’s
existing shoreline policies or regulations. Alterations and impairments described in this report
could be the result of actions that occurred prior to the adoption of the SMP, actions that are
page 1-2 November 2008
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 1-3
exempt from SMP regulation as dictated by the Act, illegal actions, and/or actions that occurred
outside shoreline jurisdiction. That said, the inventory and characterization information can serve
as a valuable tool for determining how future use and development might affect shoreline
resources, where there are opportunities to restore or rectify past impacts, and where there are
valuable or unaltered areas that need protection.
1.2.1 Mapping
Accompanying this text is an electronic map folio depicting some of the pertinent watershed-scale
and reach-scale information described herein 1 (Appendix C). The maps were generated from a
project-specific GIS database maintained by Jefferson County and updated throughout
development of this report. The GIS database includes myriad datasets from a variety of sources.
Using the GIS database, it is possible to plot and map virtually any shoreline attribute at any scale.
Plotting all of the attributes at a fairly refined scale (e.g., 1:24,000 or larger) would require
hundreds of maps. Because of the expense and logistical challenges associated with producing
such a large quantity of maps, the map folio focuses on key features of interest for SMA-regulated
shorelines.
In some cases, the report authors have consolidated information in the database to facilitate
depiction of key information at a reasonable scale. For example, the project-specific database
includes data from a recent study by the Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) on the Historical
Changes to Estuaries, Spits, and Associated Tidal Wetland Habitats in the Hood Canal and Strait
of Juan de Fuca Regions of Washington State (Todd et al., 2006). Some of the data from this study
were aggregated to create the maps in Appendix C (see Maps 26 and 27 for the PNPTC
information). Readers are encouraged to review the map folio in conjunction with the text for
better understanding, recognizing that the maps are only a subset of the data used to compile this
analysis.
The County is divided into three general areas for purposes of displaying maps: southeast,
northeast and west. For some attributes (e.g., aquatic vegetation, shoreline modifications, etc.),
complete data layers are only available for eastern Jefferson County. In general, characteristics of
the Pacific Coast shore and some of the major west coast tributaries (i.e., the Queets River) may
not be fully represented on maps since they are outside County shoreline jurisdiction.
As a final reminder, the information presented in this report is not necessarily accurate to the
parcel or property boundary scale. For this reason, this report makes no representation as to the
exact ownership (public or private) of specific areas of the County shoreline or adjacent
tidelands, except for noting the general location of public parks and other public access
points. Similarly, the maps included here were prepared for planning purposes only. The
regulatory extent of “shoreline jurisdiction” (described below) at any one location or property will
require site-specific, field-based investigation.
1 All of the referenced maps are contained in Appendix C. Figures are included in the body of the text.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 1-4 November 2008
1.3 REGULATORY OVERVIEW
Washington’s Shoreline Management Act was passed by the State Legislature in 1971 and adopted
by the public in a referendum. The SMA was created in response to a growing concern among
residents of the state that unplanned and uncoordinated development was causing serious and
permanent damage to shorelines. The purpose of the SMA is to “…provide for the management of
the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses 2 .”
Ecology administers the Act, but gives primary permitting authority for shoreline development to
local governments.
Local governments also have responsibility for developing SMPs in accordance with Ecology’s
guidelines. The guidelines give local governments discretion to adopt master programs reflecting
local circumstances and to develop other local regulatory and non-regulatory programs related to
the goals of shoreline management as provided in the policy statements of RCW 90.58.020, WAC
173-26-176, and WAC 173-26-181.
Shoreline Master Programs balance and integrate the objectives and interests of local citizens and
address the full variety of conditions on the shoreline. They have a planning function as well as a
regulatory function. The planning function may take into account areas outside the territorial limits
of the shorelines of the state. The regulatory function is limited to the areas subject to shoreline
jurisdiction as defined by the Act (RCW 90.58.030(2)).
1.3.1 Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program
Jefferson County adopted its existing SMP in 1989 and amended it most recently in 1998. The
SMP provides both policies and regulations to govern development and use of the County
shorelines. The SMP is codified as Chapter 18.25 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC). The UDC
regulates shoreline development by requiring shoreline substantial development permits, variances,
conditional use permits, or statement of exemption according to the criteria established by the Act
(RCW 90.58.140).
Local SMPs establish a system to classify shoreline areas into specific “environment
designations.” The purpose of shoreline environment designations (SEDs) is to provide a uniform
basis for applying policies and use regulations within distinctly different shoreline areas. In a
regulatory context, SEDs function similarly to zoning overlay districts. That is, they provide an
additional layer of policy and regulation that applies, in conjunction with other development
standards, to lands and waters within shoreline jurisdiction. Generally, environment designations
are based on biological and physical capabilities and limitations of the shoreline, existing and
planned development patterns, and a community’s vision and objectives for future development.
The environment designations in the County’s current SMP were developed based on land use
patterns, biophysical capabilities and limitations of the shorelines, and input from local citizens as
well as the County comprehensive land use plan and Ecology guidelines as they existed at the
time. The environment designations have not been updated since they were originally adopted.
2 RCW 90.58.020
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
Five environment designations are currently in effecting Jefferson County: Aquatic, Natural,
Conservancy, Suburban, and Urban.
All of the County’s river and lake shorelines currently have a Conservancy designation. More
intensively developed marine shorelines near Port Townsend, Port Ludlow and Port Hadlock are
designated Urban. Other marine shores are generally designated Conservancy or Suburban or a
combination of the two, with scattered areas designated as Natural. The Aquatic designation
applies only to areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). As noted in Section
1.1, part of the SMP update process involves revisiting and revising these designations in
accordance with the new state criteria and standards in WAC 173-26- 211. Preliminary
recommendations for revised SEDs are provided in Chapter 5 of this report.
A variety of other regulatory programs, plans, and policies work in concert with the County’s SMP
to manage shoreline resources and regulate development near the shoreline. The Comprehensive
Plan establishes the general land use pattern and vision of growth and development the County has
adopted for areas both inside and outside the shoreline jurisdiction. The County development
standards and use regulations for environmentally critical areas are particularly relevant to the
SMP. Designated environmentally critical areas including wetlands, aquifer recharge areas,
frequently flooded areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, and geologically hazardous
areas are found throughout County shoreline jurisdiction. The County recently adopted a new
critical areas ordinance (JCC 18.22) to meet the Washington Growth Management Act mandates.
1.3.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction and Definitions
SMA jurisdiction includes all shorelines of the state as defined in RCW 90.58.030. Shorelines of
the state include the total of all shorelines and shorelines of statewide significance. Shorelines
means all of the water areas of the state, including reservoirs, and their associated shorelands,
together with the lands underlying them, except:
• Shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is 20
cubic feet per second (cfs) or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream
segments; and
• Shorelines on lakes less than 20 acres in size and the wetlands associated with such small
lakes.
1.3.2.1 County Shorelines
Rivers and streams in Jefferson County that are designated shorelines are shown on Maps 1A and
1B in Appendix C and include: Goodman Creek, numerous tributaries to the Hoh River, Mosquito
Creek, Cedar Creek, Snahapish River, numerous tributaries to the Clearwater River, Solleks River
and portions of the Salmon River and Matheny Creek in the west side of the County. In the eastern
part of the County, rivers and streams that are designated shorelines: Salmon Creek, Snow Creek,
Chimacum Creek, Little Quilcene River, Big Quilcene River, Dosewallips River, Duckabush
River, and Fulton Creek (revised from WAC 173-20-200 to include all rivers and streams below
20 cfs limits determined by USGS, 1998). Map 1C documents shoreline planning areas for rivers
and streams showing the current upstream limits of shoreline jurisdiction based on the WAC and
the proposed limits as derived from the 1998 USGS 20 cfs mapping (USGS, 1998).
November 2008 page 1-5
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 1-6 November 2008
Jefferson County lakes that meet the size threshold for shorelines are also shown on Maps 1A and
1B in Appendix C and include: Anderson, Crocker, Gibbs, Leland, Lords, Peterson, Sandy Shore,
Tarboo, Wahl, Beausite, Teal, Rice, and one unnamed lake (Ludlow Lake) in Section 16,
Township 30N, Range 1W 3 .
Jefferson County marine shorelines include the waters of Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca
and their underlying lands between the ordinary high water mark and extreme low tide.
1.3.2.2 Shorelands
Shorelands means those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a
horizontal plane from the OHWM; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet
from such floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with such streams, lakes, and
tidal waters.
In context of SMA, associated wetlands means wetlands that are in proximity to shorelines or that
influence or are influenced by waters subject to the Act (WAC 173-22-030 (1)). These typically
include wetlands that physically extend into the shoreline jurisdiction, and wetlands that are
functionally related to the shoreline through a hydrologic connection or other factors. Associated
river deltas include those lands formed as aggradational features at the mouths of streams where
the streams enter a quieter body of water. The upstream extent of a river delta is where it no longer
forms distributary channels.
A local jurisdiction may include all of the 100-year floodplain in its master program, or a portion
thereof as long as such portion includes, at a minimum, the floodway and the adjacent land
extending landward 200 feet within the floodplain.
1.3.2.3 County Shorelines of Statewide Significance
Freshwater shorelines of statewide significance include rivers with mean annual flow of 1,000 cfs
or greater 4 , and freshwater lakes 1,000 acres or larger. In Jefferson County, this includes portions
of the Bogachiel, Clearwater, Hoh, Queets, Elwha and Quinault Rivers all located in western
Jefferson County. The Queets River passes completely within Olympic National Park (ONP) and
Tribal lands and the Elwha River passes completely within the ONP. None of the County’s lakes
are designated shorelines of statewide significance. Marine shorelines of statewide significance
include: the area from the ordinary high water mark to the western boundary of the state on the
west side of the County (excluding lands under federal or tribal ownership), the areas of Puget
Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca seaward of extreme low tide, and the areas of Hood Canal
between ordinary high water mark and extreme low tide.
In general, federal/tribal actions on federal/tribal lands do not require shoreline permits, even if
they are conducted within the shoreline area. However, non-federal/tribal actions on shorelines
within federal/tribal lands are generally subject to the Act. This can include fee ownership in-
3 Kah Tai Lake, which is also a shoreline of the state, is within the city of Port Townsend’s municipal boundary and
under city jurisdiction. Mill Pond is not a natural lake.
4For rivers west of the Cascade Range crest.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 1-7
holdings (private property surrounded by national forest or other federal lands) or partial
ownership such as mining claims. Applicability of the shoreline program within various federal
land ownerships needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. For some federal land holdings,
the federal government has invoked “exclusive jurisdiction.” For example, in Olympic National
Park (ONP), the federal government has invoked exclusive jurisdiction over all lands and activities
within the boundaries. The situation is variable with land under tribal ownership. Another type of
exclusive federal status may be military installations where no non-federal activity is allowed, such
as Indian Island.
For cities and counties updating their SMP maps, Ecology’s general rule is to include shorelines of
the state within federal lands in SMP maps except where exclusive federal or tribal jurisdiction is
documented. Ecology cautions: “While SMP mapping within exclusive federal jurisdiction areas
will not change any legal status of the lands, it could lead to confusion regarding applicability of
the SMA.” Map 1C (Appendix C) depicts rivers and streams within federal lands that would be
jurisdictional under the SMA if a situation in which non-federal/tribal actions were to take place.
1.3.2.4 Potential Shorelines Not Designated by WAC 173-18 or 173-20
Following the passage of the Act in the early 1970s, Ecology developed a list of all known streams
and lakes meeting the criteria for shorelines of the state5 . The lists, which were codified in WAC
173-18 and 173-20, had not been updated since their initial development. Recently, Ecology
revised the list of shoreline streams using data from several regional flow studies conducted by the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 1998)6 . The results of the USGS study showed that numerous
streams that are not currently designated as shorelines of the state may actually meet the 20 cfs
mean annual flow criterion and should be regulated as state shorelines. In other cases, the USGS
study relocated the upstream boundary of the 20 cfs point further upstream or downstream from its
WAC-designated location. In many cases the new stream flow data show the 20 cfs points in
headwaters areas on federal lands, which may or may not be subject to County SMP jurisdiction.
The revised list of streams in Jefferson County meeting the 20 cfs mean annual flow criterion is
provided in Table 1-1. Mapping of rivers and streams depicted on Maps 1A and 1B in Appendix C
have been updated to account for the USGS (1998) study, with most revisions to the codified list
of WAC 173-18 and 173-20 occurring on streams located in the western portion of Jefferson
County. For comparative purposes, Map 1C depicts shorelines of the state as designated by WAC
173-18 and 173-20 with the updated mapping of shorelines using the USGS 1998 information.
All maps in Appendix C depicting the shoreline planning area associated with shorelines of the
state include mapping updated per the 20 cfs information USGS (1998).
Bahls et al. (2006) initiated a similar effort to assess potential errors in state shoreline designation
for lakes in Washington. The study attempted to estimate the error rate in current lake designation
and develop a reliable and cost-effective method for local governments to use in identifying lakes
that meet the 20-acre size threshold. The investigators used a three-phased approach to identify
5 The original U.S. Geological Survey stream flow report used by Ecology in the 1970s did not include streams above
the first federal land boundary.
6 The revised list has not been codified, but Ecology is currently in the process of revising state jurisdiction regulations
to allow for incorporation of new data during the local SMP amendment process.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
lakes equal to or greater than 20 acres throughout the state. The first phase involved GIS analysis,
the second phase involved aerial photo interpretation, and the final phase included field assessment
of a small subset of the lakes analyzed. The study identified several currently undesignated lakes in
Jefferson County that appear to meet the criteria for shorelines of the state (indicated by shading in
Table 1-2). Not all lakes within the County were assessed.
As a result of Bahls et al., 2006 and additional analysis done for this report, four additional lakes
(Beausite, Teal, Rice, and Ludlow Lakes) have been determined to be shorelines of the state (in
addition to the ten lakes included within the County’s 1998 SMP). These lakes are believed to
meet the 20-acre size threshold.
The additional potential shoreline streams and lakes are identified herein so that they can be
included in the County’s SMP if they occur on County-controlled lands (outside federal/tribal
jurisdiction).
Table 1-1. Ecology’s Updated List of Streams/Rivers Meeting the Definition
of Shorelines of the State in Jefferson County
Stream or River
* indicates shoreline of
statewide significance.
B = Branch; E = East; F = Fork; M =
Middle; N = North; P = Prong; S =
South; T = Tributary; U = Unnamed; W =
West
USGS 7.5 Minute
Series Map where
Point is Located
Currently
Designated
in WAC
173-18?
Total River
Miles of Stream
or River
River Miles
on Federal
Lands
20 cfs
Upstream
Limit on
Federal
Land?
Alder Creek Winfield Creek No 1.7 0 No
Alta Creek Kimta Peak No 3.8 3.8 Yes
Alta Creek, U T Bob Creek No 0.6 0.6 Yes
Alta Creek, U T Kimta Peak No 0.4 0.4 Yes
Anderson Creek Anderson Creek No 1.5 0.5 Yes
Big Creek Bunch Lake No 12 11.5 Yes
Big Creek, U T Bunch Lake No 1.8 1.8 Yes
Big Quilcene River Mount Townsend Yes 15 11.5 Yes
Blue Glacier Mount Olympus No No information No information Yes
Bob Creek Bob Creek No 1.9 1.9 Yes
Bogachiel River - Entire
length in Jefferson County
is a Shoreline
Indian Pass Yes 9 4.6 Yes
Braden Creek Kalaloch Ridge No 0.7 0 No
Buckinghorse Creek Chimney Peak No 3.2 3.2 Yes
Cabin Creek Eldon No 1.3 1.3 Yes
Cameron Creek Wellesley Peak No 0.6 0.6 Yes
Cannings Creek - Entire
length in Jefferson County
is a Shoreline
Bunch Lake No Yes
Canoe Creek Finley Creek No 1.3 1.3 Yes
Cedar Creek Kalaloch Ridge Yes 2.4 0 No
Chimacum Creek Center Yes 5.4 0 No
page 1-8 November 2008
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 1-9
Stream or River
* indicates shoreline of
statewide significance.
B = Branch; E = East; F = Fork; M =
Middle; N = North; P = Prong; S =
South; T = Tributary; U = Unnamed; W =
West
USGS 7.5 Minute
Series Map where
Point is Located
Currently
Designated
in WAC
173-18?
Total River
Miles of Stream
or River
River Miles
on Federal
Lands
20 cfs
Upstream
Limit on
Federal
Land?
Christmas Creek Christmas Creek Yes 6.4 0 No
Clearwater River - From
confluence with U T Kloochman Rock Yes 35 1.4 Yes
Clearwater River * Christmas Creek Yes 0 No
Clearwater River, U T Kloochman Rock No 0.9 0 Yes
Clearwater River, U T Kloochman Rock No No information No information Yes
Crazy Creek Mount Steel No 2.9 2.9 Yes
Cream Lake Creek Mount Queets No 2 2 Yes
Deception Creek Christmas Creek No 1.2 1.2 No
Delabarre Creek Chimney Peak No 3.1 3.1 Yes
Delabarre Creek, U T Mount Christie No 0.9 0.9 Yes
Dosewallips River Wellesley Peak Yes 26.1 19.1 Yes
Dosewallips River, W F Mount Steel No No information No information Yes
Dowans Creek Anderson Creek No 1.4 0 No
Duckabush River Mount Steel Yes 24.3 20.7 Yes
Duckabush River, U T The Brothers No 0.8 0.8 Yes
Dungeness River Mount Deception No 5.1 5.1 Yes
Elip Creek Kimta Peak No 1.7 1.7 Yes
Elk Creek Queets No 4.6 1 No
Elk Lick Creek Mount Steel No 0,6 0.6 Yes
Elkhorn River Mount Queets No 2 2 Yes
Elwha River Mount Queets No 17.8 17.8 Yes
Elwha River, U T Mount Queets No 0.3 0.3 Yes
Finley Creek Finley Creek No 5.2 5.2 Yes
Finley Creek, U T Finley Creek No 2.1 2.1 Yes
Fletcher Canyon - Entire
length in Jefferson County
is a Shoreline
Bunch Lake No 0.5 0 No
Fox Creek Bunch Lake No 1.2 1.2 Yes
Fulton Creek Brinnon Yes 1 0 No
Geoduck Creek Mount Christie No 1.9 1.9 Yes
Geoduck Creek, U T Mount Christie No 0.6 0.6 Yes
Godkin Creek Chimney Peak No 6.9 6.9 Yes
Godkin Creek, U T Chimney Peak No 1 1 Yes
Godkin Creek, U T Chimney Peak No 1.4 1.4 Yes
Goldie River Mount Queets No 7.4 7.4 Yes
Goldie River, U T Mount Queets No 1.6 1.6 Yes
Goldie River, U T Mount Queets No 1.5 1.5 Yes
Goldie River, U T Mount Queets No 3.1 3.1 Yes
Goldie River, U T Mount Queets No 1.7 1.7 Yes
Goodman Creek Anderson Creek Yes 9.9 9.9 No
Graves Creek Mount Hoquiam No 5.2 5.2 Yes
Gray Wolf River Wellesley Peak No 1.2 1.2 Yes
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 1-10 November 2008
Stream or River
* indicates shoreline of
statewide significance.
B = Branch; E = East; F = Fork; M =
Middle; N = North; P = Prong; S =
South; T = Tributary; U = Unnamed; W =
West
USGS 7.5 Minute
Series Map where
Point is Located
Currently
Designated
in WAC
173-18?
Total River
Miles of Stream
or River
River Miles
on Federal
Lands
20 cfs
Upstream
Limit on
Federal
Land?
Hades Creek Winfield Creek No 1.4 1.4 Yes
Harlow Creek - Entire
length in Jefferson County
is a Shoreline
Salmon River West No 7.6 7.6 Yesw
Hayes River Chimney Peak No 8.0 8.0 Yes
Hee Haw Creek Kimta Peak No 3.8 3.8 Yes
Hee Haw River Kimta Peak No No information No information Yes
Hell Roaring Creek, E F Anderson Creek No No information No information Unclear
Hoh River Mount Olympus No 58.3 30.5 Yes
Hoh River * Owl Mountain Yes No information No information Yes
Hoh River, S F Mount Olympus Yes 14.9 14.9 Yes
Hoh River, S F, U T Bob Creek No 0.3 0.3 Yes
Hoh River, S F, U T Kloochman Rock No 1.8 1.8 Yes
Hoh River, S F, U T Mount Olympus No 0.3 0.3 Yes
Hoh River, S F, U T Mount Tom No 2.5 2.5 Yes
Hoh River, S F, U T Mount Tom No No information No information Yes
Hoh River, U T Mount Queets No 1.1 1.1 Yes
Hoh River, U T Mount Tom No 0.8 0.8 Yes
Hoh River, U T Mount Tom No 3.0 3.0 Yes
Hoh River, U T Owl Mountain No 0.5 0.5 Yes
Hoh River, U T Owl Mountain No No information No information Yes
Hook Branch Creek Matheny Ridge No 2.3 2.3 Yes
Howe Creek - Entire length
in Jefferson County is a
Shoreline
Bunch Lake No No information No information Yes
Hungry Creek The Brothers No 0.7 0.7 Yes
Hurst Creek Salmon River West Yes 4.3 0 No
Ice River Mount Olympus No 1.6 1.6 Yes
Irely Creek Bunch Lake No 0.2 0.2 Yes
Jackson Creek Owl Mountain No 3.5 3.5 Yes
Jeffers Glacier Mount Olympus No No information No information Yes
Jemrod Creek Mount Olympus No 0.8 0.8 Yes
Kalaloch Creek Kalaloch Ridge Yes 6.2 0 No
Kalaloch Creek, E F Kalaloch Ridge No No information No information Yes
Kimta Creek Kimta Peak No 3.0 3.0 Yes
Kunamakst Creek Stequaleho Creek No 0.8 0.0 Yes
Lena Creek The Brothers No 2.5 2.5 Yes
Litchy Creek Mount Hoquiam No 3.5 3.5 Yes
Litchy Creek, U T Mount Hoquiam No 0.5 0.5 Yes
Little Quilcene River -
Entire length in Jefferson
County is a Shoreline
Mount Walker Yes 5.8 0 No
Long Creek Mount Queets No 1.1 1.1 Yes
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 1-11
Stream or River
* indicates shoreline of
statewide significance.
B = Branch; E = East; F = Fork; M =
Middle; N = North; P = Prong; S =
South; T = Tributary; U = Unnamed; W =
West
USGS 7.5 Minute
Series Map where
Point is Located
Currently
Designated
in WAC
173-18?
Total River
Miles of Stream
or River
River Miles
on Federal
Lands
20 cfs
Upstream
Limit on
Federal
Land?
Long Creek, U T Hurricane Hill No No information No information Yes
Lost River Mc Cartney Peak No 5.5 5.5 Yes
Manor Creek, S F Stequaleho Creek No 2.4 0 No
Maple Creek Spruce Mountain Yes 3.4 0 No
Matheny Creek Finley Creek Yes 17.1 12.5 Yes
Matheny Creek, U T Finley Creek No 4.4 4.4 Yes
Matheny Creek, U T Matheny Ridge No No information No information Yes
Matheny Creek, U T Matheny Ridge No No information No information Yes
Mckinnon Creek Salmon River West No 0.8 0.5 Yes
Miller Creek Kalaloch Ridge Yes 4.8 0 No
Miller Creek, E F Christmas Creek Yes No information No information Yes
Minter Creek Hoh Head Yes 3.0 0 No
Mosquito Creek Hoh Head Yes 4.8 0 No
Mosquito Creek, N F Hoh Head No 1.2 0 No
Mount Tom Creek - From
its' confluence with U T Mount Tom No 8.3 8.3 Yes
Mount Tom Creek, U T Mount Tom No 0.7 0.7 Yes
Mount Tom Creek, U T Mount Tom No 0.9 0.9 Yes
Mount Tom Creek, U T Mount Tom No No information No information Yes
Mud Creek Salmon River East No 2.2 0.5 Yes
Murphy Creek Quillayute Prairie No No information No information Unclear
Nolan Creek Christmas Creek Yes 4.4 0.0 Yes
Noname Creek Chimney Peak No 0.7 0.7 Yes
O'Neil Creek Mount Olson No No information No information Yes
Owl Creek Spruce Mountain Yes 5.7 0 No
Paradise Creek Bob Creek No 0.6 0.6 Yes
Paull Creek Mount Olympus No 1.3 1.3 Yes
Promise Creek Kimta Peak No 2.4 2.4 Yes
Pyrites Creek Chimney Peak No 1.3 1.3 Yes
Queets River Mount Queets No 53.7 53.7 Yes
Queets River * Kloochman Rock No No information No information Yes
Queets River, U T Bob Creek No 0.4 0.4 Yes
Queets River, U T Kimta Peak No 0.0 0 No
Queets River, U T Kimta Peak No 0.6 0.6 Yes
Queets River, U T Mount Queets No 0.1 0.1 Yes
Queets River, U T Mount Queets No 0.9 0.9 Yes
Queets River, U T Mount Queets No 0.9 0.9 Yes
Queets River, U T Salmon River East No 0.8 0.8 Yes
Quinault River Mount Steel No 16.5 14.3 Yes
Quinault River * Bunch Lake Yes No information No information Yes
Quinault River, N F Mount Christie Yes 18.5 18.5 Yes
Quinault River, N F, U T Mount Christie No 1.0 1.0 Yes
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 1-12 November 2008
Stream or River
* indicates shoreline of
statewide significance.
B = Branch; E = East; F = Fork; M =
Middle; N = North; P = Prong; S =
South; T = Tributary; U = Unnamed; W =
West
USGS 7.5 Minute
Series Map where
Point is Located
Currently
Designated
in WAC
173-18?
Total River
Miles of Stream
or River
River Miles
on Federal
Lands
20 cfs
Upstream
Limit on
Federal
Land?
Quinault River, N F, U T Mount Christie No No information No information Yes
Quinault River, U T Mount Hoquiam No 0.6 0.6 Yes
Quinault River, U T - Entire
length in Jefferson County
is a Shoreline
Mount Olson No No information No information Yes
Rocky Brook Brinnon No 2.2 1.8 Yes
Royal Creek Mount Deception No 0.8 0.8 Yes
Rustler Creek Chimney Peak No 9.2 9.2 Yes
Rustler Creek, U T Mount Christie No 0.7 0.7 Yes
Rustler Creek, U T Mount Christie No 1.5 1.5 Yes
Rustler Creek, U T Mount Christie No 0.3 0.3 Yes
Saghalie Creek Mount Christie No 3.2 3.2 Yes
Salmon Creek Uncas Yes 1.6 0.0 No
Salmon River, M F Matheny Ridge No 4.8 3.3 Yes
Salmon River, N F Matheny Ridge No 2.6 2.6 Yes
Sams River Finley Creek No 14.9 14.3 Yes
Sams River, U T Matheny Ridge No 1.4 1.4 Yes
Seattle Creek Mount Christie No 1.5 1.5 Yes
Shale Creek Christmas Creek Yes 3.4 0 No
Silt River Wellesley Peak No 5.1 5.1 Yes
Silt River, U T Wellesley Peak No 0.7 0.7 Yes
Snahapish River Winfield Creek Yes 11.9 0 No
Snahapish River, U T Christmas Creek No 0.8 0 No
Snow Creek Uncas Yes 3.5 0 No
Solleks River, U T Stequaleho Creek Yes 0.9 0.0 Yes
Solleks River Kloochman Rock No 9.0 0.0 Yes
Stalding Creek Kimta Peak No 1.1 1.1 Yes
Stequaleho Creek Stequaleho Creek Yes 5.9 0.0 Yes
Tacoma Creek Salmon River West No 1.5 0.6 Yes
Three Prune Creek Kimta Peak No 2.4 2.4 Yes
Townsend Creek Mount Walker No 6.2 6.2 Yes
Tsheltshy Creek Bunch Lake No 12.6 12.6 Yes
Tshletshy Creek, U T Bob Creek No 0.7 0.7 Yes
Tshletshy Creek, U T Bob Creek No 1.0 1.0 Yes
Tshletshy Creek, U T Bob Creek No 1.7 1.7 Yes
Tshletshy Creek, U T Bob Creek No 1.0 1.0 Yes
Tshletshy Creek, U T Bob Creek No 1.5 1.5 Yes
Tshletshy Creek, U T Kloochman Rock No 0.4 0.4 Yes
Tumwata Creek Spruce Mountain No 2.7 2.7 Yes
Tunnel Creek Mount Townsend No No information No information Yes
Tunnel Creek, U T Mount Townsend No 0.7 0.7 Yes
Twin Creek Spruce Mountain No 1.0 1.0 Yes
Upper O'Neil Creek Chimney Peak No 0.8 0.8 Yes
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 1-13
Stream or River
* indicates shoreline of
statewide significance.
B = Branch; E = East; F = Fork; M =
Middle; N = North; P = Prong; S =
South; T = Tributary; U = Unnamed; W =
West
USGS 7.5 Minute
Series Map where
Point is Located
Currently
Designated
in WAC
173-18?
Total River
Miles of Stream
or River
River Miles
on Federal
Lands
20 cfs
Upstream
Limit on
Federal
Land?
White Glacier Mount Olympus No 6.0 6.0 Yes
Wild Rose Creek Bunch Lake No 1.3 1.3 Yes
Willoughby Creek Winfield Creek No 0.4 0 No
Winfield Creek Winfield Creek Yes 4.3 0 No
Winfield Creek, U T Winfield Creek No 1.2 0 No
Wynoochee River Mount Hoquiam No 0.6 0.6 Yes
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
Table 1-2. Comparison of 1998 SMP Listed Lakes, WAC 173-20 Listed Lakes, and Bahls et
al. (2006) Results; and Recommended Shoreline of the State Status (Includes Only Lakes
within County Jurisdiction)
Recommended Shorelines of the State are indicated in Red Text
Lake Name 1998 SMP
Listing WAC Listing Results of Bahls
et al. 2006
Recommended
Status
Anderson Listed Listed Not Assessed Shoreline of the
State
Crocker Listed Listed Not Assessed Shoreline of the
State
Gibbs Listed Listed Not Assessed Shoreline of the
State
Leland Listed Listed Not Assessed Shoreline of the
State
Lords Listed Listed Not Assessed Shoreline of the
State
Peterson Listed Listed Not Assessed Shoreline of the
State
Sandy Shore Listed Listed Not Assessed Shoreline of the
State
Tarboo Listed Listed Not Assessed Shoreline of the
State
Unnamed Lake
(commonly called Mill
Pond)
Listed Listed Not Assessed Shoreline of the
State
Wahl Listed Listed Not Assessed Shoreline of the
State
Beausite Not Listed Not Listed
Open Water 10-19
Acres, Possible
Shoreline
Shoreline of the
State
Rice Not Listed Not Listed
Open Water 20+
Acres, Possible
Shoreline
Shoreline of the
State
Teal Not Listed Not Listed
Open Water 10-19
Acres, Possible
Shoreline
Shoreline of the
State
Ludlow Not Listed Not Listed
Open Water 10-19
Acres, Possible
Shoreline
Shoreline of the
State
Browns Not Listed Not Listed Open Water 1-9 Acres,
Not Shoreline
Not a Shoreline of
the State
Delaney Not Listed Not Listed Open Water 1-9 Acres,
Possible Shoreline
Not a Shoreline of
the State
page 1-14 November 2008
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 1-15
Recommended Shorelines of the State are indicated in Red Text
Lake Name 1998 SMP
Listing WAC Listing Results of Bahls
et al. 2006
Recommended
Status
East Wahl (Twin Lakes) Not Listed Not Listed Open Water 1-9 Acres,
Possible Shoreline
Not a Shoreline of
the State
Embody Not Listed Not Listed Open Water 1-9 Acres,
Possible Shoreline
Not a Shoreline of
the State
Horseshoe Not Listed Not Listed
Open Water 10-19
Acres, Possible
Shoreline
Not a Shoreline of
the State
Thorndyke Not Listed Not Listed Not Found – <1 Acre
Open Water
Not a Shoreline of
the State
Larson Not Listed Not Listed Not Assessed Not a Shoreline of
the State
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 2-1
2.0 METHODS 1
2.1 DATA AND INFORMATION SOURCES 2
The information contained in this report was derived from readily available published and
unpublished studies and literature as well as GIS maps and data. A full bibliography is contained
at the end of the report. Metadata are available through the Jefferson County Department of
Community Development.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
ot 14
15
This report presents an inventory and analysis of Jefferson County’s shorelines at distinct spatial
scales: the ecosystem (or watershed) scale, the basin scale, and the shoreline reach scale. The
relationship between the various scales of analysis is represented in Figure 2-1. As noted in
Section 1.2.1, much of the key inventory information is displayed on maps provided in the map
folio (Appendix C). Table 2-1 describes the key GIS data sources used for various inventory
elements (themes) described in the text and identifies the map or maps where the information is
displayed 1 . Table 3 is not an exhaustive list. Some GIS data used in preparation of this report
are not displayed on a map and thus do not appear in Table 2-1. In some cases, mapping data n
available in GIS format are integrated in the report text as graphic figures.
2.2 ANALYSIS OF ECOSYSTEM-WIDE PROCESSES 16
For purposes of this report, ecosystem-wide processes (or landscape processes) are assessed at
the watershed scale according to Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) boundaries. In this
document, ecosystem-wide processes refers to the dynamic physical and chemical interactions
that form and maintain the landscape at the geographic scales of watersheds to basins (hundreds
to thousands of square miles). These processes include the movement of water, sediment,
nutrients, pathogens, toxins, and wood as they enter into, pass through, and eventually leave the
watershed. The assessment approach for nearshore and freshwater processes varies slightly as
outlined below.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1 Data described in the text are from the applicable data source shown in this table unless otherwise noted.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
Figure 2-1. Schematic diagram showing the scales of analysis (watershed, basin, and reach/drift
cell) and report structure
page 2-2 November 2008
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
Ta
b
l
e
2
-
1
.
J
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
G
I
S
/
M
a
p
p
i
n
g
D
a
t
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
Th
e
m
e
Ma
p
N
a
m
e
/
N
o
.
So
u
r
c
e
Is
s
u
e
s
/
N
o
t
e
s
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
Ma
p
s
1
A
,
1
B
a
n
d
I
C
.
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
Co
u
n
t
y
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
f
o
r
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
e
d
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
s
(
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
;
l
a
k
e
s
;
we
t
l
a
n
d
s
;
f
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
s
.
US
G
S
/
E
c
o
l
o
g
y
(
1
9
9
8
)
f
o
r
p
o
t
en
t
i
a
l
u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m
l
i
m
i
t
s
o
f
20
c
f
s
a
n
d
1
,
0
0
0
c
f
s
r
i
v
e
r
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
e
a
m
s
.
NW
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
/
W
a
sh
i
n
g
t
o
n
T
r
o
u
t
(
B
a
h
l
s
e
t
al
.
2
0
0
6
)
f
o
r
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
a
k
e
s
o
f
2
0
a
c
r
e
s
.
WR
I
A
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
Ec
o
l
o
g
y
.
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
/
T
r
i
b
a
l
L
a
n
d
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
L
a
n
d
s
d
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
(
C
o
m
m
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
2
0
0
4
)
.
Ec
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
-
s
c
a
l
e
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
/
S
t
r
e
a
m
s
a
n
d
La
k
e
s
Ma
p
s
2
a
n
d
3
.
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
Co
u
n
t
y
/
W
D
N
R
(
2
0
0
4
)
.
Mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
w
i
t
h
v
a
r
i
ety of spatial accuracy
an
d
d
e
t
a
i
l
;
C
o
u
n
t
y
p
u
r
s
u
i
n
g
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
t
o
Na
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
F
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
.
WR
I
A
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
Ec
o
l
o
g
y
.
Wa
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Co
u
n
t
y
/
W
D
N
R
(
w
s
h
e
d
_
o
l
y
)
.
Pe
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Lo
w
,
M
e
d
i
u
m
,
H
i
g
h
p
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
r
a
t
i
n
g
s
f
o
r
g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
un
i
t
s
,
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
W
D
N
R
1
0
0
K
s
c
a
l
e
g
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
wi
t
h
i
n
p
u
t
f
r
o
m
E
c
o
l
o
g
y
.
Ge
o
l
o
g
y
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
n
o
t
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
w
i
d
e
;
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
e
a
s
t
a
n
d
w
e
s
t
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
We
t
l
a
n
d
s
/
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
We
t
l
a
n
d
s
NW
I
;
1
9
9
9
-
2
0
0
0
l
a
n
d
s
a
t
(
3
0
m
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
f
o
r
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
cl
a
s
s
e
s
;
h
y
d
r
i
c
s
o
i
l
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
S
S
U
R
G
O
(
d
i
g
i
t
a
l
NR
C
S
/
S
C
S
s
o
i
l
s
u
r
v
e
y
)
.
So
i
l
d
a
t
a
o
f
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
e
x
t
e
n
t
;
N
W
I
s
p
a
t
i
a
l
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
is
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
a
n
d
d
a
t
e
d
.
To
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
US
G
S
1
0
m
D
E
M
;
L
I
D
A
R
f
o
r
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
J
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
Co
u
n
t
y
.
Fl
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
s
(1
0
0
-
y
e
a
r
f
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
)
Co
u
n
t
y
;
d
e
r
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
d
i
g
i
t
a
l
F
E
M
A
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
(
1
9
9
8
)
.
Ma
p
p
i
n
g
n
o
t
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
w
i
d
e
;
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
e
a
s
t
an
d
w
e
s
t
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
Ra
i
n
-
o
n
-
S
n
o
w
(
R
O
S
)
an
d
s
n
o
w
-
d
o
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
(S
D
)
Z
o
n
e
s
WD
N
R
F
o
r
e
s
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
,
1
9
9
1
;
1
:
2
5
0
K
s
c
a
l
e
ma
p
p
i
n
g
;
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
f
o
r
a
r
e
a
s
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
e
d
a
s
“
p
e
a
k
r
a
i
n
on
s
n
o
w
”
a
n
d
s
n
o
w
d
o
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
z
o
n
e
s
.
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
page 2-3
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
pa
g
e
2
-
4
November 2008
Th
e
m
e
Ma
p
N
a
m
e
/
N
o
.
So
u
r
c
e
Is
s
u
e
s
/
N
o
t
e
s
Ch
a
n
n
e
l
M
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
Zo
n
e
s
(
C
M
Z
)
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
M
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
u
d
y
f
o
r
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
(
K
l
a
w
o
n
,
2
0
0
4
)
.
Un
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
C
M
Z
s
:
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
r
e
a
c
h
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
H
o
h
R
i
v
e
r
(
U
S
B
O
R
,
2
0
0
4
;
He
r
r
e
r
a
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
a
n
d
N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
s
2
0
0
2
;
Pe
r
k
i
n
s
G
e
o
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
a
n
d
T
e
r
r
a
L
o
g
i
c
,
2
0
0
4
)
i
s
n
o
t
e
d
.
Ea
s
t
e
r
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
D
u
c
k
a
b
u
s
h
,
Do
s
e
w
a
l
l
i
p
s
,
B
i
g
Q
u
i
l
c
e
n
e
a
n
d
L
i
t
t
l
e
Q
u
i
l
c
e
n
e
Ri
v
e
r
s
.
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
H
o
h
R
i
v
e
r
w
a
s
re
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
u
t
n
o
t
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
i
n
G
I
S
f
o
r
m
a
t
f
o
r
in
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
i
n
m
a
p
f
o
l
i
o
.
S
c
a
n
n
e
d
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
a
r
e
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
r
e
p
o
r
t
t
e
x
t
.
La
n
d
C
o
v
e
r
(e
a
r
l
y
a
n
d
l
a
t
e
s
e
r
a
l
st
a
g
e
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
;
h
u
m
a
n
im
p
r
i
n
t
)
19
9
9
-
2
0
0
0
l
a
n
d
s
a
t
d
a
t
a
;
3
0
m
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
.
La
t
e
S
e
r
a
l
S
t
a
g
e
:
a
l
l
f
o
r
e
s
t
c
l
a
s
s
e
s
.
Ea
r
l
y
S
e
r
a
l
S
t
a
g
e
:
a
l
l
n
o
n
-
f
or
e
s
t
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
v
e
c
l
a
s
s
e
s
.
Hu
m
a
n
I
m
p
r
i
n
t
:
a
l
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
o
r
a
l
t
e
r
e
d
c
l
a
s
s
e
s
(a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
;
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
;
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
;
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
;
et
c
.
)
.
Co
u
n
t
y
w
i
d
e
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
;
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
f
o
r
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
o
n
l
y
;
s
l
i
g
h
t
l
y
d
a
t
e
d
;
g
o
o
d
cl
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
m
a
t
u
r
e
f
o
r
e
s
t
co
v
e
r
.
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
/
S
t
r
e
a
m
s
a
n
d
La
k
e
s
;
WR
I
A
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
;
Wa
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
;
Pe
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
;
We
t
l
a
n
d
s
Ma
p
s
4
a
n
d
5
.
W
a
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
As
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
(
H
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
M
a
p
s
e
t
)
.
Da
i
r
y
f
a
r
m
s
Ec
o
l
o
g
y
p
o
i
n
t
d
a
t
a
.
Li
m
i
t
e
d
sp
a
t
i
a
l
e
x
t
e
n
t
–
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
n
l
y
.
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
(n
o
t
s
h
o
w
n
o
n
m
a
p
)
20
0
4
E
c
o
l
o
g
y
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
/
3
0
3
(
d
)
da
t
a
.
Da
t
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
t
e
s
t
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
b
o
d
i
e
s
.
Se
p
t
i
c
P
e
r
m
i
t
s
Co
u
n
t
y
;
p
a
r
c
e
l
q
u
e
r
y
f
r
o
m
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
e
p
t
.
o
f
H
e
a
l
t
h
re
c
o
r
d
s
f
o
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
s
e
p
t
i
c
t
a
n
k
s
(
2
0
0
6
)
.
Li
m
i
t
e
d
s
p
a
t
i
a
l
e
x
t
e
n
t
–
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
n
l
y
.
Ti
l
l
e
d
F
i
e
l
d
s
19
9
9
-
2
0
0
0
l
a
n
d
s
a
t
d
a
t
a
;
3
0
m
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
.
Cl
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
=
“
R
o
w
C
r
o
p
s
”
.
Lo
s
t
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
Lo
s
t
d
e
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
d
e
p
i
c
t
e
d
b
y
h
y
d
r
i
c
s
o
i
l
un
i
t
s
o
n
2
%
s
l
o
p
e
s
o
r
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
t
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
“
H
u
m
a
n
Im
p
r
i
n
t
”
a
r
e
a
s
(
a
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
b
e
l
o
w
)
.
Hu
m
a
n
I
m
p
r
i
n
t
19
9
9
-
2
0
0
0
l
a
n
d
s
a
t
d
a
t
a
;
3
0
m
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
:
A
r
e
a
s
cl
a
s
s
i
f
i
e
d
a
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
o
r
a
l
t
e
r
e
d
(
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
;
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
;
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
;
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
;
e
t
c
.
)
.
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
page 2-5
Th
e
m
e
Ma
p
N
a
m
e
/
N
o
.
So
u
r
c
e
Is
s
u
e
s
/
N
o
t
e
s
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
/
S
t
r
e
a
m
s
a
n
d
La
k
e
s
;
WR
I
A
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
;
Wa
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Ma
p
s
6
a
n
d
7
.
Se
d
i
m
e
n
t
As
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
(
H
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
M
a
p
s
e
t
)
.
Ro
a
d
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
Co
u
n
t
y
d
a
t
a
;
W
D
N
R
.
Co
u
n
t
y
d
a
t
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
m
a
j
o
r
r
o
a
d
s
;
W
D
N
R
Tr
a
n
s
l
a
y
e
r
m
u
c
h
m
o
r
e
t
h
o
r
o
u
g
h
–
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
ne
t
w
o
r
k
o
f
l
o
g
g
i
n
g
r
o
a
d
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
LS
I
L
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
s
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
,
W
D
N
R
F
o
r
e
s
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
(V
a
u
g
e
o
i
s
a
n
d
B
o
y
d
,
2
0
0
4
)
(
a
k
a
M
a
s
s
W
a
s
t
i
n
g
Ev
e
n
t
s
)
.
Co
m
p
i
l
e
d
f
r
o
m
a
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
1
:
2
4
0
0
0
s
c
a
l
e
pr
o
d
u
c
t
s
d
a
t
i
n
g
1
9
9
9
-
2
0
0
3
.
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
H
a
z
a
r
d
Zo
n
a
t
i
o
n
WD
N
R
F
o
r
e
s
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
(
h
a
z
o
n
e
-
l
a
n
d
f
o
r
m
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
la
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
h
a
z
a
r
d
,
2
0
0
7
)
.
St
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
e
f
f
o
r
t
,
c
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
f
r
o
m
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
n
d
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
as
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
s
lide hazard zonation
pr
o
j
e
c
t
(
L
H
Z
)
.
Er
o
d
i
b
l
e
S
o
i
l
s
SS
U
R
G
O
(
d
i
g
i
t
a
l
N
R
C
S
/
S
C
S
s
o
i
l
s
u
r
v
e
y
)
w
h
e
r
e
s
l
o
p
e
>=
3
0
%
a
n
d
e
r
o
d
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
a
c
t
o
r
=
0
.
2
4
–
0
.
3
2
.
Li
m
i
t
e
d
s
p
a
t
i
a
l
e
x
t
e
n
t
–
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
n
l
y
.
Hu
m
a
n
I
m
p
r
i
n
t
As
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
.
Re
a
c
h
-
S
c
a
l
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
M
a
p
s
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
(i
.
e
.
,
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Re
a
c
h
e
s
)
Ma
p
s
8
,
9
,
a
n
d
1
0
.
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Co
u
n
t
y
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
f
o
r
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
e
d
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
s
(
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
SE
D
s
)
;
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
;
P
u
b
l
i
c
L
a
n
d
s
d
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
f
o
r
bo
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
o
f
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
a
n
d
t
r
i
b
a
l
l
a
n
d
.
Re
a
c
h
B
r
e
a
k
s
SS
H
I
A
P
f
o
r
b
r
e
a
k
s
i
n
s
t
r
e
a
m
g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
a
n
d
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
ba
r
r
i
e
r
s
t
o
f
i
s
h
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
;
d
r
i
f
t
c
e
l
l
s
f
o
r
m
a
r
i
n
e
r
e
a
c
h
br
e
a
k
s
.
Di
f
f
e
r
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
s
f
r
o
m
r
e
a
c
h
b
r
e
a
k
s
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
i
n
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
C
o
u
n
t
y
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
(
H
a
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
n
,
2
0
0
5
)
.
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
As
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
.
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
L
a
n
d
As
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
.
10
0
-
y
e
a
r
F
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
As
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
.
Ch
a
n
n
e
l
M
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
Z
o
n
e
As
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
.
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
No
t
m
a
p
p
e
d
.
Ea
s
t
J
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
a
l
m
o
n
i
d
R
e
f
u
g
i
a
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
M
a
y
an
d
P
e
t
e
r
s
o
n
,
2
0
0
3
)
.
Da
t
a
o
n
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
wa
s
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
u
t
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
m
a
p
f
o
l
i
o
.
Ra
n
k
e
d
n
o
d
a
l
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
f
r
o
m
s
t
u
d
y
a
r
e
s
h
o
w
n
as
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
i
n
r
e
p
o
r
t
t
e
x
t
.
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
pa
g
e
2
-
6
November 2008
Th
e
m
e
Ma
p
N
a
m
e
/
N
o
.
So
u
r
c
e
Is
s
u
e
s
/
N
o
t
e
s
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
(n
e
a
r
s
h
o
r
e
)
Ma
p
s
1
1
,
1
2
,
a
n
d
1
3
.
Co
a
s
t
a
l
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
a
n
d
Mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
PN
P
T
C
s
u
r
v
e
y
/
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
d
a
t
a
f
r
o
m
1
9
9
9
-
2
0
0
0
de
p
i
c
t
i
n
g
b
u
l
k
h
e
a
d
s
,
m
a
r
i
n
a
s
(
l
i
n
e
f
i
l
e
s
)
a
n
d
d
o
c
k
s
,
pi
e
r
s
,
j
e
t
t
i
e
s
,
g
r
o
i
n
s
,
l
a
u
n
c
h
r
a
m
p
s
,
a
n
d
s
t
a
i
r
s
(
p
o
i
n
t
fi
l
e
s
)
.
Li
m
i
t
e
d
s
p
a
t
i
a
l
e
x
t
e
n
t
–
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
n
l
y
.
A
s
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
b
y
H
i
r
s
c
h
i
e
t
a
l
.
,
2
0
0
3
.
Fr
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
Mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
No
t
m
a
p
p
e
d
.
Li
m
i
t
e
d
d
a
t
a
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
;
2
0
0
0
a
e
r
i
a
l
p
h
o
t
o
s
f
o
r
p
i
e
r
s
a
n
d
do
c
k
s
o
n
l
a
k
e
s
.
No
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
o
f
l
e
v
e
e
s
,
re
v
e
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
b
a
n
k
a
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
r
i
v
e
r
s
an
d
s
t
r
e
a
m
s
.
Sh
o
r
e
F
o
r
m
T
y
p
e
Ma
p
s
1
1
,
1
2
,
a
n
d
1
3
WD
N
R
(
2
0
0
1
)
S
h
o
r
e
Z
o
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
d
e
p
i
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
ma
r
i
n
e
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
s
,
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
e
d
a
s
:
A
c
c
r
e
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
Er
o
s
i
o
n
a
l
,
S
t
a
b
l
e
.
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
l
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
s
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
da
t
a
s
e
t
(
f
i
l
m
e
d
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
b
y
h
e
l
i
c
o
p
t
e
r
)
.
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
n
e
a
r
s
h
o
r
e
g
e
o
m
o
r
p
h
i
c
l
a
n
d
f
o
r
m
d
a
t
a
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
M
a
p
s
2
6
a
n
d
2
7
(
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
b
e
l
o
w
)
.
Fe
e
d
e
r
B
l
u
f
f
s
No
t
m
a
p
p
e
d
.
No
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
l
a
y
e
r
.
Da
t
a
d
e
r
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
(
d
r
i
f
t
c
e
l
l
de
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s
;
g
e
o
-
h
a
z
a
r
d
s
;
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
a
t
l
a
s
s
l
o
p
e
st
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
;
a
n
d
W
D
N
R
S
h
o
r
e
Z
o
n
e
f
o
r
“e
r
o
s
i
o
n
a
l
”
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
s
)
.
Re
p
o
r
t
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
s
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
G
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
S
t
u
d
y
f
o
r
Ka
l
a
P
t
.
T
o
T
a
l
a
P
t
.
(
J
o
h
a
n
e
s
s
e
n
1
9
9
9
)
–
n
o
t
i
n
GI
S
f
o
r
m
a
t
.
Dr
i
f
t
C
e
l
l
s
Ma
p
s
1
1
,
1
2
,
a
n
d
1
3
Ec
o
l
o
g
y
c
o
m
p
i
l
e
d
s
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e
G
I
S
f
i
l
e
.
Co
m
p
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
d
r
i
f
t
c
e
l
l
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
o
f
v
a
r
y
i
n
g
d
e
t
a
i
l
an
d
d
a
t
e
s
o
f
s
t
u
d
y
;
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
i
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
.
Cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
A
q
u
i
f
e
r
R
e
c
h
a
r
g
e
Ar
e
a
s
Ma
p
s
1
4
,
1
5
,
a
n
d
1
6
.
Cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
A
r
e
a
s
Co
u
n
t
y
G
I
S
,
2
0
0
3
.
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
d
f
r
o
m
G
e
o
l
o
g
y
s
o
u
r
c
e
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
su
s
c
e
p
t
i
b
l
e
a
q
u
i
f
e
r
a
r
e
a
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
U
n
i
f
i
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
a
n
d
f
r
o
m
C
A
D
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
o
f
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
A
q
u
i
f
e
r
R
e
c
h
a
r
g
e
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
th
e
J
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
P
u
b
l
i
c
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
Li
m
i
t
e
d
s
p
a
t
i
a
l
e
x
t
e
n
t
–
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
n
l
y
.
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
H
a
z
a
r
d
(C
o
u
n
t
y
)
/
L
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
Ha
z
a
r
d
Z
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
(W
D
N
R
)
Ma
p
s
2
6
a
n
d
2
7
Co
u
n
t
y
G
I
S
.
Me
t
a
d
a
t
a
l
a
c
k
i
n
g
.
WD
N
R
d
a
t
a
(
a
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
)
.
Li
m
i
t
e
d
s
p
a
t
i
a
l
e
x
t
e
n
t
–
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
n
l
y
.
Er
o
s
i
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
Ma
p
s
2
6
a
n
d
2
7
Co
u
n
t
y
G
I
S
.
Me
t
a
d
a
t
a
l
a
c
k
i
n
g
.
Li
m
i
t
e
d
s
p
a
t
i
a
l
e
x
t
e
n
t
–
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
n
l
y
.
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
page 2-7
Th
e
m
e
Ma
p
N
a
m
e
/
N
o
.
So
u
r
c
e
Is
s
u
e
s
/
N
o
t
e
s
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
As
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
.
Fr
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
F
l
o
o
d
e
d
Ar
e
a
s
(
1
0
0
-
y
e
a
r
Fl
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
)
Ma
p
s
8
,
9
a
n
d
1
0
As
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
.
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
F
i
s
h
P
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
Ma
p
s
1
7
,
1
8
,
a
n
d
1
9
.
Cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
Ha
b
i
t
a
t
WD
F
W
(
2
0
0
6
)
d
a
t
a
f
o
r
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
f
i
s
h
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
(
f
i
s
h
d
i
s
t
)
.
Ma
p
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
s
h
o
w
W
D
F
W
P
H
S
f
i
s
h
pr
e
s
e
n
c
e
/
u
s
e
a
s
r
e
a
r
i
n
g
v
s
.
s
p
a
w
n
i
n
g
v
s
.
mi
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
A
r
e
a
s
Ma
p
s
1
1
,
1
2
,
a
n
d
1
3
WD
F
W
(
2
0
0
6
)
(p
h
s
p
o
l
y
)
s
h
o
w
n
f
o
r
a
r
e
a
s
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
us
e
.
Ma
r
i
n
e
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
Sp
e
c
i
e
s
(g
e
o
d
u
c
k
,
u
r
c
h
i
n
,
o
y
s
t
e
r
,
cr
a
b
,
c
l
a
m
,
r
a
z
o
r
c
l
a
m
,
su
r
f
s
m
e
l
t
,
s
a
n
d
l
a
n
c
e
,
he
r
r
i
n
g
)
Ma
p
s
1
7
,
1
8
,
a
n
d
1
9
WD
F
W
(
2
0
0
6
)
sh
o
w
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
o
f
s
h
e
l
l
f
i
s
h
a
n
d
f
o
r
a
g
e
fi
s
h
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
WD
F
W
P
H
S
/
M
R
S
d
a
t
a
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
s
2
0
0
5
NO
S
C
f
o
r
a
g
e
f
i
s
h
s
u
r
v
e
y
d
a
t
a
.
Ee
l
g
r
a
s
s
Ma
p
2
0
.
A
q
u
a
t
i
c
Ve
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
WD
N
R
(
2
0
0
1
)
S
h
o
r
e
Z
o
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
d
e
p
i
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
ee
l
g
r
a
s
s
,
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
e
d
a
s
:
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
o
r
P
a
t
c
h
y
.
WD
N
R
A
q
u
a
t
i
c
L
a
n
d
s
E
e
l
g
r
a
ss
S
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
S
i
t
e
s
,
2
0
0
0
-
20
0
5
f
o
r
a
r
e
a
s
i
n
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
J
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
Ke
l
p
Ma
p
20
WD
N
R
(
2
0
0
1
)
S
h
o
r
e
Z
o
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
d
e
p
i
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
k
e
l
p
,
cl
a
s
s
i
f
i
e
d
a
s
:
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
o
r
P
a
t
c
h
y
.
La
n
d
U
s
e
/
L
a
n
d
Ow
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
(n
o
t
s
h
o
w
n
o
n
m
a
p
)
Ma
p
s
2
1
,
2
2
,
a
n
d
2
3
.
La
n
d
a
n
d
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
Us
e
P
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
Pa
r
c
e
l
d
a
t
a
w
i
t
h
A
s
s
e
s
s
o
r
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
u
s
e
c
o
d
e
s
;
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
P
u
b
l
i
c
L
a
n
d
s
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
(
C
o
m
m
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
)
As
s
e
s
s
o
r
d
a
t
a
h
a
s
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
a
n
d
cu
r
r
e
n
c
y
d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
t
o
v
e
r
i
f
y
.
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
Ma
p
s
1
1
,
1
2
a
n
d
1
3
PN
P
T
C
s
u
r
v
e
y
/
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
d
a
t
a
f
r
o
m
1
9
9
9
-
2
0
0
0
de
p
i
c
t
i
n
g
m
a
r
i
n
a
s
(
l
i
n
e
f
i
l
e
s
)
a
n
d
b
o
a
t
l
a
u
n
c
h
r
a
m
p
s
t
o
il
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
/
u
s
e
.
As
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
b
y
H
i
r
s
c
h
i
e
t
a
l
.
,
2
0
0
3
.
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
s
o
s
e
d
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ma
p
s
2
9
,
3
0
a
n
d
3
1
Co
u
n
t
y
G
I
S
(
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
1
9
8
9
S
M
P
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
i
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
)
.
Zo
n
i
n
g
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
Co
u
n
t
y
.
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
pa
g
e
2
-
8
November 2008
Th
e
m
e
Ma
p
N
a
m
e
/
N
o
.
So
u
r
c
e
Is
s
u
e
s
/
N
o
t
e
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
l
y
O
w
n
e
d
Ti
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
Ma
p
s
2
1
,
2
2
a
n
d
2
3
WD
N
R
A
q
u
a
t
i
c
L
a
n
d
s
(
F
e
b
2
0
0
7
)
.
T
i
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
re
c
o
r
d
e
d
i
n
p
u
b
l
i
c
o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
b
y
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
,
s
t
a
t
e
,
o
r
co
u
n
t
y
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
g
e
n
c
y
/
e
n
t
i
t
y
.
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
l
a
n
d
o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
.
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
S
h
e
l
l
f
i
s
h
Gr
o
w
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
s
;
B
i
o
t
o
x
i
n
Cl
o
s
u
r
e
Z
o
n
e
s
;
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
a
r
v
e
s
t
Be
a
c
h
e
s
Ma
p
2
4
.
S
h
e
l
l
f
i
s
h
Ha
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g
WD
O
H
(
2
0
0
6
)
.
Dr
a
f
t
d
a
t
a
b
y
J
a
m
e
s
t
o
w
n
T
r
i
b
e
s
h
o
w
i
n
g
t
r
i
b
a
l
s
h
e
l
l
f
i
s
h
ha
r
v
e
s
t
b
e
a
c
h
e
s
i
n
e
a
s
t
J
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
Da
t
a
s
h
o
w
s
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
z
o
n
e
s
b
y
W
D
O
H
;
do
e
s
n
o
t
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
i
l
y
s
h
o
w
w
h
e
r
e
a
c
t
u
a
l
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
s
h
e
l
l
f
i
s
h
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
ac
t
i
v
e
.
Da
t
a
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
b
y
J
a
m
e
s
t
o
w
n
T
r
i
b
e
w
e
r
e
n
o
t
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
i
n
G
I
S
f
o
r
m
a
t
b
u
t
s
h
o
w
n
a
s
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
i
n
re
p
o
r
t
t
e
x
t
(
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
-
3
)
.
Fo
r
e
s
t
C
o
v
e
r
Ma
p
2
5
.
F
o
r
e
s
t
C
o
v
e
r
an
d
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
19
9
9
-
2
0
0
0
l
a
n
d
s
a
t
d
a
t
a
;
3
0
m
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
.
Ea
r
l
y
a
n
d
L
a
t
e
S
e
r
a
l
S
t
a
g
e
c
l
a
s
s
e
s
a
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
ab
o
v
e
.
Co
u
n
t
y
w
i
d
e
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
;
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
f
o
r
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
o
n
l
y
;
s
l
i
g
h
t
l
y
d
a
t
e
d
;
g
o
o
d
cl
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
m
a
t
u
r
e
f
o
r
e
s
t
co
v
e
r
.
Im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
Ma
p
2
5
.
F
o
r
e
s
t
C
o
v
e
r
an
d
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
Im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
C
o
v
e
r
M
a
p
p
i
n
g
–
H
o
o
d
C
a
n
a
l
C
h
u
m
Sa
l
m
o
n
E
S
U
(
H
o
o
d
C
a
n
a
l
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
,
20
0
4
)
.
Sp
a
t
i
a
l
e
x
t
e
n
t
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
J
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
Co
u
n
t
y
(
C
h
u
m
S
a
l
m
o
n
S
t
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
)
.
Ma
r
i
n
e
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
Ge
o
m
o
r
p
h
i
c
L
a
n
d
f
o
r
m
s
Ma
p
s
2
6
a
n
d
2
7
.
Ge
o
m
o
r
p
h
i
c
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
Ba
t
t
e
l
l
e
’
s
N
e
a
r
s
h
o
r
e
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
(
D
i
e
f
e
n
d
e
r
f
e
r
e
t
a
l
.
,
2
0
0
6
)
.
Li
m
i
t
e
d
s
p
a
t
i
a
l
e
x
t
e
n
t
–
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
n
l
y
.
Ma
r
i
n
e
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
e
d
a
t
S
h
o
r
e
Z
o
n
e
u
n
i
t
sc
a
l
e
i
n
t
o
7
l
a
n
d
f
o
r
m
t
y
p
e
s
.
La
g
o
o
n
s
,
S
a
l
t
M
a
r
s
h
e
s
,
an
d
I
n
t
e
r
t
i
d
a
l
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
Ma
p
s
2
6
a
n
d
2
7
PN
P
T
C
(
T
o
d
d
e
t
a
l
.
,
2
0
0
6
)
s
u
r
v
e
y
/
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
d
a
t
a
o
f
ne
a
r
s
h
o
r
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
.
Li
m
i
t
e
d
s
p
a
t
i
a
l
e
x
t
e
n
t
–
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
n
l
y
.
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
S
l
o
p
e
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Ma
p
s
2
6
a
n
d
2
7
Ec
o
l
o
g
y
(
m
i
d
-
1
9
7
0
s
;
d
i
g
i
t
i
z
e
d
2
0
0
1
)
.
A
r
e
a
s
s
h
o
w
n
in
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
o
s
e
m
a
p
p
e
d
a
s
u
n
s
t
a
b
l
e
s
l
o
p
e
s
.
Da
t
a
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
y
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
a
s
h
a
r
d
c
o
p
y
m
a
p
s
i
n
th
e
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
Z
o
n
e
A
t
l
a
s
o
f
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
19
7
8
a
n
d
1
9
8
0
;
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
2
,
0
0
0
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
ma
r
i
n
e
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
.
La
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
H
a
z
a
r
d
Ma
p
s
2
6
a
n
d
2
7
As
n
o
t
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
.
Er
o
s
i
o
n
H
a
z
a
r
d
Ma
p
s
2
6
a
n
d
2
7
As
n
o
t
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
.
Zo
n
i
n
g
;
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
;
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
Ma
p
2
8
.
Q
u
i
n
a
u
l
t
R
i
v
e
r
Ma
p
p
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
e
s
a
s
n
o
t
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
.
~4
.
8
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
Q
u
i
n
a
u
l
t
R
i
v
e
r
i
n
u
n
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
;
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
G
I
S
d
a
t
a
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
th
i
s
a
r
e
a
o
f
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 2-9
2.2.1 Marine (Nearshore) Shorelines 1
The marine nearshore environment encompasses the interface between subtidal marine habitats
and the adjacent uplands, or more specifically the area that extends waterward from the upland
edge of the marine riparian zone (200 feet landward of OHWM) to depths of about 65 feet mean
low water (Hood Canal Coordinating Council, 2005). These environments are formed and
maintained by landscape-scale processes such as net shore-drift and fish and wildlife movement
patterns (Williams et al., 2004). Nearshore habitats and the species that occupy and depend on
them (including juvenile salmonid species and many species of commercially/recreationally
harvestable shellfish) require that these landscape processes function properly across various
spatial scales (Williams and Thom 2001; Ruckleshaus and McClure, 2007).
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Several investigators have shown that the health and sustainability of nearshore environments are
linked to physical processes at the watershed scale (Williams et al. 2004, Difenderfer et al.,
2006). Physical processes create habitat structure, which affects habitat-related processes, which
in turn influence ecological functions and values (Table 2-2). Chemical and biological processes
also influence nearshore environments. As an example, decomposition of beach wrack is
important for food chain support functions.
This characterization examines physical, chemical, and biological factors influencing marine
environments at the landscape scale including local/regional geology, fluvial systems, waves,
wind and energy/exposure, and land use/human development. These factors operate via different
mechanisms and exert varying degrees of influence depending upon landscape position. In
Jefferson County, the western shores of the Pacific Ocean are subject to different influences than
the marine shores of Puget Sound (eastern Jefferson County) due to differences in oceanographic
processes/circulation, geomorphology, bathymetry, net shore-drift patterns, fluvial influences,
nutrient dynamics, effects of coastal bluff landslides, and land use.
Table 2-2. Relationship of Nearshore Physical Processes to Habitats and Ecological
Functions (adapted from Williams et al., 2004)
Processes Habitat
Structure Habitat Processes Ecological Function
Wave Energy
Light (Increase)
Light (Shading)
Sediment Supply
Substrate
Pollution/Nutrients
Hydrology
Physical Disturbance
Density
Biomass
Length/Size
Diversity
Landscape
Position
Patch Shape/Size
Production
Sediment Flux
Nutrient Flux
Carbon Flux
Connectivity/Fragmentation
Prey Production
Reproduction
Refuge
Biodiversity Maintenance
Disturbance
Migration Corridors
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 2-10 November 2008
This analysis includes a qualitative assessment of processes affecting nearshore environments,
based in part on the analysis of nearshore conditions in eastern Jefferson County presented in
Multi-Scale Restoration Prioritization for Local and Regional Shoreline Master Programs: A
Case Study from Jefferson County, Washington (Diefenderfer et al., 2006), which is hereby
incorporated by reference.
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
37
38
2.2.2 Freshwater Shorelines 6
The ecosystem characterization approach used for non-marine shorelines (including estuaries and
freshwater rivers, streams, and lakes) is based in part on the approach reported in Protecting
Aquatic Ecosystems: A Guide for Puget Sound Planners to Understand Watershed Processes
(Stanley et al., 2005) and on the Draft Watershed Characterization for Jefferson County, Version
2 (Ecology, 2007), which covers eastern Jefferson County and is hereby incorporated by
reference. This approach examines specific watershed processes, including the movement of
water, sediment, nutrients, pathogens, toxicants, organic matter, and energy or heat, that form
and maintain aquatic resources, including shorelines, over a large geographic scale. These
processes interact with landscape features to create the structure and function of aquatic
resources.
The analysis uses a coarse-grained approach for integrating watershed processes into shoreline
management, restoration planning, and related land use planning efforts. Results of the
characterization will help to identify areas that are important for maintaining watershed
processes and whether or how much these “process-intensive” areas have been altered. This
approach considers the relative degree of importance and extent of alteration for each basin, so
that priorities for protection and restoration can be identified. A central assumption of this
approach is that the health of aquatic resources is dependent upon intact upgradient watershed
processes (Ecology, 2007).
The purposes of the freshwater watershed-scale analysis are to highlight the relationship between
key processes and aquatic resource functions, and to describe the effects of land use on those key
processes. This approach is not intended to quantify landscape processes and functions. Rather,
the goals are to:
• Identify and map areas on the landscape important to processes that sustain shoreline
resources;
• Determine their degree of alteration; and
• Identify the potential for protecting or restoring these areas.
The approach to characterizing watershed-scale processes acting on freshwater systems consisted
of several steps, which are described below (see also Stanley et al., 2005 for a complete
description of the background and methods for this approach).
2.2.2.1 Step 1 – Identify Aquatic Resources and their Contributing Areas 36
Project analysts identified and mapped aquatic resources including rivers, lakes, estuaries, and
wetlands (existing and historic wetlands) using available GIS hydrography data from various
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 2-11
sources. Mapped areas include aquatic resources that are subject to shoreline jurisdiction (e.g.,
large rivers and lakes) and resources outside of shoreline jurisdiction (e.g., small streams,
depressional wetlands outside floodplains, etc.). Contributing areas are defined as the surface
water drainage boundaries in each WRIA. Each WRIA is also divided into smaller units or
basins that are referenced when discussing conditions at a more refined scale.
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
2.2.2.2 Step 2 – Identify Key Processes 6
Processes occurring at the watershed scale maintain aquatic resources to varying degrees. This
analysis focuses on key processes that are fundamental to the integrity of the ecosystem and can
be managed within the context of the available land use plans and regulations. In accordance
with Stanley et al. (2005), analysts identified the following key processes as critical to sustaining
the aquatic resources and likely to be altered by human activity:
• Hydrology
• Sediment
• Water Quality
• Organic Inputs
2.2.2.3 Step 3 – Identify and Map Process-intensive Areas 16
For this step, analysts used available GIS data to identify and map areas within the County that
support ecosystem processes (Table 2-3). These so-called “process-intensive areas” are those
areas which, when maintained in an unaltered condition, have the greatest relative influence on
the dynamics of a specific process and consequently on aquatic resources2 . In some cases, the
process-intensive areas are areas where inputs to the processes occur (e.g., the feeder bluffs that
generate sediment supply as a result of erosion). For other processes, inputs occur so broadly
across the landscape that specific important input areas are difficult to identify. In those cases,
the process-intensive areas are areas that facilitate movement or storage of materials such as
water, sediment, or pathogens. Identifying an area such as a feeder bluff as a “process-intensive”
area is not meant to suggest that the associated transport zones or depositional areas are not
important; it simply focuses this coarse-scale analysis on the main trigger or generator of the net
shore-drift processes (i.e., without the feeder bluff generating the sediment there is no sediment
transport or deposition).
Commonly, multiple processes are present in a single area, sometimes due to feedback
relationships among processes. Storage areas such as depressional wetlands are a good example
because they store surface water, which traps sediment and facilitates phosphorus removal and
contaminant adsorption, uptake and storage. Mapping of these areas allows us to identify where
each process occurs as well as areas that support multiple processes and therefore may provide
valuable protection and/or restoration opportunities.
2 The use of the term “process-intensive areas” is used as a means of distinguishing, on a relative scale, areas that play a key role
in how ecosystem processes operate within a watershed. This does not imply that other areas are not important for ecological
functioning, land use management or other purposes.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 2-12 November 2008
2.2.2.4 Step 4 – Identify and Map Process Alterations 1
This step determines where land uses and/or actions associated with land use have altered
naturally occurring processes. Knowing where and how processes have been altered provides
information necessary to develop appropriate environment designations and standards for the
type and intensity of development that shoreline segments can support while accommodating
appropriate uses and achieving no net loss of shoreline functions and values. Altered areas may
provide opportunities for restoration, while unaltered areas may have potential for conservation
or similar protection (Ecology, 2007).
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Table 2-3. Examples of Process-intensive Areas, Mechanisms by which they
Operate, and Alterations for Key Ecosystem Processes
Key Process Mechanism Process-intensive
areas Alterations
Hydrology Infiltration/recharge Permeable deposits Impervious area, loss of
hydrologically mature forest
cover, roads, ditches, storm
sewers
Surface water
storage
Depressional wetlands
Lakes
Floodplains
Lost wetlands, streams
disconnected from floodplains
Surface runoff and
peak flows
Rain-on-snow zones and
snow-dominated zones
Loss of hydrologically mature
forest cover, road density
Groundwater flow
(baseflow)
Surficial aquifers
Surface expression areas
(lakes, wetlands, streams)
Ditched/drained areas with
shallow groundwater,
groundwater consumption
Sediment Surface erosion Erodible soils on steep
slopes
Native vegetation loss, roads
near streams, till agriculture,
developing lands
Mass wasting Landslide hazard areas Roads in landslide hazard areas,
vegetation removal
Sediment storage Depressional wetlands
Floodplains
Loss of wetlands, floodplain
disconnection, stream
channelization
Water Quality
(including
heat/light
inputs)
Contaminant storage
Nutrient storage/
denitrification
Riparian canopy
cover
Wetlands that denitrify
groundwater
Wetlands that filter surface
water
Riparian/Hyporheic zones
particularly in headwater
streams
Low-order streams
Onsite septic systems,
agricultural and residential
fertilizer, riparian disturbance,
loss of wetlands, loss of
vegetation
Organic Inputs LWD recruitment Riparian zones
Historic channel migration
zones
Landslide hazard areas
Loss of mature forest, bank
armoring, stream channelization,
loss of mature forest
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 2-13
2.3 SHORELINE REACH-SCALE INVENTORY 1
Within Jefferson County there are approximately 250 linear miles of marine shoreline (including
the inner shores of bays and marinas) and approximately 22 miles of lakeshore on 14 lakes that
are designated as shorelines of the state in Jefferson County. In addition, this report provides a
general inventory of more than 742 river miles of stream and river shoreline, of which
approximately 238 river miles are within and County-regulated (non-federal and non-tribal)
lands (per WAC 173-18, with revisions from 20 cubic feet per second [cfs] mapping from
USGS, 1998).
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
33
34
35
36
37
Most of the shoreline areas under Jefferson County’s jurisdiction are located in the eastern part
of the County. All of the marine shorelines that fall within County jurisdiction are in the eastern
part of the County on greater Puget Sound. The Pacific Coast shoreline and the lower reaches of
freshwater rivers in the western part of the County are located on federal or tribal lands—
including Olympic National Park (ONP), Olympic National Forest (ONF), and the Hoh and
Quinault Indian Reservations—and are therefore not subject to the state SMA. All of the Queets
River, the upper reaches and tributaries of the Hoh and Bogachiel Rivers, and potentially
numerous other tributaries are also on federal or tribal lands (see Table 1-1). The marine shores
of Indian Island and most of Protection Island – with the exception of the Zella M. Schultz State
Seabird Sanctuary, a 48-acre parcel on the Island’s southwestern edge managed by Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife – are also under federal jurisdiction. Although these areas are
outside County jurisdiction, management and use of these areas influence the functions and
values of SMA-regulated shorelines through various mechanisms.
The reach-scale inventory focuses on WAC-designated shorelines considered to be within
County jurisdiction. In general, the inventory area includes, at a minimum, lands within 200 feet
of the shoreline OHWM, plus floodplain and associated wetland and delta areas. This zone is
referred to as the shoreline planning area. Areas outside the planning area were analyzed at the
ecosystem scale as described above to develop a better understanding of shoreline processes and
functions. Streams and lakes that are not currently designated as shorelines per WAC 173-18 or
173-20 but which may meet the criteria for shoreline designation are described and charecterized
within Appendix D, and mapped along with WAC-designated shorelines within Appendix C, but
not inventoried at the same level of detail as WAC-designated shorelines.
2.3.1 Marine (Nearshore) Reaches 31
The marine shoreline is divided into 64 individual reaches for inventory and analysis purposes 3 .
Each reach is identified by a unique alpha designation beginning with “A” in the southwest
corner of the County. The reach breaks were defined based primarily on net shore-drift patterns
(drift cells) and other geomorphic factors. Major characteristics of the built and natural
environments are described for each reach, including: zoning; existing land use; historical
resources; shoreform; aquatic vegetation; marine resource species (including forage fish and
3 Diefenderfer et al. (2006) also analyzed nearshore reaches both at finer ShoreZone Unit scale and Drift Cell Reach scale for
purposes of identifying and ranking restoration sites in Multi-Scale Restoration Prioritization for Local and Regional Shoreline
Master Programs: A Case Study from Jefferson County, Washington.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 2-14 November 2008
other species); commercial shellfish growing areas; shoreline modifications (bulkheads, marinas,
docks, piers, jetties, groins, launch ramps, and stairs); threatened, endangered and priority
habitats/species; salt marshes and intertidal wetlands and lagoons; geomorphic class; public
access; and other attributes (see Table 2-1 for a list of primary datasets).
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
2.3.2 Freshwater Reaches 5
For freshwater shorelines, reaches were delineated based primarily on habitat. There are 59
river/stream reaches and 14 lake reaches. The reach identifier includes the water body name and
a numeric qualifier. The attributes of the freshwater reach inventory are similar to the marine
reach inventory and include ecological characteristics, human use, and other features as required
by the state guidelines (see Table 2-1 for a list of primary datasets).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-1
3.0 ECOSYSTEM CHARACTERIZATION AND 1
ECOSYSTEM-WIDE PROCESSES 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
This chapter describes the ecosystem-wide processes that influence and shape shoreline
functions, in accordance with WAC 173-26-210(3)(d). Information is presented at a coarse scale
and provides a basis for understanding shoreline management in the context of the broader
landscape. Details on individual shoreline reaches are provided in Chapter 4. Maps depicting
key shoreline attributes described in this chapter are provided in the map folio in Appendix C
and listed in Table 3-11 .
Table 3-1. Appendix C Map Folio Names and Numbers
Map # Map Title/Theme
1a Jefferson County Shorelines of the State
1b Jefferson County Shorelines of the State
1C Difference between current and proposed upstream jurisdiction limits
2 Hydrology – East Jefferson County
3 Hydrology – West Jefferson County
4 Water Quality – East Jefferson County
5 Water Quality – West Jefferson County
6 Sediment - East Jefferson County
7 Sediment - West Jefferson County
8 Aquatic Resources – Southeast Jefferson County
9 Aquatic Resources – Northeast Jefferson County
10 Aquatic Resources – West Jefferson County
11 Coastal Processes and Modifications – Southeast Jefferson County
12 Coastal Processes and Modifications – Northeast Jefferson County
13 Coastal Processes and Modifications – West Jefferson County
14 Critical Areas – Southeast Jefferson County
15 Critical Areas – Northeast Jefferson County
16 Critical Areas – West Jefferson County
17 Critical Shoreline Habitat – Southeast Jefferson County
18 Critical Shoreline Habitat – Northeast Jefferson County
19 Critical Shoreline Habitat – West Jefferson County
20 Aquatic Vegetation – East Jefferson County
21 Land and Shoreline Use Patterns – Southeast Jefferson County
22 Land and Shoreline Use Patterns – Northeast Jefferson County
23 Land and Shoreline Use Patterns – West Jefferson County
24 Shellfish Harvest Areas – Eastern Jefferson County
25 Forest Cover and Impervious Surface – Eastern Jefferson County
26 Geomorphic Classes – Southeast Jefferson County
27 Geomorphic Classes – Northeast Jefferson County
1 Graphic displays that are incorporated into the report text are referred to as Figures (Figure 1, 2,…). References to Maps refer
to the map folio in Appendix C. Readers are also encouraged to review the maps from the County 2005 shoreline
inventory in Appendix B.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-2 November 2008
Map # Map Title/Theme
28 Quinault River
29 Proposed SEDs – Southeast Jefferson County
30 Proposed SEDs – Northeast Jefferson County
31 Proposed SEDs – West Jefferson County
3.1 REGIONAL OVERVIEW 1
Jefferson County is located on the Olympic Peninsula in northwest Washington State. It stretches
east from the Pacific Ocean through the high country of the Olympic Mountains to Puget Sound.
To the north, it is bounded by Clallam County and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, to the southeast by
Mason County, and to the southwest by Grays Harbor County. In 2005, the County population
was estimated to be 28,666 people, with the majority living in the eastern part of the County. The
County seat and only incorporated city is Port Townsend, with a population of about 8,500.
Other population centers include Port Hadlock, Chimacum, and Irondale (the “Tri-Area”), Port
Ludlow, Brinnon, and Quilcene. The federal lands within ONP and ONF encompass most of the
Olympic Mountains in the center of the County. West of the Olympic Mountains, Jefferson
County is sparsely populated along the Hoh River and in the Kalaloch, Clearwater and Queets
village centers. The area is composed of mostly commercial and Washington Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR)-owned timberlands.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Parts of five WRIAs occur within Jefferson County (Figure 3-1): WRIA 16 (Skokomish-
Dosewallips), WRIA 17 (Quilcene-Snow), WRIA 18 (Elwha-Dungeness), WRIA 20 (Sol Duc-
Hoh), and WRIA 21 (Queets-Quinault).
WRIA 16 extends from the Turner Creek watershed in southeast Jefferson County southward to,
and including, the Skokomish watershed in northwest Mason County. The four principal
watersheds within this WRIA—the Dosewallips, Duckabush, Hamma Hamma, and
Skokomish—originate in the rugged terrain of the Olympic Mountains and terminate along the
western shore of Hood Canal. The Dosewallips and Duckabush basins lie entirely within
Jefferson County, while major portions the Hamma Hamma and Skokomish basins fall in Mason
County. The upper portions of the major rivers are either not shorelines of the state (because
mean annual flow is less than 20 cfs) or they lie within federal lands and therefore are not under
Jefferson County shoreline jurisdiction. The ONP and ONF encompass more than 60 percent of
WRIA 16.
WRIA 17 includes portions of Jefferson and Clallam Counties, extending from the
Marple/Jackson watershed in southeast Jefferson County northward and westward to, and
including, the Johnson Creek watershed along the west side of Sequim Bay. WRIA 17 is
bordered to the north by the Strait of Juan de Fuca, to the east by Admiralty Inlet, northern Puget
Sound and Hood Canal, and to the south and west by the Olympic Mountains and associated
foothills and floodplains. Major basins within this watershed include the Big Quilcene River,
Little Quilcene River, Hood Canal West, Admiralty Inlet, and Discovery Bay. Over 70 percent
of the WRIA is privately owned (non-federal/tribal land).
WRIA 18 includes two large river systems (Dungeness and Elwha Rivers); one medium-sized
river system (Morse Creek); and 14 smaller independent drainages, all of which drain to the
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-3
Strait of Juan de Fuca. The headwaters of the Upper Dungeness, Grey Wolf, and Elwha River
Upper and Middle basins fall within Jefferson County. Thirty percent of the Dungeness River
watershed and 83 percent of the Elwha River watershed are within the ONP. There are no
designated shorelines of the state in WRIA 18 within Jefferson County.
1
2
3
4
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
-
1
.
J
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
,
a
n
d
W
R
I
A
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
pa
g
e
3
-
4
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-5
WRIA 20 includes all streams that drain into the Pacific Ocean from Cape Flattery in Clallam
County south to and excluding Kalaloch Creek in Jefferson County. The largest basin in WRIA
20 is the Quillayute. Other basins include the Waatch, Sooes, Ozette, and Hoh systems, as well
as several small independent drainages. Basins within Jefferson County include the Upper,
Middle, and Lower Hoh, Hoh River South Fork, Upper and Lower Bogachiel, Goodman Creek,
and Sol Duc Lower.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
WRIA 21 extends from Kalaloch Creek in Jefferson County in the north to Conner Creek in
Grays Harbor County in the south. The largest basins within the WRIA are the Queets and
Quinault. The Queets Upper, Middle, Lower, Matheny, and Salmon River basins, along with the
Upper Quinault, Quinault North Fork, and Quinault Lake Frontal basins, lie within Jefferson
County. Other basins in the WRIA include the Clearwater, Kalaloch, Raft, Moclips, and Copalis
basins, of which the Clearwater Upper and Lower and Kalaloch basins fall within Jefferson
County.
3.2 OVERVIEW OF KEY SPECIES AND HABITATS IN 14
JEFFERSON COUNTY 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
This section describes some of the key shoreline-related resources of Jefferson County. This
section is divided into the following main topics:
• Threatened and endangered species and critical habitats – Species listed under the federal
Endangered Species Act (ESA) as threatened or endangered and their federally
designated critical habitats,
• Nearshore habitats and species – Species and habitats primarily associated with saltwater
environments,
• Freshwater habitats and species – Species and habitats primarily associated with
freshwater environments, and
• Terrestrial habitats and species – Other species and habitats associated with upland areas.
In nature, species and habitats do not always have such clear distinctions: Some habitats are
transitional between nearshore, freshwater, and terrestrial environments and many species use
multiple habitat types or occupy different habitats at different times depending on the season,
species life stage, and other factors.
This is not an exhaustive review of all habitats and species in the County, but a general overview
of the resources that are most closely related to or affected by shoreline planning. The purpose of
the overview is to assist the reader in understanding the elements of the biological environment
that are created, maintained, altered, and/or potentially destroyed as a result of ecosystem
processes and/or alterations of ecosystem processes described later in the chapter. Additional
information on the locations of these specific resources in Jefferson County is provided in the
reach inventory and analysis (Chapter 4) and in the map folio (Appendix C).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-6 November 2008
3.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitats 1
Jefferson County is home to several state and/or federally listed and proposed threatened and
endangered species and critical habitats (Table 3-2). There are 91 bald eagle nesting territories
in the County, along with three communal winter night roosts, and two wintering concentrations
located along the Quinault River and Washington’s Pacific Coast. Northern spotted owls and
marbled murrelets also occur and nest in the County (USFWS, 2005). Large areas of critical
habitat for marbled murrelets have been identified in western Jefferson County, while critical
habitats for both marbled murrelets and spotted owls have been identified in eastern Jefferson
County, particularly in old-growth areas of the ONP and along the Dosewallips River (Maps 17-
19).
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Table 3-2. Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Threatened and
Endangered Species Occurring in Jefferson County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status a State Status b
Birds
Bald eagle Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened Threatened
Brown pelican Pelecanus
occidentalis
Endangered Endangered
Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened Threatened
Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis
caurina
Threatened Endangered
Short-tailed albatross Phoebastria albatrus Endangered Candidate
Mammals
West Coast DPS fisher Martes pennanti
pacifica
Candidate Endangered
Southern resident killer
whale
Orcinus orca Endangered Endangered
Humpback whale Megaptera
novaeangliae
Endangered Endangered
Steller sea lion Eumetopias jubatus Threatened Threatened
Blue whale Balaenoptera
musculus
Endangered Endangered
Fin whale Balaenoptera
physalus
Endangered Endangered
Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Endangered Endangered
Sperm whale Physeter
macrocephalus
Endangered Endangered
Sea otter Enhydra lutris None Endangered
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-7
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status a State Status b
Fish
Puget Sound ESU
Chinook salmon
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
Threatened Candidate
Eastern Strait of Juan de
Fuca/Hood Canal ESU
summer chum salmon
Oncorhynchus keta Threatened Candidate
Puget Sound DPS
steelhead
Oncorhynchus mykiss Proposed
threatened
None
Coastal Puget Sound bull
trout
Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Candidate
Olympic mudminnow Novumbra hubbsi None Threatened
Reptiles
Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Endangered
Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Endangered Threatened
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened Threatened
Olive ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys olivacea Endangered None
DPS = distinct population segment 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ESU = evolutionarily significant unit
a Federal status under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended.
b State Species of Concern List, February 2007.
While there have been occasional, unconfirmed sightings of fishers, there are no known
populations in Washington. There is currently a proposal to reintroduce them to the ONP (ONP,
2006).
Listed marine mammals and sea turtles occur primarily off the Pacific coast, although Southern
Resident killer whales, humpback whales, and Steller sea lions are known to occur in Puget
Sound. NOAA Fisheries has proposed critical habitat for Southern Resident killer whales in
marine waters of eastern Jefferson County, including areas deeper than 20 feet along Puget
Sound (Area 2) and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Area 3). Hood Canal was not proposed as part of
killer whale critical habitat due to lack of confirmed sightings there, and a large area of
Admiralty Inlet north of the Quimper Peninsula (Area 3) was excluded for national security
reasons (Federal Register, 2006).
Species of special concern under the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
endangered, threatened, sensitive, candidate, and monitor species programs potentially found in
Jefferson County include great blue heron (Ardea herodias), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus
pileatus), purple martin (Progne subis), Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi), and western bluebird
(Sialia mexicana). Candidate and threatened mammals may include western gray squirrel
(Sciurus griseus) along with western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata). Many of these
remaining species can be found in close proximity to developed areas, although most need
undisturbed vegetated areas large enough to maintain viable habitat (Jefferson County, 2002).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-8 November 2008
3.2.1.1 Salmonids 1
Salmonids (including both federally listed and non-listed species) use streams, rivers, and
nearshore habitats throughout Jefferson County. In eastern Jefferson County, Chinook, coho,
pink, and summer and fall chum salmon, resident and searun cutthroat trout, as well as summer
and winter steelhead are documented in the larger rivers and streams (Correa, 2002, 2003).
Western Jefferson County rivers and streams provide spawning and rearing habitat for summer
and fall Chinook, coho, and chum salmon as well as for winter and summer steelhead trout.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
In 1999, the summer chum salmon populations that naturally spawn in tributaries to Hood Canal
and in Discovery Bay, Sequim Bay, and the Dungeness River on the Strait of Juan de Fuca were
determined to be at risk of extinction and were listed as threatened (Brewer et al., 2005). Hood
Canal streams that have been documented as supporting indigenous summer chum populations
include the Big Quilcene River, Little Quilcene River, Dosewallips River, Duckabush River,
Hamma Hamma River, Lilliwaup River, Union River, Tahuya River, Dewatto River, Anderson
Creek, and Big Beef Creek. Summer chum are occasionally observed in other Hood Canal
drainages, including the Skokomish River which once supported a large summer chum
population (WDFW and PNPTC, 2000). Summer chum salmon populations in the eastern Strait
of Juan de Fuca occur in Snow and Salmon Creeks in Discovery Bay, and in Chimacum Creek.
Chinook salmon spawning in streams of Hood Canal are part of the Puget Sound Chinook
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), which is also listed as threatened under the ESA. This
includes two independent populations: those that naturally reproduce in the Skokomish River
watershed, and stocks that spawn in the Hamma Hamma, Duckabush, and Dosewallips
watersheds. The Dosewallips River is the likely primary population or source for this grouped
population (Brewer et al., 2005).
Critical habitat for Chinook and summer chum salmon in eastern Jefferson County includes the
marine shorelines of Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, as well as Fulton Creek,
Duckabush, Dosewallips, Big Quilcene, and Little Quilcene Rivers, and Chimacum, Snow, and
Salmon Creeks (Federal Register, 2005a). Critical habitat for bull trout in Jefferson County
includes the shorelines of the Pacific Ocean, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Hood Canal, as well as
all or a portion of the Hoh River, Clearwater River, Goodman Creek, Elwha River, Mosquito
Creek, and Salmon River (Federal Register, 2005b).
The Hoh watershed, mainstem Salmon River, and upper Elwha and Dungeness River watersheds
also provide habitat for bull trout, a threatened species (Haring, 1999; Smith, 2000; Smith and
Culverwell, 2001). The Hoh River is one of six “core” areas for bull trout on the Olympic
Peninsula, which include the Quinault, Queets, Hoh, Elwha, Dungeness, and Skokomish River
basins. Core areas are defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as areas
supporting sustainable and reproducing populations of genetically distinct bull trout. The bull
trout population in the Hoh watershed may be the largest population in Washington State (10,000
Years Institute, 2004). In general, Hoh River bull trout appear to be largely limited to the
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-9
mainstem of the river, but anecdotal evidence suggests they have historically also used
tributaries. Spawning has been documented only in the upper mainstem and South Fork Hoh
River, and at floodplain interfaces at the mouths of two tributaries in ONP. Adults and juveniles
use the entire river as a migration corridor to and from spawning, rearing, and foraging grounds
(Brenkman 2004, pers. comm., as cited in 10,000 Years Institute, 2004).
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
3.2.2 Nearshore Habitats and Species 6
Key nearshore marine habitats in Jefferson County include eelgrass and kelp beds; shellfish
beds; forage fish spawning areas; marine mammal habitats (seal and sea lion haulouts);
seabird/waterfowl concentration areas; estuaries and other intertidal wetlands/marshes, and
nearshore riparian habitats (Maps 14-20, 24, 26, and 27). These species and habitats occur so
widely throughout the County on both the east and west shores that virtually all of the County’s
nearshore marine environment supports or has potential to support highly valuable and
ecologically sensitive resources.
3.2.2.1 Eelgrass and Kelp 14
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a native marine seagrass that forms extensive meadows on gravel,
fine sand, and mud substrates in the lower intertidal and shallow subtidal zones of protected or
semi-protected shorelines (Bulthuis, 1994; Thom et al., 1998). Typical locations for eelgrass
have medium to fine sands and contain relatively high levels of organic matter and nutrients
(Simenstad, 2000). This generally includes shallow tideflats, along channels in tideflats or
estuaries, and in the shallow subtidal fringe. The eelgrass zone is typically confined to areas
between tidal elevations of +1 meter to -2 meters relative to mean lower low water (MLLW)
(Thom et al., 2001; Simenstad, 2000).
Eelgrass can grow to a height of 2 meters, forming a relatively tall, dense canopy. In undisturbed
environments, eelgrass corridors can be nearly contiguous within a drift cell but they also occur
as patches between drift cells. Generally, the steeper the beach gradient and more turbid the
waters, the narrower the eelgrass corridor (Simenstad, 2000). Eelgrass beds provide a source of
organic matter to intertidal/shallow subtidal food webs. The plants produce organic carbon which
enters the food web through the microbial decomposition and processing of both particulate and
dissolved eelgrass materials (Williams and Thom, 2001). Numerous species of fish, including
juvenile salmon, and other marine animals incorporate the decomposed organic matter into their
diets. Salmon and other species also depend on eelgrass for habitat structure and refuge from
predators. The leaves provide attachment sites for epiphytic algae and other organisms, and
ameliorate wave and current energy. Herring use eelgrass for spawning and for protection while
they mature (PSAT, 2001).
In eastern Jefferson County, fringing eelgrass beds are found along the shorelines of Discovery
Bay, Port Townsend Bay, Marrowstone Island, Hood Canal, and between Tala and Kala Points
(Map 20). Historically, eelgrass is believed to have occurred widely along the County’s western
shore including at the mouth of the Hoh River (Shaffer and Wray, 2004).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-10 November 2008
Kelp, or macrophytic brown algae, can form dense, highly productive undersea forests that
support numerous species of fish and marine mammals. Dense kelp beds also dissipate wave
energy and provide sheltered habitat for resting/rafting seabirds and other animals within the
kelp bed or adjacent surface waters. Kelp forests are composed primarily of bull kelp
(Nereocystis luetkeana) and other large brown algae. Kelp attach to the bottom with holdfasts
and require rocky or coarse substrates. Distribution is limited to areas with appropriate
substrates, light penetration to the bottom, and moderate wave/current energy.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
In eastern Jefferson County, kelp beds are generally found along the Straits, with patchy
distribution along the shores of western Discovery Bay, western Marrowstone Island, and Hood
Head (Map 20). According to survey data from the WDNR Nearshore Habitat Program Research
Project, the Protection Island kelp bed has seen significant decline over the past decade
(http://www2.wadnr.gov/nearshore/research/projectpages.asp?pagename=kelp_page1&id=17).
Understory kelp is still present in significant quantities on Dallas Bank, off the northwest shore
of the island, but canopy-forming kelp is largely or entirely absent (Norris, personal
communication, 2007). On the west coast of the County, kelp beds have been mapped near
Tealwhit Head, Strawberry Point, Toleak Point, Hoh Head, and Diamond Rock, and near
Destruction Island (Figure 3-2) (Shaffer and Wray, 2004; Silver, personal communication,
2006).
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3.2.2.2 Shellfish Resources 20
Cobble to fine sand beaches and tidal sand and mudflats are important habitats for many shellfish
species. Intertidal areas in Jefferson County support hardshell clams including butter clams
(Saxidomus gigantea), native littleneck (Protothaca staminea), manila clams (Venerupis
philippinarum), cockles (Clinocardium nuttalli), and horse clams (Tresus spp.). Geoducks
(Panopea abrupta) typically burrow offshore in subtidal areas up to 2 to 3 feet into the mud or
soft sand. Shrimp, crab, Olympia oysters (Ostreola conchaphila) and non-native Pacific oysters
(Crassostrea gigas) also inhabit the shoreline areas. Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) frequent
eelgrass beds, and red rock crab (Cancer productus) inhabit rocky terrain with less silt content
(Jefferson County, 2002).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
Figure 3-2. Coastal Watershed Institute, Tribal Marine Cultural Resource Survey for
Portions of Western Jefferson County ( Shaffer and Wray, 2004)
November 2008 page 3-11
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-12 November 2008
Shellfish beds perform a number of important ecological functions including cycling nutrients,
stabilizing substrates, creating habitat structure (e.g., oyster reefs), enhancing water quality
(filtering and retention), and providing food for a wide variety of marine invertebrates, birds,
fish, and mammals. Extensive shellfish beds and commercial and recreational shellfish harvest
beaches are found along the shorelines of Hood Canal, Discovery Bay, Oak Bay, Quilcene Bay,
Port Townsend Bay, and Dabob Bay (Map 24). Tribal shellfish beaches and growing areas are
also widely distributed throughout the east County (Figure 3-3). On the west shore, shellfish beds
are found from the mouth of the Hoh River south past Kalaloch and near the northern edge of the
County near Strawberry Bay, Strawberry Point, and Tealwhit Head (see Figure 3-2). There is an
active razor clam (Siliqua patula) fishery on the County’s west coast.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
3.2.2.3 Forage Fish 11
Forage fish—a crucial prey base for salmonids including federally listed stocks—use a variety
of shallow nearshore and estuarine habitats for spawning, feeding, and rearing (Long et al.,
2005). Surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) and Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) both
spawn within a limited range of tidal elevations in the upper intertidal zones of beaches, and
have specific habitat requirements including substrate size and type (Penttila, 1978; 1995).
Pacific herring (Clupea harengus) spawn in intertidal and shallow subtidal areas, depositing
eggs on marine vegetation at elevations between 0 and -10 feet MLLW (WDFW, 2000a).
Suitable spawning habitat for these species is therefore limited within the region, and these
species are particularly vulnerable to changes in beach sediment characteristics (sources,
transport or deposition), nearshore riparian cover, or beach morphology (WDFW, 2000a).
The WDFW, North Olympic Salmon Commission (NOSC) and the Jefferson County Marine
Resources Committee have mapped sand lance spawning beaches within Discovery Bay, Port
Townsend Bay, Kilisut Harbor, Scow Bay, Oak Bay, Port Ludlow, Tala Point, Tarboo Bay, and
other scattered sites along Hood Canal and Dabob Bay (Maps 17 and 18). Surf smelt spawning
beaches are more limited in extent, with known spawning occurring in Discovery Bay, Port
Townsend Bay, Kilisut Harbor and Scow Bay, Port Ludlow, Tala Point, and Dabob Bay,
particularly along the western Toandos Peninsula, and Quilcene Bay. Herring pre-spawn holding
areas include Discovery Bay and the entrance to Hood Canal; spawning sites have been
documented within Discovery Bay, Port Townsend, Kilisut Harbor, and Dabob Bay (Long et al.,
2005) (Maps 17 and 18).
The WDFW/NOSC surveys did not cover western Jefferson County, but Shaffer and Wray
(2004) have identified several areas of the western coastal shore as supporting forage fish species
as shown in Figure 3-2. These areas are mainly at the mouths of major rivers such as Mosquito
Creek, the Hoh River, Cedar Creek, Kalaloch Creek, and Goodman Creek. In the Hoh River,
surf smelt occur within the first river mile (10,000 Years Institute, 2004).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
Figure 3-3. Commercial, Recreational, and Tribal Shellfish Growing Beaches and
Harvest Areas in Eastern Jefferson County
November 2008 page 3-13
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
3.2.2.4 Marine Mammals
Seals and sea lions known to occur in Jefferson County include harbor seals (Phoca vitulina),
California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus), sea otters
(Enhydra lutris), and northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris). The harbor seal is the
most common, widely distributed pinniped found in Washington waters. Harbor seals use
hundreds of sites to rest or haul out along the coast and inland waters including intertidal sand
bars and mudflats in estuaries, intertidal rocks and reefs, sandy, cobble, and rocky beaches,
islands, logbooms, docks, and floats. California sea lions use haulout sites located on jetties,
offshore rocks and islands, logbooms, marina docks, and navigation buoys. Steller sea lions use
haulout sites primarily along the outer coast from the Columbia River to Cape Flattery. Solitary
northern elephant seals are occasionally seen using beaches at Destruction, Protection, and
Smith/Minor Islands as well as Dungeness Spit as haulout sites. In recent years, pups have been
occasionally recorded at these sites as well. Seal and sea lion haulout sites have been identified
near the mouths of Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers, as well as Dabob Bay, Port Ludlow,
Indian and Marrowstone Islands, Protection Island, and Discovery Bay (Jeffries et al., 2000)
(Maps 17-19). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains a seal exclusion fence at
the mouth of the Dosewallips River, to maintain water quality in recreational shellfish harvest
areas (Christensen, 2004). Alexander Island, Toleak Point, and Hoh Head on the west coast have
been identified as harbor seal/sea lion haulouts (see Figure 3-2) (Shaffer and Wray, 2004).
According to WDFW PHS data, sea otters (Enhydra lutris) also occur on the west coast at
Destruction Island and several other offshore islands (Map 19). Sea otters are endangered in
Washington State. Distribution is limited to the northwest coast from Destruction Island to Neah
Bay (Lance et al., 2004).
Orcas or killer whales (Orcinus orca) and other whales may also use nearshore marine habitats,
although they primarily occur in deeper waters and along the outer coast. These species are
discussed in Section 3.2.1.
3.2.2.5 Seabirds and Waterfowl
Common seabirds and waterfowl along Jefferson County shorelines include rhinoceros auklets
(Cerorhinca monocerata), mergansers (Mergus spp.), scoters (Melanitta spp.), guillemots (Uria
and Cepphus spp.), loons (Gavia spp.), grebes (Aechmophorus occidentalis), cormorants
(Phalacrocorax spp.), herons and egrets (Ardeidae), swans (Cygnus spp.), geese (Branta
canadensis), brants (Branta bernicla), and a variety of ducks, sandpipers (Scolopacidae), gulls
(Larinae), murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus), and puffins (Fratercula spp.). Migratory
species including a number of shorebirds and seabirds may use shorelines of Jefferson County
for periods of time during migration (Ecology, no date). Protection Island hosts a small,
declining population of tufted puffins (Fratercula cirrhata), listed as a Candidate species in
Washington State and a Species of Concern under the federal Endangered Species Act
(McConnell, personal communication, 2007). State priority wildlife species that are associated
with estuarine habitat include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), great blue heron (Ardea
herodias), and osprey (Pandion haliaetus). These species occur widely in nearshore habitats
throughout Jefferson County (Maps 17 and 18).
page 3-14 November 2008
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
Audubon Washington (2001) has identified Important Bird Areas (IBA) in Washington State,
defined as places that are essential to maintaining healthy bird populations. In Jefferson County,
IBAs include Protection Island – which hosts 70 percent of nesting seabirds in all of Puget Sound
– and Indian-Marrowstone Island/Oak Bay, which provides important wintering habitat for
thousands of waterfowl and several hundred brants.
3.2.2.6 Estuaries and Intertidal Wetlands/Marshes
Estuaries are embayments (bays) or semi-protected inland waters with freshwater inputs that
serve as transition zones between freshwater and marine environments. They encompass the area
at the mouth of a river or stream dominated by processes related to the discharge of fresh water
(generally from the head of tidal influence seaward to the point where fluvial influences no
longer dominate) .Within the large Puget Sound estuary, there are many larger river estuaries
(e.g., Skagit, Nisqually) and numerous smaller estuaries. Estuarine habitat in Jefferson County is
diverse, ranging from riverine estuaries to small alongshore salt marshes influenced mainly by
marine processes. Estuaries provide critical ecological functions and biological resources
including flood attenuation, nutrient retention and cycling, erosion/shoreline protection, food
web support, and habitat structure/connectivity. Estuaries and deltas associated with watersheds
where salmon spawn and rear provide salinity gradients that allow juveniles to gradually adjust
to salt water. These areas also serve as nurseries for a wide variety of aquatic species that provide
a forage base for salmon.
Juvenile salmonids and other species use estuaries and other shallow water habitats, including
the shallow waters along gently sloping beaches, as a refuge from predation when migrating,
especially in the absence of complex habitat features such as woody debris or submerged
vegetation (Kahler et al., 2000). Juvenile Chinook salmon and summer chum are both highly
dependent on estuarine environments (WDFW and PNPTC, 2000). For these and other reasons,
preservation and/or restoration of estuaries is considered crucial to the success of ongoing efforts
to recover threatened stocks in the Puget Sound and Hood Canal-Strait of Juan de Fuca (Brewer
et al. 2005; Hood Canal Coordinating Council, 2005; Todd et al., 2006).
Salt marshes and brackish marshes are habitats that occur in areas with tidal inundation. Salt
marshes typically occur at elevations at and above mean higher high water (MHHW) in areas
where sediment supply and accumulation are relatively high. Therefore, salt marshes can occur
in bays, along sand spits sheltered from waves and currents, and most commonly on river and
stream deltas. Salt marsh vegetation, especially the root mats and dense stems, trap and stabilize
sediments. Marshes tend to grow outward over time as sediments entering the delta from rivers
are captured and retained by salt marsh vegetation. Marshes are fairly stable and respond to
natural or human disturbances of watersheds and shorelines. Salt marshes provide complex,
branching networks of tidal channels where juvenile salmonids feed and take refuge from
predators. They also form migratory linkages to riverine and marine environments (Brewer et
al., 2005).
Major estuaries in eastern Jefferson County include the Chimacum Creek, Shine, Mats Mats,
Thorndyke Bay, Duckabush and Dosewallips River deltas, Quilcene Bay, Tarboo Creek delta,
Port Ludlow, and Discovery Bay (Maps 26 and 27) (Todd et al., 2006). Salt marsh distribution
November 2008 page 3-15
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-16 November 2008
in eastern Jefferson County is generally coincident with the major estuaries 2 . On the west coast
of the County, there is a narrow but very productive estuary at the mouth of Goodman Creek
(Silver, personal communications, 2006). The mouth of the Hoh River is confined by bedrock,
so there is no classic estuary and the area lacks eelgrass beds or other aquatic vegetation (10,000
Years Institute, 2004).
In addition to the major “natal” estuaries listed above, there are tidal marsh systems that are not
directly associated with natal watersheds but are believed to support the early marine life
histories of juvenile salmon species (Hood Canal Coordinating Council, 2005). These so-called
“pocket estuaries” occur where small streams or embayments with freshwater seeps occur.
Linkages between major estuarine deltas (like the Dosewallips River and Dabob Bay) and other
shallow nearshore habitats/corridors are critical for rearing and migrating salmonids (WDFW
and PNPTC, 2000).
3.2.2.7 Nearshore Riparian Areas
Riparian areas occur at the interface between upland and aquatic areas, both in the marine
nearshore and freshwater environments. Brennan and Culverwell (2004) note that healthy
nearshore riparian systems are defined by the following characteristics:
• Long linear shapes,
• High edge-to-area ratios,
• Microclimates distinct from those of adjacent uplands,
• Standing or flowing water present all or much of the year, or a capacity to convey or
retain water,
• Periodic flooding, which results in greater natural diversity,
• Composition of native vegetation differing somewhat from upland (inland) systems (e.g.,
different species abundance, diversity, and structure), and
• Support systems for terrestrial and aquatic biota.
Intact riparian habitats provide a variety of essential ecological functions, including water quality
protection, sediment control, wildlife habitat, nutrient microclimate control, insect food sources
for juvenile fish, shaded cover, and woody debris to help build complex habitat and stabilize
beach substrate (Brennan and Culverwell, 2004) (Figure 3-4). A healthy nearshore riparian
vegetation zone is also essential for stabilizing slopes and protecting against landslides and other
erosion hazards. Plant root masses provide mechanical stability and the vegetation promotes
evapotranspiration. This can mitigate the effects of excessive soil moisture, which can lead to
erosion and/or mass instability (Brennan and Culverwell, 2004).
2 This report uses estimates of salt marsh and tidal wetland habitat as reported by Todd et al. (2006), which may vary
from results reported by Collins and Sheik (2005) due to differences in habitat classification and analysis methods.
Readers are encouraged to review the source materials for more information.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
Figure 3-4. Conceptual Model of Marine Riparian Functions
(as described in Brennan and Culverwell, 2004)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
Because they perform critical functions for stream and freshwater wetland ecosystems,
freshwater riparian habitats have been extensively studied. Marine riparian systems by
comparison have received less scientific investigation. Nevertheless, recent work published in
the Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 2680 (Lemieux et al.,
2004) shows that nearshore riparian vegetation provides similar functions as freshwater riparian
habitats.
3.2.3 Freshwater Habitats and Species 8
3.2.3.1 Wetlands 9
The state of Washington (WAC 173-22-030) defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated
or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions.” Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar
areas. Wetlands are known to play a vital role in the landscape by performing:
November 2008 page 3-17
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-18 November 2008
• Biogeochemical functions related to trapping and transforming chemicals and improving 1
water quality in the watershed; 2
4
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
• Hydrologic functions related to maintaining the water regime in a watershed and reducing 3
flooding; and
• Food web and habitat functions (Granger et al., 2005). 5
The four principal wetland types identified within Jefferson County include:
• Wet meadows, which are characterized by having standing water from late fall to early 7
spring and are often dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), spike rushes
(Eleocharis spp.), bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), and sedges (Carex spp.);
• Scrub/shrub wetlands, with seasonal flooding and vegetation dominated by shrubs and
small trees such as hardhack (Spiraea douglasii), willow (Salix spp.), red alder (Alnus
rubra), or red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera);
• Forested wetlands, areas that are not usually flooded but have saturated soils, and where
vegetation is dominated by large trees such as black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa),
red alder (Alnus rubra), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), and western red cedar (Thuja
plicata) with an understory of vine maple (Acer circinatum), cascara (Rhamnus
purshiana), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), and devil’s club (Oplopanax horridum);
and
• Shallow marsh, which includes freshwater marshes and open water wetlands (Jefferson
County, 2002).
These areas are scattered throughout the County, particularly in areas dominated by certain
“hydric” soil types (including organic soil deposits of peat and muck), areas of low
slope/depressional areas, along streams, and on slopes/transitional areas where groundwater is
expressed to the surface (Maps 2-7 and 14-16).
Wetlands associated with shorelands, shoreland areas, or shorelines of the state are managed
under the SMA. In context of SMA, associated wetlands means wetlands that are in proximity to
shorelines or that influence or are influenced by waters subject to the Act (WAC 173-22-030
(1)). These typically include wetlands that physically extend into the shoreline jurisdiction, and
wetlands that are functionally related to the shoreline through a hydrologic connection or other
factors.
3.2.3.2 Riparian Areas 31
Freshwater riparian areas function in many of the same ways as nearshore riparian areas.
Riparian zones contribute to healthy streams by dissipating energy and inhibiting sediment input,
suppressing the erosional processes that move sediment, and by mechanically filtering and/or
storing upland sediments before they can enter stream channels (Knutson and Naef, 1997).
Riparian areas also perform water quality functions related to pollutant removal. This occurs
primarily through denitrification and trapping/storing phosphates and heavy metals that are
adsorbed to fine sediments.
One of the most critical roles that riparian areas play in the ecosystem is creating habitat.
Riparian zones are a major source of large woody debris (LWD) input to streams.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-19
Approximately 70 percent of the structural complexity within streams is derived from root wads,
trees, and limbs that fall into the stream as a result of bank undercutting, mass slope movement,
normal tree mortality, or windthrow. LWD creates complex hydraulic patterns that allow pools
and side channels to form. It also creates waterfalls, enhances channel sinuosity, and instigates
other physical and biochemical channel changes. The in-channel structural diversity created by
LWD is essential to aquatic species in deep, low velocity areas for hiding, overwintering habitat,
and juvenile rearing, in all sizes of streams and rivers (Knutson and Naef, 1997).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Forest practices including clearcutting have damaged and degraded many of the riparian zones
on state-owned and private forest lands in Jefferson County. In contrast, riparian habitat
conditions in the federally owned lands in the upper watersheds of WRIAs 16, 17, 18, and 20
managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) are among the
best in the County. The lower Dosewallips River, lower Little Quilcene River, upper Chimacum
Creek, and western Jefferson County rivers and streams outside of the National Park boundary
typically have degraded riparian habitats and consequently poor LWD recruitment potential
(Correa, 2002, 2003; Smith, 2000). Where data are available for WRIA 21, riparian conditions
are mostly “fair” to “good” (Smith and Caldwell, 2001). Western Rivers Conservancy and Wild
Salmon Center created the Hoh River Refugia Corridor, which is managed through the Hoh
River Trust. Restoration of riparian function along the 30-mile-long, one-mile-wide corridor is
underway (Hoh River Trust, 2006).
Wetlands and riparian zones in Jefferson County probably support muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus),
mink (Mustela vison), river otter (Lutra canadensis), beaver (Castor canadensis), raccoon
(Procyon lotor), weasel (Mustela spp.), and other species. Water bodies, wetlands, and adjacent
agricultural fields also provide suitable nesting and feeding habitat for mallard duck (Anas
platyrhynchos), American widgeon (Anas americana), green-wing teal (Anas crecca), common
coot (Fulica atra), common merganser (Mergus merganser), blue-wing teal (Anas discors), great
blue heron (Ardea herodias), and lesser and greater Canada goose (Branta spp.) (Jefferson
County, 2002).
3.2.4 Terrestrial Wildlife Habitats 28
Other habitat resources within Jefferson County include terrestrial forests (including old growth),
river-cut canyons, glacially eroded canyons, active glaciers, riparian areas, coastal dunes,
wetlands, sphagnum bogs, grasslands, lakes, and rivers. A majority of the County falls within
the Northwest Coast ecoregion, dominated by coniferous forests. Lowland forests are dominated
by western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and western red
cedar (Thuja plicata). Forests in the mountains are dominated by Pacific silver fir (Abies
amabilis), and mountain (Tsuga mertensiana) or western hemlock. Within the coastal fog belt,
Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) becomes abundant (WDNR, 2005). Bigleaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum) is also a component of the rainforests. The old-growth conifers can reach up to
200 feet in height, and are characterized by somewhat open canopies and low densities (Smith,
2000). Low-elevation areas of eastern Jefferson County lie within the Puget Trough ecoregion;
Douglas-fir forests with western hemlock and red cedar historically dominated vegetation in
these areas.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-20 November 2008
Changes in forest cover and composition of forest stands outside the ONP have been extensive in
Jefferson County. A study by Labbe et al. (2006) in Hood Canal showed dramatic changes in
riparian forest composition and structure across different shoreline types, landforms, and landscape
positions. Comparisons of historical and contemporary forest composition at 80 stream-riparian
locations across Hood Canal showed significant vegetation change for particular vegetation types
at lower elevation sites in/near bottomlands. Over the historical period, nearly 58 percent of cedar-
spruce forest type sites transitioned to hardwood/mixed forest, as compared to other forest types,
which showed change of 35 percent or less. Over two-thirds of sites that underwent vegetation
change transitioned from conifer-dominance to hardwood/mixed forest (Labbe et al., 2006).
Changes of this nature can adversely impact LWD recruitment to stream channels and cause loss
of instream habitat complexity. Potential increases in nitrogen loading as a result of increased
coverage of red alder are another concern, as alder has the capacity to fix nitrogen in soil.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
Grassland and oak habitats occur in the Puget Trough ecoregion as well. Many rare grassland
species are declining with increased urbanization and the suppression of frequent fires that once
sustained the grasslands, leading to more densely forested areas (WDNR, 2005). In Jefferson
County, grassland and associated oak habitats are rare. Grassland habitat has been identified
along the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, while remaining oak habitats have only been
documented along Discovery Bay.
The ONP, established in 1897 as a forest reserve, then nine years later as Mount Olympus
National Monument, was intended to preserve elk, which were being hunted to the point of
possible extermination for their teeth (popular as watch fobs). Congress designated the site as a
national park in 1938. The park was expanded in 1956 to provide protection to an ocean corridor
protecting the beaches and adjacent land along the northern coast of the Olympic Peninsula.
ONP and ONF have been designated a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Site (one of only 112 worldwide) and an International
Biosphere Reserve (Jefferson County, 2002). The ONP, which covers a large portion of
Jefferson County land area, protects and encompasses three distinct ecosystems, including some
of the largest remaining tracts of Pacific Northwest old-growth forest and, on the west side of the
park, temperate moist coniferous forest, as well as subalpine and alpine plant communities of the
Olympic Mountains. The ONP also protects the largest population of Roosevelt elk in its natural
environment in the world, and at least 16 animal and 8 plant species endemic to the Olympic
Peninsula (Parametrix et al., 2005).
3.2.4.1 Priority Wildlife Habitats and Core Areas 33
WDFW-designated priority habitats for the County include elk herd habitat in the southeast
portion of the County, and nest sites for several species of birds, including great blue herons,
harlequin ducks, and purple martin. Nonbreeding concentrations of trumpeter swans, waterfowl,
and seabirds have also been identified within the County (Tomassi, 2004).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
Figure 3-5. Eastern Jefferson County Core Habitats and Corridors (Tomassi, 2004)
November 2008 page 3-21
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-22 November 2008
Jefferson County identified important wildlife habitat areas and corridors linking wildlife habitat
in eastern Jefferson County (Tomassi, 2004) (Figure 3-5). Blocks of primary habitat used by
wildlife species for breeding, rearing, foraging, wintering, roosting, and resting, and that are
essential to the species’ survival, as well as being key to the protection of biological diversity,
were identified as “Core Areas”. Core Areas contain features or habitat types of particular
importance to wildlife, such as snag-rich stands, mature forest, or forested wetlands. Core Areas
were identified along Snow Creek, Chimacum Creek, Thorndyke Creek, Tarboo Creek, Donovan
Creek, Big Quilcene River, Dosewallips River, and Duckabush River, as well as the vicinity of
Mt. Walker. As recommended by Tomassi (2004), Core Areas require special protection and
management to ensure that land use practices related to clearing and grading, clearcutting,
agriculture, snag removal, road construction, buffer reduction, residential development, and other
activities do not fragment or destroy these areas.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
3.3 ECOSYSTEM-WIDE PROCESSES 13
3.3.1 Hydrogeologic Setting 14
The movement of water, sediment, nutrients, pathogens, organic material, and heat/light through
a watershed is governed to a large extent by the surrounding climate, topography, geology, and
soils (Stanley et al., 2005). Collectively these governing factors are referred to as the
hydrogeologic setting. The hydrogeologic setting plays a key role in determining most
geochemical and biological processes within a watershed.
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
3.3.1.1 Climate 20
Jefferson County has a maritime climate dominated by moderate temperatures and abundant
moisture. Maximum Fahrenheit (F°) temperatures average in the mid 40s in January in the
lowlands; in the summer, average maximum temperatures range from 77°F in Quilcene in the
east, to 69°F in Clearwater in the west. Temperatures in the lowlands rarely reach the 90s or fall
into the teens in this region.
Some of the most extreme variations of annual precipitation in the United States occur on the
Olympic Peninsula. In Jefferson County, annual precipitation varies from 126 inches at Spruce in
the western foothills of the Olympic Mountains, to approximately 240 inches on Mt. Olympus at
the crest of the mountains, to 50 inches in Quilcene along Hood Canal, to 18 inches in Port
Townsend on the northeast tip of the Olympic Peninsula. Measurable precipitation falls on 176
days in Clearwater and 116 days in Port Townsend. This pattern of annual precipitation is caused
by a dominant winter storm tract from the southwest creating a rain shadow over the northeastern
Olympic Peninsula. Storms dump moisture as they rise over the mountains, and air dries and
warms as it falls into the Puget Sound-Strait of Juan de Fuca trough. A storm that dumps heavy
rain on the western slopes of the Olympic Mountains might only create a light mist along the
Strait of Juan de Fuca. Most precipitation falls between October and April, as rain below 1,000
feet and snow above 2,500 feet elevation. Rain in the mid-summer is relatively rare, with high
pressure aloft and moderate temperatures predominating.
Severe flooding and coastal bluff landslides often occur when there is a heavy snowfall followed
by rain (called a rain-on-snow event). This creates a situation where the accumulated
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-23
precipitation of several storms runs off the landscape over a very short time. Examples of this
phenomenon are the storms of the winter of 1996-97, which triggered numerous, massive,
coastal bluff landslides in the Puget Sound region, as well as numerous mass wasting events in
west Jefferson County, causing significant tributary and river channel changes, sedimentation,
and scour (Smith, 2000).
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
3.3.1.2 Topography and Bathymetry 6
Coniferous forest, high precipitation, and large rivers characterize Jefferson County west of the
Olympic Mountains. Some of the largest trees in the world grow here in a temperate rainforest
ecosystem. Larger rivers such as the Hoh, Queets, and Quinault are glacially fed at their
headwaters. In their lower reaches these rivers meander over large floodplains. The landscape is
generally hilly in the west but rises dramatically to the east in the Olympic Mountains. Although
the Olympic Mountains are not particularly high (Mt. Olympus is the tallest peak at 7,969 feet
above sea level), these mountains are rugged and composed of relatively recent metamorphic
rock. The broad, hilly country between the Olympic Mountains and the Pacific Ocean has not
been glaciated for at least the past 17,000 years (Abbe, 2000 as cited in Correa, 2002).
The landscape in eastern Jefferson County was shaped by repeated glaciations, the last retreating
about 12,000 years ago. This left a landscape of layered glacial and outwash sediments (glacial
till) with little exposed bedrock. The coastal shoreline of east Jefferson County is now
characterized by bluffs carved out of these glacial sediments, often topped by Douglas-fir and
hemlock forest. Several sizable rivers flow east out of the Olympic Mountains and into Hood
Canal, providing salmon habitat and forming relatively large delta estuaries. Prairies occurred
along Discovery Bay, on Protection Island, and in Port Townsend in the drier northeast section
of the study area, but few remnants of this ecosystem exist today.
Similar to the glacially carved features that characterize the topography of eastern Jefferson
County, the area’s bathymetry was formed by glacial scouring and subglacial erosion. Glaciers
and subglacial meltwater scoured channels and troughs (Booth, 1994). These interconnected,
north-south trending basins dominate much of the marine environment of Puget Sound today.
There are four major divisions in Puget Sound between these interconnected channels, which are
marked by the presence of sills or submarine ridges that constrict water flow from one basin to
the next.
The northern part of Jefferson County falls within the northernmost subbasin of the Main Basin
in Puget Sound (Figure 3-6). The Main Basin originates at a shallow sill at the north end of
Admiralty Inlet. The Main Basin is delimited to the north by a line between Point Wilson (near
Port Townsend) and Partridge Point on Whidbey Island, to the south by Tacoma Narrows, and to
the east by a line between Possession Point on Whidbey Island and Meadow Point (near Everett)
(shown as Area 3 on Figure 3-6).
Deep, north-south trending basins (Admiralty Inlet, Hood Canal) and large bays (Port Townsend,
Dabob, Quilcene and Discovery Bays) characterize the bathymetry of eastern Jefferson County.
These basins and bays typically have deep water centrally and at the bay entrance, and shallower
low-tide terraces close to shore, with river deltas near bay heads. Additionally, there are
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-24 November 2008
numerous smaller bays throughout the County that have more limited areas of deep water
including Kilisut and Squamish Harbors, Oak and Thorndyke Bays, and Port Ludlow.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
The predominant waterway of northern Jefferson County is the Strait of Juan de Fuca (shown as
Area 1 on Figure 3-6). The deepest water in this portion of the study area is found between the
entrance to Discovery Bay and Protection Island. Shallow Dallas Bank is located on the north
side of Protection Island (12 to 54 feet deep). The shores on the Strait near Port Townsend
possess broad sand flats and shallow water adjacent to shore, with considerably deeper water
found farther offshore.
Admiralty Inlet marks the northern end of the Main Basin in Puget Sound, which extends
approximately 62 miles from Point Wilson (near Port Townsend) to the Tacoma Narrows. The
sill at the north end of Admiralty Inlet is 18.6 miles wide and is 213 feet deep at its shallowest
point. Deep water is found immediately south of the sill (330 to 450 feet deep).
Hood Canal branches off Admiralty Inlet between Tala Point and Foulweather Bluff, and is the
smallest of the Puget Sound area basins, being 56 miles long and 0.5 to 2.0 miles wide (shown as
Area 4 on Figure 3-6). Like many of the other basins, it is partially isolated by a sill (164 feet
deep), which is located between South Point and Lofall. The deepest water in the basin (over 617
feet deep) is found in central Dabob Bay. Generally, water depths in Hood Canal range from 138
to 348 feet.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-25
Figure 3-6. Regional Water Masses and Subareas of Puget Sound:
(1) Northern Puget Sound, (2) Whidbey Basin, (3) Main Basin,
(4) Hood Canal, and (5) Southern Basin (Gustafson et al., 2000)
1
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-26 November 2008
3.3.1.3 Geology 1
Bedrock Geology 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Bedrock at the coast of eastern Jefferson County was mapped as several different units that were
originally deposited during the Cretaceous Period (66 to 146 million years ago). Exposed
bedrock in the southern portion of the study area is part of the Crescent Formation, consisting
primarily of Eocene basalt, deposited within the last 66 million years (Whetten et al., 1988;
Ecology, 1978). Crescent Formation rocks are exposed along the northern, eastern, and
southeastern flanks of the Olympic Mountains (Tabor and Cady, 1978). Basalt outcrops exist at
the coast in southern Port Ludlow Bay and east of Mats Mats Bay, extending up to Olele Point.
Basalt appears black or near black with reddish portions near the top of flows where oxidation
has occurred. Basalt flows are characterized by closely spaced, random joints, and contain rare
pillow lavas (Tabor and Cady, 1978). Basalt was deposited as massive flows and breccia
(Whetten et al., 1988), and is also found in conglomerate along the east shore of Discovery Bay
(Tabor and Cady, 1978). Basalt is a crystalline rock and is very resistant to erosion; erosion of
the intertidal basalt has advanced generally less than 20 to 40 feet in approximately 4,500 to
5,000 years.
The Oak Bay and southernmost Port Townsend Bay shores contain outcrops of Quimper
sandstone. This unit is gray to olive gray, fine to coarse grained, feldspathic sandstone that
weathers yellowish brown (Whetten et al., 1988). Quimper sandstone contains minor siltstone
beds and spherical to elliptical calcareous concretions as large as 1 foot in diameter. Quimper
sandstone is quite resistant to marine erosion, but sea cliffs have eroded at a considerably higher
rate than the more resistant basalt cliffs.
Unconsolidated Geologic Deposits 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
The Cordillera Ice Sheet advanced into and retreated from western Washington at least six times
during the Pleistocene Epoch, within the last 24 million years (Easterbrook, 1986).
Characteristics of the advance and retreat of the six known glaciations in the Puget Lowland
show a very similar pattern (Easterbrook, 1992), especially during the three most recent
glaciations that deposited stratigraphic sequences in eastern Jefferson County: the Double Bluff,
Possession, and Fraser glaciations. Glacial advances typically began by the spreading of an apron
of outwash in front of the advancing ice. Advance outwash deposits were deeply scoured by
overriding ice, incorporating pebbles and cobbles that were already rounded into till that was
deposited upon the truncated outwash sediment (Easterbrook, 1992).
The Double Bluff glaciation is the oldest known glacial deposit in the northern Puget Lowland.
Evidence of glacial advance is present in exposures of Double Bluff Drift at its type locality at
southwestern Whidbey Island and in bluffs in Hood Canal. Double Bluff Drift consists of
glaciofluvial gravel, sand and silt, till, and glaciomarine drift (Easterbrook, 1969). The Double
Bluff glaciomarine drift is dated at 150,000 to 200,000 years ago (Blunt et al., 1987;
Easterbrook, 1992).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-27
Non-glacial fluvial, peat, and lacustrine sediments of the Whidbey Formation are also exposed in
bluffs between Port Townsend and Hood Canal. This formation was deposited during the
Whidbey Interglaciation and overlies Double Bluff Drift. The Possession Drift of the Possession
glaciation was deposited upon a surface of moderate relief, either on outwash sand and gravel or
on the Whidbey Formation (Easterbrook, 1992). At its type locality on southeastern Whidbey
Island, the Possession Drift consists of compact, sandy till, sand and gravel, and stony clay
glaciomarine drift (Easterbrook, 1969). Possession Drift is exposed near Mats Mats Bay.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
The most recent glacial advance into the Puget Lowland was the Vashon Stade of the Fraser
glaciation. This followed the Olympia nonglacial interval during which floodplain and lacustrine
silt, clay, and peat were deposited between 22,000 and 28,000 years ago in the central Puget
Lowland (Hanson and Easterbrook, 1974). In the early stages of the Vashon Stade (16,000 to
18,000 years ago), meltwater streams delivered large quantities of outwash sand and gravel from
the glacier terminus, creating a thick sequence of advance outwash sand and gravel deposits
(Easterbrook, 1969). Advance outwash deposits are composed mostly of pebbly sand with cross
bedding and scour-and-fill features. Advance outwash deposits are common in high bluffs
underlying Vashon till, and provide abundant beach-forming sediment to the nearshore system.
The advance of the most recent continental ice sheet, in the Vashon Stade, deposited abundant
till over advance outwash deposits. Glacial ice reached a maximum thickness of approximately
4,000 feet in the study area (Easterbrook, 1969). Vashon till, which is very common in the
County, is a relatively high-strength deposit, having been compacted by the full thickness of the
glacial ice sheet. Till can stand in very steep bluffs for extended periods of time, such as in the
bluff at the Port Townsend ferry landing. Till appears as tan to light gray with pebbles among a
fine grain matrix (diamicton). Late stage Vashon deposits in the study area include recessional-
continental deposits that contain ice-contact deposits and outwash deposits (Pessl et al., 1989).
Recessional-continental deposits contain sand, gravel, and silt in meltwater deposits that are
generally very low strength and relatively thin beds. Deposits from the Vashon Stade are
preserved in extensive unconsolidated deposits exposed in the upper parts of coastal bluffs
throughout most of the study area. Bedrock outcrops are commonly overlain by a mantle of
glacial deposits of varying thickness.
From the Strait of Juan de Fuca south to Quilcene Bay, the beaches generally have two similar
sets of characteristics: either exposed high bluffs (composed primarily of glacial deposits) with
mixed sediment beaches, or protected bays with moderate amounts of riparian and marsh
vegetation. Both of these settings include expanses of undeveloped shores with clusters of
residential and/or commercial development. The shores of southeastern Jefferson County are of
differing geology, and are composed of a mix of glacial and non-glacially derived deposits. The
relatively erosion-resistant basalt and marine sedimentary strata (notably along Hood Canal in
the vicinity of Brinnon and the Olele Point area north of Port Ludlow) control the nearshore
character and coastal processes, which will be discussed in more detail in the reach descriptions
(Chapter 4).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-28 November 2008
3.3.2 Shoreline Processes, Process-intensive Areas, and Alterations 1
3.3.2.1 Nearshore Processes 2
Key processes at work in the marine nearshore environment are described below. These
processes form the physical shape of the shoreline, influence nutrient dynamics, and create the
other biogeochemical conditions that sustain the marine ecosystem. Emphasis is on processes
affecting the shores of Puget Sound in eastern Jefferson County since the western coastal areas
are outside of County shoreline jurisdiction. Much of the information described in text is
depicted on maps 2 though 7 in Appendix C (Table 3-3). The reach-scale maps referenced in
Chapter 4 and shown in Table 3-1 also depict some of the features discussed below.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Table 3-3. Map Locations for Ecosystem-scale Attributes, including Nearshore and
Freshwater Process-intensive Areas and Alterations
Theme Map Name/ No.
Permeability
Channel Migration Zones (CMZ)
Land Cover (early and late seral stage vegetation;
human imprint)
Maps 2 and 3. Hydrology
(Key areas and Alterations)
Septic Permits
Tilled Fields
Lost Wetlands
Human Imprint
Maps 4 and 5. Water
Quality (Key areas and
Alterations)
Hydrology / Streams and Lakes
WRIA Boundaries
Watershed Boundary
Road Density
LSI Landslides
Landslide Hazard Zonation
Erodible Soils
Maps 6 and 7. Sediment
(Key areas and Alterations)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
This section discusses:
• Circulation processes, including tides and currents,
• Water quality processes for nitrogen, phosphorus, and pathogens,
• Beach processes including coastal erosion, net shore-drift, coastal bluff landslides, and
fluvial influences, and
• Climate change including temperature, precipitation and runoff, and sea level rise.
Circulation 19
20
21
22
Eastern Jefferson County oceanographic processes are characteristic of the normal mean
circulation pattern in a fjordal estuary, with seaward flow at the surface and landward flow at
depth. Fresh water derived from local rivers typically flows seaward at the surface, since these
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-29
water masses are of lower salinity and warmer (hence, less dense) than incoming ocean water.
Colder, more saline water originating from the Pacific Ocean flows landward along the bottom
(Nightingale, 2000). The combined forces of lunar influence, winds, and bathymetry determine
the extent to which these layers are mixed. During neap tides (when the moon is in the first and
last quarters) when the tidal range is smallest, seawater intrusions and the influx of saltier water
to Puget Sound are greatest. However, during spring tides (that occur with the new and full
moon), higher velocity tidal currents result in increased mixing of fresh and salt water
(Nightingale, 2000).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
A temperature, salinity, and density difference between freshwater runoff and nutrient upwelling
from ocean water determines the extent of mixing. This is influenced strongly by the force
exerted on the water surface by wind (Nightingale, 2000). Because the variables that drive
circulation exhibit considerable spatial variability across the marine landscape, the degree of
mixing can vary significantly across small distances. For example, strong winds, deep water,
ocean intrusions, and currents coupled with riverine inputs result in the Strait of Juan de Fuca
being well-mixed with cold and nutrient rich water year-round. The presence of a shallow sill at
the entrance to Admiralty Inlet magnifies the extent of the mixing. This strong mixing zone
produces well-mixed water in Port Townsend Bay, with higher levels of dissolved oxygen than
inlets and bays outside of the influence of the Admiralty Inlet sill (Nightingale, 2000; Strickland,
1983).
In contrast, neighboring Discovery Bay is persistently stratified with colder, saltier, and denser
water near the bottom and lower salinity and warmer water at the surface. The combined effect
of bathymetry, low wind mixing, and low current exchange produces the seasonally stratified
and poor flushing characteristics of Discovery Bay. This weak mixing and flushing produces low
nutrient levels near the surface and low oxygen levels near the bottom (Newton et al., 1998;
Strickland, 1983). A similar condition exists in Hood Canal where seawater density stratification,
poor flushing and circulation, and high levels of organic production contribute to low-oxygen
conditions (Fagergren et al., 2004; HCDOP, 2006).
Tides and Currents
A portion of the marine water originating from the Pacific Ocean enters through the Strait of
Juan de Fuca then diverges south into the inlets and bays of eastern Jefferson County. Similar to
the rest of Puget Sound, tides in eastern Jefferson County are semi-diurnal, exhibiting two
unequal high and two unequal low tides per day.
Tidal currents are moderate throughout the larger straits, but become increasingly strong when
water funnels through constrictions such as at Admiralty Inlet. The strongest tidal currents
observed in the study area are found at Point Wilson (4.8 to 5.5 knots) and Admiralty Inlet
(approximately 4 knots). Lesser tidal currents have been measured near Olele Point (1.6 knots)
and Foulweather Bluff (1.3 knots).
The Strait of Juan de Fuca is a wind-dominated system, with currents changing dramatically
within hours in response to both regional and larger scale oceanic winds. Strong seasonal storms
contribute pulses of both fresh water and sediment to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. These pulses
form large lenses of very low salinity and very high turbidity within the nearshore zone along the
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-30 November 2008
majority of the shoreline of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. These lenses appear to occur primarily
during winter and spring months (Shaffer and Crain, 2004 as cited in PSAT, 2005).
1
2
Water Quality 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Nutrients (Nitrogen and Phosphorus)
The nearshore and marine waters of Jefferson County receive inputs of nutrients and organic
matter from adjacent uplands, streams, rivers, and groundwater seeps, as well as from nearshore
bottom sediments and mixing with deeper ocean waters via upwelling and estuarine circulation.
In general, inputs from natural sources of nitrogen and phosphorus are several orders of
magnitude greater than anthropogenic sources in Puget Sound (Harrison et al., 1994). However,
in some areas, including Hood Canal, anthropogenic inputs have been shown to far exceed what
can be contributed naturally (Fagergren et al., 2004).
Nutrient loads from streams and rivers entering the nearshore are affected by the magnitude of
river discharge, as well as watershed land uses. Major human sources of nutrients from upland
areas include agricultural operations (animal manure, fertilizers), wastewater treatment plants,
and stormwater runoff from residential landscapes (Embrey and Inkpen, 1998 as cited in
Fagergren et al., 2004). Major anthropogenic sources of nutrients in Hood Canal include human
sewage, stormwater runoff, chum salmon carcasses from hatchery returns, agricultural waste,
and forestry (Fagergren et al., 2004).
In enclosed bays or inlets, or during periods of greater stratification and reduced circulation and
mixing with oceanic waters, specific locations within Puget Sound can receive excess nutrients
from anthropogenic sources. Nutrient levels in these protected waters (e.g., Hood Canal) can
result in eutrophication and low levels of dissolved oxygen (hypoxia), which can be detrimental
to marine organisms. Eutrophication can also lead to contamination of shellfish beds (including
associated bacterial contamination) as well as negative impacts on riparian buffers and forage
fish spawning; critical salmonid, shorebird and seabird nesting and foraging; and marine
mammal foraging, migration, and haulout habitats. Nearshore areas of Jefferson County that are
susceptible to eutrophication from increased nutrient inputs, or from stratification that can locally
concentrate nutrients, include Hood Canal and enclosed bays such as Mats Mats Bay, Kilisut
Harbor, and Discovery Bay.
The same processes that control nutrient inputs, dispersion, and areas of concentration also
influence inputs and concentrations of pathogens, pollutants, and toxins in nearshore waters of
Jefferson County. Water quality impairments are described in the reach analyses (Chapter 4).
Riparian buffers offer discernible water quality protection from nearshore nutrient sources. The
effectiveness of riparian buffers for protecting water quality depends on a number of factors,
including soil type, vegetation type, slope, annual rainfall, type and level of pollution,
surrounding land uses, and sufficient buffer width and integrity. Soil stability and sediment
control are directly related to the amount of impervious surface and vegetated cover. Soil quality
is typically degraded in developed areas where riparian vegetation has been removed and soils
have been compacted (May, 2003). Water that is not absorbed or intercepted by vegetation will
increase the potential for landslides. Runoff over the surface can lead to erosion, siltation, burial
of aquatic environs, and introduction of contaminants into water. Pollutants such as excess
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-31
nutrients, metals, and organic chemicals are commonly found in stormwater and agricultural
runoff, usually in particulate form. Sediment control therefore often removes a large percentage
of the pollutant load as well (May, 2000).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Pathogens
This report focuses on fecal coliform as an indicator of pathogens because it is the most
commonly occurring pathogen and because it is monitored in Ecology water quality studies.
Fecal coliform bacteria signal the possible presence of feces and pathogenic organisms, yet there
is growing concern that they do not reliably predict the occurrence and survival of enteric viruses
and other pathogens in the marine environment (Glasoe and Christy, 2004). Human sources of
fecal matter and associated pathogens include but are not limited to septic systems built on or
near marine and estuarine shorelines, marina and boating activities, and pet waste.
Beach Processes and Coastal Erosion 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Eastern Jefferson County beaches represent a commonly occurring beach character found in
northern Puget Sound, with two distinct foreshore components: a high-tide beach and a low-tide
terrace (Downing ,1983; Johannessen, 1993). The high-tide beach consists of a relatively steep
beach face with coarse sediment and an abrupt break in slope at its waterward extent. Sand in a
mixed sand and gravel beach is typically winnowed from the high-tide beach by waves (Chu,
1985) and deposited on the low-tide terrace. Extending seaward from the break in slope, the low-
tide terrace typically consists of a gently sloping accumulation of poorly sorted, fine-grained
sediment (Komar, 1976; Keuler, 1979). Lag deposits derived from bluff recession are also found
in the low-tide terrace. These deposits are typically composed of larger clasts, ranging from
cobbles to boulders.
Puget Sound area beach composition is dependent upon three main influences: wave energy,
sediment sources, and relative position of the beach within a littoral cell. Wave energy is
controlled by fetch, or the open water over which winds blow without any interference from
land. Within the Jefferson County study area, the maximum fetch at some Strait of Juan de Fuca
sites such as Fort Worden is essentially unlimited to the west (including the Strait of Juan de
Fuca, west across the Pacific Ocean). Fetch from the north is greatest at Admiralty Inlet (to the
Gulf Islands), and measures approximately 49 miles. Southerly fetch measures 28.5 miles from
Hood Canal to Dabob Bay. Though southerly fetch measures the least at some of the County
shores, winds and waves originating from the south are the strongest (predominant) and most
frequent (prevailing) wind direction in Puget Sound. WDNR’s ShoreZone Inventory classified
most of the beaches in eastern Jefferson County as “semi-protected” (40.3 percent), “protected”
(26.7 percent), and “very exposed” (19.2 percent). Fewer beaches were rated as “semi-exposed”
(5.7 percent) and/or “very protected” (8.1 percent) (WDNR, 2001).
Wind-generated waves intermittently erode beaches and the toe of coastal bluffs, contributing to
the initiation of bluff landslides. These coastal bluffs (referred to as feeder bluffs or contributing
bluffs) are the primary source of sediment for most Puget Sound beaches, including the Jefferson
County study area (Keuler, 1988; Downing, 1983). Bluff composition and wave energy influence
the composition of beach sediment. Waves sort coarse and fine sediment, and large waves can
transport cobbles that small waves cannot. Additionally, beaches supplied by the erosion of
coarse gravel bluffs differ in composition from those fed by the erosion of sandy material. The
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-32 November 2008
exposed strata of the eroding bluffs in the study area are largely composed of sand, gravel, and
silt (WDNR, 2001; Ecology, 1978). These same materials dominate sediment found on the
beaches, with the exception of fine sand through clay, which are winnowed from the beach face
and deposited in low-tide terraces and in deeper water.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
In addition to the previously mentioned influences (wave energy and sediment sources), tidal
range also affects beaches over time. Rosen (1977) demonstrated that, with other parameters
equal, coastal erosion rates tend to increase with decreasing tidal range. This is due to the
focusing of wave energy at a narrow vertical band with small tidal range, in comparison to the
dissipation of wave energy over a large vertical band with a greater tidal range. The northeastern
portion of the County, from the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Point Hannon (Hood Head), has a tidal
range (MLLW to MHHW) on the order of 7.9 to 9.4 feet, which is considered to be mesotidal (2
to 4 meter range). The Hood Canal area of Jefferson County has a greater tidal range of 9.9 to
11.4 feet, which is in the upper range of mesotidal. This means that wave erosion, under the
same wave conditions, would be greater in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and progressively less into
Hood Canal. This is because the wave energy is focused on the upper beach and bluff toe less of
the time. When the greater wave energy at the Strait of Juan de Fuca is factored in, coastal
erosion rates would be expected to be substantially greater in the Strait.
The majority of coastal erosion in the region occurs when high-wind events coincide with high
tides and act directly on the backshore and bluffs (Downing, 1983). Most coastal landsliding
occurs during and following prolonged high-precipitation periods in the winter (Tubbs, 1974;
Gerstel et al., 1997; Shipman, 2004).
Net Shore-drift
Wind-generated waves typically approach the shore at an angle, creating beach drift and
longshore currents and transporting sediment by a process called littoral drift. Net shore-drift
refers to the long-term, net result of littoral drift. Net shore-drift cells represent a sediment
transport sector from source area to deposition area along a reach of coast.
Each drift cell acts as a system consisting of three components: a sediment source (erosional
feature) and origin of a drift cell; a transport zone where sediment is moved alongshore by wave
action with minimal sediment input; and a deposition zone often creating spits or barrier beaches.
The deposition area is the drift cell terminus. Deposition of sediment occurs where wave energy
is no longer sufficient to transport the sediment in the drift cell.
This process of net shore-drift transporting sediment over time from a feeder bluff to a
depositional shoreform creates unique drift cells—stretches of shoreline where sediment flow is
essentially isolated from adjacent stretches of shoreline. Properly functioning drift cells are
essential for creating and maintaining nearshore habitats for salmon, shellfish, and other species.
Thus, drift cells are useful for planners to divide the shore into manageable, coherent reaches for
characterization and management. Drift cells in the Puget Sound-Strait of Juan de Fuca region
range in length from hundreds of feet to 5 miles or more.
Net shore-drift cells were mapped in eastern Jefferson County several times by different
scientists. Mapping was performed by Ralph Keuler (1988) for the USGS in the early 1980s
(Figure 3-7, see also Maps 11 and 12 in Appendix C). However, Keuler’s mapping effort did not
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-33
encompass the entire County; it extended only to northern Oak Bay. Johannessen (1992)
completed a net shore-drift study of San Juan County and parts of Jefferson, Island, and
Snohomish Counties for Ecology’s Shorelands Division. This included southeast Jefferson
County up to Oak Bay. This information was published as a compendium to the larger net shore-
drift compilation by Schwartz et al. (1991).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
The Johannessen net shore-drift study was conducted through systematic field investigations of
the entire coast to identify geomorphologic and sediment indicators that revealed net shore-drift
cells and drift direction (Jacobsen and Schwartz, 1981). The net shore-drift mapping methods
employed by Keuler and Johannessen used well-documented, isolated indicators of net shore-
drift in a systematic fashion.
The first drift cell mapping effort was completed in the late 1970s as part of the Coastal Zone
Atlas of Washington series (Ecology, 1978). The methods used in that study differed greatly
from those applied by Johannessen and Keuler in that the Atlas relied exclusively on limited
historic wind records. Recently, Ecology digitized the Johannessen and Keuler net shore-drift
mapping, but the mapping was not technically reviewed and numerous errors and
misinterpretations exist in the digital dataset. As a result, Coastal Geologic Services (CGS)
reviewed and edited the eastern Jefferson County mapping, which is now as accurate as the
original mapping allows without conducting new field or photographic investigations.
Eastern Jefferson County contains 52 net shore-drift cells and 7 regions of negligible net shore-
drift (Maps 11 and 12). The general patterns of sediment transport through net shore-drift and
sediment sources and depositional areas will be described in the individual reach descriptions
(Chapter 4). In general, shores that are exposed to southerly wind and waves typically have
northward net shore-drift. Shores that have substantial greater exposure to the northwest or north
typically have eastward or southward drift. At the north-facing shores along the Strait of Juan de
Fuca, easterly net shore-drift generally occurs due to substantial fetch from the west. Due to local
variations in the north-south trending topography of the eastern Jefferson County marine
landscape, there are some localized exceptions to these patterns such as at Olele Point and
Whitney Point.
In eastern Jefferson County, there are areas where resistant basalt and sandstone (described
above) are found at the coast, notably along Hood Canal south of Quilcene Bay and near the
Olele Point area north of Port Ludlow, where there is little or no net shore-drift of sediment.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-34 November 2008
Figure 3-7. Net Shore-drift Mapping for Northeastern Jefferson County
(from Keuler, 1988)
Coastal Bluff Landslides 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
The erosion of glacial and non-glacial sedimentary deposits has created high-elevation, often
unstable bluffs along the shores of much of eastern Jefferson County. According to Ecology’s
recently digitized slope stability mapping (based on the 1970s Coastal Zone Atlas), 83 historic
landslides were identified in the Jefferson County study area. Recent landslides were mapped at
327 locations. The greatest density of slides was found along the east and west shores of the
Toandos Peninsula, east and west Marrowstone Island, north Indian Island, north of Point
Ludlow, Point Wilson to Cape George, northeast Discovery Bay, and from Port Townsend to
Kala Point. Landslides were also observed in higher density around the following headlands:
Quatsap Point, Fisherman’s Point, Termination Point, Point Hannon to Tala Point, Kinney Point,
and South Point (Maps 26 and 27).
Coastal landslides contribute the majority of sediment input to the beach and net shore-drift
system. Coastal landslides typically occur during periods of high precipitation, on bluffs where a
combination of characteristics makes the bluff vulnerable to slope failure (Tubbs, 1974). These
characteristics include the underlying geology of a bluff or bank, its level of exposure (fetch), the
local hydrology (groundwater and surface water), and the extent of development impacts
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-35
(Hampton et al., 2004). Many Jefferson County bluffs are quite susceptible to coastal landslides
as a result of wave exposure.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Undercutting of the toe of the bluff is usually the long-term “driver” of bluff recession (Keuler,
1988). Windstorms that create significant wave attack of the bluff toe can directly trigger bluff
failures. Bluffs that are exposed to greater fetch are subject to higher wave energy during storms,
resulting in greater toe erosion and bluff undercutting, and thus more frequent landslides
(Shipman, 2004). More commonly, toe erosion precedes bluff landslides by a period of years, as
bluff instability gradually progresses up the slopes. Bulkheads reduce wave attack to bluff toes
and reduce or eliminate undercutting, but can accelerate erosion of the beach.
Storms that coincide with elevated water levels, such as a storm surge or extraordinary high-high
tide, can produce dramatic toe erosion. An example of this was the February 4, 2006 windstorm,
which brought near record high water levels coincident with 45 to 50 knot winds. Waves reached
bluff toes during this storm where this had not occurred for many years and undermined reaches
of bluff that may not fail (slide) until subsequent high-precipitation periods (Thorsen, 1987).
Exposed bluffs composed of glacial drift south of Port Townsend typically experience long-term,
mean erosion rates of 1.5 to 4 inches per year (Keuler, 1988), and bluffs farther west have little
data for erosion rates. Coastal erosion rates are contingent on the position of a particular site
within a net shore-drift cell, as described above.
Landslides are more likely to occur in areas where there is a history of landslides, or where the
bluff strata are composed of an unconsolidated, permeable layer (sand), underlain by a relatively
impermeable layer (such as dense silt or clay) (Gerstel et al., 1997). As water seeps through the
permeable layer and collects above the impermeable layer, a zone of weakness or “slip-plane” is
created. This stratigraphic pattern is a typical initiator of mass wasting (including landslides, but
also including larger deep-seated failures). This bluff configuration is fairly common in eastern
Jefferson County.
Abundant glacially derived sediment, delivered via landslides or eroded from bluffs, creates
beaches primarily composed of sand and pea gravel overlying cobble. Sand lance and surf smelt
(referred to as forage fish) prefer to spawn on beaches of mixed sand and pea gravel (Penttila,
2000). Eelgrass beds offshore depend on sediment high in sand and pea gravel and are not able to
thrive in small sediment-deprived systems dominated by cobble (Hirschi, 1999). Salmon rely on
forage fish for food, gently sloping beaches as safe havens from predators during migration, and
eelgrass beds for cover and foraging habitat (Groot and Margolis, 1991).
Bluff-top trees are favorite spots for nesting and perching by bald eagles. Overhanging
vegetation provides shade for surf smelt and sand lance eggs, serves as a source of terrestrial
insects for consumption by marine fishes, and provides cover at high tide (Brennan and
Culverwell, 2004).
A substantial quantity of seepage has been observed in some eastern Jefferson County bluffs
including along Discovery Bay and Oak Bay. The highest volumes of groundwater observed
seeping from the bluff face typically occur following prolonged heavy precipitation. Periods of
high rainfall intensity and duration (especially during saturated soil conditions) are the most
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-36 November 2008
common trigger of coastal landslides (Tubbs, 1974), such as those observed during the New Year
of 1996-97 (Gerstel et al., 1997; Shipman, 2001).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Fluvial Influences on the Nearshore
Fluvial sources (rivers and streams) contribute to nearshore character and can act as an agent of
change on the marine landscape. Though most river sediment reaching the coast is initially
deposited in deltas, much of the sediment is transported beyond beaches and deposited on delta
fronts and in deeper water. This is the case because fluvial sediment is often too fine to remain in
the nearshore due to prevailing wave regimes. Downing (1983) stated that 90 percent of river-
borne sediment input to the Puget Lowland is too fine to remain in nearshore systems. The
coarse grain portion of the sediment yield from rivers and streams is typically transported
alongshore in net shore-drift cells, such as at the mouth of the Dosewallips and the Duckabush
Rivers. However, some areas have net shore-drift cells converging on stream mouths, such as at
the head of Dabob, Quilcene and Discovery Bays, and at Chimacum Creek (Maps 11-14). As
stated previously, the majority of beach sediment is derived from recession of unconsolidated
bluffs.
The quantity and quality of fluvial sediment delivered to the nearshore depends on the nature of
the upland: its elevation, the types of rocks and soil found there, the density of vegetation, and
the climate (Komar, 1976). The greater the volume of sediment, the greater the influence on
nearshore processes. Some of the larger fluvial systems influencing nearshore processes include
McDonald Creek, the Little and Big Quilcene Rivers, the Dosewallips River, the Duckabush
River, and Snow and Salmon Creeks. When lower portions of river systems are diked or cut off
from depositional floodplains, excessive fluvial sediment is often deposited at the river mouth,
forming a prograded river delta and damaging valuable estuarine habitat.
Fluvial systems influence the nearshore by locally decreasing the salinity of the water, and by
providing sediment to local beaches, which can aid in the formation of ecologically valuable
habitats including marshes, distributary channels, shallow water deltaic habitats, and sand and
mudflats. Fluvial influences also affect the abundance and density of aquatic flora (e.g., eelgrass)
and fauna. Altered littoral drift patterns can be caused by the river or stream discharge into the
nearshore. These altered conditions commonly lead to the deposition of alongshore bars or shoals
and heightened shoreline complexity. Features such as these can be permanent or ephemeral,
displaying seasonal dynamics concurrent with changes in discharge and wave conditions.
Global Climate Change 32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Over time, global climate change will undoubtedly impact Jefferson County’s shorelines.
Effects are likely to be most pronounced on, but not limited to, nearshore areas. The United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) concluded that, “Warming of the
climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean
sea level.”
Researchers at the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group and others have devoted
significant effort to modeling potential effects of climate change on the Pacific Northwest in
particular. They note that even if all carbon dioxide emissions were halted today, ambient
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-37
atmospheric concentrations would continue to change climate conditions in the Puget Sound
region for many decades, without taking projected emission increases into account (Snover et al.,
2005 as cited in King County, 2006). A great deal of uncertainty exists as to the magnitude,
precise timing, and extent of climate change impacts in the Puget Sound region. What is certain,
however, is that impacts will occur. Developing plans and taking action now will serve to
minimize harm to human communities and natural resources in the future.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that between 1990 and 2100, average
global surface temperature could increase from 2.5 to 10.4oF, and global sea level could rise
between 4 and 35 inches, depending on both the rate of natural changes and the response of the
climate system to greenhouse gas emissions now and in the future (IPCC, 2006 as cited in King
County, 2006). Increasing temperatures and sea levels are likely to impact shorelines of
Jefferson County in multiple ways, as described below.
Temperature
Casola et al. (2005a) note that Washington has already experienced climate change over the past
century. Average surface air temperature has increased by approximately 1.5oF. Snowpack has
declined over the past 80 years, particularly at low elevations. The onset of snowmelt and peak
stream flows in snow-fed rivers occurs earlier in the year, and many plants bloom earlier.
Hydrologic models also indicate that spring soil moisture has been increasing, though no direct
observations are available (Casola et al., 2005a).
Over time, Washington is likely to face an increase in temperature across all seasons (Casola et
al., 2005a). Pacific Northwest average temperatures are likely to rise between 2.5 and 3.7oF by
the 2020s, and additional increases between 3.1 and 5.3oF for the 2040s. Along with air
temperatures, water temperatures are also expected to increase. These projected environmental
changes may create inhospitable conditions for coldwater fish species (salmon, trout) in lakes,
rivers, and salt water, potentially beyond those species’ ability to adapt. Lake and ocean
stratification may also increase along with temperatures, reducing available nutrients and
increasing competition among fish species in those environments. Additionally, areas of Puget
Sound that are already suffering from low dissolved oxygen levels (e.g., Hood Canal) may be
further impaired with rising air and water temperatures (Casola et al., 2005a).
Snover et al. (2005, as cited in King County, 2006) note that some marine plant species, such as
eelgrass and bull kelp, appear to have a narrow range of tolerance for water temperature and may
suffer as a result of projected temperature increases. In turn, changes in those communities
could alter habitat for other species that are not substantially affected by moderate water
temperature increases, but that depend on bull kelp and eelgrass for food, shelter, or nesting sites.
Casola et al. (2005a) emphasize that the unusual life cycle of Pacific salmon species might make
them particularly sensitive to air and water temperature changes. High summer stream
temperatures could create thermal barriers to upstream migration of adult salmon, in addition to
stressing juvenile salmon rearing in those streams. Reduced winter snowpack and runoff
occurring earlier in the season may increase the frequency of redd-scouring events and prevent
juvenile salmon from being flushed to salt water in runoff. In salt water, higher water
temperatures or altered currents may affect the availability of food and change the distribution of
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-38 November 2008
predators, though impacts of climate change on these factors are not well understood (Casola et
al., 2005a).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Marine and freshwater systems may also see changes in planktonic communities as water
temperatures increase (King County, 2006). Prolonged periods of warm temperatures in shallow
water favor several groups of organisms, including bluegreen cyanobacteria, some of which
make substances that are toxic to people and animals; dinoflagellates, some of which make
toxins that cause red tides; and chlorophyte algae, some of which form large filamentous masses
that cover rocks and structures (King County, 2006).
Precipitation and Runoff
Models predicting precipitation levels in response to a changing climate are somewhat uncertain,
as precipitation is influenced by many factors that are not well understood (Casola et al., 2005a).
However, most models predict that climate change during the 21st century is likely to result in
more precipitation throughout Washington, with most increases occurring from October through
March. Warmer temperatures will cause more of this precipitation to fall as rain rather than
snow, resulting in reduced snowpack and changes in the timing of spring runoff (Casola et al.,
2005a).
Streamflow, stormwater runoff, and water temperature will all likely be affected by changes in
air temperature and precipitation (Casola et al., 2005a). With regard to streamflow, Casola et al.
(2005a) predict varying impacts depending on whether a stream is fed primarily by snowmelt or
rainfall. Coastal rivers at low elevations (e.g., the Hoh River) exhibit flow volumes closely tied
to seasonal precipitation patterns; winter flows in these systems are thus likely to increase along
with precipitation during winter months. Rivers draining intermediate “transient snow zone”
elevations (e.g., the Quinault River) are more sensitive to the percentage of winter precipitation
falling as snow, and typically run at peak flows during November and December and again
during spring runoff. These rivers are likely to see an increase in “wet season” flows as rainfall
increases, reduced spring and summer flows, and an earlier occurrence of runoff. Projected
average flows in the Quinault River after 2040, for example, are 4,000 to 5,000 cubic feet per
second (cfs) higher in December than current average flows, while average flows in June after
2040 may be 3,000 to 4,000 cfs lower than current average flows. Moderate floods are also
expected to increase in basins dominated by transient snow zones, though large floods are
expected to occur at approximately the same frequency as they do today (Casola et al., 2005a).
Summer base flows in river systems that depend on snowmelt may become lower as
temperatures warm and snowpack decreases toward mid-century (King County, 2006). Peak
runoff will also likely occur earlier in the spring. This has the potential to greatly impact fish
and other biota adapted to coldwater habitat during the warm, dry months of summer (King
County, 2006).
In its Draft Shoreline Inventory Report, King County (2006) notes that, “while many predictions
of the future have a degree of uncertainty, the temperature and precipitation predictions are based
on much more rigorous and well understood scientific data and relationships for their
conclusions than many predictions of the biological impacts.”
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-39
Sea Level Rise 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that sea levels will rise
between 4 and 35 inches by 2100 (IPCC, 2006 as cited in King County, 2006). In Olympia, land
subsidence is already responsible for a sea level rise of approximately 1 foot per century.
Coupled with climate change, this may cause port district inundation and central business district
flooding in the future (Casola et al. 2005b).
Casola et al. (2005b) note a number of ways in which climate change might affect sea levels and
coastlines of Washington State. Rising sea levels could increase coastal flooding and erosion,
particularly at flat beaches and in areas of tectonic subsidence. Shoreline armoring in many
areas may have to be enhanced to protect infrastructure, while development and housing in other
areas may simply have to be abandoned or moved in response to flooding. The occurrence of
landslides and freshwater flooding may also increase along with winter precipitation. Further
development in coastal hazard areas could be discouraged in order to minimize additional risks
to infrastructure in the future (Casola et al., 2005b).
Sea level rise also has the potential to considerably change shoreline jurisdiction geographic
locations over time, as a sea level rise of up to 3 feet will cause a substantial movement of water
inland (King County, 2006). This would have the potential to cause flooding of beachfront
homes and associated property damage, in addition to significantly increasing erosion of feeder
bluffs. Other ecological processes along coastlines are likely to be disrupted as well. Casola et
al. (2005b) present a number of possible alternatives to address rising sea levels, including:
• Preserving ecological buffers to allow for inland beach migration;
• Enhancing shoreline protection while recognizing the negative consequences for
shoreline habitat;
• Restoring wetlands for runoff and flood control;
• Monitoring for invasive species; and
• Creating a disaster relief plan for flooding and erosion events.
3.3.2.2 Nearshore Process-intensive Areas 27
Nearshore process-intensive areas are identified in this section. The process-intensive areas are
discussed generally and then identified specifically for each WRIA. Process-intensive areas for
water quality, coastal erosion, and beach processes in the Jefferson County study area often
coincide (Table 3-4). In general, process-intensive areas include marine riparian areas, feeder
bluffs, stream/river deltas, estuaries, accretionary landforms, and tidal inlets. These areas play a
primary role in shaping and maintaining critical nearshore habitat including eelgrass meadows,
kelp forests, mudflats, tidal marshes, sand spits, beaches and backshore, banks and bluffs, and
marine riparian areas. These habitats in turn provide critical functions. For example, eelgrass
meadows, kelp forests, flats, tidal marshes, sand spits, and riparian zones provide primary
production. All habitat types support invertebrates and juvenile and adult fishes (including
juvenile salmonids), and provide foraging and refuge opportunities for birds and other wildlife.
The presence and maintenance of all of these habitats is completely dependent on continued bluff
sediment input and the lack of disturbance to the net shore-drift system (Johannessen, 1999).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-40 November 2008
Several known factors cause these habitats stress, for example physical disturbances from
shoreline armoring, marina construction, shading from overwater structures, contamination by
chemicals, and competition from non-native species (King County DNR, 2001). Impacts of
climate change were not analyzed as potential habitat stressors. (Alterations to nearshore
processes are further discussed in the next section.)
1
2
3
4
5
6 Table 3-4. Processes and Process-intensive Areas in the Nearshore Zone
Process Process-intensive
Area Description
Water quality,
Coastal erosion
Marine riparian Marine riparian areas play a role in nutrient cycling, sediment
control, and heat/light inputs. Riparian scale processes affect
wildlife habitat, microclimate, nutrient levels, fish prey
production, shade, and habitat structure (Brennan and
Culverwell, 2004). The effectiveness of riparian buffers for
protecting water quality depends on soil type, vegetation type,
slope, annual rainfall, type and level of pollution, surrounding
land uses, and sufficient buffer width and integrity. Soil stability
and sediment control are directly related to the amount of
impervious surface and vegetated cover. Water that is not
absorbed or intercepted by vegetation will increase potential for
landslides, or run off the surface, which can lead to surficial
erosion, siltation, burial of aquatic environs, and contamination
of water. Pollutants such as excess nutrients, metals, and
organic chemicals are commonly found in stormwater and
agricultural runoff, usually in particulate form. Sediment control
therefore often removes a large percentage of the pollutant load
as well (May, 2000). For wildlife, the principal functions of
riparian buffers are to provide habitat and travel corridors,
microclimate regulation, organic input, and to ameliorate the
impacts of human disturbance such as light and noise
(Parametrix et al., 2005). Large woody debris from riparian
sources provides potential nesting, roosting, refuge and foraging
opportunities for wildlife; foraging, refuge, and spawning
substrate for fishes; and foraging, refuge, spawning, and
attachment substrate for aquatic invertebrates and algae.
Beach
processes -
Coastal erosion
Feeder bluffs Drift cells are composed of feeder bluffs, transport zones, and
accretionary zones. Feeder bluffs provide the beach sediment
necessary to maintain critical habitats throughout the drift cell
such as forage fish spawning areas and eelgrass beds, as well
as the accretionary landforms at the end of a drift cell such as
spits and pocket estuaries. Landslides, or run off the surface,
can also contribute beach sediment to the nearshore which can
lead to surficial erosion, siltation, burial of aquatic environs, and
contamination of water. Spits and pocket estuaries often protect
salt marsh habitat, which provides primary productivity, shelter
and forage to a variety of species including juvenile salmonids.
Tidal inlets (further discussed below) maintain circulation
processes important for flushing spit/marsh complexes,
maintaining water quality and nutrient dynamics for these critical
habitats.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-41
Process Process-intensive
Area Description
Beach
processes -
Fluvial
processes
Deltas Deltas form at the mouth of streams and rivers where they enter
the nearshore. As water enters the larger water body,
streamflow velocity decreases and the stream loses capacity to
carry most of the sediments and debris that were being
transported in the stream. Deltas not only provide an additional
source of sediment, organics, and LWD to the nearshore, but
they generally provide habitat functions for salmonids including
foraging, predator avoidance, physiological transition from fresh
to salt water, and migratory corridors to marine feeding grounds
(Simenstad et al., 1982). Other nearshore-dependent species
also benefit from the habitat functions of deltas.
Beach
processes -
Circulation
Estuaries, tidal inlets,
tidal marshes,
lagoons, etc.
Estuaries are highly productive habitats that provide flood
attenuation, nutrient retention and cycling, erosion/shoreline
protection, food web support, and habitat structure/connectivity
functions. Water circulation in an estuary has a fundamental
influence on the functions of estuary habitat. Water movement
from river flows, tides, and waves erodes and deposits
sediments, conveys nutrients and organic material, and
transports fish and prey items. Water movement also affects the
physical shape and complexity of the estuary (e.g., slope, depth,
connections to other habitats, size of the system, channel
network, and landform) which affects habitat for shellfish,
salmonids and other species. These same processes also
create habitat features, such as pockets and bars within the
estuary (Redman et al., 2005). Estuaries are important
nurseries for outmigrating salmonid fry as they adjust to
changing salinity levels. These areas also serve as nurseries for
other aquatic species that provide a forage base for salmon.
Juvenile salmonids and other species use shallow water
habitats as a refuge from predators when migrating. Estuaries
are also key areas for shellfish production and as such depend
on healthy circulation patterns and good water quality. Pocket
estuaries are non-natal lagoons with freshwater input and
coastal stream mouths. Salt marshes, brackish marshes, and
lagoons are habitats that occur in areas with tidal inundation
and flushing. Salt marsh vegetation traps and stabilizes
sediments. Salt marshes provide complex, branching networks
of tidal channels where juvenile salmonids feed and take refuge
from predators. They also form migratory linkages to riverine
and marine environments (Brewer et al., 2005).
WRIAs 16 and 17 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Eastern Jefferson County contains 52 net shore-drift cells and 7 regions of negligible net shore-
drift, encompassing numerous feeder bluffs and accretionary shoreforms. Important feeder
bluffs have been identified at Tala Point, just north of Mats Mats Bay, at Olele Point, just south
of Kala Point, and just north of Hadlock (Johannessen, 1999). In addition, numerous areas along
the Toandos Peninsula, the Bolton Peninsula, Marrowstone Island, and near McCurdy Point have
been identified as unstable areas with recent or old landslides, suggesting they may be important
for sediment generation (Maps 26 and 27).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-42 November 2008
Major estuaries and deltas include the Duckabush, Dosewallips, Quilcene, Tarboo Creek and
Dabob Bay, Port Ludlow Bay, and Discovery Bay (Maps 26 and 27). A sill at the entrance to
Hood Canal is considerably shallower than areas just north or south of the sill, limiting water
exchange into and out of the Canal. Marine riparian and critical saltwater habitat areas are
described in detail in the individual reach sections. Compared to the Hood Canal and Admiralty
Inlet shorelines, the Strait of Juan de Fuca supports few spit features and other locations of wave-
transported sediment deposition (Todd et al., 2006). Notable exceptions occur within Discovery
Bay and very large spits such as Dungeness Spit (in Clallam County).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Collectively, the watersheds of WRIAs 16 and 17 are regionally important to the Puget Sound
basin, and to the recovery of Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca
summer chum salmon (Redman et al., 2005). Nearshore areas in particular are identified as high
priorities for protection and improvement if regional salmon recovery goals are to be achieved.
Redman et al. (2005) identified the following actions as essential to the recovery of these species
(this list includes actions specific to eastern Jefferson County, WRIA 16 and 17; see Chapter 6 of
the Regional Nearshore and Marine Aspects of Salmon Recovery in Puget Sound for further
information):
• Protect all feeder bluffs;
• Protect delivery of upland sediment sources to the nearshore from shoreline protection
targets;
• Protect functioning drift cells that support eelgrass bands and depositional features along
the shoreline of Discovery Bay to Fort Worden;
• Protect against catastrophic events (oil spills); and
• Protect pocket estuaries and shallow water/low velocity habitats from further degradation
near the deltas (within 5 miles), but skew this protection area to the east to reflect
oceanographic currents.
May and Peterson (2003) identified “Nearshore and Estuarine” (NSE) refugia as part of their
comprehensive salmon refugia study for eastern Jefferson County. NSE refugia are based upon
drift cells and include those estuaries, nearshore migration corridors, and shoreline areas that
provide refuge habitat for migrating and rearing salmon. Refugia are classified as follows (from
May and Peterson, 2003):
• Category A: Priority refugia with natural ecological integrity. While not necessarily
pristine, these areas are nearly intact, relatively undisturbed, and generally exhibit
properly functioning conditions. These areas are generally in excellent condition.
• Category B: Primary refugia with altered ecological conditions. These are refugia with
somewhat disturbed conditions, but which still support natural assemblages of native
salmon. These areas are generally in good condition.
• Category C: Secondary refugia with altered ecological integrity. These areas may belong
in Category A or B if not for hatchery influences, migration barriers, and/or degraded
habitat. These areas are generally in fair condition. The author also placed in this
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-43
category refugia that did not support a higher rating due to a lack of quantitative data.
These areas could be called “possible refugia.”
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
• Category D: Potential refugia with altered ecological integrity. These areas are best 3
described as “potential future refugia” due to significantly degraded habitat conditions.
These areas were likely historically important for salmon, but today do not support
natural levels of salmon productivity.
Category A refugia are limited to a few areas including the west shore of Dabob Bay, parts of
Squamish Harbor/Shine Creek estuary, the west shore of Thorndyke Harbor (Thorndyke Creek
estuary), and scattered parts of Port Townsend Bay near Chimacum Creek (Figure 3-8).
WRIAs 16 and 17 also provide some of the most important and productive shellfish harvesting
areas in the Puget Sound basin. The major bays/estuaries including Discovery Bay, Tarboo Bay,
Oak Bay, Quilcene Bay, and the beaches and inlets of Dabob Bay and Hood Canal are process-
intensive areas for shellfish resources (Map 24).
WRIA 18 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
The portion of WRIA 18 within Jefferson County falls entirely within the ONP. The Elwha
River dams and shoreline armoring are largely responsible for sediment starvation along the
shoreline within the Elwha drift cell (located in Clallam County). An estimated 17.7 million
cubic yards of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and cobbles have accumulated behind these dams (PSAT,
2005). Within the Jefferson County portion of WRIA 18, fluvial processes that may affect
marine shorelines along the Strait of Juan de Fuca are generally protected within ONP.
WRIAs 20 and 21 21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
A majority of process-intensive areas in WRIAs 20 and 21 lie in along the Pacific Coast and
lower river reaches on federal and tribal land (not in Jefferson County jurisdiction). Land use
along the middle reaches of rivers within Jefferson County jurisdiction is mainly
private/commercial forestry, contributing organics, sediments, and tannins from wood waste
(cedar spalts) to the nearshore. Overall, these river segments are contributing a small percentage
of nearshore habitat processes relative to oceanic processes (temperature, currents, storms, etc.).
3.3.2.3 Nearshore Process Alterations 28
Alteration of the physical and biochemical processes that create and maintain the nearshore
environment will typically have deleterious effects on shoreline functions and values. This
section describes the primary alterations of concern for Jefferson County’s marine shores,
including
• Shoreline armoring,
• Removal of nearshore riparian vegetation,
• Water quality degradation, and
• Hydrologic alterations and effects on slope stability
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
Figure 3-8. Nearshore Refugia in Eastern Jefferson County, WRIAs 16 and 17
(May and Peterson, 2003 )
page 3-44 November 2008
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-45
Shoreline armoring can disrupt sediment generation and net shore-drift patterns, which can
adversely affect shoreline morphology and habitat function (see Maps 12 –14). Bulkheads and
other types of armoring along feeder bluffs inhibit or eliminate sources of beach sediment for
drift cells. Beaches in front of armored shorelines can lose fine sediment through the increased
wave reflection off of the armoring. Over time a heavily armored area (with bulkheads and/or
groins) can lose its beach because the sediment that is necessary to sustain the beach is no longer
reaching it or is not staying on the beach.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
When “hard” structures intrude into the nearshore zone they can also increase the rate of beach
erosion by intensifying the wave energy (Macdonald et al,. 1994). In a drift cell where bulkheads
prevent bluff sediment from reaching the intertidal zone, the depositional beach at the terminus
of the cell often experiences accelerated erosion even if it is miles “down drift” from the affected
bluffs. These alterations can ultimately change the structure of the habitat from mixed-fine
substrate communities (that often support eelgrass) to coarser substrate communities with less
habitat value for migrating salmon fry. Other consequences are habitat fragmentation, loss of
migratory corridors, and degradation of foraging habitat. Intertidal bulkheads, other types of fills,
and docks can also force juvenile salmonids into deeper water, where the risk of predation may
be significantly higher.
Bulkheads, groins, piers, ramps, docks, and other shoreline modifications affect forage fish
spawning habitat directly and indirectly. Direct impacts include loss of shoreline/riparian
vegetation, burying of habitat by structures, damage from equipment working in an area while
eggs are incubating on the beach, and substrate coarsening and lowering of the beach profile in
front of bulkheads (MacDonald et al., 1994). Indirect impacts occur primarily through disruption
of sediment transport and/or sediment impoundment, and water quality degradation (Long et al.,
2005). Because forage fish depend on suitable beach substrates, these species are particularly
vulnerable to shoreline modifications and processes affecting sediment input, transport, or
deposition (see Maps 17-19). Forage fish, particularly surf smelt and sand lance, require intact
riparian vegetation, which provides shade and microclimate control for spawning areas (Rice,
2006). Pacific herring vary slightly in that their spawning is primarily in the lower intertidal and
shallow subtidal zones, and therefore their habitat requirements are focused on vegetation such
as eelgrass or algae.
Alteration of habitat forming processes (disruption of alongshore sediment generation and
transport) can threaten important aquatic plant communities (Ruckelshaus and McClure,
2007;WDNR Nearshore Research Project, 2007 available at
http://www2.wadnr.gov/nearshore/research/). Eelgrass and kelp beds are susceptible to altered
sediment processes, reduced light penetration caused by overwater structures, and poor water
quality (see Map 20). Since these aquatic communities provide essential feeding, rearing, and
refuge areas for juvenile salmonids, alterations can be harmful to young fishes (Maps 17-19).
Species of birds and fish that depend upon juvenile salmon as prey can also be impacted by
habitat alterations affecting young fishes. Other threats to eelgrass and kelp include dredging,
erosion/sedimentation from upland construction activities, construction of overwater structures
(such as docks and piers) that impede light penetration, increased water temperature due to lack
of shade and other causes, pollutant loading, excessive nutrient inputs, and competition from
invasive exotic plants such as cordgrass and Sargassum (PSAT, 2001).
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-46 November 2008
Removal of shoreline vegetation, which accompanies most types of shoreline modification or
development, reduces shade and LWD recruitment potential, which impacts the supply of prey
resources for juvenile and resident salmon. (WDFW and PNPTC, 2000). Failure to maintain or
plant bluff vegetation along bluffs can result in low root strength (for example, with scattered
ornamental plants and grass) and an increased likelihood of future landslides (Ziemer and
Swanston, 1977; Bishop and Stevens, 1964). Bluffs with significant modifications to both the
natural drainage regime and vegetation are particularly susceptible to landsliding.
Reestablishment and maintenance of native vegetation cover or installation of a fibrous-rooted
vegetation cover along with some type of drainage control can reduce the likelihood of bank
failures (Gray and Sotir, 1996; Menashe, 1993; Menashe, 2001; Roering et al., 2003).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Alterations such as dredging, filling, and grading, and stormwater/wastewater disposal can
negatively impact the quality of nearshore habitats. Improper application, excessive
concentrations, and overuse of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers are common in urban
shoreline areas where manicured landscapes are desired by landowners. Fertilizers and other
urban and agricultural runoff degrade water quality by introducing high levels of organic
nutrients, petroleum byproducts, and other contaminants into the aquatic system. The increase in
nutrients (eutrophication) can cause plankton blooms, which may consume oxygen as the
plankton die and are decomposed. Onsite septic systems are often implicated as one of the causes
of excessive nutrients in runoff because these systems are generally ineffective at removing
nitrates (WDOH, 2005) (Maps 4, 22, and 23). Flame retardants, pharmaceuticals, and estrogenic
compounds are examples of other harmful substances that can impact water quality and
accumulate within the tissues of marine species (EPA, 2006).
Bottom fish, various invertebrates, and other aquatic animals are susceptible to reduced dissolved
oxygen levels that can occur as a result of nutrient and pathogen contamination. Water quality
contamination, especially fecal coliform contamination, is potentially disastrous for shellfish
communities and can shut down commercial and recreational harvesting (Map 24) (Glasoe and
Christy, 2004). Fecal concentrations are influenced by such factors as rainfall and drainage area
characteristics, including land uses, fecal pollution sources, and runoff patterns. In general,
residential areas contribute the highest concentrations compared to commercial and industrial
areas (Glasoe and Christy, 2004). Pollution sources that can potentially contribute to stormwater
contamination include cross connections with sewage lines, failing onsite sewage systems, pet
and other animal wastes, and bacterial growth within the drainage system itself. None of the
potential sources is benign and the cumulative loadings can be immense.
Shellfish resources are highly susceptible to changes in water quality and habitat loss caused by
urbanization and certain types of human development (Glasoe and Christy, 2004). Recreational
harvest advisories or closures are in effect for much of the eastern Jefferson County marine
shoreline. Closures due to marine biotoxins or pollution are in effect for portions of the Pacific
Coast as well as areas around Discovery Bay, Port Ludlow, and Port Townsend Bay (WDH,
2006a, 2006b). Commercial shellfish harvesting is restricted or prohibited in some areas
including Port Ludlow, South Point, and the north shore of Indian Island (Map 24).
Runoff volumes often increase and become more concentrated as a result of development due to
loss of forest cover and increased impervious surfaces and roads (see Maps 6, 7, and 25). This is
due to decreased infiltration and interception of water. Concentrated surface water can locally
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-47
erode bluff crests while also saturating soils, which exacerbates natural slope stability problems
along coastal bluffs and can trigger landslides (Shipman, 2004). Runoff flowing down a
driveway and rapidly across a lawn (which can absorb little water when wet) as sheet flow to the
bluff face is an example of this alteration. A broken tightline on a bluff face is another type of
alteration that triggers slides. Failed tightlines (often constructed out of inexpensive and low-
strength flexible, corrugated pipe) often contribute to initiating coastal landslides (Johannessen
and Chase, 2003).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
WRIA 16 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Shoreline armoring, such as bulkheads, docks, stairs, and boat ramps, has contributed to beach
erosion and disconnection of sediment sources throughout WRIA 16 (Correa, 2003). In addition,
several intertidal areas have been filled for residential development. Stairways along the
shoreline interrupt riparian corridors and may also lead to bluff instability. Highway 101 and
various dikes truncate deltas of several streams and rivers, impairing the fluvial processes that
sustain the nearshore. In general, the most altered areas in terms of shoreline structures (stairs,
bulkheads, docks, etc) are just north of the Fulton Creek estuary and in the Brinnon area between
Boston Point and Jackson Cove (Map 11).
Land use in WRIA 16 has altered the quality of nearshore waters. Paulson et al. (2006) found
that 92 percent of total nitrogen in Hood Canal came from surface and groundwater from the
surrounding subbasins. They found that point-source discharges and subsurface flow from
shallow shoreline septic systems contributed less than 4 percent of the nitrogen load to the upper
layer. Nitrogen leached from onsite sewage systems is potentially the largest anthropogenic
source of nitrogen entering Hood Canal. Use of a well-maintained septic system can effectively
reduce biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)4, bacteria, and pathogens, but most are not designed
to effectively reduce nitrogen. It has been estimated that nitrogen leached from onsite sewage
systems contributes between 33 and 84 percent (39 and 241 tons) of all anthropogenic nitrogen
entering Hood Canal. Past surveys along the shoreline of Lower Hood Canal found that as many
as one-third of the onsite sewage treatment systems were failing, resulting in increased fecal
coliform in this area, closure of shellfish harvesting areas, and declaration of a public health
emergency (Fagergren et al., 2004). Other sources of nitrogen include stormwater runoff,
agriculture/animal waste, wastes from boats/watercraft, and forestry.
Restoration projects could be targeted to actions that would trap nutrients now flowing directly to
Hood Canal. Removing dikes, filling borrow pits, and restoring/preserving wetlands and side
channels could improve conditions in altered areas (Fagergren et al., 2004).
WRIA 17 34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Shoreline armoring such as bulkheads, docks, jetties, and piers has contributed to beach erosion
and disconnection of sediment sources throughout WRIA 17 (Map 12). Several intertidal areas
have been filled for residential development, parking lots, and the footings for the Hood Canal
Bridge. The most altered shores (in terms of structures and armoring) are at Port Ludlow, Port
Hadlock, Mats Mats Bay, and Squamish Harbor. Scattered marinas and bulkheads, and an
abandoned log storage yard near Ludlow Creek, may also contribute to disruption of net shore-
drift processes in WRIA 17.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-48 November 2008
Diking and filling of deltas such as the Salmon/Snow Creek delta have reduced the complex web
of distributary channels and sloughs that support post-emergent salmon fry. Further descriptions
of drift process alterations can be found in the reach inventory and characterization sections in
Chapter 4.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Potential pollutant sources in WRIA 17 include both point and non-point sources. According to
2006 Ecology National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit records, there are 28
regulated point-source discharges located in the County, most of which occur in WRIA 17.
These point sources include wastewater and stormwater discharges to marine and freshwater
receiving waters, as well as discharges to municipal wastewater systems by sand and gravel
operators, hard rock quarries, boat yards, and other industrial facilities. The fish hatchery on the
Big Quilcene River also contributes to the nutrient load within WRIA 17 (Fagergren et al.,
2004).
WRIA 18 13
14
15
16
17
18
Headwaters of larger streams and rivers in WRIA 18 are found within Jefferson County, but
these headwaters are protected within ONP. Process alterations in the WRIA downstream are
located in Clallam County and include two dams on the Elwha River restricting fluvial sediments
and LWD from entering the nearshore, as well as fish hatcheries and pulp mills contributing
nutrients, metals, and toxics to the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
WRIA 20 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Impacts to the estuarine environment in WRIA 20 include loss of habitat complexity due to
filling, dikes, and channelization, and loss of tidal connectivity caused by tidegates (Smith,
2000). Nearshore impacts include bulkheads, overwater structures, filling, dredging, and
alteration of sediment processes (Map 13). The nearshore area is influenced most by the
Columbia River, which forms a low-salinity plume that extends along the Washington Coast,
depositing sediments important for beach maintenance, particularly in those areas south of the
Hoh River mouth. This sediment supply has decreased by 24 to 50 percent due to dams in the
Snake and Columbia River basins.
The vast majority of land use in the WRIA is forestry (94 percent), and sedimentation has been
identified as a major habitat problem in all of the subbasins. Sediment loads are transported
downstream, and there is concern that increased sedimentation to the estuary and nearshore
environment is reducing the eelgrass and kelp habitat by changing nearshore substrates and
increasing turbidity. Water quality processes are generally thought to be good; however, some
contaminants have been found offshore, the source of which is the aluminum smelters on the
lower Columbia River (Smith, 2000).
WRIA 21 35
36
37
38
39
The sediment source for the beaches in WRIA 21 is mostly from nearby rivers and sea cliff
erosion, with some sediment from the Columbia River. Forest practices in the middle and upper
reaches of river basins within the WRIA that result in increased sedimentation and reduced LWD
can have a negative effect on nearshore processes.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-49
The overall condition of estuaries in the WRIA is “good” (Smith and Caldwell, 2001). However,
the Queets and Quinault estuaries have reduced levels of LWD and the lowest reaches of the
Quinault River have been impacted by a low level of bank hardening and shoreline development,
mostly on the south bank. Various attempts to protect the village of Taholah from ocean wave
action have resulted in the construction of a seawall. Large rock continues to be added to the
north end of the seawall, affecting the mouth of the Quinault River and the lowest portion of the
estuary (Smith and Caldwell, 2001).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
3.3.2.4 Freshwater Processes 8
As with nearshore areas, the health and functioning of freshwater shoreline systems is influenced
to a large degree by the movement or storage of materials such as water, sediment, nutrients,
pathogens, and organic matter (e.g., LWD). This report focuses on the following key processes:
• Hydrology processes including surface water runoff, peak flows, surface water storage,
groundwater flow/discharge,
• Water quality processes for nitrogen, phosphorus, pathogens, toxins/metals, and
heat/light inputs,
• Sediment processes including mass wasting, surface erosion, and bank erosion, and
• Organic debris.
The process-intensive areas and alterations described in this section of the text are shown on the
map folio in Appendix C and listed in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5. Map Locations for Key Freshwater Process-intensive
Areas and Alteration Themes
Theme Map Name/ No.
Hydrology / Streams and Lakes
Permeability
Wetlands / Potential Wetlands
Topography
Floodplains (100-year floodplain)
Rain-on-Snow (ROS) and Snow-
dominated Zones
Channel Migration Zones (CMZ)
Land Cover (early and late seral stage
vegetation; human imprint)
Maps 2 and 3. Hydrology
Hydrology / Streams and Lakes
WRIA Boundaries
Watershed Boundary
Permeability
Wetlands
Dairies
Water Quality (not shown on map)
Septic Permits
Tilled Fields
Lost Wetlands
Human Imprint
Maps 4 and 5. Water Quality
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-50 November 2008
Theme Map Name/ No.
Land Use / Land Ownership (not shown
on map)
Zoning
Maps 21, 22, and 23. Land and
Shoreline Use Patterns
Forest Cover
Impervious Surface
Map 25. Forest Cover and Impervious
Surface
Hydrology 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Two important mechanisms by which hydrologic processes operate are infiltration and
groundwater recharge. In the glaciated Puget Sound landscape, areas of high permeability
include unconsolidated surficial geologic deposits of large grain size such as glacial outwash,
especially recessional outwash (Dinicola, 1990 as cited in Vaccaro et al., 1998). These areas
have a relatively high capacity for infiltrating precipitation and surface water, and they are
identified as important infiltration/recharge areas (Winter, 1988). The main hydrogeologic units
that produce groundwater for domestic residential or agricultural use in eastern Jefferson County
are Vashon Advance Outwash (Qva), Older Glacial Deposits (Qgo), and to a much lesser extent,
Vashon Recessional Outwash (Qvr). These hydrogeologic units make up most of the
unconsolidated materials that overlie bedrock. The Vashon Lodgment Till (Qvt) is not an
important water-bearing unit but it does control the rate of infiltration and therefore acts as a
semi-confining layer (Simonds et al., 2003).
Impervious surfaces can impact infiltration in all areas of a watershed, but it is particularly
detrimental in areas that naturally support high rates of infiltration and recharge (i.e., permeable
deposits on low slopes). Land use is a predictor of effective impervious area. Vaccaro et al.
(1998) showed that recharge in heavily developed areas (with 95 percent impervious surfaces) is
reduced by 75 percent, while recharge in residential areas (with 50 percent impervious surfaces)
is reduced by 50 percent (in Stanley et al., 2005). Numerous studies report that watersheds with
greater than 10 percent impervious area experience increases in runoff resulting from decreased
infiltration capacity (Glasoe and Christy, 2004; Paul and Meyer, 2001; Booth and Reinelt, 1993).
Booth and Jackson (1997) describe numerous impacts to aquatic resources resulting from
increased impervious area that are significant and measurable (see Map 25).
A related factor influencing hydrologic processes is the percent of forest cover in a watershed.
Loss of hydrologically mature vegetation, especially in rain-on-snow and snow-dominated zones,
can alter natural surface runoff patterns. Cleared portions of the rain-on-snow zone can produce
50 to 400 percent more outflow from snowpacks than forested areas during rain-on-snow events
(Coffin and Harr, 1992 as cited in Stanley et al., 2005a). The primary causes of this increased
outflow are the additional amount of snow on the ground, and the increased rate of snowmelt that
occurs in the absence of sun-blocking vegetative cover (Brunengo et al., 1992; Coffin and Harr
1992). Rain-on-snow areas that are converted from forest cover to non-forest cover have a higher
likelihood of generating peak runoff.
Surface Water Storage
Surface water storage is an important component of the hydrologic cycle. The loss of surface
water storage potential can increase the volume and shift the timing of streamflow (Collins et al.,
2003) or increase water level fluctuations in lentic systems (Euliss and Mushet, 1999). Land use
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-51
can directly impact water storage through the filling of floodplains, wetlands, and/or hyporheic
zones, or indirectly decrease storage by disconnecting a stream/river from its floodplain.
Reduced connectivity occurs as a result of dikes or levees along stream channels; stream
channelization and incision; and/or wetland ditching. Some of these alterations operate primarily
at the watershed scale (e.g., increased sediment supply); others are more evident at the reach
scale (i.e., channel modifications and incision).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Surface Runoff and Peak Flows
Much of the surface runoff in Jefferson County river systems is derived from rainfall and
snowmelt for those rivers and streams with headwaters at high elevations in the Olympic
Mountains. The spring snowmelt is driven by climate and does not change significantly based on
land management. However, winter snowmelt is an important component of the rain-on-snow
mechanism that causes most major peak flow events (WFPB, 1997). This analysis focuses on
rain-on-snow zones as a key hydrologic mechanism influencing aquatic resource structure. In the
Puget Sound region, rain-on-snow and snow-dominated zones are concentrated at elevations of
1,500 to 4,500 feet where weather patterns commonly cause temperature fluctuations from
freezing to above freezing (WDNR, 1991). Mature forest, especially coniferous forest, in rain-
on-snow forest zones influences winter snow accumulation and melt rates by changing the
intensity of solar radiation and wind-assisted heat flux (WFPB, 1997).
Surface runoff and peak flows are closely linked to infiltration/recharge as described above.
Runoff is inversely correlated to infiltration/recharge. Runoff is affected by development that
increases drainage density, synchronizing runoff during peak events, and consequently increases
the magnitude and frequency of peak flows. Road density is used in this analysis as an indicator
of increased drainage density because roads are commonly associated with artificial conveyances
such as ditches and storm sewers. Furthermore, roads in forested areas have been shown to cause
physical disturbances that increase drainage density by extending the length of headwater
channels, converting subsurface flow to overland flow. Forest practices and land clearing in rain-
on-snow zones can also alter natural surface runoff patterns. Cleared portions of the rain-on-
snow zone can produce 50 to 400 percent greater outflow from snowpacks than forested areas
during rain-on-snow events (Coffin and Harr, 1992).
Groundwater Recharge/Discharge/Flow
Groundwater flow paths occur at regional, intermediate, and shallow scales corresponding to
flow paths and residence time. Regional groundwater is maintained along deep flow paths in pre-
Quaternary bedrock, which are defined by major topographic features such as the Strait of Juan
de Fuca and the Olympic Mountains. Such groundwater is not readily influenced by the local
land use patterns and is therefore not analyzed here.
Shallow groundwater occurs in upper Pleistocene and Holocene deposits and is governed largely
by local topography and surficial deposits. Recharge of these shallow aquifers occurs mainly in
glacial drift plains and is discharged as surface water via springs, seeps, lakes, and streambeds.
Shallow groundwater boundaries typically follow surface watersheds.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-52 November 2008
Intermediate groundwater falls somewhere between regional and shallow groundwater in terms
of flow path depth and the scale of movement. Intermediate groundwater often has the ability to
move under major rivers and across drainage boundaries.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Precipitation is the primary source of groundwater recharge. However, alterations to flow paths
and groundwater extraction/consumption influence the availability of groundwater for
maintaining ecological functions during the summer low-flow period. Draining areas of shallow
groundwater via ditching, pumping, or other practices shortens the groundwater flow paths and
decreases retention time. Consequently, the availability of groundwater for discharge during low
runoff periods decreases. Extraction also reduces the amount of groundwater available for
discharge, and the placement of wells in the vicinity of surface water expressions can also limit
discharge by altering groundwater flow paths (Freeze and Cherry, 1979; Morgan and Jones,
1999).
Shallow soils in the montane region limit shallow groundwater features. Infiltrated water either
travels laterally as subsurface flow at the soil-bedrock contact, or percolates to deep groundwater
through cracks and fissures in the bedrock. River valleys and outwash plains in the lowlands
contain much deeper, porous soils on low relief that store large quantities of water in surficial
aquifers. Data from Cox et al. (2005) also suggest that the presence of outwash and permeable
alluvial fan deposits adjacent to river valleys/floodplains creates conditions for groundwater
discharge. Therefore, the presence of these conditions increases the probability that groundwater
discharge is occurring. Infiltration, recharge, and discharge processes are dependent on temporal
and spatial factors. In general, recharge will take place during the later part of the season at
lower flows in some portions of the river depending on the presence of adjacent permeable
deposits.
Water Quality 24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Nutrients (Nitrogen and Phosphorus)
Changes to hydrology and sediment supply at the watershed scale can influence nutrient cycling
in aquatic ecosystems. Alterations to these processes are discussed in other sections. This
analysis focuses on alterations to nutrient inputs resulting from certain land uses. Fertilizer
originating from commercial forest lands, agricultural, and residential areas can be a potential
source of increased nitrogen inputs to both aquatic ecosystems and groundwater. In addition,
fecal waste generated from septic tanks, commercial agriculture, and/or hobby farms can also
contribute excess nitrogen and other nutrients.
Phosphorous is not strongly correlated to specific types of land use (Ebbert et al., 2000).
However, areas in which fertilization and surface erosion are both prevalent (e.g., dairy farms,
till agriculture, urban growth areas) can be potential sources of increased phosphorous input.
Other human impacts that alter aquatic resources can also influence nutrient retention and
removal. Cox et al. (2005) found that denitrification occurs throughout riparian areas at high
levels (4 to 16 milligrams per liter [mg/L]). Denitrification occurs when bacteria in the soil
convert nitrogen to nitrates, making it easier for plants to absorb. When soil oxygen levels are
low, another form of bacteria turns the nitrates into gases such as nitrogen, nitrous oxide, and
nitrogen dioxide which return to the atmosphere. Consequently, floodplain disconnection and
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-53
loss of riparian forest cover can limit hyporheic function and nitrogen fixation rates and preclude
deposition of sediment and adsorbed phosphorous. Loss of wetlands decreases the amount and
rate of denitrification in a watershed.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Pathogens
This report focuses on fecal coliform as an indicator of pathogens because it is the most
commonly occurring pathogen and because it is monitored in Ecology water quality studies. For
purposes of this report, process-intensive areas for water quality involving pathogens are areas
where pathogens are stored or removed. Pathogen inputs are primarily associated with human
disturbance, and natural concentrations in water are very low. Human sources of fecal matter and
associated pathogens include onsite septic systems and animal operations such as dairies and
hobby farms.
Because pathogens are derived primarily from anthropogenic sources, much of the research
regarding their removal is based on water quality management facilities. However, some
research results can be applied to natural systems. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) (2001) showed that standing water promotes pathogen removal through increased
filtration and predation by other microbes. Additionally, recent USGS studies (Cox et al., 2005)
found that fecal coliform was not discharged to surface water from groundwater. This indicates
that surface transport is a major pathway for these pollutants. Therefore, areas that promote water
and sediment retention and/or predation by microorganisms, such as floodplains, depressional
wetlands, and permeable deposits draining into surface waters via subsurface flow or
groundwater recharge, are process-intensive areas for pathogen removal (Tate, 1978; Hemond
and Benoit, 1988). Destruction of these areas or land uses that lead to altered function can cause
impairment of the landscape’s ability to process pathogens.
Toxins/Metals
Toxins and metals associated with certain land use practices can be harmful when released to
aquatic ecosystems (Table 3-6). Many urban land uses can introduce contaminants such as
organic compounds, polychlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and pesticides. For example, gas stations and industrial processing facilities may release
PAHs from the combustion of petroleum, oil and coal (Van Metre et al., 2000; Schueler and
Holland, 2000a). Heavy metals (e.g., cadmium, copper, and zinc) can be released from motor
vehicles, building materials, and rooftops (Schueler and Holland, 2000b). Some lawn care
products used by residential property owners and businesses contain potentially harmful
insecticides, herbicides, and/or chemical fertilizers (Schueler and Holland, 2000c, 2000d). Rural
land uses (i.e., agriculture and forestry) are also potential sources of pesticides (Allan, 2004).
Toxins and metals generally do not occur in naturally high concentrations, so the mechanisms by
which these contaminants impact water quality are related to increased inputs (land uses) and
storage or uptake in the environment. Depressional wetlands with organic soils and wetlands
with clay soils that have a high cation exchange capacity retain metals/toxins through adsorption.
Riparian areas also are likely to remove toxins through adsorption since there are organic soil
layers present. Sediment deposited in floodplains can also temporarily store/adsorb toxins.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-54 November 2008
The primary mechanism of contaminant transport from urban and rural lands to the surrounding
watershed is runoff. Impervious surfaces (i.e., roads, sidewalks, pavement, rooftops) are key in
the transport of stormwater runoff and associated contaminants (Brabec et al., 2002; Booth,
2000).
1
2
3
4
5 Table 3-6. Sources of Toxins and Metals by Land Use
Land Use Examples of Contaminant Sources Potential Contaminants
Rural Agricultural Irrigated crop farming, confined animal
feeding operations
Insecticides, Herbicides
Rural Forestry Logging, campgrounds Metals
Urban
Commercial
Automotive repair shops, dry cleaners,
gas stations, food processing
Metals (Cu, Pb, Zn), Polychlorinated
Hydrocarbons (PAHs),
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Urban Industrial Chemical manufacturing, metal finishing
fabricating, mining/milling, railroad yards
Metals (Cu, Pb, Zn), Polychlorinated
Hydrocarbons (PAHs),
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Urban Municipal Airports, landfills/dumps, septic systems,
wastewater treatment plants,
transportation corridors (motor vehicles),
utility stations
Metals (Cu, Pb, Zn), Polychlorinated
Hydrocarbons (PAHs),
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Urban Residential Parks, septic systems, transportation
corridors (motor vehicles)
Metals (Cu, Pb, Zn), Insecticides,
Herbicides
Cu = copper, Pb = lead, Z = zinc
Heat and Light 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Heat and light affect water temperature, which is an important component of water quality. A
number of factors control heat and light inputs to aquatic resources. Most factors such as
climate, groundwater inputs, and air temperature are difficult to manage in the context of the
SMP. This analysis focuses on riparian areas as important for heat and light because these areas
provide the best opportunity for management.
The relationship between riparian condition and its influence on heat/light inputs is discussed
extensively in scientific literature (Welch et al., 2003). Thirty meters is the recommended
minimum riparian width required to maintain natural function of heat/light inputs in Puget Sound
(Castelle et al., 1994; May, 2000), but a wider buffer is necessary to maintain microclimate
(Brosofske et al., 1997; May, 2000). Riparian zones as narrow as 11 meters may still provide a
positive shading influence on streams (FEMAT, 1993; Knutson and Naef, 1997; May, 2000).
The width of the riparian zone becomes less important in controlling thermal properties as
streams become larger, because shading controls insolation to a lesser extent, and other factors
such as channel geometry begin to have a more significant relative influence on temperature.
Organic Debris 21
22
23
24
Organic material including large woody debris (LWD) enters streams primarily via streambank
erosion, mass wasting, and treethrow/windthrow from areas within roughly 200 feet of stream
channels. Consistent sources such as treethrow (mortality, suppression, windthrow) and bank
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-55
erosion/channel migration occur across all types and sizes of streams, while mass wasting is the
primary source in low-order streams (Reeves et al., 2003; Benda et al., 2002). Fluvial transport
and debris-laden floods are important mechanisms of LWD redistribution in large and small
streams, respectively.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Riparian forest disturbances reduce woody debris in streams, which in turn leads to adverse
changes in channel/habitat-forming processes (Bilby, 1984; Heifetz et al., 1986; McDade et al.,
1990; Van Sickle and Gregory, 1990; Bilby and Ward, 1989). In headwater areas, roads may
increase the incidence of landslides; however, associated loss of forest cover in these areas
decreases LWD recruitment via landslides. Land use encroachment into riparian zones and
channelization of streams reduce forest cover and decrease LWD recruitment potential via bank
erosion or channel migration.
Sediment Delivery and Transport 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Slopes with erodible soils and areas prone to mass wasting provide sediment input. Mechanisms
for sediment input are closely aligned with geologic controls. Erosive soils are most commonly
associated with alluvium and outwash. Sediment is often stored in depressional areas such as
wetlands and lakes (Hruby et al., 2000) and on floodplains (Stanley et al., 2005), which by
definition are composed of deposited alluvium. These areas trap sediment by reducing water
velocity (or dissipating energy), allowing increased deposition of fine sediment. Process-
intensive areas for sediment storage are the same as the water storage areas identified earlier.
Changes in sediment supply have wide-ranging impacts on aquatic ecosystems and can limit
ecologic function by impairing habitat quality and water quality. Surface erosion and mass
wasting are naturally occurring mechanisms of sediment supply, but each can increase sediment
inputs to aquatic ecosystems when the landscape is altered by human use. Loss of forest cover
and roads can increase inputs to aquatic systems by increasing rates of mass wasting and surface
erosion. Altered hydrology may also increase hillslope inputs to aquatic resources as well as
influencing rates of instream transport and storage. Sediment generated from construction sites is
another potential source of sediment to aquatic habitats.
Mass Wasting
Mass wasting potential is a product of topography, soil and bedrock properties, hydrologic
conditions, and vegetation. Roads (paved and unpaved) are often the most significant source of
sediment inputs to aquatic ecosystems in Puget Sound (Swanson et al., 1987). Increased mass
wasting rates are directly attributable to roads, which can influence slope failure directly by
altering slope properties (Knutson and Naef, 1997) or indirectly by redistributing excess water to
landslide-prone areas (Swanson et al., 1987). The loss of forest cover may also be an important
factor that increases rates of mass wasting, but the literature demonstrates that roads are the
dominant influence.
Surface Erosion
Surface erosion usually occurs as a result of particle entrainment by rainfall and overland flow.
Historically, surface erosion was limited by forest cover (Swanson et al., 1987). However, loss of
forest cover can lead to increased particle entrainment by rainfall and transport via overland
flow, consequently increasing sediment inputs to aquatic systems. In general the denser the
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-56 November 2008
vegetative cover, the lower the rate of erosion (Dunne and Leopold, 1978). Roads are also a
primary source of increased sediment inputs to aquatic systems via surface erosion. Beschta
(1978) states that roads within approximately 200 feet of aquatic ecosystems dramatically
increase sediment inputs from surface erosion. Areas of low erosion potential can also be
significant sources of sediment, particularly for land uses that directly disturb soil. Till
agriculture or bare fallow soil areas can increase surface erosion by 40 to 50 percent (Rapp et al.,
1972). Erosion can be a water quality issue for infrequent higher intensity storms and in specific
areas near water bodies or drainage ditches that drain to surface water features.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
Bank Erosion
Streams, wetlands, and lakes can store sediment before it is transported farther downslope to
estuaries and nearshore ecosystems. Channelization and floodplain disconnection cause loss of
overbank sediment deposition in the floodplain during peak flows. Draining and filling
depressional wetlands can also reduce sediment storage capacity on the landscape. Thus,
alterations to surface water storage are also indicative of reduced sediment storage.
Changes in stream morphology brought on by altered sediment supply-transport processes in
streams can include increased bank erosion and channel migration rates. Altered hydrology
(increased flows) can cause channel enlargement and increased bank erosion. Loss of riparian
vegetation also increases the susceptibility of streambanks to fluvial entrainment and mass
failures. The alterations that indirectly influence bank erosion are discussed in other sections.
Increases in bank erosion rates are noted where data are available.
3.3.2.5 Freshwater Process-intensive Areas 21
Process-intensive areas for hydrologic, water quality, organic matter, and sediment processes in
Jefferson County often coincide (Table 3-7). These areas are depicted on Maps 2 through 7 in
the accompanying map folio (Appendix C). The process-intensive areas are discussed generally
and identified specifically for each WRIA in the following sections.
Table 3-7. Process-intensive Areas for Hydrologic, Water Quality,
and Sediment Processes
Process Process-intensive Area
Infiltration/recharge
Groundwater flow/discharge
Nutrient cycling
Pathogen removal
Aquifer recharge areas
Surface runoff and peak flows
Surface erosion
Bare ground/early seral stage
vegetation cover
Surface runoff and peak flows
Groundwater flow/discharge
Surface erosion
Sediment storage
Channel migration zones
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-57
Process Process-intensive Area
Surface water storage
Surface runoff and peak flows
Groundwater flow/discharge
Nutrient cycling
Sediment storage
Floodplains
Surface water storage
Sediment storage
Nutrient retention/cycling
Lakes
Surface runoff and peak flows Rain-on-snow and snow-
dominated zones
Surface water storage
Nutrient sink
Sediment storage
Pathogen removal
Toxins/metals removal
Wetlands
Nutrient sink
Toxins/metals removal
Heat/light control
Riparian areas
Organic debris input
Sediment delivery
Landslide-prone areas
Organic debris input
Sediment delivery
Streambanks
Hydrologic Processes 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Key areas for hydrologic processes (Maps 2 and 3) are influenced by soil permeability and
precipitation, and include rain-on-snow zones, snow-dominated zones, channel migration zones,
wetlands, lakes, and ponds. Areas with high levels of precipitation will increase the capacity of
groundwater recharge through infiltration. Precipitation levels are higher west of the Olympic
Mountains and foothills than in areas to the east. In Eastern Jefferson County, important areas for
precipitation include the Fulton Creek, Spencer/Marple Creek, and Dosewallips/Rocky Brook
basins (Ecology, 2007).
Areas with high infiltration and recharge capacity typically occur in glacial outwash and alluvial
valleys such as the Hoh and Clearwater River valleys. These areas may contribute more
infiltration and recharge per unit area compared to areas to the east because precipitation is
higher. A study of the Nooksack River in Whatcom County showed that groundwater discharge
occurs in areas containing permeable glacial outwash and alluvial fan deposits adjacent to the
river valley (Cox et al., 2005). This suggests that the Chimacum Creek valley, Leland Creek
valley, and similar areas may provide opportunities for groundwater discharge.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-58 November 2008
The Chimacum Creek valley has an extensive alluvial deposit on the valley floor, valley walls of
exposed undifferentiated deposits, and highlands above consisting of lodgement till. The
headwaters of this valley have large areas of recessional outwash, a relatively young deposit that
has not been extensively eroded. Many marine bluff areas on the Toandos and Bolton Peninsulas
have similar erosion patterns, with bluff faces composed of undifferentiated deposits, advanced
outwash fringe toward the top, and lodgement till on upland areas. The landscape setting for
these deposits, including how they have been shaped by wind, waves, and water erosion,
determines the manner in which water moves across and through the land. For example,
permeable outwash deposits on hillsides can be locations for groundwater discharge for wetlands
and streams. On terraces, these deposits may act as recharge areas (Ecology, 2007).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Overall, the Lower and Middle Dosewallips River, the Toandos Peninsula West Shore, the
Bolton Peninsula, and the Chimacum Creek East Fork were rated highest for groundwater
processes (high precipitation, infiltration, percolation and recharge) by Ecology (Ecology, 2007).
The most widespread glacial deposit is lodgment till, which covers the majority of the upper
portion of the lowland geographic units. In general this deposit is impermeable but does include
some lenses of sand and gravel. Underlying this deposit is a relatively thick deposit of advance
outwash, which has moderate to high permeability. Large quantities of water can be stored by
this deposit, and it is both a principal source of potable water and a source of groundwater
discharge for aquatic resources in the County. Advance outwash deposits are predominant in the
northern portion of the study area but also present in surficial deposits in the Chimacum drift
plain and the Toandos and Miller Peninsulas (Ecology, 2007).
An associated deposit is recessional outwash, which also has high permeability and water
capacity and is of significant importance to water flow processes. Relatively large areas of this
deposit are found on the west side of the Quimper Peninsula, in the Port Hadlock area, the
Chimacum valley and West Chimacum Creek (upper portion), and above Squamish Harbor.
Additionally, recessional outwash is found in the lower reaches of the rivers draining the
Olympic Mountains area, with large deposits present near the mouth of the Big and Little
Quilcene Rivers. In this landscape setting, recessional outwash would be critical to groundwater
discharge to the Big Quilcene River.
Undifferentiated deposits consist of a variety of glacial and interglacial deposits including
lacustrine and glaciolacustrine (very low permeability), outwash sands and other fluvial deposits
(moderate to low permeability). These deposits vary greatly in their permeability and water
holding capacity, but are generally considered to be of low permeability and to yield little to no
water for potable water supplies (Ecology, 2007).
Overall, Ecology characterized the Lower Big Quilcene River, the Toandos Peninsula West
Shore, the Bolton Peninsula, and the Chimacum Creek East Fork as the most important areas
(highest scoring areas) for permeability (Ecology, 2007).
Most areas that are important for surface water storage are found in the lower watersheds of
eastern Jefferson County, as well as the Hoh, Queets, and Quinault River floodplains. Wetlands
are typically found along floodplains in areas of coarse outwash. In Jefferson County, small lakes
occur in alpine and montane regions with larger lakes occurring in the lowlands.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-59
According to Ecology’s (2007) watershed characterization, areas that scored highest overall for
importance in surface water storage are in the following basins: Middle and East Fork Chimacum
Creek, Tarboo Creek, Leland Creeks, the Lower Big Quilcene River, Spencer/Marple Creek,
Turner/Walkers Creek, Fulton Creek, Middle Dosewallips, Rocky Brook, Big Quilcene Middle
and Tunnel Creek.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Rain-on-snow and snow-dominated zones, which contribute to surface runoff and peak flow, are
known to occur primarily in middle elevations above 1,400 feet in Jefferson County, principally
on federal lands such as the ONP and ONF.
According to Ecology (2007) areas that received the highest relative score for combined water
flow-related processes included the Olympic Mountains and the adjoining lowlands (Figure 3-9)
(Ecology, 2007). This is due to the presence of higher precipitation (rain-on-snow, snow-
dominated zones) and relatively large areas of permeable deposits in the lower portions of the
watershed. The Little Quilcene River watershed was of lower overall importance due to a higher
degree of impermeable deposits and lower relative rainfall.
The headwaters for the Chimacum drift plain and the upper watershed areas draining to Tarboo
and Quilcene Bays also scored high relative to other areas for water flow processes. The high
importance of the Chimacum area is primarily due to large areas of permeable deposits and
moderate rainfall levels. The Tarboo and Quilcene Bay watersheds have less extensive
permeable deposits but higher rainfall levels (Ecology, 2007). Other areas of lower importance
were the small watersheds adjacent to the marine nearshore that are in areas of low rainfall and
low permeability deposits.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
Figure 3-9. Important Areas for Hydrologic Processes, Eastern Jefferson County
(Ecology, 2007)
page 3-60 November 2008
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-61
Water Quality Processes 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Water quality processes such as nutrient cycling/uptake, pathogen and toxin removal, and heat
and light control are influenced by wetlands, riparian areas, and surficial aquifers (Maps 4 and
5). Process intensive areas for removal and/or retention of fecal matter and associated pathogens
are depressional wetlands and infiltrative soils. These areas are located primarily in lowland
areas with outwash deposits as well as upland areas with marine sedimentary deposits.
Areas that provide nutrient retention and loss are concentrated in lowlands, while groundwater
nutrient retention is associated with surficial aquifers. Valley bottoms provide functions such as
nitrogen loss and some temporary storage of phosphorous. Upland areas or terraces are areas
where nitrification (transformation) occurs. Headwater streams play a greater role in the
temporary storage of nitrogen from biotic uptake and adsorption. Upland depressional wetlands
provide storage (phosphorous, nitrogen), transformation (nitrogen) and loss (nitrogen). Areas
with the full suite of loss/retention mechanisms occur primarily in the floodplains and to a lesser
extent in the low-slope areas of WRIA 17.
Metals occur in trace concentrations in nature, but metals and other toxins are introduced by
human actions as well. The process of metal/toxin inputs under natural conditions versus human
input is not easily discernable. Storage of metals occurs through adsorption in wetlands with clay
or organic soils. Information regarding wetland soil composition is not readily available.
Therefore, it is assumed that wetlands throughout Jefferson County may provide increased rates
of metal/toxin retention.
Sediment Processes 21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Process-intensive areas for sediment delivery and transport processes include landslide-prone
areas and steep slopes with erodible soils (Maps 6 and 7). Areas of mass wasting are most
common in the western Olympic Mountains and foothills, where relief is more extreme and
precipitation is high. Surface erosion areas are mainly located in hilly areas along the Big and
Little Quilcene Rivers, Dabob Bay, Hood Canal, and Tala Point. Streambanks and lakeshores are
also important sediment sources.
In Jefferson County, much of the agricultural land is along the relatively flat areas of the
Chimacum Creek valley and the Leland Creek valley where soils are typically quite permeable
and precipitation usually falls at a low intensity. Nonetheless, the extent of agricultural land use
and the level of associated soil disturbance make these areas a source of increased sediment
supply. Bare areas can erode and redistribute sediment in the fields, but delivery to streams or
wetlands is limited to areas near the water bodies because of the low runoff rates.
Organic Debris Inputs 34
35
36
37
38
39
Process intensive areas for organic debris inputs including LWD generally include riparian areas
within 150 to 200 feet of aquatic resources or within the aquatic resource boundaries. Channel
migration zones (CMZs) and areas of mass wasting also deliver LWD to streams. This includes
designated CMZs on the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, the Duckabush River, and the
Dosewallips River in eastern Jefferson County (Klawon, 2004) as well as the CMZs identified on
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-62 November 2008
the Hoh River in western Jefferson County (USBOR, 2004; Perkins Geosciences and Terra
Logic, 2004). Because the extent of the CMZs is not known for most streams and rivers in
western Jefferson County, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year
floodplain was used to delineate the extent of potential LWD recruitment from channel migration
and bank erosion.
1
2
3
4
5
WRIA 16 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Process intensive areas important to infiltration and recharge are typically associated with
surficial aquifers and alluvium in the lower Dosewallips and Duckabush River valleys. Surface
water storage occurs in the lower river valleys as well, along with two small lakes identified near
Black Point. The river corridors also support wetlands and CMZs, although the CMZs are
disconnected in the lower watersheds where Highway 101 crosses the estuaries.
There are extensive areas of rain-on-snow and extensive snow-dominated areas within the ONP
in this WRIA. Most of these areas are vegetated with late seral stage forest stands suggesting that
runoff and peak flow patterns are relatively intact (Map 2) . Landslide-prone areas of the upper
Dosewallips River watershed and steeper slope areas of the lower watersheds contribute to
sediment transport processes, but road density on most subbasins is less than 1 mile per
watershed square mile and most of the erodible and landslide-prone areas are covered with
mature forest (Map 6).
WRIA 17 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Process-intensive areas for hydrology include critical aquifer recharge areas associated with
highly to moderately permeable soils and low slopes (Map 2). Surface water storage is found
primarily along the floodplains of the lower Big Quilcene River, Snow Creek, Chimacum Creek,
and Tarboo Creek. There are several lakes in this WRIA, mostly occurring in outwash plains
and upland plateaus containing poorly drained till and fine-grained outwash. Rain-on-snow
zones and snow-dominated are concentrated in the upper Big and Little Quilcene River
watersheds within the ONP, and small areas of commercial forest and rural residential land in the
Discovery Bay watershed (Map 6).
Wetlands are abundant along Chimacum Creek, as well as Snow and Tarboo Creeks, lower Little
Quilcene River, Quilcene Bay, and inner Dabob Bay (Map 4).
CMZs on the Big Quilcene River, landslide-prone areas on steeper slopes in the mountains of
Big Quilcene and Discovery Bay watersheds, and steep shorelines along Discovery Bay,
Quilcene Bay, and Dabob Bay contribute to sediment processes in the WRIA. CMZs are
disconnected in the lower Little Quilcene River due to Center Road crossing the estuary. Other
floodplains/CMZs have also been impaired, such as Big Quilcene River and Salmon/Snow Creek
(Todd, personal communication, 2006).
May and Petersen (2003) identified salmon nodal corridors as part of their comprehensive
salmon refugia study. The report delineates freshwater refugia as one of two types: “Focal Sub-
Watershed” or “Nodal-Riparian Corridor.” Generally, a “Focal Sub-Watershed” designation is
more appropriate for headwater areas, while a “Nodal-Riparian Corridor” designation is more
appropriate for lower reaches of a stream, or streams that are confined within steep-sloped
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-63
valleys. One type is not necessarily “better” than the other; it is a matter of which type of refugia
fits the specific situation in the field, and which type will be more effective for conserving
salmon habitat (Figure 3-10)
1
2
3 3
WRIA 18 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
The portion of this WRIA within Jefferson County falls entirely within the ONP. A large part of
the watershed within the ONP is underlain by relatively impermeable bedrock. These generally
mountainous areas receive large amounts of precipitation and, therefore, have the potential for
large amounts of recharge. However, recharge in these areas is probably limited by the water-
bearing and transmission properties of the bedrock rather than by precipitation amounts or soil-
moisture characteristics (USGS, 2000). Process-intensive areas for infiltration and recharge,
surface water storage, and groundwater flow generally occur outside of Jefferson County. Most
of the recharge in the Elwha-Morse watershed is from precipitation (snow and rain), probably
with some small local amounts by seepage from streams. The groundwater moves slowly from
recharge areas to discharge areas such as lakes, springs, streams, wetlands, and the Strait of Juan
de Fuca (USGS, 2000). Available information indicates that wetlands are associated with the
Elwha River corridor, and rain-on-snow occurs in mid-elevations throughout the WRIA. No
information was available on sediment transport and delivery or channel migration in the upper
watersheds of WRIA 18.
WRIA 20 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Approximately half of WRIA 20 within Jefferson County falls within the ONP, while the
remainder is primarily commercial forest. Process-intensive areas for hydrology are primarily
the floodplains of the Hoh and Bogachiel Rivers, Mosquito Creek, Goodman Creek, and
Steamboat Creek. No lakes have been identified within this WRIA. Rain-on-snow zones have
been identified in the middle to high elevations of the upper Bogachiel, upper and middle Hoh,
and Hoh south fork watersheds.
Process-intensive areas for water quality include the wetlands along the Hoh River corridor, as
well as around Goodman Creek, lower Bogachiel River, and middle Hoh watershed boundaries.
Large coastal wetlands on the lower Hoh River also contribute to water quality processes.
Sediment transport and delivery processes are maintained by landslide-prone areas along the
steep slopes of the Bogachiel River, middle Hoh River, and areas near Goodman Creek as well
as along the coast. CMZ studies have not been conducted in WRIA 20; therefore, LWD
recruitment and sediment storage, transport, and delivery processes remain uncharacterized.
3 See section 3.3.2.2 for a description of the nodal corridor categories.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-64 November 2008
Figure 3-10. Salmon Nodal Riparian Corridor and Focal Sub-watershed
for Eastern Jefferson County (May and Peterson, 2003)
WRIA 21 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Approximately 70 percent of the Queets/Quinault WRIA 21 lies within the ONP/ONF. The
remainder is primarily commercial and rural forest. Available information regarding process-
intensive areas for hydrology indicates that infiltration and recharge may occur along highly
permeable soils along the Queets River, Matheny Creek, and Clearwater River corridors.
Surface water storage and water quality processes are likely to occur in wetland areas along the
Queets and Quinault River, the lower reaches of the Clearwater River, and coastal wetland areas,
as well as floodplains of the lower Queets and Clearwater Rivers. No large lakes have been
mapped within this WRIA in Jefferson County, although smaller alpine lakes are likely to occur
within the ONP. Rain-on-snow zones have been mapped in the middle to high elevations in the
upper watershed of the Queets, Quinault, and Clearwater Rivers, primarily within the ONP.
Sediment transport and delivery processes are maintained by landslide-prone areas on the steep
slopes of the upper Queets and Quinault Rivers and the Kalaloch Creek watershed, as well as
areas of moderate soil permeability along the lower Queets River.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-65
3.3.2.6 Freshwater Process Alterations 1
Land use and associated changes in land cover are the sources of altered processes that impair
aquatic resources. The montane and foothill regions are subject primarily to forest practices, and
forests are still the dominant land cover. The loss of hydrologically mature forest cover and the
addition of roads are major causes of altered processes (Coffin and Harr, 1992 as cited in Stanley
et al., 2005a). In addition, lost wetlands, particularly evident in the Chimacum Creek basin, and
development on permeable deposits have altered processes in each WRIA (Maps 2 - 4). A
number of urbanizing areas are located along the shorelines of east Jefferson County, including
the City of Port Townsend and smaller pockets of urbanization such as Port Ludlow, Irondale,
Hadlock, Quilcene, and Brinnon. Areas of high road density indicate potential for increased
mass wasting. High road densities (more than 2 miles of road per square mile of watershed) can
be found in half of the watersheds within the County. Surface erosion zones are indicated by
areas where roads cross streams and by non-forested areas on erodible soils (Maps 6 and 7).
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
According to Ecology’s watershed characterization, the Chimacum valley and Port Townsend
area scored highest for relative degree of alteration of water processes compared to other areas of
the east County (Figure 3-11) (Ecology, 2007). This is due primarily to forest clearing, wetland
loss, and impervious surface from urban/suburban development. A significant portion of the
lowland area scored “moderate” for alteration due primarily to forest clearing and wetland loss.
The Olympic Mountains, Toandos and Bolton Peninsulas have large areas of low alteration,
except for the mouths of the Little Quilcene and the Dosewallips Rivers due to impervious cover
and forest clearing (Ecology, 2007).
The City of Port Townsend diverts water from the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers (2005 City of
Port Townsend Annual Drinking Water Report available at
http://www.cityofpt.us/NewsLetter/2005/05.pdf). The City and Crown-Zellerbach constructed
the Big Quilcene diversion and 28.5 miles of transmission pipe between the Big Quilcene River
and Port Townsend in 1927. The Little Quilcene River diversion was developed in 1956 as a
supplemental supply to the Big Quilcene River. A diversion dam constructed on the Little
Quilcene River conveys water via a pipeline to Lords Lake Reservoir.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-66 November 2008
Figure 3-11. Areas of High, Medium, and Low Alteration, Eastern Jefferson County
(Ecology, 2007)
WRIA 16 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Process-intensive areas for infiltration/recharge are typically found in the lower watersheds of
the large river valleys. Early seral stage vegetation and development (including impervious
surface area) is seen in these areas, primarily north of the river mouths. The Duckabush and
Dosewallips River floodplains are disconnected where Highway 101 crosses the estuaries. Rain-
on-snow and snow-dominated zones are found primarily in the mountains and foothills. The peak
runoff mechanism is altered where transitional areas occur in rain-on-snow zones. Generally,
though, most rain-on-snow zones are within the ONP and at least partially forested.
Hood Head
is a
protection
area (color
not shown)
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 3-67
Water quality alterations can occur from agricultural operations, failing septic systems, lost
wetlands, and residential land use. Within WRIA 16, residential land use is concentrated near
the marine shoreline, but septic systems are prevalent throughout the lower river valleys as well
as along the marine shoreline. Large clearcuts, numerous roads, and often inadequate riparian
vegetation buffer zones occur on state-owned and private forest lands. Mass wasting events in
the lower Duckabush watershed have been directly linked to improper forest road construction,
maintenance, and/or abandonment (Correa, 2003). Early seral stage vegetation is concentrated in
the lower watersheds (Map 2);most of the watershed is characterized by late seral stage
vegetation. Development on permeable deposits is apparent in the lower watersheds, particularly
along the lower 2 miles of the north side of the Dosewallips River, several areas within a mile of
the shore between the Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers, and the vicinity of lower Fulton
Creek.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Road density in WRIA 16 is generally low (less than 1 mile of road per watershed square mile)
(Map 6). Road crossings of streams are abundant in the lower Dosewallips and Duckabush River
watersheds, leading to alterations in sediment delivery processes in WRIA 16. Other factors are
channel confinement of major streams, and localized loss of mature forest cover in erosion–
prone areas (Map 6). Most of the WRIA is forested, and the areas outside of the ONP generally
have low to moderate landslide potential (Map 4). Roads within 200 feet of streams are present
throughout the WRIA, paralleling the mainstems of the major rivers in the upper watersheds and
clustering near the coast. In addition, recent clearcut areas have been identified in the lower
Duckabush River and Fulton Creek, adding to alterations of sediment and hydrological
processes.
WRIA 17 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Process-intensive areas of infiltration/recharge are found along the river corridors of the lower
Big Quilcene River (Map 2). Early seral stage vegetation and human influence (including
impervious surface area) is seen throughout the County, with high concentrations in the Little
Quilcene and Snow Creek drainage basins. Other alterations within process-intensive areas
include conversion of large areas of wetland in the upper Chimacum Creek drainage to
agricultural use, and floodplain disconnection along the Little Quilcene River where Highway
101 crosses the estuary. Alterations to peak flow in the Snow Creek basin may result from early
lack of forested areas within rain-on-snow zones. However, most rain-on-snow and snow-
dominated zones are within the ONP and are mostly well forested.
Residential land use within WRIA 17 is concentrated in Port Townsend, Port Ludlow, and
Quilcene. These areas generally do not coincide with process-intensive areas for hydrology.
However, agriculture and septic systems are abundant outside of the urban areas, particularly
along the Quimper Peninsula, Marrowstone Island, Chimacum Creek, and the shorelines of Hood
Canal and Dabob and Quilcene Bays (Map 4). These are likely to alter water quality processes
in wetlands and estuaries by introducing pathogens and nutrients. Large clearcuts and
inadequate riparian zones occur on state-owned and private forest lands (Correa, 2002). Early
seral stage vegetation occurs throughout the WRIA, but is primarily concentrated in the lower
elevations. Development on permeable deposits is apparent in patches throughout the WRIA, but
large areas of human disturbance are apparent along Snow Creek and the Discovery Bay
shoreline, Port Townsend, Irondale and Chimacum Creek, and Port Ludlow.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 3-68 November 2008
Road density is relatively high (greater than 2 miles of road per watershed square mile)
throughout WRIA 17. Consequently, roads within 200 feet of streams are abundant throughout
the WRIA. As in WRIA 16, road crossings of streams, channel confinement, and localized
removal of mature forest are key factors leading to alterations in sediment delivery processes in
WRIA 17 (Map 4). Much of the WRIA remains forested, and most areas have little to low
landslide potential. Mass wasting events in the Snow Creek and Chimacum Creek watersheds
have been directly linked to improper forest road construction, maintenance, and/or
abandonment (Correa, 2002).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
WRIA 18 9
10
11
12
13
No alterations have been identified within WRIA 18 in Jefferson County. This area falls entirely
within the ONP, and is either forested or glaciated. In Jefferson County, few roads within 200
feet of streams have been identified; a few were mapped along the Elwha and Dungeness River
mainstems.
WRIA 20 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Process-intensive areas of infiltration/recharge are typically found in the lower watersheds of the
large river valleys. Overall, because much of WRIA 20 supports federal lands and forestry,
alterations to infiltration/recharge are not likely to be as significant as other hydrology
alterations. Early seral stage vegetation is seen primarily in logged areas within the Hoh River
watershed. Human influence (including impervious surface area and septic systems) is limited to
small settlements along the middle and lower Hoh River (Map 3) and Clearwater Village.
Floodplain connectivity in the Sol Duc basin is at risk. Impacts such as fill for road construction,
and vegetation changes due to logging, agriculture, and development are reducing these already
limited habitats (U.S. Forest Service, 1995 as cited in Smith, 2000).
Channel migration zones have been identified on various reaches of the Hoh River by Perkins
Geosciences and TerraLogic GIS (2004), the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2004), and Herrera
Environmental Consultants and Northwest Hydraulics (2002). These CMZs are important for
sediment and hydrologic processes and for maintaining habitat. The studies were conducted in
part to help identify management strategies for maintaining infrastructure, responding to
flooding, and restoring habitat conditions for salmon and other species. Figures 3-12 and 3-13
depict a portion of the identified CMZ. Readers are encouraged to review the individual reports
for additional information.
Channel incision within the North Fork Calawah and lower Bogachiel basins due to a
combination of excessive sedimentation and a lack of LWD has resulted in ratings of “poor” for
floodplain condition along the North Fork Calawah River and lower Bogachiel mainstem (Smith,
2000). Most rain-on-snow and snow-dominated zones are within ONP and at least partially
forested (Map 3).
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
-
1
2
.
L
o
w
e
r
H
o
h
R
i
v
e
r
C
M
Z
,
J
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
(P
e
r
k
i
n
s
G
e
o
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
a
n
d
T
e
r
r
a
L
o
g
i
c
2
0
0
4
)
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
page 3-69
pa
g
e
3
-
7
0
November 2008
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
-
1
3
.
H
o
h
R
i
v
e
r
C
M
Z
,
R
M
5
t
o
R
M
1
4
,
J
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
(H
e
r
r
e
r
a
a
n
d
N
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
H
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
s
2
0
0
4
)
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
May 2007 page 3-71
Road density is relatively high (greater than 2 miles of road per watershed square mile) in the
lower elevation watersheds of WRIA 20 (Map 7). Consequently, road crossings of streams are a
major factor leading to alterations in sediment delivery processes in WRIA 20. Roads within
200 feet of streams are extremely common, particularly along Goodman Creek and the lower
Bogachiel River. Much of the WRIA falls within ONP and tribal land, and there are few
potential landslide areas outside of this, with the exception of the Bogachiel River. Recent
clearcut areas have been identified in the middle and lower Hoh River watersheds, further
contributing to sediment delivery process alterations. LWD processes and riparian conditions
have been classified as poor for most of the lower basins within this WRIA (Smith, 2000).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
WRIA 21 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Process-intensive areas of infiltration/recharge are typically found in the lower watersheds of the
large river valleys. Overall, because much of WRIA 21 supports federal lands and forestry,
alterations to infiltration/recharge are not likely to be as significant as other hydrology
alterations. Early seral stage vegetation is seen primarily in logged areas within the lower
Clearwater River and lower Queets River watersheds (Map 3). Human influence (including
impervious surface area and septic systems) is limited to the town of Queets, as well as septic
systems within the highly permeable floodplain area of the Clearwater River. Most rain-on-snow
zones are within the ONP and are forested.
Road density is high (greater than 2 miles of road per watershed square mile) in the lower
elevation watersheds of WRIA 21 (Map 7). Consequently, road crossings of streams are a major
factor leading to alterations in sediment delivery processes. Roads within 200 feet of streams are
densely distributed throughout the WRIA, but particularly in the Clearwater River, lower Queets
River, and Matheny Creek basins.
A majority of the WRIA falls within federal and tribal land, and there are few potential landslide
areas outside of this. The increased incidence of landslides and debris flows has affected
tributary habitat in the Matheny Creek watershed (Smith and Caldwell, 2001). Soil erodibility
has not been mapped for this WRIA.
Bank armoring is not a major concern within the Queets River basin, but road crossings in the
lower watershed and Matheny Creek have disconnected floodplains and increased sedimentation
in the river. No information is available on floodplain connectivity in the Clearwater River and
Kalaloch Creek watersheds (Smith and Caldwell, 2001). Riparian conditions for the upper
Quinault River have been classified as “good.” Conditions are mostly “good” throughout the
Queets basin, except in the lower Queets and lower Clearwater River and Kalaloch Creek basins,
where conditions are mixed (Smith and Caldwell, 2001).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-1
4.0 REACH INVENTORY AND ANALYSES 1
This chapter builds on the watershed overviews provided in Chapter 3 and describes conditions
directly adjacent to individual shoreline segments (or reaches). According to the state shoreline
guidelines (WAC 173-26-201(3)(c)), local governments are required to inventory and report
available information at the shoreline reach scale as follows:
2
3
4
5
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
• Shoreline and adjacent land use patterns and transportation and utility facilities, including 6
the extent of existing structures, impervious surfaces, vegetation, and shoreline
modifications within shoreline jurisdiction;
• Critical areas, including wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife habitat 9
conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas, and frequently flooded areas;
• Degraded areas and sites with potential for ecological restoration1 ;
• Areas of special interest, such as priority habitats, developing or redeveloping harbors
and waterfronts, previously identified toxic or hazardous material clean-up sites, dredged
material disposal sites, or eroding shorelines;
• Conditions and regulations in shoreland and adjacent areas that affect shorelines, such as
surface water management and land use regulations;
• Existing and potential shoreline public access sites, including public rights-of-way and
utility corridors;
• General location of channel migration zones (CMZs) and floodplains; and
• Known cultural, historical, and archeological resources.
This section describes pertinent information for planning area reaches for each shoreline water
body under SMA jurisdiction, to the extent that such information is readily available. Shoreline
areas are grouped according to WRIAs and to general geographic areas (i.e., Southern Toandos
Peninsula). Subwatershed names are listed parenthetically as shown on maps 1a and 1b. Each
nearshore reach is assigned a unique alpha designation, and each freshwater reach has a numeric
designation for purposes of this study. Nearshore reaches are also identified according to the
corresponding alpha-numeric drift cell identifier as reported by various sources and documented
in the Washington Coastal Atlas and shown on maps in Appendix B (maps from the County’s
2005 Shoreline Inventory).
Maps depicting inventory information are provided in the map folio that accompanies this report
(Appendix C). Maps 8 through 28 depict shoreline reach attributes as indicated in Table 4-1.
Data sources for the inventory attributes reported in this Chapter are indicated in Table 2-3 or
otherwise cited in the text.
1 Potential restoration areas and opportunities are also described in the Draft Restoration Plan, which is being
prepared under a separate cover.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-2 November 2008
Table 4-1. Map Locations for Reach-scale Attributes
Theme Map Name/ No.
Shoreline Reaches
Shoreline Planning Area
Watersheds
Wetlands
Floodplains
CMZs
Maps 8, 9, and 10 Aquatic
Resources and Shoreline
Reaches
Shoreline Modifications (nearshore)
Shore Form Type
Feeder Bluffs (not mapped)
Maps 11, 12, and 13.
Coastal Processes and
Modifications
Drift Cells
Landslide Hazard
Landslide Hazard Zonation
Erosion Hazard
Maps 14, 15, and 16.
Critical Areas
Priority Fish Presence
Priority Habitat Areas
Marine Resource Species (geoduck, urchin,
oyster, crab, clam, razor clam, surf smelt, sand
lance, herring)
Maps 17, 18, and 19.
Critical Shoreline Habitat
Eelgrass
Kelp
Map 20. Aquatic Vegetation
Land Use / Land Ownership
Shoreline Features
Zoning
Publicly Owned Tidelands
Maps 21, 22, and 23. Land
and Shoreline Use Patterns
Commercial Shellfish Growing Areas
Biotoxin Closure Zones
Recreational Harvest Beaches
Map 24. Shellfish
Harvesting
Forest Cover
Impervious Surface
Map 25. Forest Cover and
Impervious Surface
Marine Shoreline Geomorphic Landforms
Lagoons, Salt Marshes, and Intertidal Wetlands
Shoreline Slope Stability
Landslide Hazard
Erosion Hazard
Maps 26 and 27.
Geomorphic Classes
As discussed in Chapter 1, shorelines of the state were originally codified by Ecology in the
early 1970s in WAC 173-18 and 173-20. This list had not been updated until recently, when
Ecology revised the list of shoreline streams using data from several regional flow studies
conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 1998)
1
2
3
4
5
6
2 . The results of the USGS study showed
that numerous streams that are not currently designated as shorelines of the state may actually
meet the 20 cfs mean annual flow criterion and should be regulated as state shorelines. In other
2 The revised list has not been codified, but Ecology is currently in the process of revising state jurisdiction
regulations to allow for incorporation of new data during the local SMP amendment process.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-3
cases, the USGS study relocated the upstream boundary of the 20 cfs point further upstream or
downstream from its WAC-designated location. In many cases the new stream flow data show
the 20 cfs points in headwaters areas on federal lands, which may or may not be subject to
County SMP jurisdiction. The revised list of streams in Jefferson County meeting the 20 cfs
mean annual flow criterion is provided in Table 1-1. Mapping of rivers and streams depicted on
Maps 1A and 1B in Appendix C have been updated to account for the USGS 1998 study, with
most revisions to the codified list of WAC 173-18 and 173-20 occurring on streams located in
the western portion of Jefferson County. For comparative purposes, Map 1C depicts shorelines
of the state as designated by WAC 173-18 and 173-20 with the updated mapping of shorelines
of the state using the USGS 1998 information. All maps in Appendix C depicting the shoreline
planning area associated with shorelines of the state include mapping updated per the 20 cfs
information (USGS 1998).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Within Chapter 4, the additional streams and lakes are not discussed within the text.
Alternatively, Appendix D provides general inventory information for newly added streams and
lakes known to be under County jurisdiction. Refer to WRIA information within Appendix D to
determine the appropriate section of the following discussion that applies most directly to any
feature.
4.1 WRIA 16 - SKOKOMISH-DOSEWALLIPS 18
The Skokomish-Dosewallips basin encompasses an area of about 660 square miles in
northwestern Mason County and southeastern Jefferson County (Figure 4-1). The physiography
ranges from the peaks of the Olympic Mountains in the western portion of the basin, to the
flatlands of the Skokomish River valley. Principal drainages in the basin are the Dosewallips,
Duckabush, Hamma Hamma, and Skokomish Rivers, with many smaller streams along Hood
Canal. There are 557 identified streams providing over 825 linear miles of rivers, tributaries, and
independent streams in the basin. Main streams and rivers within Jefferson County include
Fulton Creek, McDonald Creek, Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers, and Turner Creek.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 Figure 4-1. WRIA 16 in Southeast Jefferson County
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-4 November 2008
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
In WRIA 16, high-elevation snowfields in the Olympic Mountains direct runoff of precipitation,
and groundwater baseflows maintain stream flows. Natural storage of water occurs in snowpack,
lakes, wetlands, and groundwater, which collectively function to moderate extreme high- and
low-flow stream conditions. Sixty percent of the land area in WRIA 16 is located within the
ONP and ONF. The remaining 40 percent is state and privately owned. Commercial forestry is
one of the primary land uses in the basin. Hydroelectric dams have significantly changed the
streamflow regime of the North Fork of the Skokomish River. Development in the basin is
concentrated along the coast. Agricultural activity is concentrated in the lower Skokomish River
valley. Shellfish in Hood Canal are important to both tribal interests and the private sector
(Golder Associates, 2002).
4.1.1 Fulton Creek Nearshore (Hood Canal West Shore Lower) 12
4.1.1.1 Overview (Map 1a) 13
Fulton Creek flows out of the foothills of the Olympic Mountains into Hood Canal north of
Triton Cove. Most of the upper watershed is within the ONF. This nearshore segment extends
from the Mason/Jefferson County line, just north of Triton Cove, to the north side of McDaniel
Cove. The estuary of Fulton Creek provides significant habitat for salmonids and other wildlife,
and there is a small estuary where McDonald Creek enters McDaniel Cove. Notable human
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-5
impacts to the shoreline in this segment are vacation homes with associated shoreline armoring
and docks, and Highway 101.
1
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
4.1.1.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 8) 3
Reach A: County line north to the terminus of drift cell JE-30.
Reach B: Drift cell JE-29/JE-30.
Reach C: Drift cell JE-29.
4.1.1.3 Physical Environment (Maps 11, 14 and 26) 7
North of the Mason County line, Reach A is an area of no appreciable drift. This reach is
composed of about 400 meters of basalt from the Crescent Formation dating from the Middle
Eocene (Ecology, 1978). To the north begins drift cell JE-30, with net shore-drift to the northeast
for 1.7 kilometer (km). This drift cell contains two areas of significant fluvial input, Fulton Creek
and a smaller, unnamed drainage approximately 0.5 mile south of Fulton Creek. The drift cell
terminates 550 yards to the northeast of where Fulton Creek passes under Highway 101
(Johannessen, 1992). Uplands within this drift cell are composed largely of Vashon lodgement
till and an area of Vashon Recessional Outwash around Fulton Creek. The bluffs in this drift cell
are considered unstable south of Fulton Creek, and there is at least one area of recent landsliding
(Ecology, 1978).
The Reach B shoreline is composed of basalt for 0.5 mile to the northeast, and there is no
appreciable net shore-drift (Johannessen, 1992).
Reach C, or drift cell JE-29, originates 0.5 mile northeast of the mouth of Fulton Creek. Net
shore-drift continues for 640 yards to the McDaniel Creek delta. Indications of northeasterly drift
include sediment accumulations along the southwestern side of numerous rock outcroppings,
which partially interrupt the flow of sediment in this cell, and a decrease in sediment size over
the length of the cell (Johannessen, 1992). The uplands along this drift cell are composed of
basalt with some overlying glacial till deposits (Ecology, 1978).
Much of the shoreline in this area is mapped as landslide hazard area with unstable slopes.
4.1.1.4 Biological Resources (Maps 17, 20, 24 and 26) 27
Eelgrass is patchy throughout Reach A, and there is little or no overhanging riparian vegetation.
Eelgrass is continuous for 360 yards to the south of the unnamed drainage 0.5 mile south of
Fulton Creek. Riparian vegetation is largely absent from the southern portion of Reach A.
Twenty percent of the upland planning area of Reach A is wetland, with estuarine – intertidal
(mix of aquatic bed/unconsolidated shore and unconsolidated shore) as the primary wetland
classifications.
Eelgrass beds and Sargassum are patchy throughout Reach B. Riparian vegetation increases to
the north, covering approximately 40 percent of the northern part of Reach B. Within the upland
planning area of Reach B, 4 percent of the land area is unconsolidated shore wetland.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-6 November 2008
The Fulton Creek delta has numerous salt marsh habitats and tidal streams. Coho, fall chum,
cutthroat trout, steelhead, and pink salmon spawn in Fulton Creek. In addition, the estuary was
found to be important habitat for juvenile coho, chum, and Chinook salmon. May and Peterson
(2003) classified the Fulton Creek estuary as an NSE Category B refugia. Some of this fish use is
clearly non-natal and indicates the importance of this estuary as part of the regional salmonid
migratory corridor (Hirschi et al., 2003a).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
The estuary is an approved shellfish harvest area and the shoreline north of Fulton Creek has
patchy oyster and mussel beds and abundant although patchy Sargassum, although there is a
shellfish harvest advisory in effect in Reaches A and B. There is patchy eelgrass along Reach C
south of McDaniel Cove and little riparian vegetation. Sargassum is continuous throughout this
reach. Within the cove there are oysters. Coho, cutthroat, and fall chum spawn in McDonald
Creek. Within the planning area of Reach C, 7.5 percent of the land area is wetland, with
estuarine – intertidal (mix of aquatic bed/unconsolidated shore and unconsolidated shore) the
primary wetland classifications.
4.1.1.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 11 and 21) 15
Land Use and Zoning 16
17
18
19
The primary land use in the shoreline planning area is rural residential. Within Reaches A and
B, 100 percent is zoned Rural Residential, while in Reach C, 75 percent is zoned Rural
Residential and the remaining 25 percent is zoned Local Agriculture.
Transportation and Utilities 20
21
22
23
Within Reaches A, B, and C, Jefferson County and WDNR have mapped 3.1 miles and 2.7 miles
of road, respectively. Roadways include Highway 101, with two lanes and shoulder areas, and
several intersecting property access roads.
Shoreline Modifications 24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
There is a boat ramp at Triton Cove State Park and numerous private staircases in this area.
There is extensive bulkheading and fill where the unnamed drainage south of Fulton Creek enters
Hood Canal. This has restricted the access of the stream to the historical delta by pushing the
stream channel to the southern edge of the bulkhead.
Just south of the Fulton Creek delta, a cabin is built onto fill fronted by a bulkhead. The northern
part of Fulton Creek delta is filled, atop which sits a parking lot for a private club. There is fill on
the southern part of the McDaniel Cove estuary and a large berm that juts out from the southern
shore. Fill in the intertidal zone eliminates shallow water habitat for migrating juvenile salmon.
Highway 101 has restricted channel migration where it crosses Fulton Creek and McDonald
Creek, again impacting estuary habitat. A rock jetty that appears to serve no purpose extends
northward near the mouth of McDaniel Cove in the McDonald Creek estuary.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-7
4.1.1.6 Public Access (Map 21) 1
At the small delta created by the unnamed tributary south of Fulton Creek there is a public access
shellfishing site. There is public access to the shoreline at Triton Cove State Park as well as a
boat ramp. The WDFW tideland south of Fulton Creek has public access at a turnout off of
Highway 101. The north side of McDaniel Cove is public tideland with boat access only.
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
4.1.1.7 Restoration Opportunities 6
Removing fill in the Fulton Creek delta, the delta of the unnamed stream south of Fulton Creek,
and from McDaniel Cove would increase shallow water estuarine habitat for migrating juvenile
salmonids. The fill around the mouth of the unnamed stream south of Fulton Creek is owned by
WDFW and used as a parking area for a shellfishing site. Therefore, it is a good candidate for
restoration, as the state already owns the property. Removing or modifying the filled parking
area could create a more functional estuary for the small stream and improve alongshore drift
processes. Removing the jetty at McDonald Creek could also help restore natural processes.
4.1.2 Fulton Creek 14
4.1.2.1 Overview (Map 1a) 15
Fulton Creek flows into Hood Canal north of Triton Cove. Steep concave headwaters drain
bedrock slopes, followed by a reduced gradient channel flowing through a series of glacially
deposited benches. A steep confined section follows downstream, with steep cascade reaches
emptying into a short alluvial fan (Correa, 2003a). This watershed is a designated shoreline of
the state below the point where the South Fork of Fulton Creek meets the mainstem at river mile
(RM) 1.05 (WAC 173-18-200). Of a total of 5,353 acres of watershed, 4,845 acres are within the
ONF.
4.1.2.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 8) 23
Fulton Creek 1: From the stream mouth to the falls.
Fulton Creek 2: From the falls to the confluence of Fulton Creek and South Fork Fulton Creek.
4.1.2.3 Physical Environment (Maps 14, 21, and 25) 26
Land cover in the planning area is 49 percent evergreen forest and 47 percent mixed forest in
Reach 1, and 100 percent evergreen forest in Reach 2. The area surrounding Fulton Creek is
considered to be a landslide hazard area and unstable slopes occur along Reach 1. The Fulton
Creek shoreline is also within a critical aquifer recharge area. There are no mapped or designated
CMZs on Fulton Creek.
Upland vegetation near the Highway 101 crossing, including exotic vegetation, is now displacing
former salt marsh upstream of the highway crossing. The former remnant salt marsh upstream of
the highway appears to have been dredged, possibly due to fill in the intertidal area on the
opposite side of the highway. A minimal amount of low-elevation salt marsh now appears
seaward of the highway crossing (Todd et al., 2006).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-8 November 2008
Riparian habitat is in good condition, with 72 percent of this watershed being hydrologically
mature (i.e., greater than 70 percent crown coverage and less than 75 percent of crown coverage
in hardwoods or shrubs) (Correa, 2003a). Nonetheless, LWD is largely absent from the section
of the stream below the falls (Correa, 2003a). Sediment data for this watershed are lacking,
although sediment supply is likely within historical levels (Correa, 2003a).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Low summer flows within the stream limit salmonid rearing. In addition, Fulton Creek is listed
as a Category 5 water for temperature according to Ecology’s 2004 Water Quality Assessment.
4.1.2.4 Biological Resources (Map 17) 8
Fulton Creek supports coho, fall chum, and pink salmon spawning, as well as cutthroat and
steelhead trout. There are no known artificial barriers to anadromous fish in this section of the
stream; however, there is a barrier at the natural falls at RM 0.9 (Correa, 2003a). The available
habitat below the anadromous barrier has supported up to 100 coho and 1,000 fall chum as
recently as 1996, but these numbers of spawners have not been seen since. Escapement goals
have not been set for this watershed (Correa, 2003a). There are very few pieces of LWD in the
lower reach to the falls (Todd, 2003 as cited in Correa, 2003a). May and Peterson (2003) listed
Fulton Creek as a Class A Nodal Riparian Corridor in their study of salmonid refugia in
Jefferson County. A Nodal Riparian Corridor is one in which natural ecological integrity has
been retained and the historical population and diversity of salmonids remain largely intact.
Therefore, this stream continues to have some of the best remaining habitat for salmon in east
Jefferson County (May and Peterson, 2003). There are 1.4 acres of wetlands located near the
mouth of Fulton Creek, all classified as palustrine scrub/shrub (Correa, 2003a).
4.1.2.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 21 and 25) 22
Land Use and Zoning 23
24
25
The planning area is zoned 57 percent Commercial Forest and 43 percent Rural Residential in
Reach 1, and 100 percent Commercial Forest in Reach 2.
Transportation and Utilities 26
27 WDNR has mapped 0.2 mile of road within the Reach 1 planning area.
Shoreline Modifications 28
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
There are four areas of bank armoring and/or diking in the lower watershed, including bank
armoring and dredging just upstream of the Highway 101 crossing (Todd et al., 2006). This
results in a loss of floodplain habitat. However, the dredged area now serves as a lagoon habitat
supporting chum salmon spawning (Ron Hirschi, personal communication, as cited in Todd et
al., 2006). Fill associated with and immediately downstream of Highway 101 eliminates some
estuary habitat (Correa, 2003a; Ecology, 2001).
4.1.2.6 Public Access (Map 21) 35
None identified.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-9
4.1.2.7 Restoration Opportunities 1
Restoration opportunities identified for Fulton Creek within the Habitat Limiting Factors
Analysis include restoring estuary function, removing the old levee near RM 0.4, replacing
culverts in the upper watershed, and protecting and restoring riparian function in the lower reach
to the falls (Correa, 2003a).
2
3
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
4.1.3 Duckabush River and Black Point Nearshore (Duckabush River) 6
4.1.3.1 Overview (Map 1a) 7
From the northern edge of McDaniel Cove to the northern edge of Pleasant Harbor is a marine
shoreline that encompasses the major estuary of the Duckabush River and Black Point. The area
south of the Duckabush River is primarily a basaltic shoreline with a few pocket beaches.
Residential development is concentrated just south of the Duckabush delta and on the north and
east sides of Black Point and around Pleasant Harbor. There is a marina in the naturally protected
anchorage of Pleasant Harbor. Significant habitats in this area include the sparsely developed
marine shoreline north of McDaniel Cove, the Duckabush River and delta, the south side of
Black Point, and Quatsap Point spit. The Duckabush River Bridge is on the National Register of
Historic Places.
4.1.3.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 8) 17
Reach D: North shore of McDaniel Cove (terminus of drift cell JE-29) to start of drift cell JE-28.
Reach E: Duckabush delta to the edge of Quatsap Point (drift cell JE-28).
Reach F: From the origin of drift cell JE-27 to the tip of Quatsap Point spit.
Reach G: Area of no net drift around Black Point.
Reach H: From north to south entrances of Pleasant Harbor.
4.1.3.3 Physical Environment (Maps 11, 14 and 26) 23
The Duckabush River estuary formed following the most recent glaciation, when large volumes
of sediment were carried downstream through a glacially carved valley to form the delta fan at
Hood Canal. Historically there were at least two distributary channels within the delta fan. The
northernmost branch is now a blind channel that has been disconnected from the current main
channel, probably since the Highway 101 causeway was built in the 1930s (Todd et al., 2006).
No appreciable net shore-drift occurs within Reach D. In this reach the shore consists of basalt
and isolated pocket beaches (Johannessen, 1992).
Within Reach E, the next drift cell, JE-28, begins at the central portion of the Duckabush River
delta and continues to the cuspate spit at the tip of Quatsap Point. On this high bluff shore, the
abundant sediment sources for the drift cell are alongshore, from the feeder bluff on the south
side of Quatsap Point, and fluvial sources from the Duckabush River (Johannessen, 1992). The
feeder bluff, which is composed of Vashon till overlying older undifferentiated stratified glacial
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-10 November 2008
sediment, is an area of numerous landslides (Ecology, 1978, 2001). The intertidal zone in the
delta is about 750 feet wide and narrows around the south side of Quatsap Point to a 30-foot-
wide beach (WDNR, 2001).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Reach F extends across the first drift cell to the north of Quatsap Point, JE-27, which originates
at the northeast portion of Black Point and has a southward net shore-drift for a mile along a
sinuous shore to Quatsap Point. This area is exposed to northerly and northeasterly fetch that
controls net shore-drift. Evidence of this includes a southward sediment size decrease,
southeastward stream mouth offset, and southeastward progradation of Quatsap Point spit. The
cell terminus is located at Quatsap Point (Johannessen, 1992). Bluffs on the northern half of this
drift cell are composed of Vashon lodgement till and are stable, whereas the bluffs composed of
Vashon advance outwash in the southern half of the drift cell (except for the spit) are unstable
and feed abundant sand and gravel to the intertidal zone. A small drainage that flows through a
tidal lagoon in the middle part of Reach F also contributes fluvial sediment to the intertidal zone
(Ecology, 1978). This lagoon is an unusual tidal feature that is essentially a kettle lake with an
intertidal inlet (Labbe, personal communication, 2004). Kettle lakes are formed when glacial
recessional outwash buries or partially buries large blocks of ice. When the ice melts, if the
depression is not filled with sediment, it can become a pond or lake. Several other kettle type
depressions occur inland on Black Point.
The reach south of Black Point (Reach G) consists of several basalt outcroppings separated by
pocket beaches. There is no net drift in this area.
Pleasant Harbor (Reach H) is a natural harbor bounded on the northwest by Vashon lodgement
till, which is intermediately stable, and on the south by Vashon advance outwash that is
classified as unstable. To the east the shore is composed of Vashon lodgement till and basalt.
There is an accretionary beach at the head of the harbor and beach deposits on both sides of the
mouth of the harbor.
Wetlands compose 23 percent and 49 percent of the planning area in Reaches D and E,
respectively. Fourteen percent or less of the area within all other reaches is composed of
wetland. A majority of the wetlands are estuarine – intertidal, with a mix of aquatic
bed/unconsolidated shore, emergent, and unconsolidated shore composing the remaining
wetlands.
Landslide hazards and/or unstable slopes occur along Reaches D, E, F and H.
4.1.3.4 Biological Resources (Maps 17, 20, 24, and 26) 32
Between the northern edge of McDaniel Cove and the Duckabush delta, there are several areas of
patchy and continuous eelgrass beds, as well as patchy areas of kelp and Sargassum. This
basaltic shoreline supports little riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation increases to 20 percent
just south of the Duckabush delta, but appears to have been adversely affected by residential
clearing (WDNR, 2001).
The Duckabush delta, the south side of Black Point, and Quatsap Point provide abundant quality
habitats. This estuary and delta are used by trumpeter swans and bald eagles, and support
regionally significant winter waterfowl use. Harbor seals haul out here throughout the year and
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-11
pupping occurs in the winter. The extensive mud and gravel flats contain rich shellfish beds with
millions of harvestable oysters and clams (Speck, personnel communication, 2003). Salt marsh
habitat dominates the higher areas of the Duckabush delta. In the lower intertidal and subtidal
zones, eelgrass beds are continuous from the delta to Quatsap Point. Herring use this eelgrass for
spawning (Penttila, 2000). There is abundant riparian vegetation just to the northeast of the delta.
The Duckabush River estuary has been placed on the Washington State Department of Health
2006 list of Shellfish Areas of Concern due to elevated bacteria levels at two stations (WDH,
2006a). At the Reach F terminus at Quatsap Point an exemplary cuspate spit forms, enclosing a
high salt marsh.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Eelgrass beds are patchy throughout Reach F (drift cell JE-27) and herring spawn along the
entire shore (Penttila, 2000). Dune grasses are found at the terminus of the cell. The swimming
lagoon has a unique biology and intertidal community (Hirschi, personal communication, 2003).
The inlet to the lagoon is fringed with salt marsh. The beach north of the outlet is used by sand
lance for spawning. Overhanging riparian vegetation is present over about half of this drift cell
(WDNR, 2001). Surf smelt spawn on the beaches on the north and south sides of Quatsap Point.
Within Reach G, the central pocket beach south of Black Point is a documented sand lance
spawning site (Penttila, 2000). Pacific herring spawn just offshore throughout this area and into
Pleasant Harbor (Reach H) (Bargmann, 1998).
Within Reach H, patchy eelgrass is found throughout Pleasant Harbor, and a narrow eelgrass bed
lines the northern side of the harbor (Correa, 2003a). Salt marsh habitat is found on the north
side of the mouth and at the head of the harbor (WDNR, 2001; Ecology, 1982). Pleasant Harbor
is not listed on Ecology’s 2004 303(d) list; however, the Washington State Department of Health
has prohibited commercial and recreational shellfish harvest in this area (WDH, 2006a, 2006b).
The nearshore area is listed as a Category 2 water of concern for fecal coliform according to the
2004 Ecology Water Quality Assessment. Potential sources of fecal coliform are septic systems
or coliform associated with sediment runoff (Golder Associates, 2002).
4.1.3.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 11 and 21) 27
Land Use and Zoning 28
29
30
A majority of the planning area is zoned Rural Residential, with a small percentage represented
by Local Agriculture and Water.
Transportation and Utilities 31
32
33
34
Roadways include Highway 101 (including two lanes and shoulder areas) along the Duckabush
estuary shoreline and the north shoreline of Pleasant Harbor, and several intersecting property
access roads within Reaches E, F, and G.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-12 November 2008
Shoreline Modifications 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
South of the Duckabush River there are several rail boat launches. Built on fill, Highway 101
cuts across the extensive estuary of the Duckabush River, restricting access to side channels and
limiting channel migration. Several side roads in this vicinity also constrict channels in the
estuary. On the northern edge of the estuary there is cement bulkheading and possible fill of salt
marsh habitat. Some of the homes behind the bulkhead may be built on fill placed over salt
marsh.
Just north of Quatsap Point, bulkheads front a small housing development at Lackawanda Beach.
The bulkhead and adjacent dock may have some effect on the longshore transport of sediment
within drift cell JE-27 to Quatsap Point. Some of these bulkheads front fill and do not appear to
be protecting structures. Farther north, closer to the origin of this drift cell, numerous staircases
lead onto the beach. Approximately 13.8 percent of this drift cell is bulkheaded, primarily in the
sediment transport zone (Hirschi et al., 2003b).
Historically a small salt marsh was located just north of the tidal inlet from the kettle lake, but it
has been filled by residential development (Todd et al., 2006). Within Pleasant Harbor there are
numerous private docks on the south side of the harbor along with two marinas: one smaller
marina just inside the spit, and a larger marina along the north shore. A launch ramp and parking
area also occur at the head of the bay. Shoreline modifications to this drift cell include about 21
percent bulkheading and a number of docks and stairways along the shoreline (Hirschi et al.,
2003b as cited in Todd et al., 2006). In general, shade created by docks can have adverse effects
on eelgrass.
A large infestation of invasive tunicates (invertebrates commonly known as “sea squirts”) has
been documented within Pleasant Harbor (Lambert, 2005). The club tunicate (Styela clava),
native to Korea and Japan, can breed rapidly and form highly dense populations that overtake
and crowd out other forms of marine life.
4.1.3.6 Public Access (Map 21) 26
The Duckabush delta is owned by WDFW and is accessible from Highway 101. Part of the
shoreline on southern Black Point is owned by WDNR and is accessible by boat. There is a state
park with a boat ramp in Pleasant Harbor.
4.1.3.7 Restoration Opportunities 30
Modifying the Highway 101 crossing of the Duckabush delta would allow for more tidal
exchange and channel migration, and would increase salt marsh estuarine habitat. Bulkheads at
Lackawanda Beach that are not protecting structures could be removed to increase upper
intertidal habitat.
Eradication of invasive tunicates in Pleasant Harbor could protect the diversity of native
invertebrates in this area. A November 5, 2005 effort to remove all Styela clava from floating
docks and moored boats from Pleasant Harbor Marina was not completely successful (Lambert,
2005). Divers contracted through WDFW during summer 2006 removed more than 90 pounds of
tunicates from 150 recreational boats at Blaine, Semiahmoo, Pleasant Harbor, and Home Port
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-13
marinas. They also surveyed about 30,000 square meters of docks in the infested marinas,
cleaned about 25 percent of the area, and removed about 2,000 pounds of invasive tunicates
(PSAT, 2006). Future restoration opportunities may include additional invasive tunicate surveys
and removal efforts.
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
4.1.4 Duckabush River (Duckabush River) 5
4.1.4.1 Overview (Map 1a) 6
The Duckabush River is one of the largest rivers flowing into Hood Canal. Its watershed covers
approximately 75 square miles of the eastern Olympic Mountains. The Duckabush mainstem is
24.5 miles long, with 50 tributaries contributing an additional 94.3 stream miles. Average annual
discharge is 411 cfs at RM 4.9 (Correa, 2003a). Summer stream low flows are supported
primarily by snowpack melt. Groundwater-supported baseflow is minimal as a result of the
dominance of bedrock geology (Golder Associates, 2002).
The upper portion of the watershed is protected in the ONP and as USFS wilderness. Shoreline
designation currently stops at the edge of the ONF at RM 2.3; however the County’s jurisdiction
extends to private inholdings within the National Forest. The furthest upstream extent of these
inholdings is just downstream from the gauging station at RM 4.9. In this lower section, the
Duckabush River valley is characterized by steep walls and a relatively wide floodplain.
4.1.4.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 8) 18
Duckabush River 1: From the mouth to the National Forest boundary.
Duckabush River 2: From the National Forest boundary to the edge of the last private inholding.
4.1.4.3 Physical Environment (Maps 14, 21, and 25) 21
The lower two-thirds of the watershed is within the basalt-rich Crescent formation. Limited
alluvial deposits are found along the lower 6 miles (WDFW and PNPTT, 2000 as cited in Correa,
2003a). The river valley walls are generally steep throughout, with a broad floodplain below RM
5.0.
Land cover within the planning area is composed of 60 percent evergreen forest, 28 percent
mixed forest, and 7 percent urban/recreational grasses, with acreages/rural residential
representing the remaining land cover. The slopes of either side of the Duckabush River valley
are mapped as landslide and erosion hazard areas and the CMZ encompasses much of the
floodplain.
Within the ONF, the river is within a riparian reserve program that preserves floodplain riparian
vegetation (Correa, 2003a). Hydrological maturity of the lower 8 miles of watershed is as
follows: approximately 16 percent (181 acres) of the lower watershed is less than 30 years old,
67 percent (7,458 acres) is between 31 and 95 years old, 9 percent (1,022 acres) is between 96
and 297 years old, and 0.3 percent is greater than 297 years old (USFS, 1998). There are recent
clearcuts in the lower 2 miles of the watershed (Correa, 2003a).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-14 November 2008
Wetlands identified in Reach 1 are 71 percent palustrine forested, 13 percent estuarine - intertidal
(associated with river mouth), and 5.5 percent palustrine scrub/shrub.
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Portions of the Duckabush River above Reach 1 are listed as a Category 5 water for temperature
according to Ecology’s 2004 Water Quality Assessment.
4.1.4.4 Biological Resources (Map 17) 5
The Duckabush River riparian corridor below RM 7.5 was designated a Class A Nodal Riparian
Corridor by May and Peterson (2003). Chinook, coho, fall and summer chum, pink salmon, and
steelhead and sea-run cutthroat trout use the entire lower segment of the Duckabush River. There
are no artificial barriers to anadromous fish in this stretch of river. Two large side channels
upstream from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) power lines are used heavily by
chum salmon for spawning. The river has recently broken through the head of one of these side
channels and it may become the new main channel (Correa, 2003a). Of the salmon stocks in the
Duckabush River, Chinook salmon are rated critical; summer chum, pink salmon, and winter
steelhead are considered depressed; and fall chum and coho salmon are considered healthy
according to the Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI) (WDFW, 2000b).
4.1.4.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 21 and 25) 16
Land Use and Zoning 17
18
19
20
Timber harvest is the dominant land use in the lower watershed, both on National Forest lands
and private lands. Between the USFS boundary and the mouth of the river, zoning is Commercial
and Rural Forestry with some Rural Residential.
Transportation and Utilities 21
22
23
24
25
Overall, road density in the watershed is low at 0.6 mile of road per square mile of habitat.
However, in the lower Duckabush, road density is 2.2 miles of road per square mile of watershed
(WDFW and PNPTT, 2000 as cited in Correa, 2003a). Within the planning area of Reach 1,
Jefferson County and WDNR have mapped 1 mile and 1.2 miles of road, respectively.
Shoreline Modifications 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Streambank armoring restricts the floodplain downstream of the National Forest boundary.
Boundaries to the channel migration zone for the Duckabush River were identified as River
Drive, Mountain Trail Road, Kelly Road, Highway 101, and the south bank revetment just west
of the Highway 101 bridge (Perkins and Klawon, 2004). Floodplain connectivity rates fair
overall but poor in the lowest half mile of the river. Below RM 3.0, removal of LWD and rural
residential development have confined the river to a single channel, limiting side channel
spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids.
In the lower Duckabush watershed, roads have contributed to 31 mass wasting events (33 percent
of the total) in the lower 8 miles of watershed. It is estimated that 78 percent of these events
contributed sediment to the river (USFS, 1998). In the lower reaches of the river below the ONF,
impacts of development are evident: 25 percent of the riparian zone (by area) is developed below
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-15
RM 3.0 (12 percent urban/commercial, 9 percent rural residences, and 3 percent dikes and
roads). Approximately 32 percent of the riparian zone contains small trees less than 12 inches in
diameter; 66 percent contains trees of medium diameter between 12 and 20 inches; 2 percent has
no trees; and there are no large trees over 20 inches in diameter (Correa, 2003a).
1
2
3
4
6
8
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
4.1.4.6 Public Access (Map 21) 5
None identified. Some of the tidelands at the mouth of the river are publicly owned.
4.1.4.7 Restoration Opportunities 7
Restoration opportunities include improving road management practices to mitigate altered
sediment processes, enhancing riparian vegetation to improve cover and LWD recruitment
potential, and reconnecting floodplain wetlands and side channels to restore natural channel
forming processes and improve habitat.
4.1.5 Dosewallips River and Brinnon Nearshore (Dosewallips River) 12
4.1.5.1 Overview (Map 1a) 13
This marine shoreline extends from the northern edge of Black Point to the head of Right Smart
Cove north of Brinnon. It includes three drift cells and the large estuary and river delta of the
Dosewallips River. The Dosewallips River is the largest river in eastern Jefferson County with a
watershed draining the northeastern Olympic Mountains. The town of Brinnon is located north of
the lower Dosewallips River. There is a small commercial district in Brinnon and several
residential neighborhoods. There are numerous residential and vacation homes both north and
south of Brinnon on Hood Canal.
4.1.5.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 8) 21
Reach I: Drift cells JE-26 and JE-25, northeastern edge of Pleasant Harbor to south edge of
Dosewallips River delta.
Reach J: Dosewallips River delta to the start of drift cell JE-24 in Right Smart Cove.
4.1.5.3 Physical Environment (Maps 11, 14 and 26) 25
Drift cell JE-26 is a short (550-yard) drift cell within Reach I. This drift cell begins at the
northeasternmost basalt outcropping and has a westward and then southwestward net shore-drift
across the northern portion of Black Point and then into Pleasant Harbor. Drift sediment is
derived from Vashon till overlying basalt.
Drift cell JE-25 extends between the Dosewallips River and Pleasant Harbor. It originates at the
southern edge of the Dosewallips River delta, with net shore-drift to the southeast for 2.1 km to
Pleasant Harbor. Northeastward fetch becomes the controlling factor in this area because this
area is sheltered from south winds by Black Point. Southwestward net shore-drift is indicated by
minor southwestward beach width increase, sediment size decrease, and southwestward spit
progradation just inside the mouth of Pleasant Harbor. The end of this spit is the cell terminus
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-16 November 2008
(Johannessen, 1992). There is an abundant fluvial sediment source at the beginning of the cell,
and moderately abundant alongshore sediment in the remainder of the drift cell. Most of the
shoreline of this drift cell is composed of Vashon lodgement till and is considered of
intermediate stability. There is an area of unstable bluff face about 450 meters south of the
southern edge of the Dosewallips delta (Ecology, 1978).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
38
39
40
41
Within Reach J, the Dosewallips estuary includes a deltaic fan with fluvial sediment deposits and
a well-developed tidal marsh system. Spit features mark the outer edge of salt marsh in the north
part of the delta. The forming of the Dosewallips estuary likely occurred with the fluvial
transport of large volumes of sediment down the glacial valley following the retreat of glaciers
(Barnard, 2005 as cited in Todd et al., 2006). The delta historically occupied 0.7 square mile
(1.8 square km) (Correa, 2003a). Wolcott Slough is the most dominant feature located in the
north section of the estuary. The slough is fed by a network of small freshwater streams west of
Highway 101 in the Brinnon Flat.
The southern portion of Reach J is an area of divergence between drift cell JE-25 to the south
and JE-24 to the north. It is also the active part of the delta where the river flow meets the sea.
Large amounts of fluvial sediment create, on average, a 150-meter-wide intertidal zone primarily
of sand and gravel (WDNR, 2001; Correa, 2003a). The Washington State Department of Health
has classified this area as a restricted shellfish harvest area due to water quality concerns (WDH,
2006a).
Drift cell JE-24 begins at the northern edge of the Dosewallips delta, with net shore-drift
continuing 3.3 miles north of Brinnon into Right Smart Cove. Slope stability is intermediate to
stable throughout this drift cell, with Vashon till overlying basalt. The exception is about 0.5
mile of unstable Vashon Recessional Outwash just north of the Dosewallips delta. A substantial
portion of the nearshore sediment in this drift cell appears to originate from the Dosewallips
River. Evidence of northward drift includes a general increase in beach width, accumulation of
sediment on the south side of a riprap seawall and boat ramp at Seal Rock, and the northerly
directed mouth of Turner Creek.
The drift cell terminus is located at Right Smart Cove at the eastern end of a spit that encloses a
large tidal lagoon (Johannessen, 1992; Ecology, 2001). The lagoon supports native high-marsh
vegetation such as pickleweed (Salcornia virginica) and sea arrow grass (Triglochin spp.).
Native forest that originally surrounded the lagoon has been eliminated, and invasive species
such as Scot’s broom and blackberries have taken its place in many areas (Correa, 2002; Todd et
al., 2006). A small stream drains into the lagoon from a large pasture to the north. Tidal
connectivity between the tidal lagoon and channel remains functional (Todd et al., 2006), though
some of the salt marsh associated with this lagoon has been filled for homes to the east of the
tidal inlet.
4.1.5.4 Biological Resources (Maps 17, 20, 24, and 26) 37
Within Reach I, over half of drift cell JE-25 has overhanging vegetation. There are patchy
eelgrass beds near the southern terminus of the drift cell. Patchy areas of Sargassum are mapped
within Reach I. Sand lance spawn on the beaches just north of Pleasant Harbor’s mouth (Penttila,
2000).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-17
The Dosewallips delta contains many tidal channels and large amounts of salt marsh habitat. The
estuary is an important nursery habitat for summer chum and pink salmon as well as Chinook,
coho, and coastal cutthroat trout (May and Peterson 2003). The adjacent nearshore areas provide
quality salmonid rearing and migration habitat. Juvenile pink and chum salmon have been found
in Wolcott Slough (Hirschi et al., 2003a). May and Peterson (2003) classified the estuary north
of the river mouth as a Category A NSE refugia and the area south of the river mouth as a
Category D NSE refugia. The Dosewallips River supports runs of pink, Chinook, fall and
summer chum, and coho salmon as well as steelhead and cutthroat trout. This area is also an
important recreational and tribal shellfish site (see Figure 3-3). Bald eagles and great blue herons
nest in Dosewallips State Park.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Within Reach J herring spawn in the eelgrass from the mouth of Turner Creek up into Right
Smart Cove. Patches of barnacles and oysters are found along this entire segment of shoreline.
Patchy areas of Sargassum are mapped within Reach J. Sand lance spawn on the beach at the
terminus of this drift cell (Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005).
Invasive clubbed tunicates (Styela clava) have recently been discovered in a number of locations
around Puget Sound, including on docks and the hulls of boats in Pleasant Harbor Marina
(WDFW, 2006). These tunicates, which are native to Asia, have no known predators in Puget
Sound and can quickly blanket hard surfaces and out-compete or suffocate other types of sea life,
including native clams, mussels, and oysters.
4.1.5.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 11 and 21) 20
Land Use and Zoning 21
22
23
Land used in the planning area is mainly Rural Residential, Commercial Forestry, Rural Forestry
with scattered Agriculture and a small area zoned Rural Village Center.
Transportation and Utilities 24
25
26
27
Within Reaches I and J, Jefferson County and WDNR have mapped 5 miles and 5.4 miles of
road, respectively. Roadways include Highway 101 (with two lanes and shoulder areas) and
several intersecting property access roads.
Shoreline Modifications 28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Although there is relatively little bulkheading within drift cell JE-26, there are 11 stair structures
within its 787 yards.
North of Pleasant Harbor there is a residential area with numerous staircases, some with large
decks and small boathouses built on the upper intertidal zone. Approximately 21.2 percent of this
drift cell is bulkheaded (Hirschi et al., 2003b). Although much of the sediment for this drift cell
is fluvial in nature from the Dosewallips River, the armoring can have significant impacts on the
transport of alongshore sediment. In addition, the upper intertidal structures can decrease the
amount of beach habitat available for forage fish spawning and reduce shallow water habitat
available to migrating juvenile salmonids.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-18 November 2008
At least six diked areas protected by four tide gates now occupy approximately 15 percent of the
Dosewallips estuary, with another 2.5 acres of fill associated with residential and agricultural
activities (Correa, 2003a). In the southern part of the Dosewallips delta, there is a derelict barge
or backfilled wooden bulkheaded area that has affected shallow water habitat. Highway 101
truncates several sloughs and restricts channel migration near the mouth of the Dosewallips
River. Other diked and filled areas occur in the Dosewallips State Park campground and to the
north of the main river channel.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
North of Brinnon, drift cell JE-24 is 17.1 percent bulkheaded, including several sections of
bulkhead extending below the high water mark (Hirschi et al., 2003b). This can decrease
shallow water habitat and the recruitment of sediment into the nearshore. It can also impact the
longshore transport of sediment, particularly in the area just north of Seal Rock Campground
where there are numerous private boat ramps (Ecology, 2001).
The cumulative impacts of the Brinnon Flat armoring and floodplain modifications, the State
Park campground infrastructure and bank armoring (upstream and downstream of the highway),
the Highway 101 bridge and causeway, and a long history of wood removal have impaired the
connectivity between the mainstem river channel and impeded the development of new
distributaries. These modifications have also affected the function of other estuarine channels
and associated tidal marsh habitats. Sea dikes have eliminated or altered the hydrology of tidal
marsh habitat, mainly to the north of the current active channel.
Fecal coliform contamination is a problem in the nearshore marine environment of the
Dosewallips River and as a result the nearshore area is a Category 5 water according to the 2004
Ecology Water Quality Assessment. Potential sources of fecal coliform are wastewater and soil
coliform associated with sediment runoff (Golder Associates, 2002).
4.1.5.6 Public Access (Map 21) 24
Dosewallips State Park offers public camping and access to the delta and uplands at the mouth of
the Dosewallips River. ONF’s Seal Rock Campground is north of Brinnon and offers camping
and shoreline access.
4.1.5.7 Restoration Opportunities 28
The Dosewallips estuary and its lower river corridor have recently become a focus of major
habitat restoration planning and implementation. A large portion of the sea dike, visible at least
as early as 1939, located near the center of the estuary within the State Park was removed during
fall 2004. Additional habitat restoration projects that affect the Dosewallips estuary are currently
in the planning and design phases (Todd et al., 2006).
Removing or replacing bulkheads with soft bank protection methods would improve longshore
transport of sediment north and south of Brinnon, as would the removal of boat ramps. Several
dikes are currently being removed or are proposed for removal from the Dosewallips estuary,
which will improve and increase estuarine habitat. The Highway 101 crossing of the
Dosewallips River delta truncates and restricts river and tidal channels; restoring the hydrologic
function of these channels presents a restoration opportunity.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-19
There have been four known infestations of spartina within Hood Canal, at Dosewallips State
Park, Bywater Bay, Tarboo Bay, and Thorndyke Bay (WSDA 2001). As of 2006, state
eradication efforts have been successful at all locations except Dosewallips State Park, where a
small area of spartina remains. The Washington Department of Agriculture intends to continue
eradication and post-eradication monitoring at Dosewallips State Park and Thorndyke Bay
(WSDA 2007).
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
4.1.6 Dosewallips River (Dosewallips River) 7
4.1.6.1 Overview (Map 1a)
The Dosewallips River drains the eastern Olympic Mountains from the river’s headwaters in the
vicinity of Mt. Claywood, emptying into Hood Canal at the town of Brinnon. The watershed
covers approximately 78,000 acres or 122 square miles (USFS, 1999). The mainstem of the
Dosewallips River is 28.3 miles long with 140 miles of tributaries. Overall, the tributaries are
steep and the lower mainstem relatively gradual with meanders (Correa, 2003a; USFS, 1999).
Private inholdings (and hence County jurisdiction) end at about RM 9, located 1 mile
downstream from the Steelhead Campground. The upper 60 percent of the watershed is in ONP,
the middle 30 percent is in the ONF, and the lower 10 percent is in private ownership.
Annual average discharge of the river is 446 cfs at the gauging station at RM 7.1. There are two
runoff peaks: one associated with the winter rains between November and February, and another
associated with snowmelt in May and June (USFS, 1999; Correa, 2003a). Groundwater-
supported baseflow is minimal as a result of the dominance of bedrock geology (Golder
Associates, 2002).
4.1.6.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 8) 22
Dosewallips River 1: From the mouth to the ONF boundary.
Dosewallips River 2: From the ONF boundary to the upstream extent of private inholdings.
Dosewallips Tributary 1: Rocky Brook from the confluence at Dosewallips to the impassable
falls.
4.1.6.3 Physical Environment (Maps 14, 21, and 25) 27
Dominant vegetation along the mainstem river floodplain includes forests of black cottonwood
(Populus trichocarpa) and red alder (Alnus rubra) (Labbe et al., 2005). A riparian forest
assessment of the lower 8.7 miles of the mainstem reports 51 percent of the riparian zone has a
stand diameter of less than 12 inches, 45 percent has a diameter between 12 and 20 inches, and
there are no large trees with a diameter greater than 20 inches. Four percent has no riparian
buffer (USFS, 1999 as cited in Correa, 2003a).
Land cover in the planning area is 43 percent evergreen forest and 26 percent mixed forest, with
the remainder being urban/recreational grasses, acreages/rural residential, recent clearcut,
transitional, and low intensity residential.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-20 November 2008
Within Dosewallips River Reach 1, approximately 33 percent of the planning area is wetland,
with palustrine forested (41 percent) and riverine upper perennial (33 percent) being the primary
wetland classifications.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Though much of the lower river floodplain has been modified or developed, a reach lying
between the BPA powerlines and the Lazy C housing development is relatively intact, with
abundant large wood deposits and off-channel habitat. Removal of the riparian/floodplain forest
vegetation, primarily conifers, has decreased the future LWD recruitment potential (Labbe,
personal communication, 2003 as cited in Correa, 2003a). The USFS ownership begins at RM
6.1 and extends to RM 14.0. A riparian reserve program along the river corridor improves LWD
recruitment potential for Reach 2.
Ecology’s 2004 Water Quality Assessment lists the Dosewallips River (at the mouth) as a
Category 5 water for temperature.
Habitat within approximately 0.5 mile upstream from the Highway 101 Bridge appears to be a
zone of deposition with large gravel bars, multiple channels, and LWD with greater abundance
than adjacent reaches. Farther upstream, the channel and migration zone are frequently confined
by bedrock or directed bedrock outcroppings (Klawon, 2004). The lower 0.2 mile of Rocky
Brook contains excellent spawning gravels. Between 1920 and 1990, approximately 65 percent
of the Rocky Brook subwatershed was clearcut. Forty-five mass wasting events have occurred in
the Rocky Brook watershed. Within Rocky Brook, LWD recruitment is poor due to the extensive
logging in the watershed (Correa, 2003a).
4.1.6.4 Biological Resources (Map 17) 21
The Dosewallips River supports Chinook, fall and summer chum, pink, and coho salmon as well
as steelhead and cutthroat trout spawning (Correa, 2003a; May and Peterson, 2003). The river
has very few significant salmon-bearing tributaries, but the tributaries do provide important off-
channel areas for juvenile salmonids (May and Peterson, 2003). The Chinook salmon in this
system are part of the Mid-Hood Canal stock and according to SASSI are rated as critical, with
escapement below the critical threshold of 400 fish for the stock (WDFW, 2000b). The Mid-
Hood Canal stock includes Chinook in the Hamma Hamma, Duckabush, and Dosewallips
Rivers. Spawning takes place in the lower 12 miles of river between September and October with
most spawning taking place below RM 6.7 (Correa, 2003a).
Summer chum spawn in the lower 2.3 miles of river from mid-September to mid-October. They
are rated as a depressed stock in the SASSI (WDFW, 2000b) and are federally listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Summer chum is a native stock with wild
production. Dosewallips summer chum declined in the 1980s but have recently improved
(Correa, 2003a). Fall and late-fall chum also spawn in the Dosewallips and these stocks are rated
as healthy.
Coho spawn primarily in the lower 12 miles of the mainstem and in the lower reaches of
numerous tributaries. This coho stock is wild production of mixed composition due to past
hatchery releases. Its SASSI stock status is rated as unknown. Pink salmon are rated as depressed
after a decline in returns ranging from 400,000 to 100,000 spawners in the 1960s to 10,000 to
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-21
40,000 spawners in the 1980s, to low returns in the late 1990s of about 2,000 to 3,000 spawners.
Spawning takes place in the lower 7 miles of the mainstem. Summer steelhead stocks are rated as
unknown in the SASSI, and winter steelhead are rated as depressed (Correa, 2003a).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
There are no artificial barriers to anadromous fish in the Dosewallips River, although a natural
falls is a complete barrier at RM 12.5. The Dosewallips, below the anadromous fish barrier at
RM 12.5, was found to harbor some of the best remaining refuge habitat for salmonids in eastern
Jefferson County (May and Peterson, 2003). In particular, several reaches are noted for the high
quality of spawning habitat: RM 0 to 1.8 (Brinnon flats to Lazy C flats), RM 4.5 to 5.3 (Walcott
Flats), and RM 7 to 7.8 (Middle River flats).
The lower, middle, and upper Dosewallips river reaches are identified as Category A Nodal
Corridors according to May and Peterson (2003). Rocky Brook is also a Category A RNC.
4.1.6.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 21 and 25) 12
Land Use and Zoning 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Land use in the basin is dominated by residential development, pastureland, and timberland.
From the mouth to RM 3.6, the broad floodplain is zoned Agriculture (3 percent), Forestry (3
percent), Commercial (6 percent), and Rural Residential (7 percent). Dosewallips State Park lies
on the south side of the river and estuary, and the town of Brinnon is to the north. Both are
within the floodplain-delta area (Correa, 2003a). The USFS ownership begins at RM 6.1 and
extends to RM 14.0.
Transportation and Utilities 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Within the planning area of Dosewallips River Reach 1, Jefferson County and WDNR have
mapped 3.5 miles and 3.9 miles of road, respectively. A County road extends along the left bank
of the river from the mouth to RM 3.6. The Highway 101 causeway restricts estuary function and
has disconnected some of the side channels from the main river channel (Correa, 2003a).
Dosewallips Tributary Reach 1 has a road density of 3.7 miles of road per square mile of
watershed (USFS, 1999 as cited in Correa, 2003a).
Shoreline Modifications 27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Logging in the Dosewallips watershed began in 1859. A splash dam built by the Sims Logging
Company at the head of the Dosewallips canyon in 1917 was in operation for 9 to 10 years.
When water was released, most logs that had been accumulated behind the dam were flushed all
the way to Hood Canal; the erosive power of these releases was likely catastrophic for salmon
and their habitat in the lower river (Labbe et al., 2005). In addition, starting in the 1880s,
development transformed the lower river from a valley with many side channels, wetlands, and
logjams to a channelized river with adjacent farmland.
Boundaries to the channel migration zone for the Dosewallips River were identified as the town
of Brinnon, from Highway 101 to as far west as the existing revetment; Dosewallips State Park
east (downstream) of the large levee; and Highway 101 (Perkins and Klawon, 2004). Diking
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-22 November 2008
restricts access to major side channels and floodplain in the lower mile, at RM 2 at the Lazy C
housing development. In the vicinity of RM 5 a mile-long side channel has been isolated from
the main channel. Loss/destruction of side channels has a major adverse effect on spawning areas
and overwintering areas for salmonids (Correa, 2003a; May and Peterson, 2003). Though splash
damming, floodplain development, and bank armoring have contributed to extensive habitat loss
and degradation at Lazy C, the reach immediately downstream has experienced only limited
riparian logging and LWD removal from the active channel.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Wood removal from gravel bars is still occurring in the Brinnon Flat reach, and recent surveys
indicate that the low amounts of wood occurring in this reach and in the immediately
downstream estuarine reach of the mainstem are responsible for the girth of pool habitat and lack
of complexity found in these reaches (Labbe et al., 2005).
4.1.6.6 Public Access (Map 21) 12
Dosewallips State Park provides access to 5,400 feet of Dosewallips River shoreline between the
river estuary and RM 0.9. The 425-acre park extends southwest of the river and also includes
marine shoreline. In addition to year-round camping, the park includes 5 miles of hiking and
biking trails and extensive shoreline access (WSP, 2006).
4.1.6.7 Restoration Opportunities 17
Restoration opportunities in the Dosewallips reaches include opening up side channels and
reconnecting floodplain habitat by removing bank armoring. A recent property acquisition by
Jefferson County in the vicinity of the Lazy C development will allow for the creation of natural
side channels. In the lower river estuary, Washington Trout is leading an effort to remove a dike,
restore river-estuary connectivity, and improve tidal exchange in a blind tidal slough through
culvert replacement. Meanwhile, Jefferson County, Washington State Parks, and the Port
Gamble S'Klallam Tribe are collaborating to acquire and permanently protect privately owned,
undeveloped riparian-floodplain properties from RM 1.2 to 2.1 (Labbe et al., 2005). As
mentioned above, in the nearshore segment, there are opportunities in the lower Dosewallips and
estuary to restore a natural estuary with side channels and salt marshes.
4.2 WRIA 17 - QUILCENE-SNOW 28
WRIA 17, located on the northeastern Olympic Peninsula, includes portions of Jefferson and
Clallam Counties (Figures 4-2 and 4-3). It encompasses direct drainages to Puget Sound from
Jimmycomelately Creek in the northwest to the Quilcene River in the south. The watershed also
contains portions of Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the northeast flank of the
Olympic Mountains.
29
30
31
32
33
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
Figure 4-2. WRIA 17 (north) in Northeast Jefferson County
November 2008 page 4-23
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-24 November 2008
Figure 4-3. WRIA 17 (south) in Northeast Jefferson County 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Glaciers shaped the terrain in this WRIA, which includes the steep slopes of the Olympic
Mountains and coastal lowlands drained by high-gradient streams. Characteristic soils are deep
to moderately deep loams and areas of silt and clay. Within WRIA 17, annual precipitation
increases to the south and west. The Quimper subbasin on the eastern edge of the watershed
receives 15 to 20 inches of rainfall annually, while the foothills of the Olympic Mountains in the
western side of the watershed receive 70 to 80 inches annually. Precipitation also tends to
increase as elevation increases. In lowland valleys, pasture vegetation is common, while at
higher elevations alders and conifers predominate (Correa, 2002; Parametrix, et al., 2000).
Nearly 40 percent of the 256,783 acres in WRIA 17 is devoted to forestry, including national
forests, commercial forest, and inholdings. The Big Quilcene, Salmon-Snow, and Dabob-
Thorndyke subbasins have large forested areas. Rural residential is the second most common
land use in WRIA 17, with nearly 70,000 acres. Agricultural lands occupy over 4,000 acres,
many of which are in the Chimacum subbasin. The majority of the WRIA’s commercial and
industrial lands are in the Quimper subbasin, where Port Townsend is located. The U.S. Navy
has an installation on Indian Island, part of the Indian-Marrowstone subbasin.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-25
More than 70 percent of the WRIA is privately owned; the federal government owns 20 percent
and state government owns the remaining 10 percent. Approximately 26,835 people lived in
WRIA 17 as of 2003, many of them in Port Townsend, the main population center of the
watershed. The population is projected to increase significantly. Estimates developed from the
2000 Census show 2015 populations ranging from 29,935 in the low-growth scenario to 38,197
under the high-growth scenario. Much of this increase is expected to occur in the Quimper
subbasin, which includes Port Townsend, and the Ludlow subbasin, which includes Port Ludlow.
Growth is also expected in the Chimacum subbasin (Cascadia Consulting Group, 2003).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
4.2.1 Jackson Cove (Hood Canal West Shore Upper) 9
4.2.1.1 Overview (Map 1a) 10
This shoreline stretches from the head of Right Smart Cove to Point Whitney and encompasses
Jackson Cove, Wawa Point, and Pulali Point. Unlike most of Jefferson County’s marine
shoreline, this area is dominated by a rocky basaltic shoreline with pocket beaches. Three drift
cells occur within this section of shoreline along with several areas of no net drift. Highway 101
veers inland away from the shoreline over Mount Walker. This basin is less developed than
others in the WRIA, with scattered residential areas, a Boy Scout camp, and the State Shellfish
Lab at Point Whitney. Jackson Cove was identified in the Willamette Valley-Puget Trough-
Georgia Basin Ecoregional Assessment as a priority conservation area for its high-quality
nearshore and terrestrial habitat (Floberg et al., 2004).
4.2.1.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 9) 20
Reach K: From the head of Right Smart Cove to Wawa Point.
Reach L: Wawa Point to Point Whitney, including Point Whitney Lagoon, adjacent to Point
Whitney State Shellfish Lab.
4.2.1.3 Physical Environment (Map 12, 14, and 26) 24
Along the eastern shore of Right Smart Cove, drift cell JE-23 extends from 200 meters west of
Wawa Point 300 meters to the northwest to converge with drift cell JE-24 at the head of Right
Smart Cove. Glacial drift overlies basalt at the cell origin, where a thin, coarse gravel beach sits
atop a wide, basalt wave-cut platform. Wawa Point is composed of basalt and there is no net drift
in this area for 660 meters (Johannessen, 1992). The major substrates of this cove are sand and
gravel (Correa, 2002).
Drift cell JE-22 is isolated between areas of no net drift. It stretches for 900 meters along the
western shore of Jackson Cove to terminate at the southern edge of the Spencer Creek delta.
There is little sediment transported in this drift cell due to a lack of overlying sediment on the
basalt (Johannessen, 1992).
Jackson Cove from Spencer Creek delta around Pulali Point is also an area of no net drift, with
pocket beaches between basaltic headlands and a large alluvial fan at the mouth of Spencer
Creek. This area is similar in character to many areas of the San Juan Islands.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-26 November 2008
One-half mile north of Pulali Point, drift cell JE -21 extends northward for 1.5 miles to end at the
100-yard-wide beach just north of the Point Whitney State Shellfish Lab (Johannessen, 1992).
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
4.2.1.4 Biological Resources (Maps 18, 20, 24, and 26) 3
Pacific herring spawn in eelgrass along the entire length of Right Smart Cove. Sand lance spawn
on the beaches on the east side of Right Smart Cove. Riparian vegetation overhangs about 25
percent of the shoreline in this reach (WDNR, 2001; Penttila, 2000).
A large salt marsh lagoon situated behind the barrier beach at the head of Right Smart Cove is
part of the Wawa Point bald eagle territory (Todd et al., 2006). The marsh supports native high
marsh vegetation such as pickleweed and sea arrow grass (Correa, 2002).
Eelgrass is continuous and herring use the Wawa Point reach for spawning substrate (Penttila,
2000). Riparian vegetation covers about half of the shoreline (WDNR, 2001).
Marple and Jackson Creeks and Spenser Creek are found at the head of Jackson Cove. Marple
Creek supports spawning populations of coho and chum salmon (Correa, 2002). Eelgrass is
continuous throughout western Jackson Cove.
Spencer Creek supports spawning habitat for coho and chum salmon, searun cutthroat trout, and
winter steelhead. Sand lance spawn on the beach near the Boy Scout Camp, east of Spencer
Creek (Penttila, 2000). Patchy eelgrass beds grow offshore between Spencer Creek and Pulali
Point, and a geoduck tract is found in the subtidal areas along this reach (Penttila, 2000 as cited
in Correa, 2002). Osprey and bald eagles nest in the vicinity of Pulali Point, while all of Jackson
Cove is bald eagle territory.
Herring spawn on the eelgrass from Wawa Point north to the middle of Jackson Cove and
beyond to Pulali Point (Penttila, 2000), and oysters are continuous along this shoreline (Correa,
2002). Although riparian vegetation increases to about 30 percent in the north, it is absent in
front of the State Shellfish Lab. There is a small wetland located behind a barrier beach 900
yards south of Point Whitney. The accretionary beach at northern end of this reach encloses a
lagoon that has been highly altered for use by the shellfish hatchery at the State Shellfish Lab at
Point Whitney (Correa, 2002; Ecology, 2001; Johannessen, 1992). However, the lagoon and the
surrounding tidelands offer clam and oyster shellfishing. Sand lance and surf smelt spawn on the
beach in front and to the north of the State Shellfish Lab.
Within Reaches K and L, between 10 percent and 14 percent of the planning area is wetland. The
primary wetland classification is estuarine – intertidal (unconsolidated shore, aquatic bed, open
water, and emergent).
4.2.1.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 12 and 22) 33
Land Use and Zoning 34
35
36
Land use along the Jackson Cove shoreline is dominated by residential development. Within
Reach K, 86 percent of the planning area is zoned Rural Residential. Remaining Reach K zoning
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-27
includes Water. Within Reach L, 76 percent of the planning area is zoned Rural Residential.
Remaining Reach L zoning includes Parks, Preserves, and Recreation areas.
1
2
Transportation and Utilities 3
4
5
6
7
Within the planning area of Reaches K and L, Jefferson County and WDNR have mapped 0.75
mile and 1.1 miles of road, respectively. Highway 101 passes within the planning area in Reach
K, and portions of intersecting roadways (e.g., Bee Mill Road) pass within both Jackson Cove
reaches.
Shoreline Modifications 8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
34
35
36
The terminus of drift cell JE-23 in Right Smart Cove is bulkheaded with cement high in the
intertidal. This does not appear to have led to a coarsening of beach sediment based on aerial
photos (Ecology, 2001). Just south of the mouth of Marple Creek there is bulkheading and fill.
Approximately 20 percent of drift cell JE-22 is armored (Hirschi et al., 2003). The shoreline in
front of Camp Parson in Jackson Cove is completely bulkheaded. Historically, a small lagoon
and salt marsh occurred at Camp Parsons; it has been largely filled (Todd et al., 2006). The area
between Camp Parsons and Point Whitney is largely free of modifications except for a few docks
and short bulkheads. The area around Point Whitney State Shellfish Lab is highly altered with
bulkheading in front of the parking lot and a dike built across the lagoon to serve a now inactive
shellfish hatchery.
4.2.1.6 Public Access (Map 21) 19
The only public shoreline access by land to this area is at the State Shellfish Lab at Point
Whitney, with a beach and a boat ramp. There are WDNR tidelands just southeast of Camp
Parsons with no current public access by land. However, this may be a site where public access
can be obtained either through Boy Scout land or other private lands off of Pulali Point Road.
4.2.1.7 Restoration Opportunities 24
The removal of the bulkhead in front of Camp Parsons would afford better access to the beach
for the Boy Scouts and create more of a natural backshore. The bulkhead currently protects few
if any structures. The fill near the mouth of Marple Creek could be removed to improve net
shore-drift. Restoration of the area surrounding Point Whitney could involve relocating the
parking lot to an upland location, removing fill and the dike across the lagoon, and returning the
spit and lagoon to a more natural state.
4.2.2 Quilcene Bay (Hood Canal West Shore Upper, Big Quilcene 31
River, and Little Quilcene River)
4.2.2.1 Overview (Map 1a) 33
Quilcene Bay contains three drift cells and a large area of no net drift. There are forested
headlands along much of the backshore and large mudflats in the northern end of Quilcene Bay.
The sizable Little and Big Quilcene Rivers flow into northern Quilcene Bay through the town of
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-28 November 2008
Quilcene, creating an extensive estuary at the head of the bay. A marina and shellfish hatchery
associated with the town of Quilcene are situated on the northwest shore of the bay.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Clam and oyster harvesting are major businesses in this part of Jefferson County and Quilcene
Bay is an important shellfish resource. Residential development is concentrated in the northwest
and northeast shores of the bay. Located farther north than Brinnon (and thus farther into the
rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains), Quilcene receives about 50 inches of precipitation a
year.
4.2.2.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 8) 8
Reach M: Point Whitney to Quilcene Boat Haven (now Herb Beck Marina), encompassing drift
cells JE-19, JE-19/JE-20, and JE-20.
Reach N: Quilcene marina to the southern edge of the Indian George estuary.
Reach O: From Indian George estuary to the terminus of drift cell JE-18.
Reach P: North edge of Fisherman’s Point Salt Marsh to the start of drift cell JE-17.
4.2.2.3 Physical Environment (Maps 11, 14, and 26) 14
Between Point Whitney and the Herb Beck Marina, two drift cells diverge from an area 0.5 mile
south of Frenchmen’s Point. This divergence zone contains actively eroding feeder bluffs of
glacial drift intermittently overlying areas of basalt. Drift cell JE-20 originates in this area of
divergence. Northerly fetch from Quilcene Bay creates southward net shore-drift for 1 mile to
the confluence with drift cell JE-21 just north of Point Whitney. North of this divergent feeder
bluff area, southern fetch governs the net shore-drift of sediment in drift cell JE-19 north to its
terminus at the marina (Johannessen, 1992). A stream draining Devil’s Lake also contributes
fluvial sediment to this drift cell (Correa, 2002).
From the marina to a point approximately 1.3 km south of East Quilcene there is no appreciable
net shore-drift (Johannessen, 1992). The marina, which is at the terminus of the drift cell (JE-19),
was built on an existing spit; it has filled parts of the former upper intertidal beach with rock
armoring. The mouth of the marina is fairly stable and has not needed dredging for decades.
Drift cell JE-18 begins just south of Fisherman’s Point in a broad area of divergent drift at the
base of the Bolton Peninsula. Governed by southern fetch, net shore-drift is northward for 2.6
miles along the eastern shore of Quilcene Bay. Its origin is at a poorly vegetated, eroding bluff
composed of glacial drift. Northwestward net shore-drift is indicated by a northwestward bluff
vegetation increase, northeastward spit progradation enclosing a salt marsh north of Fisherman’s
Point, northerly sediment size decrease, nearshore bars oriented northwest-southeast, and
sediment accumulations on the south side of a filled area in northern Quilcene Bay. The cell’s
terminus is located at the base of this filled area, as shallow depths prohibit waves from forming
that are large enough to cause significant amounts of sediment transport. Northern Quilcene Bay
is slowly shoaling with sediment transported from the Quilcene River and Donovan Creek. The
Big and Little Quilcene delta fans were formed by alluvial deposition over about the last 12,000
years (Todd et al., 2006). The bluffs along this drift cell are generally considered unstable with
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-29
many recent landslides. Except for the area immediately surrounding Fisherman’s Point, which is
composed of Tertiary Sandstone, these bluffs are made up of Double Bluff Drift and
undifferentiated glacial stratified sediment predating the Vashon Glaciation (Johannessen, 1992;
Ecology, 1978). Quilcene Bay shoreline consists largely of protected and semi-protected sand
flat and sand beaches (Correa, 2002).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
In general, water quality in Quilcene Bay is excellent with the exception of the upper bay, which
experiences intermittent fecal coliform problems. The northern part of Quilcene Bay is listed as
a Category 5 water for fecal coliform contamination according to Ecology’s 2004 Water Quality
Assessment and is periodically closed to shellfish harvest. The Washington State Department of
Health has a harvest advisory in effect for public shellfish harvest and some areas were
conditionally closed to harvest from May 1 to October 1, 2005, in accordance with the
conditional management (WDH, 2006a). Problems with fecal coliform contamination have been
attributed in past studies to natural seal populations, animal keeping practices, and onsite septic
systems (Parametrix et al., 2000).
4.2.2.4 Biological Resources (Maps 18, 20, 24, and 27) 15
Reaches M and N are in an area of few homes and steep eroding bluffs. Riparian vegetation is
nearly continuous throughout this stretch of shoreline (Ecology, 2001). Patchy to continuous
eelgrass beds occur throughout. Oysters and clams are continuous and a geoduck tract extends
from just north of the lagoon at Whitney Point to just south of Frenchman’s Point (Correa, 2002).
Bald eagles also use this area as habitat. Surf smelt spawn along segments of the beach from
Whitney Point to Herb Beck Marina (Long et al., 2005). Sand lance spawn north of Whitney
Point and just south of the marina and most of this shore is a designated herring spawning area
(Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005). Just north of this is a residential area along Linger Longer
Road. Eelgrass is continuous along this reach and hard-shelled clams, Pacific oyster, shrimp and
Dungeness crab are abundant.
The marina and surrounding shoreline is within 0.25 miles of an active bald eagle nest and
territory. This area is also within a northern spotted owl territory, but several miles from a nest
(WDFW Priority and Habitats Map database).
The delta of the Big Quilcene River, the Little Quilcene River, and Donovan Creek (Reach O) is
an area of winding tidal channels and salt marsh (Correa, 2002). Eelgrass is continuous
throughout the northern end of Quilcene Bay and herring use it for spawning (Penttila, 2000).
Quilcene Bay is famous for its clams and oysters; there are several commercial and recreational
shellfish harvesting areas within the bay. For example, the allowable, sustainable harvest of
manila clams for the WDFW property on Linger Longer Road was about 39,000 pounds in 2003
(Speck, personal communication, 2003). In the winter, large concentrations of waterfowl are
found in northern Quilcene Bay including trumpeter swans, brant, and diving ducks.
May and Peterson (2003) identify the Quilcene Bay NSE as a Category A salmonid refugia. The
NSE includes the estuaries of the Big Quilcene River, Indian George Creek, Devil’s Lake Creek,
numerous small streams, and the nearshore areas linking these habitats.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-30 November 2008
Surf smelt spawn throughout drift cell JE-18, and sand lance spawn in a small stretch near the
center of this cell (Long et al., 2005). A 2-acre salt marsh is enclosed by a spit just north of
Fisherman’s Point (Fisherman’s Point Salt Marsh) (Leon and Driscoll, 1975; Ecology, 2000).
This salt marsh and lagoon have remained similar to its form in the late 1800s (Todd et al.,
2006). North of Fisherman’s Point, eelgrass beds are continuous throughout the reach and
herring use it for spawning (Penttila, 2000). The east shore of Quilcene Bay is a year-round
haulout site and seasonal pupping site for harbor seals. Riparian vegetation is heavy through the
reach (WDNR, 2001).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Within Reaches M and N, 10 percent to 15 percent of the planning area is wetland. Within
Reaches O and P, 40 percent to 70 percent of the planning area is wetland. The majority of
wetlands in all Quilcene Bay reaches are estuarine – intertidal (aquatic bed/unconsolidated shore,
emergent, and unconsolidated shore).
4.2.2.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 12 and 22) 13
Land Use and Zoning 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Land use along the Quilcene Bay shoreline is dominated by residential development and
commercial timber and agriculture uses. Within Reaches M, N, and O, 47 percent to 64 percent
of the planning area is zoned Rural Residential (100 percent Rural Residential in Reach P).
Remaining reach areas are zoned Commercial Forest (Reaches M and N), Commercial
Agriculture (Reach O), Parks, Preserves, and Recreation, and Rural Forest. In the vicinity of the
Boat Haven (Herb Beck Marina) shoreline use consists of several homes and several commercial
buildings related to shellfish/aquaculture. The marina has a sewage pump-out and the upland
toilets are on septic.
Transportation and Utilities 23
24
25
26
27
28
Within the Quilcene Bay shoreline planning area, Jefferson County and WDNR have mapped 4
miles and 4.5 miles of road, respectively. Along the eastern shoreline of the bay, East Quilcene
Road parallels the shorelines of Reaches O and P, and is within the planning area across the
majority of the reaches. Roads associated with the town of Quilcene are within the planning
areas of Reaches N and O.
Shoreline Modifications 29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Shoreline alterations are concentrated near the marina, in east Quilcene, and in the area of no net
drift in northern Quilcene Bay. North of Point Whitney, shoreline modifications are absent from
the West Quilcene Bay reach. At the terminus of JE-19 the marina and residential and business
areas to the north are extensively bulkheaded (WDNR, 2001; Ecology, 2001; Hirschi et al.,
2003b). Bulkheads to the north encroach into the nearshore, encroaching upon vital shallow
water habitat for migrating juvenile salmonids (Correa, 2002).
Linger Longer Road and a landing strip north of the marina eliminated some of the upper marsh
and tidal channels (Todd et al., 2006). Some restoration has taken place in the Indian George
Creek estuary by removing dikes, fill associated with a parking lot at a WDFW shellfish
harvesting site, and an abandoned barge.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-31
In the Quilcene estuary, diking has eliminated large amounts of high salt marsh, intertidal
channels, and riparian vegetation, based on differences between the 1880s coastal surveys and
current aerial photos (Correa, 2002) (see Todd et al., 2006 for further details). A large area of fill
extends into the intertidal zone in East Quilcene Bay at the terminus of drift cell JE-18. This fill
eliminates shallow water habitat. Despite this feature, drift cell JE-18 has retained fluvial
function with little shoreline alteration south of its terminus (Ecology, 2001).
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
31
32
34
35
36
37
4.2.2.6 Public Access (Map 21) 7
Public access to Quilcene Bay is available by land at Point Whitney State Shellfish Lab, on Port
of Port Townsend land off Linger Longer Road, at the public shellfishing site by Linger Longer
Road (owned by WDNR with upkeep by WDFW), on WDFW property in the Quilcene delta,
and at East Quilcene County Park. WDNR also owns the shoreline south of the Quilcene Boat
Haven.
4.2.2.7 Restoration Opportunities 13
Restoration opportunities in Quilcene Bay are centered in the deltas of the Big and Little
Quilcene Rivers. In the lower Big Quilcene River potential actions include removing dikes,
restoring salt marsh habitat, and reconnecting the main river channel with tidal channels. Plans
for this are currently being developed by the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group and other
partners. Between the Quilcene Boat Haven and Indian George Creek, the shoreline could be
further restored using soft armoring techniques. Removing dikes on both banks could restore the
estuary of the Little Quilcene River. East Quilcene Road interferes with natural backshore
sediment processes and constricts Donovan Creek; this area could be enhanced if the road were
reconfigured to allow for these processes. Acquiring and removing fill at the terminus of drift
cell JE-18 would allow for natural deposition of sediment into northern Quilcene Bay and
increase shallow water habitat.
Additionally, best management practices could be implemented to control stormwater and
agricultural runoff, and to protect water quality from septic systems and marina and boating
activity, to help maintain the shellfish industry.
4.2.3 Rice Lake (Hood Canal West Shore Upper) 28
Rice Lake is the only SMA-designated lake which drains directly to Quilcene Bay (Reach O).
4.2.3.1 Freshwater Reaches (Map 8) 30
Rice Lake: Approximately 1.5 miles north of the City of Quilcene, approximately 0.5 miles east
of Highway 101.
4.2.3.2 Description 33
Rice Lake has a surface area of approximately 21 acres. Rice Lake drains to Quilcene Bay via
Donovan Creek, which does not meet SMA criteria. Downstream of Rice Lake, Donovan Creek
has high temperatures according to Ecology’s 2004 Water Quality Assessment. Rice Lake is not
listed as impaired for temperature or other monitored parameters according to Ecology. The
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-32 November 2008
majority of the lake, and the entire perimeter of the lake, is mapped as lacustrine wetland by
Jefferson County and NWI wetlands mapping. Rice Lake is presumed habitat for coho salmon,
steelhead, and cutthroat trout.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Rice Lake is bordered by a relatively high number of residential lots. Current land uses are a
mix of rural residential (Rural Residential 1:5 and Rural Residential 1:20 zoning) and managed
forest (Rural Forest and Commercial Forest zoning). There is no public access to Rice Lake.
Within the Rice Lake planning area, the only public road appears to be Rice Lake Road, which
extends towards the lake from Highway 101 to the west. In addition, a significant utility corridor
passes to the east of the lake, however is located approximately 800 feet away from the shoreline
and is likely outside of the lake planning area.
4.2.4 Big Quilcene River (Big Quilcene River) 11
4.2.4.1 Overview (Map 1a) 12
The Big Quilcene River flows out of the Olympic Mountains, south of the town of Quilcene and
into Quilcene Bay. The watershed is 69.5 square miles with a mainstem length of 19 miles and
tributary length of 80 miles, with elevations up to 7,800 feet. The watershed experiences a
relatively mild marine climate with an average annual precipitation of 61 inches (51 inches in
Quilcene and at the river mouth; 76 inches in the upper watershed). Upper portions of the Big
Quilcene watershed are protected by the ONP and USFS wilderness areas (Correa, 2002).
The City of Port Townsend maintains a 30 cfs water right to the Big Quilcene River. This water
is diverted out of the basin at RM 9.4. The effect this diversion has on the overall hydrology and
fish habitat quality is unknown (Correa, 2002).
4.2.4.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 9) 22
Big Quilcene River 1: From the upper edge of the estuary to the fish hatchery at the confluence
with Penny Creek (RM 2.8).
Big Quilcene River 2: From the fish hatchery to the National Forest boundary.
4.2.4.3 Physical Environment (Map 15, 22, and 27) 26
As the river leaves its bedrock channel at about RM 4, the streambed is composed of large
boulders and cobbles that grade into gravel and sand as it approaches the mouth at Quilcene Bay
(Simonds et al., 2003). Reaches on the Big Quilcene River appear to alternate between relatively
straight, narrow reaches with little LWD and few secondary channels, and sinuous wide reaches
with greater amounts of LWD and multiple channels (Klawon, 2004). The groundwater flow
system is dominated by the presence of volcanic bedrock in the upper reaches of the subbasin
with some alluvial or glacial deposits present along major streams. In the lower portions of the
subbasin, glacial deposits and alluvium are extensive. At the mouth of the Big Quilcene River,
these deposits compose the principal aquifer for many of the domestic wells in this area
(Parametrix et al., 2000; Simonds et al., 2003).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-33
Downstream of Highway 101, small conifers are scattered throughout a largely deciduous
riparian zone at the pole/sapling stage. From Highway 101 upstream to Hiddendale, the riparian
condition is degraded by rural development (Correa, 2002).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
Within the planning area of Reach 1, land cover includes herbaceous rangeland/grassland (53
percent of total area), evergreen forest (21 percent), and mixed forest (12 percent). Within the
planning area of Reach 2, land cover includes evergreen forest (63 percent) and mixed forest (21
percent).
Surrounding the Big Quilcene River, 22 percent to 30 percent of the planning area is wetland.
Palustrine forested (53 percent) and palustrine scrub/shrub (42 percent) are the primary
classifications of Reach 1 wetlands. Palustrine forested (75 percent) and palustrine scrub/shrub
(25 percent) are also the primary classifications of Reach 2 wetlands.
Within Reach 2, from RM 2.8 to the residential development of Hiddendale at RM 3.2, the river
channel migrates south to north with signs of beaver activity on the east valley wall. Some
armoring and diking have occurred in this area.
The entire mainstem below Hiddendale (RM 3.2), with the exception of the section between
Rogers Street Bridge and Highway 101, is lacking LWD due to removal for bank protection or
firewood. Between RM 1.1 and the Highway 101 Bridge, LWD is accumulating, although
overall levels are low. This section has good instream structure and side channel development.
The riparian zone is also recovering (Correa, 2002) and the frequency of pools increases
upstream to the National Forest boundary. Large boulders between Hiddendale and the falls at
RM 7.8 provide some fish habitat. There is one small logjam within the canyon but no other
significant LWD (Labbe, personal communication, 2002 as cited in Correa, 2002).
Two stretches of the lower Big Quilcene River in Reach 1 are impaired according to Ecology’s
2004 Water Quality Assessment. The lower reach is a Category 5 water for temperature, and a
Category 4c water for fish habitat. Contamination by fecal coliform bacteria has also been an
issue in the lower reaches of the river. Ecology lists the downstream reach as a Category 2 water
of concern for fecal coliform.
4.2.4.4 Biological Resources (Map 18) 28
The Big Quilcene is a Category C nodal corridor for salmonids (May and Peterson, 2003). The
stretch from the mouth to about RM 1.1 supports spawning by fall chum, summer chum,
Chinook and pink salmon and steelhead despite significant impacts from levee construction,
water withdrawal (upstream), dredging, and other stream and shoreline modifications (May and
Peterson 2003). The upper reaches are important rearing habitat for coho and steelhead.
4.2.4.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 22 and 25) 34
Land Use and Zoning 35
36
37
38
Thirty-one percent of the watershed (the headwaters of the Big Quilcene River) is protected in
the USFS Buckhorn Wilderness and the ONP. Downstream of this, most of the watershed is
managed as commercial timberland. Jefferson County zoning indicates 93 percent of the
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-34 November 2008
watershed is Forestry (including public and private working timberland), 4 percent is Rural
Residential, 0.2 percent is Agricultural, and 0.1 percent is Commercial (Correa, 2002). Within
the planning area, Reach 1 is zoned 53 percent Rural Residential and 43 percent Local
Agriculture, while Reach 2 is zoned 92 percent Rural Residential.
1
2
3
4
Transportation and Utilities 5
6
7
8
9
10
Within the planning area of the Big Quilcene River, Jefferson County and WDNR have each
mapped 1.5 miles of road. Highway 101 is aligned within and around the Big Quilcene River
planning area within both reaches. Additional intersecting roads associated with the town of
Quilcene and vicinity are also located within the planning area. Roads are located within the
floodplain from Rogers Street to Linger Longer Bridge (Todd, personal communication, 2006).
Shoreline Modifications 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
There are no natural barriers to anadromous fish below the National Forest boundary at about
RM 4.0. However, the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery operates an electronic weir at RM 2.8.
When this weir is in operation between September and December, it is a total barrier to upstream
passage of fish. It is also a barrier during low river flows. In addition, the fish hatchery diverts
water from the Big Quilcene River and also from Penny Creek, a tributary. This water intake
structure permanently blocks fish access to Penny Creek, a potentially excellent refugium
(Correa, 2002; May and Peterson, 2003).
Boundaries to the channel migration zone for the Big Quilcene River were identified as the
USFWS hatchery; Highway 101 near the bridge; and along the south side of river in Quilcene,
from the second dike west of Rogers Street to the east side of the BPA lines (Perkins and
Klawon, 2004). From the mouth to RM 1.1, extensive diking and armoring isolate the river from
its floodplain. This has also led to channel aggradation, which increased channel streambed
elevation and extended the river mouth 1,700 feet into the estuary between 1971 and 1993. In
sum, these modifications have led to a near complete loss of floodplain habitat (Correa, 2002),
although the left bank dike at the river mouth was removed in 2005.
The reach of the river that flows by and through the National Fish Hatchery has been modified
by riprap, water diversion, and an electronic fish weir (Correa, 2002). Upstream to the National
Forest boundary the river flows past the Hiddendale residential development where there is some
diking, riprap, and development in the floodplain. However, in general, the channel is allowed to
migrate in this section.
Livestock access coupled with malfunctioning onsite septic systems have been considered to be
the fecal coliform loading sources for the lower river reach (Parametrix et al., 2000).
4.2.4.6 Public Access (Map 21) 34
None identified.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-35
4.2.4.7 Restoration Opportunities 1
Opportunities include restoring fish passage into Penny Creek around the fish hatchery water
intake. Below RM 1.1, there may be opportunities to remove some of the extensive diking and
channel-constricting fill. This would increase estuary function and salt marsh habitat, which are
important for summer chum survival.
2
3
4
5
7
8
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
4.2.5 Lake Leland and Lords Lake (Little Quilcene River) 6
Two SMA-designated lakes are located in this area: Lake Leland and Lords Lake, which drain
into the Little Quilcene River.
4.2.5.1 Freshwater Reaches (Map 9) 9
Lake Leland: Approximately 4.5 miles north of the City of Quilcene, immediately west of
Highway 101.
Lords Lake: 0.6 mile north of Little Quilcene River 2.
4.2.5.2 Description 13
Lake Leland has a surface area of 108 acres. Leland Creek downstream of Lake Leland has high
temperatures, although the lake is not listed as impaired for temperature according to Ecology’s
2004 Water Quality Assessment. Sixty-four percent of the lake’s shoreline planning area is
mapped as wetland, with the primary wetland classification being lacustrine – limnetic (open
water).
Lake Leland is presumed habitat for coho salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout, as well as bald
eagle foraging territory. Growth of invasive weeds such as reed canarygrass and Brazilian elodea
have contributed to habitat degradation and extremely low dissolved oxygen conditions in the
summer (Correa, 2002). Lake Leland is a Category 4c water for invasive aquatic species
according to Ecology’s 2004 Water Quality Assessment.
Lake Leland is surrounded by moderately dense rural residential development (Rural Residential
1:5). There is public access to Lake Leland via a County boat launch and a County park that
includes camping. Within the Lake Leland planning area, Jefferson County and WDNR have
mapped 1.2 and 1.5 miles of road, respectively.
Lords Lake is a reservoir in the water supply system for the City of Port Townsend. Created by
damming Howe Creek, the lake receives water from the Little Quilcene River. The City has a 9.6
cfs water right to the Little Quilcene River to fill Lords Lake. Water from the lake is used during
times when water cannot be diverted from the Big Quilcene River for municipal use due to low
flows or excessive suspended sediment. “Moderate” and “slight” landslide potential areas are
mapped in 31.5 percent of the planning area. Approximately 47 percent of the Lords Lake
planning area is mapped as wetland (primarily lacustrine – limnetic open water).
Lords Lake was created by the construction of a dam at the north end of the lake. The facility
includes a lake inflow (from Little Quilcene River diversion) and an outflow (Port Townsend
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-36 November 2008
water supply) as well as a spillway. Forest and Rural Residential zoning surround the lake, and
Jefferson County and WDNR have mapped 0.45 mile of road within the Lords Lake planning
area. There is no mapped public access to Lords Lake.
1
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
4.2.6 Little Quilcene River (Little Quilcene River) 4
4.2.6.1 Overview (Map 1a) 5
The Little Quilcene River’s headwaters are on the northern side of Mount Townsend in the
northeast Olympic Mountains. The river flows generally southeast to empty into northern
Quilcene Bay just north of the town of Quilcene. In contrast to other rivers flowing out of the
northeast Olympic Mountains, only a small portion of the Little Quilcene’s headwaters are
protected in the National Park or National Forest designated wilderness. County jurisdiction
begins at RM 6 at the ONF boundary. Downstream from there, the river flows through
commercial timberland for roughly 2 miles and then through rural residential land, finally
crossing about 0.5 mile of agricultural land just upstream from the mouth.
4.2.6.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 9) 14
Little Quilcene River 1: River mouth to approximately RM 3.0.
Little Quilcene River 2: RM 3.0 to the ONF boundary.
4.2.6.3 Physical Environment (Maps 15, 22, and 27) 17
The Little Quilcene River flows over bedrock until about RM 3 where the streambed is
composed of boulders and cobbles that grade into gravel and sand near the mouth at Quilcene
Bay (Simonds et al., 2003). A moderate rate of groundwater recharge in the basin is largely
controlled by the presence of bedrock and till, which cover approximately 62 percent and 27
percent of the basin, respectively. In the lower portions of the Little Quilcene River subbasin,
recessional outwash and alluvium are extensive near the mouth of the Little Quilcene River,
Leland, Donovan, and Jakeway Creeks. Similar to the Big Quilcene subbasin, these deposits may
compose the principal aquifer for many of the domestic wells in this area (Parametrix et al.,
2000, Simonds et al., 2003).
From the mouth to RM 1.3, the gradient is less than 1 percent and the channel is unconfined. The
lower 0.2 mile is tidally influenced, and the channel is wide relative to the upstream segments
due to the presence of beaver ponds. The channel is highly unstable and confined by dikes in this
segment, and contains very few pieces of LWD. The substrate is predominantly sand and gravel.
From RM 1.3 to 3.3, the channel is moderately confined and the gradient between 1 and 2
percent. The upper reaches hold more LWD, but pools are still infrequent. Channel substrate is
predominantly gravel (Parametrix et al., 2002). Below RM 3.0, the riparian zone is dominated by
young deciduous or mixed-species forest with numerous exotic species such as ivy, holly,
blackberry, and reed canarygrass (Parametrix et al., 2000; Correa, 2002), so LWD recruitment
potential is low. Between RM 2.7 and 5.2, percent pool habitat is poor at 23 to 25 percent. LWD
is generally lacking; however, it appears that there is a potential for recruitment if the riparian
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-37
zone can be preserved. The riparian zone is rather narrow but appears to have a high percentage
of conifers (Correa, 2002).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Within the planning area of the Little Quilcene River, land cover includes evergreen forest (55
percent of total area) and mixed forest (27 percent). Shrub and brush rangeland, deciduous
forest, herbaceous rangeland/grassland, recent clearcut, and pasture/hay represent the remaining
land cover. Surrounding the Little Quilcene River, less than 1 percent of the planning area is
wetland (palustrine open water).
There are no barriers to fish migration in the lower 6 miles of the river (Correa, 2002). LWD has
been removed from the reach between the mouth and RM 2.7 (Reach 1). The riparian zone lacks
conifer trees and has limited future LWD recruitment (Labbe, personal communication, 2002 as
cited in Correa, 2002). There is less than one piece of wood per channel width throughout this
segment. The lower 0.2 mile has good pool habitat but this habitat feature diminishes upstream
(Correa, 2002).
In past years residential development and agriculture have been suspected as a source for the
low-level fecal coliform measured in the Little Quilcene River (Gately, 1992 as cited in
Parametrix et al., 2000).
4.2.6.4 Biological Resources (Maps 17 and 18) 17
Summer chum, fall chum, and coho salmon and winter steelhead trout spawn in the Little
Quilcene River. This summer chum salmon run is part of the Hood Canal summer chum ESU.
Both the fall and summer runs of chum have been extremely low in recent years, and both runs
contain strays from the Big Quilcene hatchery (Correa, 2002). The coho run on the Little
Quilcene is a distinct stock from that on the Big Quilcene with a significantly later run timing.
Winter steelhead status and origin are unknown on the Little Quilcene (Correa, 2002).
The lower Little Quilcene was divided into three Nodal Riparian Corridors, all classified as
Category B, by May and Peterson (2003). The first extends from the mouth to RM 0.8. This
reach of stream has been heavily impacted by channelization, loss of floodplain habitat, levee
construction, upstream water withdrawal, loss of LWD, forest conversion to agriculture and
pastureland, gravel dredging, and residential land uses. The lower Nodal Riparian Corridor
remains important spawning habitat for summer and fall chum salmon (May and Peterson,
2003). The Nodal Riparian Corridor from RM 0.8 to RM 3.0 also serves as spawning habitat for
summer chum and other salmonids.
4.2.6.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 22 and 25) 32
Land Use and Zoning 33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Conversion of floodplain habitat to agriculture and pastureland has impacted the Nodal Riparian
Corridor from RM 0.8 to RM 3.0. It is estimated that about 50 percent of the floodplain of the
lower Little Quilcene has been developed (May and Peterson, 2003). Within the lower river
reach (Little Quilcene River 1) planning area, 60 percent of land cover is rural residential and 24
percent is commercial forest. Within the upper river reach (Little Quilcene River 2) planning
area, commercial forest (77 percent) and rural forest (13 percent) are the predominant land cover.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-38 November 2008
A total of 52 percent of the watershed is zoned Forestry, 17 percent Rural Residential, and 0.8
percent Agriculture (Correa, 2002)
1
2
Transportation and Utilities 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The lower reach of the Little Quilcene mainstem between the mouth and RM 2.7 has 5.2 miles of
road per square mile of watershed. Road density from RM 2.7 to RM 6.8 is 3.3 miles of road per
square mile of watershed (Correa, 2002).
Within the river’s planning area, Jefferson County has mapped 0.8 mile of road, and WDNR
mapped 0.9 mile of road. Major roadways include Highway 101 to RM 2 and Lords Lake Loop
Road above RM 2.
Shoreline Modifications 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
32
33
34
35
36
Between 6 cfs and 9.6 cfs of water are diverted from the Little Quilcene River for the City of
Port Townsend’s water supply into Lords Lake. This diversion is within the National Forest at
RM 7.1; however it affects the downstream water flow within the County’s jurisdiction. There is
also an unscreened irrigation canal on the Little Quilcene River which is operated haphazardly,
allowing coho, cutthroat, and steelhead juveniles access to the canal. These juvenile fish are then
stranded upon closing of the intake or pumped through the irrigation systems and spread on
agricultural fields (Davis, personal communication). Boundaries to the channel migration zone
for the Little Quilcene River were identified as Highway 101, East Quilcene Road, Center Road,
Brush Plant Loop, and the Avulsion Hazard Zone on both sides of Frank Beck Road (Perkins and
Klawon, 2004).
4.2.6.6 Public Access (Map 22) 21
None identified.
4.2.6.7 Restoration Opportunities 23
In the middle reach of the Little Quilcene River, riparian plantings would provide shade and
improve habitat where there is currently a lack of riparian cover. Floodplain acquisition and
restoration could be completed to provide off-channel rearing opportunities for salmonids. In the
lower reach, riparian planting would lead to increasing future LWD recruitment potential. In the
delta and estuary, removing or pulling back dikes and levees would create channel sinuosity and
connectivity. This action would also increase salt marsh habitat.
4.2.7 Dabob Bay (Hood Canal West Shore Upper) 30
4.2.7.1 Overview (Map 1a) 31
Dabob Bay is a long bay with relatively little development along its shores. Around the bay are
steep, eroding feeder bluffs interspersed with low, forested bluffs. About 400 acres are protected
as state-owned Natural Area Preserves, including the lower mile of Tarboo Creek and the coastal
spits and adjoining upland forest (Bahls, 2004). Tarboo-Dabob Bay is at the center of The
Nature Conservancy’s priority conservation area in eastern Jefferson County (Bahls, personal
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-39
communication, 2006). This area also appears to support the largest high quality salt marsh
complex remaining in the Hood Canal and Straits region (Todd et al., 2006).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
There are several spit and salt marsh complexes, including the estuary of Tarboo Creek at Dabob
Bay’s northern tip, Broad Spit, Tarboo Bay, the mouth of Camp Discovery Creek, and at
Zelatched Point. These marshes are important stops for migrating juvenile summer chum salmon.
Summer chum inhabit Tarboo-Dabob Bay for over three months, from late January through early
May (Bahls, 2004). Tarboo Creek flows into Tarboo Bay and it supports runs of coho and fall
chum salmon, as well as a small number of Chinook salmon.
Dabob Bay has some residential and vacation homes along its shores, primarily concentrated at
Lindsay Beach, Camp Discovery, and Camp Harmony. The U.S. Navy uses Dabob Bay as a
torpedo and submarine testing area, and a small base at Zelatched Point supports these
operations. Overall this region maintains a rural natural character. As in Quilcene Bay, Dabob
Bay is a major shellfish producing area.
4.2.7.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 8) 14
Reach Q: From the center of the divergence zone between drift cells JE-17 and JE-18 to the
terminus of drift cell JE-17 at Tarboo Bay barrier spits.
Reach R: Tarboo Bay north of the barrier spits and Long Spit.
Reach S: From the center of the JE-15/JE-16 divergence zone north along the west shore of
Toandos Peninsula to the terminus of drift cell JE-16.
4.2.7.3 Physical Environment (Maps 11, 14, and 26) 20
As part of the Dabob-Thorndyke subbasin, this shoreline area receives a relatively high rate of
predicted groundwater recharge, which is influenced by relatively high precipitation (averaging
39 inches per year) and extensive outwash deposits (Parametrix et al., 2000).
Dabob Bay is bounded by long drift cells on each side: JE-17 (5.9 miles) to the west, and JE-16
(13 miles) to the east. JE-17 originates on the southern Bolton Peninsula and has a general
northward net shore-drift along the western shore of Dabob Bay to terminate at Tarboo Bay. It
originates from a broad zone of drift divergence west of Red Bluff. This feeder bluff consists of
red coarse-grained sandstone and conglomerate that is overlain by sandy glacial drift fronted by a
poorly sorted beach. This steep bluff is poorly vegetated and has experienced recent slope
failure. Evidence of northeast followed by northern drift includes the presence of red sand on the
beach northeast of the red sandstone outcrop at the cell origin, northward sediment size decrease,
northward progradation of Broad Spit, and the northeastward progradation of nearshore bars at
the head of the bay.
Protected within the bars at the head of Dabob Bay is Tarboo Bay, composed primarily of
mudflat and salt marsh lagoons and slowly filling with sediment supplied by Tarboo Creek
(Johannessen, 1992; Bahls, 2004). Outside of the spits, Dabob Bay plunges to a depth of more
than 500 feet (Bahls, 2004). The shoreline along the west side of Dabob Bay is generally
considered unstable, except for low areas around Lindsay Beach and Broad Spit. The bluffs here
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-40 November 2008
are, in general, composed of a shallow layer of Vashon till overlying thicker layers of
undifferentiated stratified sediments and a base of Double Bluff Drift. This bluff area is prone to
failure and contributes abundant sediment to the nearshore (Ecology, 1978; Correa, 2002).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Reach S includes the longest drift cell in eastern Jefferson County, JE-16, with net shore-drift
running northward for 13 miles from just north of Oak Head to Long Spit. The drift cell
originates within the broad zone of divergence between Tskutsko Point and Oak Head.
Northward net shore-drift is indicated by northward and northeastward stream mouth offset
throughout the drift cell, northward spit progradation north of Camp Harmony, sediment
accumulation on the south side of rock groins north of Camp Harmony, the erosional nature of
the bluff at the southwest shore 1.3 miles north of Camp Discovery, the northward bluff
vegetation increase north of this location, and the northward progradation of the mile-long spit
(Long Spit) at the drift cell’s terminus (Johannessen, 1992). Along this shoreline there are
numerous areas of recent sliding and, except for some areas of low marsh and Long Spit, this
area is classified as unstable. In general, the bluffs here are composed of a relatively thin layer of
Vashon till, overlying Vashon advance outwash, and a large layer (several hundred feet) of
undifferentiated stratified sediments on a base layer of Double Bluff Drift. Numerous slides mark
the shoreline, including a spectacular slide between Long Spit and Camp Discovery that is
roughly 120 yards high, 160 yards wide, and extends about 100 yards into the intertidal (Ecology
shoreline photo #010522-111636). Just south of this slide are several homes perched on top of
similar, steep, high bluffs (Ecology, 2001, 1978).
Within Dabob Bay Reaches Q and S, between 13 percent and 16 percent of the planning area is
wetland. Within Reach R, 78 percent of the planning area is wetland. Estuarine – intertidal
(aquatic bed/unconsolidated shore) is the primary wetland classification within all shoreline
reaches.
4.2.7.4 Biological Resources (Maps 17, 20, 24, and 26) 25
Dabob Bay contains some of the most valuable and pristine nearshore habitat in Hood Canal and
should be a top conservation priority for Jefferson County (May and Peterson 2003). Eelgrass
beds are patchy or continuous throughout drift cell JE-17. However, they are absent from Tarboo
Bay. Broad Spit has both commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting (Correa, 2002). There
is also a bald eagle nest at Broad Spit. Broad Spit contains a salt marsh of about 2 acres. Sand
lance spawn on the north side of the spit, and juvenile summer chum were found in the salt
marsh and along the shore (Leon and Driscoll, 1976; Penttila, 2000; Bahls, 2004; Long et al.,
2005). Habitat includes relatively small patches of salt marsh and drift logs around the mouth of
the stream, and narrow fringes of marsh along the margins of the bay (Todd et al., 2006). Sand
lance spawning has been documented at several sites north of Broad Spit in Reaches Q and R on
the west side of Tarboo Bay (Long et al., 2005). Riparian vegetation appears to be healthy in
these reaches along western Dabob Bay, except in areas where it is absent because of bluff
erosion and isolated development (Ecology, 2001).
Eelgrass beds are patchy at the origin of drift cell JE-16, but with few exceptions are continuous
along East Dabob Bay. Dabob Bay is a major breeding habitat for bald eagles with several recent
nest sites documented in Reach S. Other priority species located in this reach include nesting
great blue herons and nesting ospreys.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-41
Camp Discovery Creek lagoon was found to harbor juvenile Chinook, coho, and chum salmon
(Hirschi et al., 2003a). This watershed also supports coho and chum salmon spawning (Correa,
2002). May and Peterson (2003) identify all of Dabob Bay as a NSE salmonid refugia. Both the
east and west bay are classified as Category A refugia. The NSE includes the full bay, plus
many small coastal streams and Camp Discovery Creek.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Dabob Bay is one of the top oyster seed growing areas in the world (May and Peterson 2003).
Forage fish spawn in numerous locations along this drift cell, including areas along Long Spit,
south of Camp Discovery, and north of Tabook Point (Long et al., 2005).
A salt marsh lagoon at the mouth of a presumed salmon stream occurs just north of Zelatched
Point (Correa, 2002). This habitat complex consists of a barrier spit that partially envelops two
tidally connected lagoons and associated marsh. Small freshwater streams enter both lagoons,
and a sizable deltaic fan occurs where a channel enters Dabob Bay (Todd et al., 2006).
The barrier spit at the head of Tarboo Bay and Long Spit are home to rare plant communities of
native salt marsh and berm plants. It is identified as one of the best spit habitats with native
vegetation in Washington State and is currently protected by the WDNR’s Natural Heritage
Program. The spit is jointly owned by the WDNR and The Nature Conservancy. The adjoining
lagoons were seined for fish use by Peter Bahls of the Northwest Watershed Institute in 2003,
and were found to harbor significant numbers of juvenile Chinook, summer and fall chum, coho,
and cutthroat trout (Bahls, 2004).
Tarboo Creek runs into the head of the bay and supports coho, Chinook, and chum salmon
spawning, as well as searun and resident cutthroat trout and steelhead (Bahls, personal
communication, 2006). A small number of Chinook adults were observed spawning in the lower
mile of Tarboo Creek between 1994 and 2003. The population may have originated from a
release of hatchery smolts in the early 1990s, but is believed to be naturally reproducing at this
point (Bahls, 2004). The lower mile of the stream has an intact riparian corridor with conifer and
deciduous mixed forest throughout the floodplain, and is owned by WDFW (Correa, 2002). For
this reason the Tarboo Bay estuary, spit, and lagoon complex should also be afforded County
protection as a natural shoreline.
Low summer flow has been identified as a factor that limits coho salmon production in Tarboo
Creek, but if estimates are correct, it is unlikely that consumptive use of groundwater has
materially influenced streamflow. There are consumptive use rights for surface water totaling
2.31 cfs, and claims of 2.96 cfs. If actual use approaches the claimed volume, it could
significantly influence summer low flow (Parametrix et al., 2000).
4.2.7.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 11 and 21) 34
Land Use and Zoning 35
36
37
38
39
Land use along the Dabob Bay shoreline is zoned primarily for Rural Residential development.
Within all reaches, 75 percent to 88 percent of the planning area is zoned Rural Residential (this
varies by reach). Remaining reach areas are zoned Commercial Forest, Local Agriculture, Parks,
Preserves, and Recreation, and Military Reservation.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-42 November 2008
Transportation and Utilities 1
2
3
4
Within the Dabob Bay marine planning area, Jefferson County and WDNR have mapped 1.8
miles and 2.3 miles of road, respectively. Roads providing access to rural residential areas and
the marine shoreline are intermittent within the planning areas of all reaches.
Shoreline Modifications 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
34
36
37
Lindsay Beach on the west shore and several areas north of Tabook Point on the east shore are
relatively heavily armored (60 percent at Lindsay Beach). These are pockets between pristine
and relatively untouched shoreline. There are several houses perched on top of eroding bluffs,
and there may be pressures to protect the toe of the bluff from erosion (e.g., the residence in
Ecology photo #010522-110544). In general, however, fluvial processes appear to be healthy in
western Dabob Bay, with shoreline armoring concentrated in areas without bluffs and that are
not likely contributing much sediment to the nearshore. Areas without bluffs were about 11
percent armored (out of a total of 13 km). Only approximately 2 percent of the high or low bluff
areas were armored (out of a total of 23 km) (Hirschi et al., 2003b).
Along the eastern shore of the bay, drift cell JE-16 is 6 percent armored out of 19 km of total
length (Hirschi et al., 2003b). Some of these structures may interfere with the longshore transport
of sediment, particularly a set of groins south of Camp Discovery. About 11 percent of the
historical marsh at Zelatched Point Lagoon has been lost, mostly in the far west side near the
origin of the spit as a result of filling for a parking area and helicopter pad (Todd et al., 2006).
4.2.7.6 Public Access (Map 21) 20
At the head of Tarboo Bay there is public WDFW land. There is boat access to Broad Spit, with
WDNR tideland containing extensive shellfish beds, and County-owned uplands. There are
WDFW public tidelands on the east shore of the bay north of and adjacent to Camp Discovery,
and another north of Tabook Point. Between the Navy property at Zelatched Point and
Fisherman’s Harbor, South Toandos State Park includes the beaches along this shoreline, but no
upland access.
4.2.7.7 Restoration Opportunities 27
Restoration opportunities are somewhat limited. There are existing shoreline structures that
interfere with longshore transport of sediment and may alter migration pathways used by
juvenile salmon. These structures could be replaced with soft bank armoring. The protection of
high-quality habitat, including forage fish spawning beaches and the bluffs that supply these
beaches, should be a high priority.
4.2.8 Tarboo Lake, Sandy Shore Lake, and Wahl Lake (Hood Canal 33
West Shore Upper)
4.2.8.1 Freshwater Reaches (Map 9) 35
Tarboo Lake: 5.5 miles to the north of Tarboo Bay’s northern boundary, adjacent to the
headwaters of Tarboo Creek.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-43
Sandy Shore Lake: Approximately 1.5 miles to the west of the intersection of Highway 104 and
State Route 19, at 47°53’26”N and 122°46’00”W.
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Wahl Lake: Approximately 2.2 miles to the west of northwest extent of Squamish Harbor, at
47°51’50”N and 122°44’22”W
4.2.8.2 Description 5
Generally, there is limited information on lakes in this area. Tarboo Lake is located between
Highway 104 and Lake Leland within commercial forestland. It has no outlet and a surface area
of 20.3 acres. Land use in the Tarboo Lake planning area is dominated by commercial forest
activities. Ninety percent of the planning area is zoned Commercial Forest. Agricultural
practices in the Tarboo Bay basin are a primary source of fecal coliform in Dabob Bay
(Parametrix et al., 2000).There has been no recent timber cutting adjacent to the lake. Public
access is provided by a WDFW-owned boat ramp at the end of Tarboo Lake Road. It is a popular
trout fishing lake.
No significant geologically hazardous areas or aquifer recharge areas are mapped within the
Tarboo Lake planning area. The lake is mapped with lacustrine – limnetic (open water) wetland
over 66 percent of the planning area.
Tarboo Lake is mapped with less than 200 feet of road by both Jefferson County and WDNR.
Mapping indicates the lake access point at the end of Tarboo Lake Road.
The area surrounding Sandy Shore Lake is commercial timberland. South of the lake there is a
recent timber cut as determined from aerial photography. The planning area of the lake is zoned
Commercial Forest. Sandy Shore Lake is presumed coho, cutthroat, and steelhead habitat
(Correa, 2002). Pope Resources owns the property surrounding Sandy Shore Lake, and allows
conditional recreation use of their land at both locations. Less than 200 feet of road are mapped
by WDNR at Sandy Shore Lake, and Sandy Shore Lake Road ends on the west shore of the lake
within the planning area.
Wahl Lake is south of Highway 104 near Shine. Its surface area is 21.6 acres. Surrounding the
lake, 54 percent of the planning area is mapped as wetland, with palustrine scrub/shrub and open
water the primary wetland classifications. Wahl Lake is home to several rare wetland plants and
plant assemblages. It is one of several isolated lakes in the Thorndyke Creek/Shine area.
Wahl Lake is located on commercial timberland owned by Pope Resources, and the surrounding
area has experienced recent logging. Pope Resources allows conditional recreation use of their
land at this location. The planning area of the lake is zoned Commercial Forest with a Mineral
Resource Lands Overlay. Fred Hill Materials gravel mine operates adjacent to Wahl Lake. This
gravel mine, permitted in 2005, allows the proposed 137-acre extraction area to be mined
sequentially, in segments ranging in size from 12 to 15 acres (JCDCD, 2005). Less than 200 feet
of road are mapped by WDNR at Wahl Lake.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-44 November 2008
4.2.9 Southern Toandos Peninsula, Thorndyke Bay, and Squamish 1
Harbor (Hood Canal West Shore Upper) 2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
4.2.9.1 Overview (Map 1a) 3
This Hood Canal shoreline faces Kitsap County. The uplands are relatively low glacial deposits.
There are long stretches of pristine shoreline south of the Thorndyke Creek estuary, which is one
of the finest examples of an unaltered estuary in Jefferson County. The Nature Conservancy has
identified this area as a priority conservation area. There are three drift cells along this shoreline.
The southwestern shore of Squamish Harbor has little development and is generally in pristine
condition. Shine Creek enters the harbor at its head after flowing through a large estuarine
wetland. Near the head of the harbor and along its northern shore (Shine) there is moderately
dense residential development. East of Shine there is an area of massive erosion that threatens
several structures on the top of the bluffs.
4.2.9.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 9) 13
Reach T: From center of divergence between drift cell JE-15 and JE-16 to terminus of drift cell
JE-15 at Hazel Point.
Reach U: Drift cell JE-14, Hazel Point to center of divergence zone JE-13/JE-14.
Reach V: Toandos Peninsula along Hood Canal, from the center of divergence zone JE-13/JE-
14, including drift cells JE-13 and JE-12, to the terminus of drift cell JE-12 at Squamish Harbor.
Reach W: Drift cell JE-11, including areas inside the spit at the head of Squamish Harbor that are
part of the extensive estuary of Shine Creek.
4.2.9.3 Physical Environment (Maps 11, 12, 14, 15, 26, and 27) 21
The Dabob-Thorndyke subbasin receives a relatively high rate of precipitation (averaging 39
inches per year), and is characterized by high levels of groundwater recharge. Principal aquifer
materials in the Shine area are composed of pre-Vashon stratified glacial drift and interglacial
deposits. In addition, Vashon advance outwash materials may be saturated in places. Exposures
of principal aquifer materials are present along the incised channels. Recessional outwash and
alluvial materials have subsequently filled in portions of the channels (Parametrix et al., 2000).
Reach T begins in a zone of divergence that encompasses sediment sources for drift cells JE-16
and JE-15. The first drift cell in this reach, JE-15, has its origin at the broad zone of divergence
between Tskutsko Point and Oak Head. Sediment is derived from bluffs cut into sandy glacial
drift of the Double Bluff formation, pre-Vashon Stade sediments, and Vashon till. Net shore-drift
is to the southeast past Oak Head and northeast to Hazel Point where the drift cell terminates at
the end of a cuspate spit. Net shore-drift is indicated by northeastward progradation of the bay
mouth spit across the mouth of Fisherman’s Harbor, and progradation of the cuspate spit at Hazel
Point. It is thought that much of the sediment is lost to deep water (70 to 90 yards deep)
immediately off of the point (Johannessen, 1992). This shoreline is generally considered unstable
with numerous recent landslides (Ecology, 1978).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-45
Reach U encompasses drift cell JE-14, which begins 2.25 miles northwest of Hazel Point. Drift
cell JE-14 has a net shore-drift to the southeast to terminate at Hazel Point. Drift here is governed
by a northerly fetch of up to 17 miles causing southward and southeastward net shore-drift.
Evidence of southward drift includes the buildup of sediment on the north side of boat ramps,
southward stream mouth offset, and the progradation of Hazel Point (Johannessen, 1992). Bluffs
in this drift cell and in the zone of divergence to the north are considered unstable with several
recent landslides. These bluffs are of similar composition to others on the Toandos Peninsula:
Vashon till overlying thicker layers of Possession Drift, older, undifferentiated stratified
sediments, and Double Bluff Drift (Ecology, 1978).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Reach V originates from the same zone of divergence as JE-14, located 3.6 km north of Hazel
Point, and encompasses drift cells JE-13 and JE-12, terminating at the head of Squamish Harbor.
Within drift cell JE-13, net shore-drift is generally northeastward for 17 km to terminate at the
northern tip of the South Point Spit. Drift cell sediment is initially derived from exposed bluffs
cut into sandy glacial drift and streams that are found intermittently along the cell. Northward
and northeastward net shore-drift to Thorndyke Bay is indicated by northward offset of two
small deltas located 1 and 2 miles south of Brown Point, nearshore bars oriented northeast-
southwest that are moving northward in the southern portion of the cell, progradation of two
looped bars (that bear a superficial resemblance to a cuspate spit but are much more blunt) from
uplands, which project seaward slightly, and the northward stream mouth offset on these features
(Johannessen, 1992).
Within marine Reaches T, U, and V, 7 percent to 17 percent of the planning area is wetland, with
estuarine – intertidal the primary wetland classification.
Just north of the Thorndyke estuary, several homes sit on top of eroding bluffs (Ecology, 2001).
This is an area of frequent slides that contribute abundant sediment to this long drift cell. The
shoreline is characterized by areas of heavy riparian vegetation between the eroding bluffs
(Ecology, 2001; WDNR, 2001). Water quality in Thorndyke Bay is generally considered good
(Parametrix et al., 2000).
The long and narrow South Point Spit was formed by sediment transport from an extensive drift
cell from the south. The habitat complex historically supported fringing tidal marsh and lagoon
habitat protected behind the spit (Todd et al., 2006). Historically, net shore-drift continued north
of here to terminate at the head of Squamish Harbor (where JE-12 now terminates). However,
dredging the entrance of the marina at Bridgehaven and the jetty to the north of this entrance
have interrupted continued net shore-drift to the north (Hirschi et al., 2003b; Johannessen, 1992).
Immediately to the north of the jetty at the entrance to Bridgehaven Marina begins drift cell JE-
12. This drift cell continues north for about 2 miles terminating at the head of Squamish Harbor,
near the mouth of Shine Creek. The spit at the origin of the cell used to be prograding to the
north, but this seems to have ceased and the spit has now become detached from the mainland
due to the reduction of sediment reaching it, possibly resulting from the shoreline alterations at
Bridgehaven (Johannessen, 1992) and the jetty that marks the entrance to the marina. Northward
net shore-drift in this part of Squamish Harbor is indicated by northward beach increase (north of
the spit), sediment accumulations on the south side of several large trees lying across the beach,
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-46 November 2008
and the northward progradation of the small spit 300 yards south of the terminus of the cell
(Johanessen, 1992).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
The northern shore of Squamish Harbor (Reach W) is bounded by drift cell JE-11 which
encompasses net shore-drift for 2 miles from the large glacial drift bluff 0.5 mile southwest of
the Hood Canal Bridge to the head of the harbor, converging with drift cell JE-12. Abundant
sediment is derived from a high bluff west of Termination Point composed of various layers of
glacial sediment. A house is perched precariously on the top. This shoreline is classified as
unstable recent landslide (Ecology, 1978). Net shore-drift to the west is indicated by sediment
accumulations on the east side of obstacles and the westward prograding spit at the mouth of
Shine Creek.
Within marine Reach W, 27 percent of the planning area is wetland, with estuarine – intertidal
(53 percent) and palustrine forested/emergent/scrub-shrub (46 percent) the primary wetland
classifications. Sandy Shore Lake is in the upper Thorndyke Creek watershed. Its surface area is
34.9 acres. Surrounding the lake, 66 percent of the planning area is mapped as wetland, with
lacustrine – limnetic (open water) the primary classification.
4.2.9.4 Biological Resources (Maps 17, 18, 20, 26, and 27) 16
Major habitat features along drift cell JE-15 include a brackish marsh just northwest of Oak
Head, Fisherman’s Harbor estuary and mudflats, and a salt marsh enclosed by Hazel Point. Two
small drainages into Fisherman’s Harbor support chum and coho spawning (Correa, 2002). Bald
eagle territory includes the area between Tskutsko Point and Oak Head and the area between
Fisherman’s Harbor and Hazel Point. Several bald eagle nests are located in this vicinity.
Riparian vegetation covers 60 to 80 percent of this shoreline; eelgrass beds are patchy to
continuous throughout (WDNR, 2001).
Salt marshes occur at Hazel Point and behind a longshore spit 1.7 km to the north (Southeast
Toandos Lagoon) (Todd et al., 2006). A surface channel connection is evident between the
lagoon and adjacent nearshore waters. It appears that the lagoon receives freshwater inputs from
a ditch draining a large lawn area located immediately upslope, and possibly through a narrow
forested ravine to the northwest. The native vegetation surrounding the complex to the south has
apparently been removed but native conifers occur to the west and north (Todd et al., 2006).
This marsh may have been encroached upon from the north by the development of a road and
boat ramp. Sand lance spawn just south of this salt marsh; surf smelt also spawn farther north in
the zone of divergence between JE-14 and JE-13 (Long et al., 2005). Riparian vegetation is
abundant throughout this drift cell except in a few areas of development and bluff face sliding
(Ecology, 2001). Eelgrass is patchy in the northern section of this drift cell and largely absent
toward the south. There is a bald eagle nest located north of Hazel Point.
Eelgrass beds are patchy throughout the length of drift cell JE-13. In general the East Toandos
shoreline reach retains function, with undisturbed feeder bluffs interspersed by lower banks
covered in healthy riparian vegetation. There is little shoreline alteration to interrupt alongshore
drift. Numerous barrier spit salt marshes, often associated with small stream mouths, occur
primarily on Navy property, between the origin of the cell and Thorndyke Bay (Ecology, 2001).
There are several bald eagle nests in the vicinity of Brown Point. Sand lance spawn in several
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-47
locations north and south of Brown Point including on the alongshore spit formations mentioned
above (Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
The Thorndyke Bay shoreline is one of the least developed areas on Hood Canal and as result is
considered one of the top priorities for estuarine conservation in the Puget Sound region (May
and Peterson, 2003). Thorndyke Creek estuary is an example of an intact estuary of a mid-sized
stream, which is relatively rare in the Puget Sound basin. It is unique for several reasons,
including a lack of road crossings, little residential development, and beaver dams in the lower
reaches of the stream down to the high-tide line (Correa, 2002; Hirschi, personal communication,
2001). It has a large (32-acre) marsh and mudflat complex enclosed by a barrier beach (Leon and
Driscoll, 1975). Spartina, an invasive cordgrass, had established and spread over large areas of
the mudflats by early 2000, but persistent eradication efforts by the Washington State
Department of Agriculture have been successful (WSDA 2007). Bald eagles and osprey nest in
this area. May and Peterson (2003) identify the Thorndyke Creek estuary as a Category A NSE
refugia for salmonids. Thorndyke Bay is also a regionally significant overwintering site for
waterfowl.
Low summer flow, which may be related to consumptive use of groundwater, has been identified
as a factor that limits coho salmon production in Thorndyke Creek. There are consumptive use
rights for surface water totaling 2.31 cfs, and claims of 2.96 cfs. If actual use approaches the
claimed volume, it could significantly influence summer low flow (Parametrix et al., 2000).
Despite a history of logging activity in the watershed and apparent log storage in the estuary, the
general extent and configuration of major habitat features are similar to historical conditions.
The overall connectivity of the Thorndyke Creek estuary appears relatively unimpaired (Todd et
al., 2006).
Sand lance spawn just north of the Thorndyke estuary (Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005).
Nordstrom Creek runs into Hood Canal just south of South Point; its mouth is marked by a small
salt marsh of the type favored by juvenile salmonids, and coho and steelhead spawn upstream
(Hirschi, personal communication, 2004; Correa, 2002). There are few houses in this area, which
appears to be a well functioning ecosystem.
Despite shoreline alteration in the South Point area, sand lance spawn both south of South Point
and north along the outside of the spit. Surf smelt spawn on the shore just north of the spit
(Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005).
Behind Bridgehaven in a slough dredged for a marina, juvenile salmonids were not found,
whereas they were found immediately to the north in the relatively unaltered backshore of the
spit at the origin of drift cell JE-12. The southern part of drift cell JE-12, from the origin to the
small point about 1.25 miles to the north, has healthy riparian vegetation (100 percent) often with
large trees growing over the intertidal zone. This may be because this area is somewhat protected
from southern fetch (Correa, 2002; WDNR, 2001). In the nearshore, eelgrass beds are
continuous along the outside and the inside of the South Point Spit and patchier farther north to
the point mentioned above. The characteristics of this reach are unique. A small stream enters
Squamish Harbor near the middle of this drift cell and is presumed cutthroat trout habitat
(Correa, 2002).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-48 November 2008
Development increases in the northern end of the drift cell to the head of the harbor, and riparian
vegetation decreases to cover about 20 percent of the shoreline (WDNR, 2001). Eelgrass beds
are patchy throughout with barnacles and Ulva. There is also a bald eagle nest in this area.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
At the terminus of this drift cell is the Shine Creek estuary, with an extensive salt marsh totaling
85 acres with about 5 acres of intertidal habitat. Shine Creek supports chum and coho salmon
and cutthroat and steelhead trout spawning. The wetlands are also important rearing habitat for
natal and non-natal juvenile pink, chum, coho, and Chinook salmon (Hirschi et al., 2003a).
May and Peterson (2003) identify Squamish Harbor and the Shine Creek estuary as a Category A
NSE salmonid refugia. The intertidal marsh, mud flat, sand pit and other features of the harbor
and estuary provide habitat diversity that increases their ecological value. The NSE refuge
provides highly productive rearing habitat for salmon and other species.
With the exception of the area in front of the feeder bluff, eelgrass is continuous in the eastern
half of drift cell JE-11 and patchy in the western end. Riparian vegetation is sparse along this
reach, never covering more than 10 percent of the shoreline. This is primarily due to clearing for
views in front of the many houses along this stretch of shoreline (Ecology, 2001). Sand lance
spawn along the western end of this reach (Reach W) and herring spawn in the eelgrass beds
offshore (Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005).
4.2.9.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 11, 12, 21, and 22) 18
Land Use and Zoning 19
20
21
22
23
24
The dominant land use in this area is commercial timberland. Areas of shoreline residential use
are concentrated at the southern end of the Toandos Peninsula, south of the Thorndyke estuary,
South Point, and Bridgehaven. Within all marine reaches, between 50 percent and 100 percent
of the planning area is zoned Rural Residential. Other significant planning area zoning includes
Military Reservation and Commercial Forest.
Transportation and Utilities 25
26
27
28
29
30
Throughout the marine planning area, Jefferson County and WDNR have mapped 14 miles and
28 miles of road, respectively. Mapped roads are focused around areas of higher population
density, including Fisherman’s Harbor at the south end of Toandos Peninsula, Thorndyke Bay,
South Pt/Bridgehaven Marina, and Squamish Harbor near Shine. Planning areas of Reach U and
the majority of Reach V are largely without roadways.
Shoreline Modifications 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
There is no shoreline armoring of note along drift cell JE-15. However, there are several docks
and overwater structures in Fisherman’s Harbor, some in disrepair (Ecology, 2001).
Just north of Hazel Point a residential bulkhead extends into the upper intertidal zone, possibly
interfering with longshore transport of sediment to the point. This house is also set on the very
seaward edge of the bulkhead. Otherwise drift cell JE-14 is minimally altered. The feeder bluffs
in the zone of divergence between JE-14 and JE-13 are not armored. JE-13 is subject to only
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-49
minor bulkheading until the broad point 1,600 meters south of the Thorndyke Creek estuary.
There are several extensive bulkheads and a private gazebo or deck structure on the backshore.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
37
38
39
40
The forested uplands surrounding the Thorndyke Creek estuary have been logged at least once,
and apparently the lagoon itself was used to store and transport logs. Fencing occurs in parts of
the estuary, suggesting the area was once used for pasture (Todd et al., 2006). Between the
Thorndyke estuary and South Point there are no bulkheads or shoreline alterations of note. Just
south of the old South Point ferry dock, several bulkheads extend into the upper intertidal.
From South Point ferry dock (now abandoned) northward through the Bridgehaven development
the shoreline is severely altered. The entire outer shoreline of the spit has been armored with
riprap or concrete bulkheads, while the complete interior side of the spit has a wooden seawall
with backfill. In addition, the former salt marsh has been dredged to provide space for the
marina. The access road to Bridgehaven constricts tidal exchange to the little salt marsh that
remains. There is a riprap jetty north of the entrance to the marina that stops longshore transport
of sediment. Developments on the spit complex at the terminus of drift cell JE-13 have severely
altered the deposition zone of this drift cell. The former ferry terminal at South Point also
interrupts longshore transport of sediment (Correa, 2002).
Due to the armoring of the South Point reach shoreline, a coarsening and eroding of the beach
has occurred along the southern half of Bridgehaven. This has likely decreased the fine
sediments needed by forage fish for spawning (Hirschi et al., 2003b).
Shoreline armoring is absent from the southern end of drift cell JE-12, while roughly 30 percent
of the northern portion of the drift cell is armored (Hirschi et al., 2003b). This armoring may
interfere with longshore transport of sediment and beach substrate composition. Fill and several
culverts under Shine Road that modify and restrict flow were replaced with a full-span bridge in
2005 (Davis, personal communication, 2006) with the intent of increasing tidal exchange to the
upper estuary.
Shoreline armoring is prevalent along the north shore of Squamish Harbor, with about 26 percent
of this reach armored (Hirschi et al., 2003b). Two boat ramps, one at a County park, extend into
the intertidal, with parking lots located on fill. A considerable portion of the lower Shine Creek
estuary salt marsh has been filled for residential development, probably beginning in the 1960s
(Todd, personal communication, 2006). There are several large riprap bulkheads covering the
bluff in front of residences. At the terminus of drift cell JE-11 in the depositional zone, there are
several cement bulkheads that may have limited usefulness since erosion is not a major issue at
this location. Sediment for this drift cell primarily comes from the large feeder bluff west of
Termination Point. Erosion and landsliding are inherent features of this area (Ecology, 2001).
4.2.9.6 Public Access (Maps 21 and 22) 35
South Toandos State Park provides boat access at Oak Head. Brown Points WDNR tidelands are
accessible by boat. The possibility of upland access to this area through Pope Resources land or
Navy property should be explored.
Case Shoal offshore in the southern part of Squamish Harbor, only exposed at low tide, is owned
by the WDNR and is open to recreational shellfishing. The WDNR timberland north of the spit
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-50 November 2008
on the west side of the bay is open to public access; however there are no facilities or
improvements. Hicks County Park on the north shore of Squamish Harbor has a boat ramp and
there are public WDNR tidelands to the east of the park.
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
33
34
4.2.9.7 Restoration Opportunities 4
Unused docks and pilings could be pulled from Fisherman’s Harbor. The South Point/
Bridgehaven area could benefit from actions that improve sediment function and provide salt
marsh habitat for juvenile salmonids. This area is heavily developed and immediate restoration
actions are not clear. Potential opportunities include improving/replacing the culvert at the
remnant South Point salt marsh to provide fish access.
The reach between South Point Spit and Shine Creek is in pristine condition and should be
protected; part of it is already WDNR timberlands (Correa, 2002). Removing or reconfiguring
the boat ramps on the north side of the bay would allow for longshore transportation of sediment
and increase shallow water habitat. In the North Squamish and Shine reaches, alternatives to
bulkheads and restoration of nearshore riparian habitat would improve longshore transport of
sediment and enhance shallow water/nearshore habitat.
4.2.10 Hood Canal Bridge to Tala Point (Admiralty Inlet) 16
4.2.10.1 Overview (Map 1a) 17
This shoreline is situated between the Hood Canal Bridge and Port Ludlow. Some pristine areas
are located in Bywater Bay and around Hood Head. Residential development is concentrated in
Reach AA; however, scattered homes are found throughout this section of shoreline. Hood Head
is an island connected to the mainland by a tombolo (or spit) and is predominantly undisturbed
by development. Development pressures in this area are concentrated south of Tala Point, White
Rock Cove, and Bywater Bay.
4.2.10.2 Nearshore Reaches 24
Reach X: Drift cell JE-10, including Termination Point, the western shore of Bywater Bay, and
Wolfe Property State Park.
Reach Y: Drift cell JE-9 on the western side of Hood Head.
Reach Z: Drift cell JE-8 on the east side of Hood Head.
Reach AA: From Point Hannon to Tala Point, including north Hood Head, White Rock Cove,
and Paradise Bay.
4.2.10.3 Physical Environment (Maps 12, 15, and 27) 31
A large basalt bedrock body occurs south of Ludlow Bay. It underlies the principal aquifer
between Ludlow Bay and Squamish Harbor at elevations ranging from land surface to several
hundred feet below sea level (Parametrix et al., 2000).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-51
Drift cell JE-10 originates at the depositional bluffs at Termination Point and continues north to
the head of Bywater Bay. At the base of the Hood Canal Bridge, significant progradation
seaward (to the southwest) occurred, allowing sediment to continue to travel northward
(Johannessen, 1992). Eroding bluffs dominate the shoreline of Bywater Bay, and are unstable
from just north of the parking lot at Termination Point to the mouth of a small stream 500 yards
south of the end of Seven Sisters Road. Beach width and riparian vegetation increase northward
to where the drift cell terminates in a 500-yard-long, broad sand and pea gravel spit at the head
of Bywater Bay in Wolfe Property State Park (Johannessen, 1992).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
37
38
39
40
Drift cell JE-9 originates at the erosional headland at the southern tip of Hood Head, and net
shore-drift is to the north 1 mile to terminate at the head of Bywater Bay (Johannessen, 1992).
The next drift cell, JE-8, extends from the feeder bluffs on south Hood Head 1 mile to the
northeast to terminate at Point Hannon on Whiskey Spit. South Hood Head is a steep headland of
glacial drift that supplies abundant sand and gravel to the intertidal (Johannessen, 1992). This
bluff is composed of Vashon lodgement till over a layer of undifferentiated stratified sediments
overlying a layer of Possession Drift. Although Vashon lodgement till is considered relatively
stable, the underlying sediments are considered unstable on slopes greater than the angle of
repose (generally slopes greater than 30 to 39 degrees). Several recent landslides mark this area
and, as with all the bluffs on the east side of Hood Head, landslide hazard is considered high
(Ecology, 1978).
Drift cell JE-7 extends for 4.9 miles from the erosional feeder bluffs at Tala Point in the north to
Point Hannon in the south. The sediment source in this drift cell comes from eroding bluffs
composed of sandy glacial drift found in the northern and central parts of the cell. Beach
characteristics and sediment composition vary as the level of beach exposure varies. Sandy drift
material is abundant in the bluffs close to Tala Point but relatively scarce farther south where the
bluffs are composed of silt and clay-rich glacial till, with little sand or gravel to replenish the
beach (Johannessen, 1992). The remaining shoreline from Paradise Bay to Tala Point is semi-
protected, with the majority of the abundant sediment coming from backshore sources.
Net shore-drift in cell JE-7 creates the tombolo to North Hood Head, a narrow, low berm that is
overtopped at high storm tides. The drift cell terminates at Point Hannon, a cuspate spit that
extends more than 300 yards from the uplands and is a zone of drift convergence in common
with drift cell JE-8 (Johannessen, 1992).
Within marine Reaches X and Y, 22 percent to 27 percent of the planning area is wetland.
Within marine Reaches Z and AA, 6 percent to 8 percent of the planning area is wetland.
Estuarine – intertidal (unconsolidated shoreline and emergent) is the primary wetland
classification within all shoreline reaches.
4.2.10.4 Biological Resources (Maps 18, 20, 24, and 27) 36
A freshwater marsh lies on the landward side of Shine Tidelands State Park. It is cut off from salt
water by riprap fronting a parking lot (Correa, 2002). An osprey pair nests on the peninsula
jutting into the tidal lagoon formed by the spit. As of 1999 there was a great blue heron colony of
three nests near the end of Seven Sisters Road. Sand lance and surf smelt spawn along the Wolfe
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-52 November 2008
Property State Park from near the end of Seven Sisters Road northward to the beginning of the
spit (Penttila, 2000). Brown kelp and eelgrass are continuous to patchy in Bywater Bay, with
several dense beds of eelgrass about 200 meters north of the Hood Canal Bridge (Woodruff et
al., 2002). Chum salmon are found in the large tidal lagoon in Wolfe Property State Park created
by the spit at the head of Bywater Bay. In addition, the small stream draining into the tidal
lagoon presumably provides cutthroat trout habitat (Correa, 2002).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Water quality in this entire shore segment is generally good and most areas are approved for
shellfish harvest (WDH, 2006). The area at the head of Bywater Bay and the area immediately
adjacent to the spit and lagoon are private tidelands belonging to Shellfish Farm, LLC. (Adams,
personal communication, 2006). Other tidelands in the area are also privately owned.
The end of drift cell JE-9 encloses a salt marsh along the northeastern shore of Hood Head.
Riparian vegetation along this segment is generally dense with the exception of the erosional
headlands on the southern end. Eelgrass is patchy in this area of Bywater Bay.
Riparian vegetation is healthy in the northern half of drift cell JE-8, whereas in the southern half
much of the riparian vegetation has slid into the nearshore. Sand lance spawning is documented
along the south side of Whiskey Spit at Point Hannon (Penttila, 2000). Patches of eelgrass and
Ulva are found along the southern and eastern sides of Hood Head.
An open water lagoon, with no outlet to the nearshore and surrounded by marsh, occurs at the
base of Whiskey Spit. Juvenile Chinook salmon have been observed along Point Hannon Spit
feeding on sand lance. Sand lance spawning has been documented on the north side of this spit
(Long et al., 2005). The remainder of the spit is covered in dune grass, the only disturbance
being a small abandoned cabin and navigational light. This area has been identified as an
example of a healthy cuspate spit habitat type (Correa, 2002).
Near Tala Point, tall bluff-top trees harbor a bald eagle nest and an osprey nest. The sandy gravel
beaches south of Tala Point provide sand lance and surf smelt spawning habitat. There are
several additional surf smelt spawning beaches in this reach (Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005).
The riparian vegetation along this reach is nearly continuous. A brackish marsh is situated south
of the unnamed broad point south of Tala Point. Clearing of riparian vegetation for views has
occurred, particularly north of Paradise Bay and in White Rock Cove (Ecology, 2001). Patches
of Fucus, barnacles, Ulva, and soft brown kelp, with continuous eelgrass beds, are present in
White Rock Cove. Patches of barnacles, eelgrass, and Ulva, with some soft brown kelp, are
found in the nearshore reaches from Paradise Bay to Tala Point (Correa, 2002).
Patches of Ulva and continuous eelgrass occur along drift cell JE-7. A bald eagle nest is located
on the northern bluffs of Hood Head.
4.2.10.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 12 and 22) 35
Land Use and Zoning 36
37
38
Land use along the marine shoreline is dominated by residential development. Within all
reaches, 100 percent of the planning area is zoned Rural Residential.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-53
Transportation and Utilities 1
2
3
4
5
Throughout the marine planning area, Jefferson County and WDNR have mapped 14 miles and
28 miles of road, respectively. Mapped roads are focused around areas of higher population
density. However, there are roads along the majority of the shoreline throughout the marine
planning area.
Shoreline Modifications 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
Shoreline modifications in this segment include less than 2 miles of bulkhead. The footing of the
Hood Canal Bridge interferes with the longshore transport of sediment (Johannessen, 1992). Just
to the north of the Hood Canal Bridge, a long riprap bulkhead protects the road and parking lot at
Shine Tidelands State Park. Considerable changes have taken place to the marsh/lagoon at Shine
Tidelands State Park. There is question as to whether a tidal inlet ever occurred at this site, but
the marsh/lagoon was probably dredged at one time (perhaps for log storage) and the current fill
and riprap surrounding the marsh/lagoon prevents any regular tidal connection (Todd, personal
communication, 2006).
Besides some shoreline armoring above the intertidal zone along the west side of Hood Head,
Bywater Bay is largely free of bulkheads. No shoreline armoring exists on the north or east sides
of Hood Head (Hirschi et al., 2003). White Rock Cove is 20 percent armored with riprap
(WDNR, 2001). To the north of Paradise Bay a private access road with a bulkheaded landing
extends into the intertidal and interrupts net shore-drift (Correa, 2002). Just north of this, a large
riprap bulkhead was installed to protect a large stairway structure and a house situated close to
the edge of a slumping bluff (Ecology, 2001). The high bluff at the origin of the drift cell at Tala
Point is armored at the toe, which interrupts sediment source for drift cells JE-6 and JE-7
(Correa, 2002).
4.2.10.6 Public Access (Map 22) 24
Just north of the Hood Canal Bridge, Shine Tidelands State Park provides access to the shoreline
north to Hood Head. In addition, there is another parking area at the end of Seven Sisters Road
for beach access north to Wolfe Property State Park. Properties on the north shore of Hood Head
are owned by WDNR. Some parcels between the state park and DNR tidelands are in private
ownership. Point Hannon is owned by Washington State Parks. North of the Paradise Bay
development is WDNR-owned public access shoreline that ends just south of the broad point
south of Tala Point. A water access primitive campground is planned for State Park land on Point
Hannon.
4.2.10.7 Restoration Opportunities 33
Moving the parking lot to the south and removing the bulkhead at Shine Tidelands State Park
would open up the marsh to the nearshore, providing potential rearing habitat for migrating chum
and pink salmon (Correa, 2002). Several bulkheads extending into the nearshore in the Tala
Shores area could be removed to allow for improved longshore transport of sediment. Removal
of riprap at the base of the bluff at Tala Point would recover the natural rate of sediment input
into the nearshore.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-54 November 2008
4.2.11 Port Ludlow (Admiralty Inlet) 1
4.2.11.1 Overview (Map 1a) 2
Port Ludlow, which is designated a Master Planned Resort, is an area of relatively intense
residential development. Future development in this area could include expansion of the marina
and associated condominium development. Port Ludlow retains some valuable natural habitat
including at least one salmon spawning creek (Ludlow Creek), several salt marsh areas, and
numerous forage fish spawning beaches. Two drift cells occur in this area as well as extensive
back bay areas of no net shore-drift. The geology of this area is mainly glacial drift derived
bluffs; however, there are several basaltic outcroppings in southwest Ludlow Bay and farther
north at Basalt Point.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
4.2.11.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 9) 11
Reach BB: Drift cell JE-6 from the origin at Tala Point to the salt marsh at the terminus of drift
cell JE-6.
Reach CC: Ludlow Bay from the terminus of drift cell JE-6 to Ludlow Spit, including the Twins,
the two basaltic islands in the southern bay.
Reach DD: Drift cell JE-5, the Mats Mats shoreline from Ludlow Spit north to the south jetty at
the barge harbor near Basalt Point.
4.2.11.3 Physical Environment (Maps 12, 15, and 27) 18
Principal aquifer materials in the Port Ludlow area include pre-Vashon stratified glacial drift and
interglacial deposits. In addition, Vashon advance outwash materials may be saturated in places.
Exposure of principal aquifer materials is noted along the incised channels. Recessional outwash
and alluvial materials have subsequently filled in portions of the channels. A large bedrock body
occurs south of Ludlow Bay, and underlies the principal aquifer between Ludlow Bay and
Squamish Harbor at elevations ranging from land surface to several hundred feet below sea level.
The bedrock is composed of basalt (Parametrix et al., 2000).
The tall eroding feeder bluffs on Tala Point provide much of the sediment for the south shore of
Ludlow Bay. Tala Point is a classic feeder bluff with little vegetation due to near constant
erosion. Drift cell JE-6 begins at this feeder bluff, and net shore-drift continues southeast for
about 2 miles into Ludlow Bay. Farther west, contributing bluffs, often forested with patches of
even-aged trees indicating past bluff failures, add more sediment to this drift cell. There is
abundant evidence of recent landslides along this shoreline including large boulders in the
intertidal. Net shore-drift continues to the west to form an accretionary beach in front of a salt
marsh. Several groins placed to capture sediment and a turn-of-the-century shipwreck interfere
with net shore-drift (Johannessen, 1992; Correa, 2002).
There is no appreciable net shore-drift occurring within Ludlow Bay (Reach CC), the southern
shore of which is composed of basalt. Although sandy beach occurs over parts of the harbor, low
wave energy and substantial human modification preclude net shore-drift from occurring
(Shipman, 1991).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-55
Drift cell JE-5, originating just south of Basalt Point, has net shore-drift to the south for 2.6 miles
to the marina at Port Ludlow. Sediment for this drift cell is supplied by several sources, including
a contributing bluff composed of compact glacial till, sometimes overlying basalt at the
beginning of the cell; a feeder bluff south of this, supplying sediment rich in gravel; and another
contributing bluff south of the village of Mats Mats. A large housing development is located on
top of this southernmost contributing bluff, near the southern end of Reach DD. Poor drainage
management appears to have aggravated and accelerated bluff erosion. This development
corresponds to the area listed as unstable recent slides in the Coastal Zone Atlas (Johannessen,
1999; Ecology, 1982). The drift cell terminates at the depositional beach in front of the Port
Ludlow resort and restaurant. This is a modified spit complex that still maintains a wide beach
with minimal shoreline armoring.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Along the marine shoreline, less than 13 percent of the planning area is wetland in all reaches
(less than 0.5 percent in Reach DD). The primary wetland classification is estuarine – intertidal
(unconsolidated shoreline and rocky shore. Reach land cover within the planning area is
predominantly evergreen forest, bare rock/sand/clay, and acreages/rural residential. Additional
areas of commercial/industrial/transportation, deciduous forest, low intensity residential,
urban/recreational grasses, transitional, woody wetlands, and mixed forest land cover are
mapped.
4.2.11.4 Biological Resources (Maps 18, 20, and 27) 19
Eelgrass beds are continuous and riparian vegetation is heavy in Reach BB. Eelgrass beds are
patchy to continuous within the southern portion of this reach, with riparian vegetation
decreasing to the west due to clearing of trees for development and views. Two marshes, the East
Ludlow Marsh and Ludlow Lagoon, are found in this reach. East Ludlow Marsh is a small
fringing salt marsh that is supported by limited tidal connection and at least one small freshwater
stream (Todd et al., 2006). Ludlow Lagoon is important habitat for juvenile salmonids, though
some diking and filling of the salt marsh and lagoon has occurred since the 1800s (Todd,
personal communication, 2006). The stream flowing into the marsh supports cutthroat trout
(Correa, 2002). The Tala Point bald eagle territory includes Tala Point and West Tala Point
(Reaches AA and BB). Surf smelt spawn in the middle of the reach, while both surf smelt and
sand lance spawn on the barrier beach at the western end of Reach BB (Penttila, 2000; Long et
al., 2005).
The back bay area of West Port Ludlow contains the small estuary of Ludlow Creek, which
supports coho, chum, cutthroat, and steelhead. The estuary is truncated by fill and culverts
associated with the Paradise Bay Road crossing. Juvenile cutthroat and coho use the tidal
channels cut into the road fill. In North Port Ludlow, there is an area of fill and scattered
residential development with sparse riparian vegetation. Surf smelt and sand lance spawn just
west of the marina (Long et al., 2005). The small stream entering Ludlow Bay between Ludlow
Creek and the marina supports cutthroat trout and possibly chum salmon, although available
habitat is limited due to a blocking culvert at the Oak Bay Road crossing (Hirschi, 1999). Patchy
eelgrass beds occur throughout the northern portion of Reach CC.
Forage fish spawning along Reach DD is extensive, with sand lance spawning sites along
Ludlow Spit and south of the Mats Mats quarry, and extensive surf smelt spawning along the
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-56 November 2008
middle of the drift cell (Long et al., 2005). Nine winter surf smelt sites were found by North
Olympic Salmon Coalition studies in the past few years. Two summer surf smelt spawning sites
were also found, a rarity in east Jefferson County (Long et al., 2003). These findings reconfirm
and expand the spawning sites documented by Dan Penttila of WDFW in the 1990s (Penttila,
2000).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Riparian vegetation is sparse along the northern part of this shoreline, although in the middle it
covers roughly 60 percent of the backshore. Clearing has contributed to the spottiness of
backshore riparian vegetation. The preservation of existing vegetation might alleviate some of
the erosion of the bluffs in the North Port Ludlow development (Johannessen, 1999; Ecology,
2001). Eelgrass beds are continuous in the central portion of this reach, and patchy at the north
end and along Ludlow Spit. Offshore, the Colvos Rocks are documented as a seal pupping and
haulout area.
The enclosed bay of Port Ludlow provides significant nearshore habitat for salmonids (May and
Peterson, 2003). The estuary area at mouth of two small season streams at the east edge of the
bay is classified as a Category A NSE salmonid refugia. The remainder of the Ludlow Bay NSE
is a Category C refugia (May and Peterson, 2003).
4.2.11.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 12, 22, and 25) 17
Land Use and Zoning 18
19
20
21
22
23
Land use along the Port Ludlow shoreline is dominated by residential development and resort
communities. Within Reaches BB and DD, 65 percent and 48 percent (respectively) of the
planning area is zoned Rural Residential. Within all reaches, 32 percent to 57 percent of the
planning area is zoned Master Plan Resort – Single Family. Other Master Plan Resort zoning
(Resort Complex/Community Facilities and Multiple Family) exists within Reaches CC and DD.
Transportation and Utilities 24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Within the Port Ludlow shoreline planning area, Jefferson County and WDNR have mapped 1.4
miles and 0.7 mile of road, respectively. Shoreline roads include Ludlow Bay Road, South Bay
Lane, Skiff Lane, Camber Lane, and Paradise Bay Road along the south shoreline of Port
Ludlow, and Oak Bay Road, North Bay Lane, and Gull Drive along the north shoreline of the
port. Continuing north along Reach DD, Montgomery Lane and Olympus Boulevard parallel the
shoreline.
Shoreline Modifications 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Development has encroached into the salt marsh at the terminus of drift cell JE-6. There are
several docks in the vicinity of The Twins in the southwest part of the harbor. Six dock-pier
structures are mapped in Reach BB, and nine dock-pier structures are mapped in Reach CC.
Additionally, a rail launch is mapped within Reach BB. Along the shoreline to the northeast of
Ludlow Creek, a log storage yard and loading area was active for many decades. The site today
appears abandoned and future plans for restoration of the site are unknown (Todd et al., 2006).
In Reach CC there is major shoreline alteration associated with the marina and resort (Ecology,
2001). The back of the 2,000-square-foot marina is completely armored. Construction of the mill
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-57
in the 1800s resulted in substantial filling of shallow tide flats (Todd et al., 2006). Concrete and
rock bulkheading have been identified and mapped along the shoreline as follows: 0.3 mile
within Reach BB, 100 feet within Reach CC, and 0.5 mile within Reach DD. Between the barge
harbor at Mats Mats and Port Ludlow, drift cell JE-4 is about 9 percent armored with a majority
of this armoring in the sediment transport zone.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
33
34
35
37
The few groins and bulkheads along the southern shore of Ludlow Bay do not appear to
significantly impact the overall transport of sediment to the accretion beach at the terminus of
drift cell JE-6. A greater threat to this drift cell would be armoring of the contributing or feeder
bluffs near Tala Point. The Paradise Road crossing at Ludlow Creek, although not a barrier to
fish, does interfere with the natural aggradation of the salt marsh into the bay. The marina on the
north side of the bay could be impacting the growth of eelgrass. Private docks are also abundant
throughout Ludlow Bay, which can have an adverse effect on the growth of eelgrass. Despite the
high level of development at Port Ludlow, natural shore forms have largely been maintained,
except near the old mill and current marina/resort.
Groundwater contamination has been diagnosed from a leaking underground storage tank at the
Port Ludlow Golf Course. Cleanup has been initiated at the site, and the site is not listed as
containing groundwater contamination that affects drinking water (Ecology and WDOH, 1999 as
cited in Parametrix et al., 2000).
4.2.11.6 Public Access (Map 22) 19
The beaches of Port Ludlow are private.
4.2.11.7 Restoration Opportunities 21
Fluvial flow under the Paradise Bay Road crossing could be improved. As the docks are replaced
in Port Ludlow, opportunities to reduce overwater coverage could be explored. There is currently
an experiment at the NW Maritime center dock in Port Townsend examining “eelgrass friendly”
docks, and the results of this study may be applicable in this and other areas. Restoring a more
natural lagoon with flow into the bay and a vegetated shoreline on the current site of the tidal
pond behind the marina has the potential to increase juvenile migratory salmonid habitat. The
need for some of the bulkheads north of Port Ludlow should be explored and alternatives to
bulkheads should be assessed. The restoration of native vegetation on the bluffs north of Port
Ludlow may help stabilize the bluffs.
4.2.12 Mats Mats Bay (Admiralty Inlet) 31
4.2.12.1 Overview (Map 1a) 32
This shoreline extends from the Mats Mats quarry south of Basalt Point to Olele Point, and
includes Mats Mats Bay. Three streams enter the west side of Mats Mats Bay, including
Piddling Creek.
4.2.12.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 9) 36
Reach EE: Olele Point to Basalt Point, including the entire Mats Mats Bay shoreline.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-58 November 2008
4.2.12.3 Physical Environment (Maps 12, 15, and 27) 1
The bedrock along the coast at Mats Mats Bay is composed of basalt (Parametrix et al., 2000). A
zone of no net shore-drift exists between the barge harbor located south of Basalt Point, north to
Olele Point and includes Mats Mats Bay. The only sediment present is on small isolated pocket
beaches between basalt outcroppings. Within Mats Mats Bay there is not enough wave action to
create net shore-drift (Johanessen, 1992). The mouth of Piddling Creek and a small drainage to
the south once formed a wetland complex, but the extent of the original habitat is unknown
(Todd et al., 2006).
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Six percent of the planning area is mapped as wetland, with 85 percent of the wetland area
classified as estuarine – intertidal (aquatic bed/unconsolidated shoreline) and 15 percent
classified as palustrine emergent/forested.
Within the shoreline planning area of Mats Mats Bay, reach land cover is predominantly
evergreen forest. Areas of bare rock/sand/clay, quarries/strip mines/gravel pits, and low intensity
residential land cover are also mapped.
Water quality, specifically fecal coliform contamination, is a problem in Mats Mats Bay, which
is considered a Category 5 water for fecal coliform according to Ecology’s 2004 Water Quality
Assessment. Dissolved oxygen in Mats Mats Bay is depressed in the autumn because of
upwelling from Admiralty Inlet (Parametrix et al., 2000).
4.2.12.4 Biological Resources (Maps 18, 20, 24, and 27) 19
Riparian vegetation has been cleared around the Mats Mats quarry barge harbor. North of this, in
the southern entrance to Mats Mats Bay, the riparian buffer is intact.
The North Mats Mats marsh is a tiny fringing salt marsh located on a point in Mats Mats Bay.
Though a defined channel is not evident at this marsh, it is of such a low elevation that it
probably becomes inundated frequently. There are no known freshwater inputs at the site.
Within the Piddling Creek estuary, it is possible that former marsh was filled for residential
lawns. An extremely limited amount of tidal marsh is available near the mouth of at least one of
the streams near Piddling Creek. A narrow fringing salt marsh at the south end of Mats Mats Bay
has been filled for the development of houses, and access to a pier. Much of the shoreline at the
south end of the bay appears bulkheaded (Todd et al., 2006).
Mats Mats Bay was newly classified as a seasonal conditionally approved shellfish harvest area
in 2005. The marine waters of Mats Mats Bay are impaired by fecal coliform due to elevated
levels of bacteria. A management plan requires the seasonal conditionally approved area to be
closed to harvest from June through September (WDH, 2006a).
Piddling Creek supports chum salmon and cutthroat trout and once supported coho. However,
past land use practices (clearcutting the upper watershed) and an impassable culvert at Oak Bay
Road have extirpated the coho. Efforts are underway by Trout Unlimited to reintroduce coho and
fix the culvert (Hirschi, 1999). Riparian vegetation is largely intact along the Olele Point reach;
this area also supports at least one pair of nesting bald eagles (Correa, 2002). Patchy eelgrass
beds line the entrance of Mats Mats Bay.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-59
4.2.12.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 12, 22, and 25) 1
Land Use and Zoning 2
3
4
5
6
Land use is predominantly rural residential, reflecting the zoning within Mats Mats Bay and in
the areas between Basalt Point and Olele Point. Mats Mats quarry and the associated barge
facility dominate the shoreline land use to the south of Basalt Point. The quarry is used for
mineral extraction.
Transportation and Utilities 7
8
9
10
Within the Mats Mats Bay marine planning area, Jefferson County and WDNR have both
mapped 0.5 mile of road. Roads within the planning area are part of a network of roads serving
the Mats Mats Bay community and the Mats Mats quarry.
Shoreline Modifications 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
22
23
24
27
28
29
30
31
Several rock jetties extend from the Mats Mats quarry barge harbor located to the south of Basalt
Point. Twenty-two docks and one boat launch ramp are documented within Mats Mats Bay. Most
of the bay has a developed and cleared shoreline, with the exception of the area around the
mouth of Piddling Creek, though it appears some filling of former wetland has occurred here and
native vegetation has been replaced by lawns and drainage ditches near Piddling Creek (Todd,
personal communication, 2006). Within the reach there is 0.37 mile of bulkhead (predominantly
rock).
4.2.12.6 Public Access (Map 22) 19
There is public access to Mats Mats Bay at the public boat ramp on the south side of the bay.
4.2.12.7 Restoration Opportunities 21
If the basalt quarry ceases operations and is available, it could be an excellent park and
restoration site. Riparian vegetation could be planted throughout the shore of Mats Mats Bay
where it is lacking.
4.2.13 Oak Bay (Admiralty Inlet) 25
4.2.13.1 Overview (Map 1a) 26
This shoreline stretches from Olele Point to the Port Townsend Ship Canal. Development along
this shoreline is nearly continuous but less intense compared to the larger scale housing
developments in Port Ludlow. Much of this shoreline has sandstone outcroppings at the base of
the bluff, so the amount of sediment transported is moderate. Four drift cells extend from Olele
Point to the Ship Canal.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-60 November 2008
4.2.13.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 9) 1
Reach FF: Drift cells JE-3 and JE-4. 2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Reach GG: Drift cell JE-2.
Reach HH: Divergent zone JE-1/JE-2, and drift cell JE-1 to Washington Street, south of Oak Bay
County Park.
Reach II: Origin of drift cell JE-1 through Oak Bay County Park, as well as the west shore of the
Portage Canal.
4.2.13.3 Physical Environment (Map 12, 15, and 27) 8
Principal aquifer material along the coast at Oak Bay is composed of sedimentary bedrock
(Parametrix et al., 2000). The southernmost reach in this segment of shoreline is Reach FF,
encompassing drift cells JE-3 and JE-4. In drift cell JE-4 net shore-drift is to the west from
glacial drift deposits immediately to the west of the basaltic headland of Olele Point. The
depositional area for this cell is the beach (spit) in front of a salt marsh 780 yards west of Olele
Point. Likely there is some continuity of drift with drift cell JE-3, the next drift cell to the west.
This is a reinterpretation of the original drift cell study published in 1992 by Johannessen
(Johannessen, 1999). Drift cell JE-3 continues to the west 330 yards to a broad 120-yard-long
beach that serves as a shared depositional shore form with drift cell JE-2.
Drift cell JE-2 (Reach GG) extends from a zone of divergence about 1.5 miles northwest of Olele
Point to the shared zone of deposition with JE-3 located 1 mile west of Olele Point. Net shore-
drift is to the south, a local reversal due to the sheltering of this shoreline from fetch by Olele
Point. Sediment is derived from Vashon till overlying Quimper sandstone. Advance outwash
sand and gravel underlies the till along much of the reach. This layer supplies the greatest
amount of sediment to the beach. Mass wasting is not extensive due to the relatively erosion-
resistant sandstone toe of the bluff; thus the landslide hazards are low. Erosion in this area is
generally triggered by surface water flow and ground saturation (Johannessen, 1999).
Reach HH encompasses much of drift cell JE-1 from its origin to the southern end of Oak Bay
County Park. Drift cell JE-1 originates at the same zone of divergence as drift cell JE-2 and has a
northward net shore-drift for 5 km to Oak Bay County Park. A small amount of sediment is
transported in this drift cell, with geology similar to that of JE-2. Northward net shore-drift is
indicated by sediment size decrease, northward bluff vegetation increase, and beach width
increase.
Drift cell JE-1 within Reach II terminates at the riprap jetty on the western side of the Portage
Canal (Johannessen, 1999). A small stream enters Oak Bay here, where the original spit likely
started (Johannessen, 1999). The mouth of Little Goose Creek once entered the extensive salt
marsh now trapped behind the riprap associated with the park and dredged canal. The western
side of the Portage Canal is an area of no net drift.
Within Reach FF, 8 percent of the planning area is wetland, with estuarine – intertidal,
unconsolidated shore (79 percent) and palustrine emergent (21 percent) wetland classifications.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-61
Within Reaches GG and HH, 12 percent of the planning area is wetland classified as estuarine –
intertidal (aquatic bed/unconsolidated shore). Within Reach II, 33 percent of the planning area is
wetland, with estuarine – subtidal (31 percent) and estuarine – intertidal (69 percent) the wetland
classifications.
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
4.2.13.4 Biological Resources (Maps 18, 20, 24, and 27) 5
Riparian habitat is fragmented along Reach FF, with only about 20 percent remaining uncleared
(WDNR, 2001; Ecology, 2000). Eelgrass is nearly continuous along drift cell JE-4 and patchy
eelgrass beds occur in front of drift cell JE-3. A salt marsh occurs behind the depositional spit at
the terminus of drift cell JE-4. It is located along a pocket beach bounded to the west and east
between outcrops of Crescent basalts; the beach has been incrementally filled for development
and is truncated by a driveway (Hirschi, 1999; Ecology, 2000; Todd et al., 2006). Sand lance
spawn along the beach fronting the marsh and at the shared terminus of cells JE-3 and JE-2
(Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005).
Eelgrass beds are patchy throughout Reach GG. Riparian vegetation ranges from 20 percent to
50 percent with patches of trees separated by areas cleared for views. There is a bald eagle nest
in the northern part of this reach.
Eelgrass beds are continuous in the northern part of Reach HH and patchy in the south, providing
a migratory corridor for juvenile salmonids. Riparian vegetation is patchy, being cleared in front
of many houses to provide views; locally, there are several large intact regions of vegetation.
Surf smelt spawn on a pocket beach in the southern part of the reach (Long et al., 2005).
Reach II includes the accretionary zone of drift cell JE-1, about 1 km of shore in the minor
embayment in the northwest corner of Oak Bay that has developed into a spit and barrier beach
system. The north side is a broad depositional beach and spit that has been bulkheaded to
stabilize it for a campground and parking lot associated with the Oak Bay County Park. This spit
and the jetty on the west side of the Portage Canal keep the salt marsh isolated from the bay,
although in recent years, the spit has eroded and riprap is failing, allowing for a regular tidal
connection with the saltmarsh/lagoon behind the spit (Todd, personal communication, 2006)
Sand lance spawn on the Oak Bay Spit beach (Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005). Although
previous reports ( Hirschi 1999) suggested that coho no longer inhabited Little Goose Creek,
local residents have observed coho and resident cutthroat salmon in Little Goose Creek on
several occasions during recent years (Davis, personal communication, 2006, Clogston and
Hopkins, Personal communication 2007).
4.2.13.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 12, 22, and 25) 33
Land Use and Zoning 34
35
36
37
38
Land use along the Oak Bay watershed is dominated by residential development and commercial
forestry. Within all reaches except for Reach II, 100 percent of the planning area is zoned Rural
Residential (69 percent in Reach II). Remaining Reach II areas are zoned Parks, Preserves, and
Recreation, and Water.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-62 November 2008
Transportation and Utilities 1
2
3
4
Within the Oak Bay planning area, Jefferson County and WDNR have mapped 0.8 mile and 0.6
mile of road, respectively. Roadways within the planning area provide access to residential
properties along and near the shoreline.
Shoreline Modifications 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
24
25
26
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Residential development has encroached on the salt marsh on the north side of Olele Point. There
are relatively few bulkheads along this stretch of shoreline. However, at the terminus of drift cell
JE-2 at the spit in front of the salt marsh at Oak Bay County Park there is major shoreline
alteration. The front of the spit is armored with riprap for park access and the campground.
Combined with the jetty along the Ship Canal, this cuts off the salt marsh from the nearshore
under most conditions. Due to major erosion during winter 2005/2006, there is now tidal access
to the marsh/lagoon. Dredging of the Ship Canal resulted in major loss of tidal flat by
conversion to deep water and upland fill of the salt marsh (Todd, personal communication,
2006). In addition, at Little Goose Creek, a small coho stream, was rerouted out of the marsh and
through a culvert to the southwest of the Oak Bay Lagoon.
Bulkhead and stairways are mapped along the Oak Bay shoreline as follows: Reach FF, 280 feet
of rock and wood bulkhead and 3 stairways; Reach GG, 130 feet of wood bulkhead and 12
stairways; Reach HH, 0.3 mile of concrete, rock, and wood bulkhead and 8 stairways; Reach II,
0.2 mile of rock bulkhead and 1 stairway. A landfill is mapped within Reach II.
4.2.13.6 Public Access (Map 22) 20
There are WDNR tidelands south of Oak Bay County Park accessible by boat. Oak Bay County
Park has beach and salt marsh access, shellfish beds, and camping.
4.2.13.7 Restoration Opportunities 23
Enhancing and/or preserving bluff-top vegetation in this reach could reduce surface runoff which
is a primary cause of bluff erosion in this area. The salt marsh at Olele Point could be partially
restored.
4.2.14 South Indian Island and Marrowstone Island (Admiralty Inlet) 27
4.2.14.1 Overview (Map 1a) 28
Indian and Marrowstone Islands are situated between Port Townsend Bay and Admiralty Inlet.
Except for the County park on the southern shore, Indian Island is owned by Naval Magazine
Indian Island, a federal naval munitions base for forces stationed in Puget Sound; hence, it is not
within County shoreline jurisdiction. However, management of Indian Island shoreline reaches
may affect shoreline processes along adjacent shorelines within the County’s jurisdiction.
Habitat on Indian Island is regionally significant as it is an important nesting area for bald eagles
(eight pairs) and its beaches are host to numerous spawning sites for surf smelt and sand lance
(Kalina, personal communication, 2000; Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-63
Historically connected across a spit/salt marsh, Marrowstone Island is currently connected to
Indian Island by a causeway built on fill. Marrowstone Island is primarily rural residential with
state parks at both the northern end (Fort Flagler) and the southern end (Kinney Point, accessible
only by boat). Growth on Marrowstone Island has been slowed by the general lack of fresh
water, although this may change with the construction of a public water system. Between the two
islands are Kilisut Harbor and Scow Bay with rich shellfish beds, herring spawning grounds, and
large concentrations of overwintering waterfowl.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
4.2.14.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 9) 8
Reach JJ: Western shore of Indian Island along Portage Canal.
Reach KK: Drift cell JEF-2, from Portage Canal east to the divergence zone JEF-2/JEF-3
between Kinney Point and Lilip Point.
Reach LL: Divergence zone JEF-2/JEF-3 and drift cell JEF-3 to Marrowstone Point.
Reach MM: Drift cell JEF-4 and eastern part of divergence zone JEF-4/JEF-5.
Reach NN: Feeder bluffs in zone of divergence JEF-4/JEF-5 and drift cell JEF-5, including the
end of the spit by the Flagler Campground.
Reach OO: Area of divergence JEF-6/JEF-7, drift cell JEF-6 north to the Flagler Campground.
Reach PP: Area of divergence JEF-6/JEF-7, and drift cell JEF-7.
Reach QQ: Mystery Bay and eastern end of divergence zone JEF-8.
Reach RR: Drift cell JEF-9, from the eastern edge of Mystery Bay State Park to the terminus in
Scow Bay.
Reach SS: Scow Bay Marsh, the area of undefined drift at the head of Scow Bay.
4.2.14.3 Physical Environment (Maps 12, 15, and 27) 22
The Indian-Marrowstone Island subbasin is characterized by extensive areas covered with dense
basal till overlying glacial sediments and bedrock of volcanic and sedimentary origin. Bedrock is
exposed on the southern end of Indian Island and along various coastal locations on
Marrowstone Island such as south of Mystery Bay. On Marrowstone Island, the till overlies
Vashon advance outwash sediments in most locations. However, in a few locations the till
immediately overlies bedrock. On the southern end of Marrowstone Island, outwash deposits
reach thicknesses as great as 100 feet but are thin or absent in places. On the northern end of the
island, glacial deposits reach thicknesses as great as 1,400 feet (Parametrix et al., 2000).
The east side of the Portage Canal is an area of no net drift, and in the northern half it contains
bluffs composed of hard shale and mudstone (Ecology, 1978). Drift cell JEF-2 extends from a
zone of divergence between Kinney and Lip Lip Points on Marrowstone Island northwestward to
the riprap jetty on the east side of the Portage Canal. Sediment is supplied to this drift cell by
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-64 November 2008
erosion in the zone of divergence and contributing bluffs on southeastern Marrowstone Island.
Major depositional areas occur in Reach KK, on the barrier spit fronting a lagoon between the
islands, and on the barrier beaches protecting salt marshes in the last kilometer of the drift cell.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Reach LL begins at the zone of divergence with JEF-2 and net shore-drift is generally northward
along the entire eastern side of Marrowstone Island. The drift cell terminates at the cuspate spit
at Marrowstone Point (Keuler, 1988). An interesting rocky intertidal zone occurs at Nodule Point
where there is an outcropping of tertiary sandstone. In general, the uplands are stable; however
the immediate bluff faces along most of this segment are unstable and marked by many small
slides (Ecology, 1978). North of Sound View Cemetery, for example, there are a number of
houses now very close to the bluff edge (several meters) where the bluff has shown a steady
retreat due to many rather small block slides coming off a steep bluff of compacted fine, silty,
Vashon advance outwash. Each slide has removed a couple of meters of bluff top, creating a
serious threat to property. Lack of bluff-top vegetation, ground and surface water erosion, and
bluff toe erosion all appear to have contributed to this problem.
Drift cells JEF-4 and JEF-5, in Reaches MM and NN respectively, occur completely within Fort
Flagler State Park and govern net shore-drift on the northern shore of Marrowstone Island. Both
drift cells begin at a large feeder bluff 0.5 mile west of Marrowstone Point. Sediment is derived
from 100-foot-tall bluffs composed of Vashon till overlying advance outwash sediments. Net
shore-drift in Reach MM is to the east from this feeder bluff and terminates at the cuspate spit at
Marrowstone Point. Net shore-drift in JEF-5 extends from the same feeder bluff as JEF-4 for 2
miles to the southwest tip of Rat Island (Keuler, 1988). Rat Island was originally a spit but was
breached in the middle of the last century (Correa, 2002). It is now grouped into Reach VV, and
is not addressed due to its proximity to Indian Island.
Drift cell JEF-6 originates at a zone of divergence 1 mile north of Mystery Bay, and net shore-
drift extends about 2 miles to the north to terminate inside the spit at Fort Flagler. This drift cell
is within relatively sheltered Kilisut Harbor with limited southern fetch (Keuler, 1988).
Sediment is derived from eroding bluffs near the origin of the cell and alongshore (WDNR,
2001). Depositional beaches occur in the middle of the cell and at the terminus (Keuler, 1988).
Drift cell JEF-7 originates in the same zone of divergence as JEF-6. Net shore-drift is to the
south for 1 mile into Mystery Bay, terminating in the vicinity of Mystery Bay State Park (Keuler,
1988). Sediments are derived from Vashon till and advance outwash deposits (Ecology, 1978).
An area of divergence occurs from the relatively tall bluffs cut into shale and mudstone on the
northern side of Griffiths Point. Keuler (1988) shows some net drift occurring to the east into
Mystery Bay; however, the current Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas shows this as an area of
divergence but no significant drift to the east (Keuler, 1988). To the west and then south from
this zone of divergence, drift cell JEF-9 encompasses net shore-drift for 1.7 miles into southern
Scow Bay. Sediment is derived from mixed shale/mudstone and glacial till feeder bluffs in
southern Kilisut Harbor (Keuler, 1988).
The Scow Bay habitat complex forms the low-lying connection between Indian and
Marrowstone Islands. A broad spit defines the southern margin of the marsh. Sediments
forming this spit are derived primarily from the south shoreline of Marrowstone Island. The
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-65
overall connectivity has been severely impaired by the road causeway through the middle of the
marsh, eliminating a southern tidal connection with adjacent open waters (Todd et al., 2006).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Within Reaches JJ, KK, LL, MM, NN, PP, and RR, 8 percent to 16 percent of the planning area
is wetland. Within Reaches OO, QQ, and SS, 29 percent to 54 percent of the planning area is
wetland. The majority of these wetland areas are estuarine – intertidal (aquatic
bed/unconsolidated shore is the most common classification, with additional areas of
emergent/unconsolidated shore).
Land cover within the shoreline planning area is primarily evergreen forest (20 percent to 60
percent, varies reach to reach) and bare rock/sand/clay (33 percent to 53 percent in all reaches
except KK and SS). The remaining land cover includes acreages/rural residential (significant in
reaches NN and QQ), low intensity residential (significant in Reaches KK and SS), mixed forest
(18 percent in Reach SS), pasture/hay, deciduous forest, transitional, woody wetland, and
urban/recreational grasses.
4.2.14.4 Biological Resources (Maps 18, 20, 24, and 27) 14
Sand lance spawn along the southeast shore of the Portage Canal and at two pocket beaches
between the north end of the Portage Canal and the Navy property boundary (Penttila, 2000;
Long et al., 2005). A salt marsh is protected by an extensive barrier beach along the southern part
of the Portage Canal (Ecology, 2001; Todd et al., 2006). The South Indian Island Lagoon,
located just east of the Portage Canal, has formed where a westward-pointed spit partially
encloses a tidally connected lagoon and fringing marsh. In recent years, it appears that subspits
or bars have formed immediately offshore, possibly a result of deflection of sediment from
extension of the jetty (Todd et al., 2006).
Patchy eelgrass beds occur throughout drift cell JEF-2. There is a bald eagle nest on Kinney
Point. This part of Oak Bay serves as an overwintering area for waterfowl including brant.
Juvenile salmonids are found in South Indian Island Marsh (Hirschi et al., 2003a). In the County
park on South Indian Island, riparian vegetation has been preserved and there are extensive salt
marshes. South Indian Island is a popular area for recreational clam digging (Speck, personal
communication, 2003). Sand lance spawn on the barrier beach connecting the islands and along
the central portion of Indian Island’s southern coast (Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005).
Eelgrass beds are patchy to continuous along East Marrowstone Island. Riparian vegetation is
fragmented due to clearing for views in the southern portion (south of East Beach County Park)
but is mostly intact in the northern portion (Correa, 2002). Sand lance spawn north of East Beach
Park as well as on the depositional beach along Marrowstone Point (Penttila, 2003; Long et al.,
2005). Three bald eagle nest sites have been documented within this reach.
Eelgrass is absent along drift cells JEF-4 and JEF-5, except for patchy beds around Rat Island.
Sand lance spawn on the north side of the spit near Flagler Campground (Long et al., 2005).
Bald eagles nest in Reach NN. Riparian vegetation is largely absent from the high bluff areas;
however, it is present in the lower bluff areas along this shoreline. Also, LWD is recruited off of
the tops of the high bluffs as they erode. Rat Island is a haulout and pupping site for harbor seals
and a nesting area for gulls. A brackish marsh at Marrowstone Point apparently has never had an
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-66 November 2008
outlet to Admiralty Inlet (Correa, 2002). Marrowstone Point is home to prairie plants including
menzies larkspur (Delphinium menziesii) and chocolate lily (Frittilaria lanceolata).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Eelgrass occurs in patchy beds throughout drift cell JEF-6. Herring spawn on eelgrass throughout
Kilisut Harbor. Surf smelt and sand lance spawn along most of drift cell JEF-7 (Long et al.,
2005). There is little riparian vegetation in Reaches PP and QQ (WDNR, 2001). The depositional
beach in Reach PP encloses a salt marsh. This part of Kilisut Harbor is also an important
overwintering area for brant and other waterfowl.
A depositional spit at the northern tip of Mystery Bay encloses a salt marsh lagoon (Ecology,
1978). Another salt marsh is protected behind a barrier beach within Mystery Bay State Park.
Native riparian vegetation has been mostly cleared between the west and east lagoons (Todd et
al., 2006). Within Mystery Bay there is no net shore-drift. A small salt marsh is isolated by
driveway fill at the southern tip of the bay (Correa, 2002). Eelgrass is nearly continuous north of,
and within, Mystery Bay except for patchy beds at the head of the bay. Sand lance spawn on the
beaches just north of Mystery Bay and just south of and in the state park (Penttila, 2000; Long et
al., 2005). The Mystery Bay shellfish harvest area is listed as an area of concern due to the
number of boats, some of which are live-aboards, moored in Mystery Bay (WDH, 2006a).
Kilisut Harbor and Mystery Bay are regionally significant overwintering areas for diving ducks.
Development around Nordland has eliminated riparian vegetation on the eastern shore of the
bay; in contrast, about 65 percent of riparian vegetation remains on the western shore (WDNR,
2001). Historically, a small salt marsh occurred near the Nordland Store and main road. It has
been completely filled (Todd, personal communication, 2006).
Riparian vegetation along the northern side of Griffiths Point is fragmented (Ecology, 2001).
Eelgrass is continuous along Reach RR. Surf smelt and sand lance use this shoreline for
spawning (Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005). This is an important overwintering area for
waterfowl and spawning grounds for herring (herring roe is important food for diving ducks).
There is commercial aquaculture in Scow Bay. Reach SS has extensive salt marshes.
4.2.14.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 12, 22, and 25) 27
Land Use and Zoning 28
29
30
31
32
Land use on Marrowstone Island is primarily rural residential along with farming and forestland.
North of Fort Gate Road the entirety of Marrowstone Island is Fort Flagler State Park. Land use
on Indian Island is related to the U.S. Navy operations. Zoning in the shoreline planning areas of
all reaches reflects current land use.
Transportation and Utilities 33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Within the South Indian and Marrowstone Island planning area, Jefferson County and WDNR
have mapped 4.2 miles and 3.8 miles of road, respectively. Along the south shoreline of Indian
Island and continuing north along the southwest shoreline of Marrowstone Island, State Route
116 is within the shoreline planning area. Bridges pass over Portage Canal (between mainland
and Indian Island) and the south end of Scow Bay (linking Indian Island and Marrowstone
Island). Additionally, stretches of East Marrowstone Road, Griffith Point Road, Flagler
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-67
Campground Road, Beach Drive, and other park and residence access roads pass within the
shoreline planning area of all reaches.
1
2
Shoreline Modifications 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
The Naval Magazine Indian Island (formerly Port Hadlock Detachment-Indian Island) Superfund
site was used by the Navy for munitions storage and handling from 1939 to 1984. Disposal
activities at several locations resulted in soil, groundwater, sediment, and shellfish contamination
from ordnance compounds, heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides.
The site was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) (Superfund) in June 1994. Following
extensive remedial activities, the site was removed from the NPL in June 2005. Additionally,
Ecology indicates a Hazardous Waste Generator within the planning area of Reach JJ and a State
Cleanup Site within the planning area of Reach NN.
Within Reach KK, the parking lot for the South Indian Island County Park is constructed on fill
placed behind a riprap bulkhead on the beach. Within Reaches KK and LL, the marine shoreline
is intact, with feeder bluffs and extensive salt marshes. A small area of shoreline modification
exists along the southwest face of Marrowstone, which includes a paved boat ramp, and
bulkhead section in front of a resort. A total of 0.65 mile of bulkhead and 17 stairways are
mapped within Reaches KK and LL.
In Reaches MM and NN, the parking lot and campground at Fort Flagler State Park are
constructed on fill placed on top of approximately 22 acres of historic salt marsh (Correa, 2002).
A riprap bulkhead protecting the Coast Guard facility interferes with sediment transport along
the north side of Marrowstone Point in Reach MM. The terminus of drift cell JEF-5 in front of
the campground at Fort Flagler is altered. Historically, Rat Island was a spit extending from the
point. This spit enclosed what was historically an approximately 22-acre salt marsh where the
campground now sits (Correa, 2002). In the 1940s the spit was breached by dragging boats over
it during military exercises (Hirschi et al., 2003a). Since that time a combination of currents and
the interruption of sediment transport have kept Rat Island separated from Marrowstone Island
except during low tides. Longshore sediment transport has been interrupted by the little-used
boat ramp on the north side of the point (one of two boat ramps existing in Reach NN) (Hirschi
et al., 2003a).
Little or no armoring occurs on East Marrowstone except for the bulkhead protecting the parking
lot at East Beach County Park. An abandoned pier at Fort Flagler State Park disrupts longshore
transport of sediment. On the inside of Kilisut Harbor (Reach OO) there is a boat ramp and dock
at Fort Flagler with some nearby associated bulkheading. However, this drift cell, JEF-6, is not
highly altered and there is very little armoring of its contributing and feeder bluffs. To the south
there is extensive bulkheading in front of the feeder and contributing bluffs in drift cell JEF-7
(Reach PP) amounting to 32.5 percent of the total length of the drift cell (Hirschi et al., 2003b).
Within Mystery Bay State Park, at the north end of the Reach QQ shoreline, there is a dock and
boat ramp. There are three docks associated with the town of Nordland and several buildings and
filled areas intruding into the nearshore. Just south and north of the Nordland Store, Highway
116 is bulkheaded, possibly eliminating shallow water habitat for juvenile salmonids. At the
head of Mystery Bay a driveway truncates a salt marsh. In Scow Bay (Reaches RR and SS)
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-68 November 2008
residential bulkheading amounts to 16.1 percent of the total length of drift cell JEF-9, a small
house is built on stilts over the intertidal, and there are 11 staircases. Additional modifications
include three dock/pier structures and one rail launch. At the head of Scow Bay, along the border
of Reaches SS and KK, the causeway that connects Marrowstone Island to Indian Island
interrupts tidal flow.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Extensive bulkheading in front of the feeder and contributing bluffs in drift cell JEF-7,
amounting to 32.5 percent of the total length of the drift cell, could lead or have already
contributed to erosion of the alongshore and depositional spits just north of Mystery Bay State
Park.
4.2.14.6 Public Access (Map 22) 10
At the southern tip of Marrowstone, Kinney Point is owned by Washington State Parks and the
tidelands are owned by WDNR. Although currently only accessible by boat, this state park
property abuts the end of Baldwin Road, so upland access could be possible with parking and
road improvements. On the east side of Marrowstone Island there is beach access at East Beach
County Park. Fort Flagler at the north end of the island provides access to miles of shoreline
along with a campground, shellfish beds, and a boat ramp. Mystery Bay State Park in Nordland
has about 700 feet of public access shoreline, a boat ramp, and a dock. In Scow Bay there is
WDNR shoreline accessible by boat. There is a street easement extending to the water at
Strawberry Lane to the west of Flagler Road where public access from land might be possible,
but parking may be a problem due to lack of space between the bluff and the road. The entire
south shore of Indian Island is public access and there are several parking areas at South Indian
Island County Park off of Highway 116.
4.2.14.7 Restoration Opportunities 23
There are numerous restoration opportunities in Oak Bay and Marrowstone Island. Juvenile
salmonid migratory habitat could be improved by replacing undersized culverts under the road
between Marrowstone and Indian Islands to allow for the passage of juvenile salmonids (Correa,
2002). A larger culvert or culverts could be placed under the causeway between Marrowstone
and Indian Islands to improve tidal exchange between Scow Bay and Oak Bay and improve
water quality in Kilisut Harbor, especially near the Scow Bay aquaculture operations.
Moving the parking lot at East Beach County Park to an upland site would increase shallow
water habitat for migratory salmonids (pink and chum salmon). Removal of an abandoned pier at
Fort Flagler along with random creosote pilings in this area would improve transport of sediment
north to the terminus of drift cell JEF-3 at Marrowstone Point and decrease creosote input to the
water. Removing the bulkhead and restoring the salt marsh at Marrowstone Point would
improve beach habitat and increase migratory salmonid habitat. This may entail the removal or
relocation of the USGS laboratory at Marrowstone Point and/or the automated Coast Guard light
(Correa, 2002). If the little-used boat ramp on the north side of the spit (by the campground at
Fort Flagler) were removed, it would improve sediment transport to the terminus of the drift cell
on Rat Island (Hirschi et al., 2003b). Restoring at least part of the historic salt marsh at the
campground at Fort Flagler could improve habitat for juvenile salmonids and other salt marsh
dependent species.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-69
Removing the bulkheads within drift cell JEF-7 would improve sediment recruitment and could
help sustain beaches north of Mystery Bay. Removal of fill within a salt marsh in Reach PP
would increase salt marsh habitat (Correa, 2002). A driveway truncating the salt marsh at the
head of Mystery Bay could be removed to provide access to salmonids and other wildlife. A
neighboring driveway can be used for access (as is evident from the Ecology shoreline photos).
Unused creosoted pilings could be removed from Mystery Bay State Park to improve water
quality (Correa, 2002).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
4.2.15 Port Townsend Bay (Admiralty Inlet) 8
4.2.15.1 Overview (Map 1a) 9
This area contains the most intense development within the County’s jurisdiction at Port Hadlock
and near the Port Townsend Paper Mill. This area also includes the relatively undeveloped areas
south of Hadlock and between Chimacum Creek and Glen Cove. This shoreline is within the
watershed of the Tri-area Urban Growth Area around Port Hadlock and Irondale. There are five
drift cells and a portion of another cell within this area. This area is drier than areas farther south
in the County, with approximately 28 inches of annual rainfall in the Chimacum area, and 18
inches a year in Port Townsend.
The City of Port Townsend has shoreline jurisdiction along the eastern portion of Reach CCC
and the eastern portion of Reach EEE.
4.2.15.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 9) 19
Reach YY: From the origin to the terminus of drift cell JEF-16.
Reach ZZ: Hadlock Lagoon, drift cell JEF-17, and the southern end of divergence zone JEF-18.
Reach AAA: The northern end of divergence zone JEF-18 and the Chimacum Creek estuary.
Reach BBB: Kala Point, including drift cells JEF-19, JEF-20, JEF-21, and the divergence zone
JEF-21/JEF-22.
Reach CCC: Drift cell JEF-22, including the shoreline from the north edge of Old Fort
Townsend State Park to the City of Port Townsend boundary.
4.2.15.3 Physical Environment (Maps 12, 15, and 27) 27
Drift cell JEF-16 begins at the northwest edge of the broad point to the north of the Portage
Canal and continues about 1 km to terminate at a depositional beach just to the west of the Inn at
Port Hadlock. The average rate of erosion near the origin of the drift cell is 4 cm a year based on
a greater than 20-year record (Keuler, 1988). Sediment is derived from contributing bluffs of till
overlying sandstone at the origin of the cell and just east of the Inn at Port Hadlock
(Johannessen, 1999).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-70 November 2008
The depositional beach just west of the Inn at Port Hadlock encloses a small salt marsh, which is
part of Reach ZZ (Ecology, 2001). Skunk Island is a basaltic outcropping covered in vegetation
just south of Port Hadlock. It remains in a relatively undisturbed state.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Drift cell JEF-17 originates north of Port Hadlock, and net shore-drift is south to terminate at the
spit south of lower Port Hadlock. Sediment is derived from the steep feeder bluffs south of
Irondale. The bluff is composed of sandy recessional outwash, over till, over advance glacial
outwash which, in sum, provides abundant sediment to the nearshore. This bluff (Hadlock
Bluffs) has not experienced any large failures recently; however, it remains the only long-term
sediment source for drift cells JEF-17 and JEF-18 (Johannessen, 1999). This shoreline is
classified as unstable with recent landslides (Ecology, 1978). A wide depositional beach is
present along the Port Hadlock waterfront and continues to form a long (780-yard) depositional
spit enclosing a large tidal lagoon south of lower Port Hadlock (Hadlock Lagoon). This spit still
appears to be prograding to the southeast (Johannessen, 1999).
Drift cell JEF-18 originates from the same feeder bluffs as JEF-17. Net shore-drift is northward
to the mouth of Chimacum Creek in Reach AAA. A small accretionary beach forms at the end of
the extensive bulkheading and fill from the iron and paper mills (Keuler, 1988). This fill was
removed in spring 2006 (Todd, personal communication, 2006).
Two drift cells (JEF-19 and JEF-20) occur between the mouth of Chimacum Creek and Kala
Point, diverging from a shared feeder bluff. This feeder bluff, composed of advance outwash
overlain by glacial till, contributes high-quality sediment to the nearshore (Johannessen, 1999)
and marks the boundary between Reaches AAA and BBB. This 330-yard-wide bluff just north of
Chimacum Creek feeds the short drift cell JEF-19 with sediment for net shore-drift to the south
to terminate at the mouth of Chimacum Creek. It also feeds sediment into drift cell JEF-20,
which has northeastern net shore-drift, to terminate at the mouth of the lagoon on Kala Point, a
cuspate spit. This lagoon with its associated tidal channels is encircled by the spit and maintains
a vigorous tidal exchange with Port Townsend Bay. These reaches are not subject to any
shoreline modification and exhibit relatively natural function (Johannessen, 1999).
The subestuary at the mouth of Chimacum Creek is in good condition. There are no roads,
jetties, or dikes encroaching on the small, 5.2-acre delta. Several acres of the tidal marsh were
filled in the late 1800s; a road crosses this filled area. A small area of the delta has been used for
log storage (Parametrix et al., 2000). WDFW purchased the old log dump area south of the
mouth of Chimacum Creek in 2003 and removed the fill from approximately 6 acres to restore
the beach and shoreline in 2006; riparian vegetation is also being restored (Todd, personal
communication, 2006; Davis, personal communication, 2006).
The geology of the Quimper Peninsula (including Reaches BBB and CCC) is characterized by
extensive areas covered with dense basal till, by broad channels eroded through the till into
underlying principal aquifer materials, and by the presence of loose ablation till overlying
portions of the basal till. Principal aquifer materials are predominantly composed of Vashon
advance outwash, pre-Vashon stratified glacial drift, and interglacial deposits (Parametrix et al.,
2000).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-71
Drift cell JEF-21 (Reach BBB) originates from a zone of divergence in the southern shore of Old
Fort Townsend and exhibits net shore-drift to the south to the lagoon entrance on the southern
side of Kala Point (Keuler, 1988; Johannessen, 1999). The bluffs forming divergence zone JEF-
21/JEF-22 are composed of glacial till overlying Vashon advance outwash sediments and are
classified as unstable with many recent slides (Ecology, 1978). A rarity in the Puget Sound
region, small sand dunes occur along the north side of the spit at Kala Point (Todd et al., 2006).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Reach CCC includes the next drift cell and the last in this segment, JEF-22, as well as the
northern portion of the feeder bluffs in divergence zone JEF-21/JEF-22 in Old Fort Townsend
State Park. Net shore-drift is to the northeast and then northwest to Point Wilson, being
interrupted along the modified portions of shoreline by the Port Townsend Paper Mill and City
of Port Townsend. The paper mill, at the northeast end of a major depositional beach, has filled
over a portion of a backshore marsh/lagoon at Glen Cove; the complex encloses a glacial
depression that supports marsh and lagoon habitat features (Keuler, 1988; Ecology, 2001; Todd
et al., 2006). The City of Port Townsend municipal boundary is just north of the paper mill. For
more information about the shorelines within the City of Port Townsend, refer to the Shoreline
Inventory Summary Report (Nightingale, 2002) and Final Report Characterization of Functions
& Ecosystem-wide Processes (GeoEngineers, 2004).
Water quality in Port Townsend Bay is generally considered good, although residential and
urban areas have been identified as the primary non-point sources of pollutants, as well as the
relatively high abundance of farms and livestock rearing activities (Parametrix et al., 2000). The
Washington State Department of Health (2006) has classified the nearshore area of Reach YY as
a prohibited shellfish harvest area and the bay is identified as a Biotoxin Closure zone.
With variation from reach to reach, between 6 percent and 20 percent of the shoreline planning
area is wetland, with estuarine – intertidal (aquatic bed/unconsolidated shore) the most common
wetland classification. Significant areas of palustrine open water wetlands are mapped in Reach
CCC.
Land cover within the shoreline planning area is primarily evergreen forest (27 percent to 48
percent, varies reach to reach) and bare rock/sand/clay (29 percent to 39 percent in Reaches YY
and BBB). The remaining land cover includes commercial/industrial/transportation (significant
in Reach CCC), residential (significant in Reaches ZZ and AAA), urban/recreational grasses
(significant in Reaches ZZ and AAA), woody wetland (16.5 percent in Reach ZZZ), mixed
forest, low intensity residential, and acreages/rural residential.
4.2.15.4 Biological Resources (Maps 18, 20, 24, and 27) 33
Riparian vegetation is fragmented along the drift cell JEF-16 shoreline (WDNR, 2001, 2005;
Ecology, 2001). Eelgrass is continuous and sand lance spawn along much of this drift cell
(Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005).
Riparian vegetation in the Hadlock Bluffs area is largely intact, but it is largely absent from the
Hadlock Waterfront area of Reach ZZ (Ecology, 2001). Sand lance spawn along the length of
these beaches. Surf smelt spawn just north of the waterfront (Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005).
Eelgrass is continuous along Hadlock Bluffs and patchy beds occur in front of the waterfront,
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-72 November 2008
spit, and lagoon. The small salt marsh and lagoon has exchange with the bay, and contains
shallow water foraging habitat for juvenile salmonids (Hirschi, 1999). Low and high salt marsh
lines the perimeter of this lagoon (Leon and Driscoll, 1976). A small unnamed stream flows into
the lagoon and at one time possibly provided salmonid spawning habitat; however, recent
salmonid use was not found (Hirschi, 1999). This lagoon is also an important area for
overwintering waterfowl.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Riparian vegetation is present along the moderately high feeder bluffs at the southern part of
Reach AAA. However, it is absent throughout the modified part of this reach (Ecology, 2001).
Clam digging is locally popular at the mouth of Chimacum Creek. The estuary of Chimacum
Creek contains salt and brackish marsh (Todd et al., 2006).
Collectively, the beaches, intertidal areas, and nearshore areas from Pulali Point to just south of
Chimacum Creek are considered to be a Category A NSE salmonid refugia (May and Peterson,
2003). The estuary provides quality rearing habitat for juvenile coho, searun cutthroat trout, and
summer and fall chum salmon. The summer chum salmon run has been restored to Chimacum
Creek after being extirpated in the early 1990s, and the estuary and nearshore are important
nursery habitat for this species (May and Peterson, 2003).
The riparian zone is intact along the lower section of Chimacum Creek (May and Peterson,
2003). Eelgrass beds offshore provide more habitat. Sand lance spawn along the beaches south of
the Chimacum Creek estuary (Long et al., 2005). The mouth of Chimacum Creek is also
important habitat for waterfowl.
Eelgrass beds are patchy to continuous south of Kala Point in Reach BBB, providing a migratory
corridor for juvenile salmonids and spawning substrate for herring. The lagoon at Kala Point and
its associated 8.5-acre salt marsh are likely intimately associated with the success of
outmigrating salmonids from Chimacum Creek (Hirschi, 1999; Leon and Driscoll, 1976). Sand
lance spawn just south of the outlet to the lagoon and on the north side of the point (Penttila,
2000; Long et al., 2005). This shoreline supports a bald eagle territory and significant waterfowl
concentrations. Riparian vegetation is largely intact, but some bluff-top clearing has occurred for
new home sites (Ecology, 2001). The bluff immediately to the north of Chimacum Creek was
recently purchased with State Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SSRFB) funds.
North of Kala Point, eelgrass meadows are continuous and the Port Townsend Bay herring stock
uses them for spawning substrate (Penttila, 2000). Sand lance and surf smelt spawn at the north
end of Reach BBB into Reach CCC (Long et al., 2005). This shoreline is also one of the few in
Jefferson County where summer surf smelt spawn.
Historically, there have been bald eagle nests along this shoreline and it is a bald eagle territory.
Riparian vegetation is generally healthy in this segment. While some bluff-top clearing has
occurred, there has historically been an effort in the Kala Point Development to preserve riparian
vegetation (Ecology, 2001). This has maintained relatively stable bluffs and preserved shoreline
ecology.
Drift cell JEF-22 south of the paper mill is rather pristine and is contained in Reach CCC.
Eelgrass is continuous along this segment, becoming patchy in front of the barrier beach just
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-73
south of the paper mill, and again serves as spawning substrate for herring (Penttila, 2000). Surf
smelt and sand lance spawn on the beaches in Old Fort Townsend State Park, in the southern
portion of this drift cell, and on the beach in the center of Glen Cove (Penttila, 2000; Long et al.,
2005). The pond and marsh at Glen Cove harbors significant waterfowl concentrations. Riparian
vegetation from the origin of this drift cell north to Glen Cove is intact (Ecology, 2001).
1
2
3
4
5
4.2.15.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 12 and 22) 6
Land Use and Zoning 7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Land use along the Port Townsend Bay drainage is dominated by residential development.
Except for small areas of Parks, Preserves, and Recreation (11 percent in Reach BBB) and Rural
Village Center (11 percent in Reach ZZ), zoning throughout the planning is reflects rural
residential land use.
The Inn at Port Hadlock, Port Hadlock, Irondale, and Port Townsend Paper are within
commercial and industrial zoning. Irondale is registered as a state historic district and had
extensive charcoal kilns and concrete tanks on the waterfront, along with deepwater piers. The
ironworks also mined all the iron and charcoal deposits from “Chimacum Bog”. There are plans
for concentrating commercial development along the shoreline at the Inn at Port Hadlock and at
Port Hadlock, which include increased boat and water access (and dock expansion). These plans
could affect future shoreline use and habitat functions.
Transportation and Utilities 19
20
21
22
23
Within the Port Townsend Bay planning area, Jefferson County and WDNR have mapped 1.7
miles and 1.9 miles of road, respectively. Road densities are higher to the south and north of Old
Fort Townsend State Park, with roads in proximity to the shoreline providing access to
residences.
Shoreline Modifications 24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
A large marina with about 100 small slips is located in front of the Inn at Port Hadlock in Reach
YY. However based on an examination of Ecology shore photos, it does not appear to
significantly affect net shore-drift. Approximately 177 meters of drift cell JEF-16 are armored,
representing about 17 percent of its total shoreline. Modifications appear concentrated along the
low bank area near the origin of the cell (Hirschi et al., 2003; Ecology, 2001). Three wooden
bulkheads along the contributing bluff area of this drift cell may limit sediment recruitment into
the nearshore (Johannessen, 1999).
Numerous docks, bulkheads, a boat ramp, and other structures are present along Reach ZZ.
Extensive bulkheading has occurred just north of the waterfront in front of low-bank residential
property. On the spit south of Hadlock there has been some bulkheading and a dock associated
with a house (Johannessen, 1999; Ecology, 2001). Overall, shoreline armoring impacts 335 yards
of drift cell JEF-17, or 31 percent of its length (Hirschi et al., 2003b). However, it appears that
net shore-drift is not completely impaired as the spit southeast of the waterfront continues to
prograde.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-74 November 2008
Reach AAA is extensively modified with 513 yards of bulkhead fronting fill in its depositional
zone along the former iron mill and log dump sites (Johannessen, 1999). Most likely a salt marsh
spit complex prior to fill activity, this site has been publicly acquired for a park, and the rock
bulkhead and fill have been removed to restore shallow water habitat for juvenile salmonids and
beach habitat for forage fish spawning (Hirschi et al., 2003b; Todd, personal communication,
2006). The restoration project has been funded by the State Salmon Recovery Funding Board to
remove the fill and restore the depositional beach (Correa, 2002). Two facilities are monitored
by Ecology within Reach AAA, including one State Cleanup Site and one Underground Storage
Tank.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
A dock and boat ramp on the north side of Kala Point, within Reach BBB, do not appear to
impede significant amounts net shore-drift (Ecology, 2001). A bulkhead extends into the
intertidal zone in Old Fort Townsend State Park.
Within Reach CCC, the salt marsh at Glen Cove is extensively filled and modified for settling
ponds and other structures associated with the Port Townsend Paper Mill. The paper mill is built
over the water and is the site of extensive bulkheading and shoreline armoring. There are also
several large docks and barge unloading facilities at this location. Several facilities are monitored
by Ecology within Reach CCC, including five Hazardous Waste Generators, six Underground
Storage Tanks, one Leaking Underground Storage Tank Facility, one Voluntary Cleanup Site,
and two Enforcement Final Locations (Ecology, 2006). The shoreline north of the mill to the
City of Port Townsend boundary is bulkheaded, fronting a converted railroad grade (which is
now a public path) and isolating the bluff from the nearshore (Ecology, 2001; Correa, 2002).
4.2.15.6 Public Access (Map 22) 22
A public boat ramp is located on the lower Hadlock waterfront. In Irondale the shoreline from
the old iron mill site to Chimacum Creek is a combination County park and WDFW lands. A
major restoration occurred in 2006 with the removal of fill associated with the log dump and the
reestablishment of a beach. There is waterfront access at Old Fort Townsend State Park south of
Port Townsend. Between the Port Townsend Paper Mill and the Port of Port Townsend there is a
public waterfront trail (the Larry Scott Trail).
4.2.15.7 Restoration Opportunities 29
The lower Hadlock waterfront should be examined for opportunities to remove alterations that
interfere with longshore transport of sediment. The restoration of the beach at the old log dump
is a major project completed in 2006. This should improve estuarine and forage fish spawning
habitat. The removal of the filled bulkheaded area at Old Fort Townsend would improve the
longshore transport of sediment and increase shallow water nearshore habitat. The opening of an
outlet that would allow fish passage to the lagoon south of the paper mill would increase salt
marsh habitat for summer chum and pink salmon. Studies and possible modification of the paper
mill to allow for less disruption to salmon migration could be explored. Alterations to the mill
could happen as part of normal maintenance and refurbishment. The removal or modification of
the Larry Scott Trail north of the paper mill would allow for the recruitment of sediment into the
nearshore.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-75
4.2.16 Chimacum Creek (Admiralty Inlet) 1
4.2.16.1 Overview (Map 1a) 2
Chimacum Creek has a watershed of about 33 square miles, with headwaters in the coastal hills
south of the town of Chimacum. The stream flows north through the Chimacum, Port Hadlock,
and Irondale communities into Port Townsend Bay. The shoreline of the state begins at the
mouth and stretches to the fork at about RM 2.9 to create the east and west forks. There are four
lakes and the mill settling pond in this watershed that are subject to the County’s SMP.
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
4.2.16.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 9) 8
Chimacum Creek 1: From the end of tidal influence to just downstream of where east and west
forks diverge.
Chimacum Creek 2: From downstream of where east and west forks diverge to approximately
RM 3.3.
Chimacum Creek 3: From approximately RM 3.3 to near the crossing of State Route (SR) 19.
Chimacum Creek 4: From near SR 19 to near the crossing of Highway 104 and Center Road.
4.2.16.3 Physical Environment (Maps 15, 22, and 25) 15
The upland geology of the Chimacum Creek basin consists of quaternary glacial deposits as
much as 900 feet thick overlying shale, sandstone, and lava, while the lowland valleys are
characterized by deep muck and peat soil. Principal aquifer materials are composed of pre-
Vashon stratified glacial drift, interglacial deposits, and Vashon advance outwash. Exposures of
principal aquifer materials are noted along the incised valleys. Bedrock exposures are present
along the western edge of the subbasin near Anderson Lake, Gibbs Lake, southeast of Peterson
Lake, and along the east fork of Chimacum Creek (Parametrix et al., 2000; Simonds et al., 2003).
From the mouth to RM 1.3 the stream flows through a tightly constricted ravine with good
riparian cover and fair pool habitat (May and Peterson, 2003). For the lower 0.2 mile, Chimacum
Creek is tidally influenced, with salt marsh and lagoon habitat, and relatively unaltered by
development. Between RM 1.3 and 2.9 the riparian area is generally in good condition with
medium to high quality spawning and reading habitat and floodplain wetlands; however,
adjacent commercial and residential development are increasing (May and Peterson, 2003).
Above RM 3.0, Chimacum Creek has been channelized via maintenance dredging associated
with reed canarygrass removal. Historic beaver ponds/wetlands have been converted to
agriculture and rural residential use and are now predominantly ditches without structure,
complexity, or well vegetated riparian zones. LWD is lacking in this segment and future
recruitment potential is limited due to lack of a forested riparian zone (Correa, 2002). A number
of channelized reaches have had meanders reincorporated, and native riparian plantings have
been installed in recent years (Todd, personal communication, 2006).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-76 November 2008
Chimacum Creek in Reach 4 is listed as a Category 5 water for temperature according to the
2004 Ecology Water Quality Assessment.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Within Chimacum Creek Reaches 1, 2, and 3, approximately 25 percent to 40 percent of the
planning area is wetland. Within Reach 4, 93 percent of the planning area is wetland. The
majority of wetlands are classified palustrine emergent and scrub/shrub in Reaches 1, 2, and 3
and palustrine forested in Reach 3. A small area of estuarine – intertidal wetland is mapped at the
mouth of the stream.
4.2.16.4 Biological Resources (Map 18) 8
Coho, summer chum, fall chum, steelhead, and cutthroat use this watershed for spawning. Coho
salmon spawn from the lower reaches of Chimacum Creek up to the headwaters, and are
considered a healthy stock with spawning surveys indicating an increasing trend (Parametrix,
2000). Summer chum were extirpated from Chimacum Creek in the early 1990s and have since
been reintroduced. Summer chum spawned in the lower mile of stream, below the Irondale Road
crossing. The population, already critical, was unable to spawn after a culvert failure at Irondale
Road sent tons of fine sediments into the stream in the winter of 1985-1986. This cemented the
spawning gravels together, reducing reproductive success and causing eventual extirpation
(Lowrie, personal communication, 2005). This population has since been reintroduced with stock
from Salmon Creek in a volunteer broodstock hatchery program. The first returning spawning
adults were counted in 1999, and in 2001 the estimated return based on spawning surveys was
about 900 adults (Correa, 2002). Recent returns have been even higher, estimated at over 1,300
in 2004-2006 (Latham, personal communication, 2006). In 2004-2006 summer chum spawned
up to Ness’s Corner Road, a mile farther than previously observed. This may have been a
reestablishment of historical spawning habitat (Long, personal communication, 2004).
4.2.16.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 22 and 25) 24
Land Use and Zoning 25
26
27
28
29
30
Land use in the upper Chimacum watershed is characterized by public and private forestry, while
the middle section is characterized by agriculture, rural residences, commercial enterprise,
industry, and parks. At the reach scale, zoning along Reach 1 is mainly Rural Residential with
some Light Industrial (Commercial). The middle reaches are zoned Rural residential with some
Park land (Reach 2 and 3). Reach 4 is mostly zoned for Agriculture.
Transportation and Utilities 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Within the planning area of Chimacum Creek Reaches 1 through 4, Jefferson County and
WDNR have mapped 0.5 mile and 1.5 miles of road, respectively. Roadways within the
planning area never parallel the stream, with the exception of a short stretch of West Valley
Road within Reach 4. A total of 14 road crossings occur within the four stream reaches, the
majority of which involve culverts.
Jefferson County and WDNR have mapped 0.44 mile and 0.34 mile of road, respectively, within
the planning area of Gibbs Lake. Gibbs Lake Road parallels the eastern shore of the lake.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-77
Shoreline Modifications 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
33
34
35
36
Historically this area, and the broad agriculturally dominated valley upstream, was a complex of
beaver ponds and cedar/spruce swamp. This type of habitat provided excellent coho rearing
habitat. Subsequently, much of this area was drained and channelized, altering flow and
destroying 90 percent of juvenile salmonid rearing habitat in the watershed (Correa, 2002).
Agriculture such as livestock production in the Chimacum Creek valley has been identified as
one of the main sources of pollutants in this subbasin. Voluntary implementation of agricultural
best management practices by landowners in recent years has improved salmon habitat and
reduced the impacts of farming operations on water quality. Residential development in the
towns of Chimacum, Port Hadlock, and Irondale is also a potential non-point source.
West of Chimacum Creek in an area of Vashon advance outwash, Jefferson County Public
Utility District #1 withdraws groundwater at a rate of approximately 555 gallons per minute from
a highly transmissive zone known as the Sparling Aquifer to supply the communities of
Chimacum, Irondale, and Port Hadlock (Simonds et al., 2003). Groundwater contamination
from a leaking underground storage tank is reported at the Chimacum School District; however,
reviewed references provide no evidence that this leak has compromised drinking water for other
groundwater users (Parametrix et al., 2000).
4.2.16.6 Public Access (Map 22) 18
The area surrounding Chimacum Creek is privately owned throughout all reaches except at road
right-of-way crossings of the stream.
4.2.16.7 Restoration Opportunities 21
Most of the restoration opportunities on Chimacum Creek occur upstream on the East and West
Forks where there are opportunities to restore the channelized stream to a more natural system.
In the lower section, protecting existing riparian vegetation and maintaining water quality are
essential.
Water quality problems, which include high temperature, low dissolved oxygen, and elevated
fecal coliform levels, could be alleviated with significant recovery of the riparian zone
(Parametrix et al., 2000). In addition, restoration of lost/degraded wetlands and floodplain
reconnection would improve ecological function in this area.
4.2.17 Gibbs, Beausite, Anderson, Peterson, Ludlow, and Teal Lakes 30
and Mill Pond (Admiralty Inlet)
4.2.17.1 Freshwater Reaches (Map 9) 32
Gibbs Lake: Approximately 0.9 mile northwest of the intersection of Gibbs Lake Road and West
Valley Road.
Beausite Lake: Approximately 0.5 miles east of Gibbs Lake and 0.4 miles west of the
intersection of Beausite Lake Road and West Valley Road.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-78 November 2008
Anderson Lake: Approximately 1.2 miles west of Chimacum Creek 2 and Chimacum Creek 3
reaches.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Peterson Lake: Near the intersection of Highway 104 and Highway 101.
Ludlow Lake: Approximately 3.3 miles west of Port Ludlow and 0.4 miles northeast of the
intersection of Highway 104 and North Sandy Shore Road.
Teal Lake: Approximately 1.4 miles south of Port Ludlow and immediately to the west of the
intersection of Teal Lake Road and Andy Cooper Road.
Mill Settling Pond: Located directly east of the Port Townsend Paper Mill facility, near Glenn
Cove.
4.2.17.2 Description 10
Gibbs Lake is located southwest of Chimacum in the Naylor’s Creek watershed, which flows
into Chimacum Creek. The lake has a surface area of 35.5 acres. Around the shoreline of Gibbs
Lake, 75 percent of the area is wetland (primarily lacustrine – limnetic open water). Primary land
cover is evergreen forest within the lake planning area, with additional areas of bare
rock/sand/clay, deciduous forest, and mixed forest.
In high-flow years, coho salmon spawn just downstream from Gibbs Lake in Naylor’s Creek,
and upstream of the lake to spawn in two small tributaries (Correa, 2002). There is evidence that
coho use Gibbs Lake for rearing and may be trapped in the lake during dry years (Soehl, personal
communication, 2001).
The shorelands and uplands surrounding Gibbs Lake are a County park, providing both passive
and active recreational public access. There is public access to the lake from Gibbs Lake Road.
Beausite Lake is also located southwest of Chimacum, approximately 0.5 miles east of Gibbs
Lake, and drains to Chimacum Creek via a left bank tributary stream. The lake has a surface area
of approximately 20 acres. Immediately along the shoreline of Beausite Lake, the majority of the
area is mapped as wetland (primarily lacustrine – limnetic open water). Primary land cover is
evergreen forest within the lake planning area, with additional areas of deciduous forest and
mixed forest. There is no documented anadromous salmonid use of Beasite Lake.
The shorelands and uplands surrounding Beausite Lake are predominantly County park lands,
which is leased to the Northwest Kiwanis. The leased land, encompassing a total of
approximately 50 acres, is used as the Northwest Kiwanis Camp and as a event rental facility
during non-summer months. The leased parks property is accessed via Beausite Lake Road to the
south of the lake. It is along the southern lake shoreline where all existing development is
located, including several structures and a dock. Limited public access is available through the
Northwest Kiwanis rental and camp programs.
Anderson Lake is located west of Chimacum in the Chimacum watershed. The surface area of
the lake is 57.3 acres. Its outflow is to Chimacum Creek via Putaansuu Creek through a wetland
with no definitive channel. Seventy-five percent of the Anderson Lake planning area is mapped
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-79
as wetland, with lacustrine – limnetic (open water) the primary wetland classification (NWI,
2005). Primary land cover is evergreen forest within the lake planning area, with additional
areas of bare rock/sand/clay, woody wetlands, shrub and brush rangeland, and mixed forest.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Surrounded by 410 acres of forest and wetland within Anderson Lake State Park, Anderson Lake
provides high-value habitat to trout, eagles, herons, waterfowl, and many other wildlife species
(WSP, 2006). Surrounding forested areas include cedar, fir, and alder-dominated communities.
Anderson Lake is surrounded by state park land and, except for park facilities, is quite pristine. It
is a popular seasonal fishing spot and provides additional passive and active public recreational
opportunities, including swimming and hiking. Walking, running, and biking trails skirt the
lakeshore.
Within the planning area of Anderson Lake, WDNR has mapped 300 feet of road. From
Anderson Lake Road, a small roadway approaches the lake and state park facilities from the
southwest.
In June 2006, the Department of Ecology warned areas residents of blue-green algal blooms on
Anderson lake. The algae, or cyanobacteria, typically occur in nutrient-rich lakes, with
excessive phosphorus. The blooms accumulate near shore as a thin bright green surface scum.
Some blue-green algae blooms cause health problems, especially for pets but also for humans.
Peterson Lake is located south of Discovery Bay in the Chimacum Creek watershed (Map 16).
The surface area of the lake is 22.6 acres. Seventy-one percent of the Peterson Lake planning
area is mapped as wetland (primarily lacustrine – limnetic open water) (NWI, 2005). Land cover
is primarily evergreen forest and mixed forest within the lake planning area, with Commercial
Forest zoning. The area has seen recent (1999) clearcutting, although a buffer was left around
the lake. Peterson Lake is a bald eagle territory. It is also presumed habitat for anadromous
steelhead and cutthroat trout (Correa, 2002).
Within the planning area of Peterson Lake, WDNR has mapped 132 feet of road. From Peterson
Road, a small, unpaved roadway approaches the lake from the east. There is no public access to
Peterson Lake.
Ludlow Lake is located to the west of Port Ludlow in the headwaters of the Port Ludlow
drainage basin. The lake has a surface area of approximately 20 acres. The lake is documented
as a high value habitat: it is within WDNR’s NHP for Low Elevation Bog and few flower sedge
(Carex pauciflora). Ludlow Lake was also identified by Tomassi et al. (2004) as part of a
habitat corridor and lying within a Type 1 Core Habitat (most intact habitat type in the County).
This habitat corridor extends further into the headwater areas of the drainage basin, primarily to
the north and southeast of the lake, and downstream of the lake along the Ludlow Creek riparian
corridor. According to the Jefferson County wetland inventory, the majority of the lake is
mapped as wetland and areas of lacustrine wetland are mapped to the south and north along the
lakes shoreline.
The Ludlow Lake area has seen relatively recent clearcutting to the east and northeast of the
lake. Adjacent zoning to Ludlow Lake is Commercial Forest and most of the lake is surrounded
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-80 November 2008
by forested buffers. A short roadway extends into and dead-ends within the east side of the
lake’s shoreline planning area. There is no existing public access to Ludlow Lake. Ludlow Lake
is not on Ecology’s 303d list for any water quality parameters, and no other documented water
quality concerns are known.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Teal Lake is located to the south of Port Ludlow along Teal Lake Road. The lake drains to Port
Ludlow via an non-SMA jurisdictional stream. Teal Lake is within WDNR’s current NHP for
Low Elevation Sphagnum Bog and Labrador Tea (Ledum groenlandicum)/Alpine Laurel
(Kalmia microphylla)/Sphagnum Species Shrubland. The majority of the lake is mapped as
lacustrine wetland according to the Jefferson County inventory, with additional wetland mapped
to the north of the lake along the outlet stream.
Teal Lake is surrounded by forested land and zoned Rural Residential 1:20. There is very
limited existing development within the lake’s shoreline area. The intersection of Teal Lake
Road and Anderson Cooper Road is located directly west of the lake, within the lake’s shoreline
area.
The Mill Settling Pond is a highly altered water body that serves industrial purposes, located just
east of the Port Townsend Paper Mill. The total surface area of the pond is 30.5 acres. Around
the shoreline of the Mill Settling Pond, 57 percent of the area is palustrine open water wetland
(NWI, 2005). The primary land cover around the pond is commercial/industrial/transportation,
with areas of evergreen forest and low intensity residential.
The Mill Settling Pond has little apparent habitat value. Historically this pond was part of a
larger salt marsh in Glen Cove that included some of the filled area where the mill now sits and
the 15-acre salt marsh adjacent to the south.
The Mill Settling Pond is currently designated an urban shoreline due to its industrial use.
Zoning is 98 percent Heavy Industrial within the planning area.
Jefferson County and WDNR have mapped 0.6 mile and 1.5 miles of road, respectively, within
the planning area of Mill Settling Pond. Mill Road, South 8th Street, and several other roads
surround the settling pond. There is no public access to the Mill Settling Pond.
4.2.18 Strait of Juan de Fuca and Discovery Bay 28
4.2.18.1 Overview (Map 1a) 29
This shoreline stretches from the boundary of the City of Port Townsend in the east to the
boundary of Clallam County in the west. The shoreline along the Strait of Juan de Fuca is subject
to the greatest wave action in eastern Jefferson County and is characterized by tall, steep, eroding
bluffs. Discovery Bay is a protected embayment with some development in the areas around
Cape George, Beckett Point, and Adelma Beach. It was here Captain Vancouver first anchored
while exploring Puget Sound in 1792. Early in the development of Puget Sound it was the
location of a lumber mill and port at Mill Point. Salmon and Snow Creeks drain into Discovery
Bay and support populations of chum, coho, cutthroat, and steelhead. The Washington State
Department of Health has listed Discovery Bay as a threatened shellfish growing area, with
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-81
portions of the area closed due to biotoxin from September 16 to October 6, 2005 (WDH,
2006a).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Unarmored shorelines within and near Discovery Bay support a number of depositional features
at the terminal ends of their drift cells, and point bar features formed at the convergence of
neighboring drift cells. These features are often associated with a wide intertidal and shallow
subtidal shelf, creating an extensive area within the photic zone. This is important because the
waters of outer Discovery Bay and the Eastern Strait are otherwise quite deep (PSAT, 2005). A
brief discussion of Protection Island National Wildlife Refuge is included in this section.
4.2.18.2 Nearshore Reaches (Map 9) 9
Reach EEE: East end of divergence zone JEF-23/JEF-24 and drift cell JEF-23 to the City of Port
Townsend boundary.
Reach FFF: West end of divergence zone JEF-23/JEF-24 and drift cell JEF-24 to the northern
edge of Beckett Point.
Reach GGG: Segment of undefined drift around Beckett Point.
Reach HHH: Northern half of divergence zone JEF-25/JEF-26 and drift cell JEF-25.
Reach III: Southeast Discovery Bay, from the south edge of divergence zone JEF-25/JEF-26
south through the Salmon/Snow Creek delta.
Reach JJJ: Drift cell JEF-27 including Mill Point, and the southern half of divergence zone JEF-
27/JEF-28.
Reach KKK: Northern half of divergence zone JEF-27/JEF-28 and drift cell JEF-28 to south of
Contractor’s Point.
Reach LLL: The shoreline from the terminus of drift cell JEF-29 to the Jefferson/Clallam County
boundary.
4.2.18.3 Physical Environment (Maps 15, 22, and 25) 24
Reach EEE originates at a zone of net shore-drift divergence between McCurdy Point and Cape
George to the City of Port Townsend boundary. These tall feeder bluffs (50 to 70 meters high)
are composed of Vashon till overlying weaker layers of advance outwash, unidentified glacial
sediment, and a base layer of Double Bluff Formation (Ecology, 1978; Keuler, 1988). In general,
there is a wave-cut cliff under a steep vegetated slope, topped with another tall cliff of glacial
sediments (Ecology, 2001). Net shore-drift is east to Point Wilson in the City of Port Townsend.
The bluffs in this reach are considered unstable. In addition, east of McCurdy Point there are
many recent and old landslides (Ecology, 1978). The estimated annual rate of bluff retreat at the
end of Elmira Street near the City/County boundary is 6 cm a year (Keuler, 1988).
Reach FFF, encompassing drift cell JEF-24, originates from the same feeder bluffs as drift cell
JEF-23 and net shore-drift is to the southwest to terminate at Beckett Point (Keuler, 1988).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-82 November 2008
Accretionary zones occur at the Cape George marina (historically a salt marsh and lagoon) and at
the terminus at Beckett Point (Reach GGG), a cuspate spit with salt marsh and lagoon. Erosion is
severe just north of Cape George and has endangered homes (Gerstel et al., 1997). With the
exception of accretionary shoreforms, this shoreline is considered unstable with frequent
landslides (Ecology, 1978). An enclosed brackish lagoon is located within Beckett Point with no
open water outlet to the bay (Correa, 2002). Historically, this lagoon/marsh complex was
considerably larger and had more regular tidal connection through an inlet to the south. Roads
and residential development have filled former wetlands and eliminated tidal connection (Todd,
personal communication, 2006).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
The next drift cell (JEF-25) originates at a zone of divergence south of Adelma Beach. Net
shore-drift is to the northwest for approximately 4.4 miles to terminate at the cuspate spit at
Beckett Point (Keuler, 1988). Sediment is derived from Vashon till, undifferentiated Pleistocene
sediments, and Vashon advance outwash. This shoreline is generally considered unstable
(Ecology, 1978). Salt marshes occur behind deposition beaches in this drift cell, two in the
vicinity of Tukey Spit and Chevy Chase and one at Beckett Point (Leon and Driscoll, 1975).
South Discovery Bay (Reach III) encompasses an area of net shore-drift divergence and drift cell
JEF-26 south of Adelma Beach to the Snow Creek delta. Drift cell JEF-26 originates from this
zone of divergence, and net shore-drift is to the south to terminate at the delta of Snow Creek
(Keuler, 1988; Correa, 2002). Sediment is derived from Vashon till; along the shore there is an
area of tertiary basalt between Woodman and Fairmont. There is a brackish marsh at Woodman
that has no open water connection to the bay (Ecology, 1978). A salt marsh at Fairmont is
isolated from the bay by an abandoned railroad bed (Correa, 2002; Ecology, 2001).
A drift cell analysis is not available for Discovery Bay south of the 48th parallel (roughly from
Woodman south). Sediment is deposited at the head of the bay at the estuary formed by the
deltas of Salmon and Snow Creeks (Correa, 2002). Water quality sampling in Discovery Bay
during 2006 showed that all stations met water quality standards for approved classification,
except Station #48 (near the boundary with drift cell JEF-27) continues to be listed as threatened
because the 90th percentile for the station is near the upper range of the water quality standard.
At this point, however, the threatened listing for Station #48 is based on sample results obtained
in 2002 and 2003.
The geology of the Quimper Peninsula (including Reaches EEE, FFF, GGG, HHH, and III) is
characterized by extensive areas covered with dense basal till, by broad channels eroded through
the till into underlying principal aquifer materials, and by the presence of loose ablation till
overlying portions of the basal till. Principal aquifer materials are predominantly composed of
Vashon advance outwash, pre-Vashon stratified glacial drift, and interglacial deposits
(Parametrix et al., 2000).
Reach JJJ, encompassing drift cell JEF-27, originates from a zone of divergence north of Mill
Point. Net shore-drift is south to the delta of Salmon and Snow Creeks. A narrow spit occurs
perpendicular to shore at Mill Point. Sediments are derived from Vashon recessional outwash,
and the bluffs are generally considered unstable with the exception of Mill Point and the
depositional beaches and flats at the terminus of the cell (Ecology, 1978; Keuler, 1988).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-83
Drift cell JEF-28 (Reach KKK) originates from the same zone of divergence as drift cell JEF-27.
Net shore-drift is north 1.5 km to terminate on the cuspate spit at Contractor’s Point. Sediments
are derived from the same parent material as JEF-27. Depositional areas are at Kalset Point and
Contractor’s Point (Keuler, 1988).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Reach LLL encompasses drift cell JEF-29 and Contractor’s Point spit. Drift cell JEF-29
originates at the Clallam County boundary. Net shore-drift is southeast toward Contractor’s
Point, with areas of deposition in front of the Gardiner salt marsh and Contractor’s Point (Keuler,
1988).
The geology of Reaches JJJ, KKK, and LLL is characterized by extensive areas covered with till
and narrow exposures of alluvium, recessional outwash, and advance outwash along the coast.
Bedrock is present in Reach JJJ. The principal aquifer system beneath the till is relatively
stratified. The shallow aquifer is primarily composed of Vashon glacial sediments, while both
the middle and deep aquifers (where present) are composed of pre-Vashon materials (Parametrix
et al., 2000).
4.2.18.4 Biological Resources (Maps 18, 20, 24, and 27) 15
There is little riparian vegetation in Reach EEE; however, there is significant bluff-top and bluff-
side vegetation along this shoreline. Some clearing for views has occurred which may accelerate
the inevitable erosion of the shoreline in this reach (Ecology, 2001). One bald eagle nest and
patchy kelp have been documented within this reach.
Two bald eagle nests have been documented in Reach FFF. Patchy beds of bull kelp (Nereocystis
luetkeana) are found north of Cape George. Eelgrass beds are patchy in front of Cape George
and Beckett Point and continuous in between. Riparian vegetation is largely intact between the
Cape George development and Beckett Point, but some clearing for views has occurred
(Ecology, 2001).
Historically, the cuspate spit at Beckett Point enclosed a backshore lagoon and fringing marsh
connected to the open water via a surface channel along the south shore of the spit. The spit has
been entirely developed, though a remnant of the historical lagoon and fringing salt marsh
remains; the tidal connection has been eliminated (Todd et al., 2006).
Within Reach HHH, South and North Tukey Marshes near Chevy Chase have no direct
connection to the salt water and are contained by alongshore spits. South Tukey Marsh appears
to hold little or no open water, whereas North Tukey Marsh contains a lagoon (Ecology, 2001).
This northern marsh also has a small stand of garry oak (Quercus garryanna) and other native
and uncommon prairie plants along its shores (Admiralty Audubon Society, 1990). There is a
bald eagle nest within this reach as well. Sand lance spawn on the north side of both of these
spits (Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005). Eelgrass beds are patchy in front of Beckett Point and
near Adelma Beach; otherwise eelgrass grows continuously along this shoreline and the
Discovery Bay herring stock uses it for spawning (Penttila, 2000). Sand lance spawning habitat
is continuous along Adelma Beach, and surf smelt spawn at the southern end of this reach
(Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-84 November 2008
The steep, unstable bluffs south of Beckett Point harbor uncommon prairie species, including
prickly pear cactus (Optunia fragilis), threadleaf phacelia (Phacelia linearis), menzies larkspur
(Delphinium menziessi), chocolate lily (Fritilaria lanceolata), and harvest brodiaea (Brodiaea
coronaria ssp. coronaria) (Gorsline, personal communication, 2004). This is the only site in
Jefferson County where prickly pear cactus and thread-leaf phacelia are found, and it is a rare
example of the dry, post-glaciation vegetation on the northeast Olympic Peninsula. In addition,
this area harbors the only significant old-growth Douglas fir forest on the Quimper Peninsula.
Most likely, it was passed over for cutting due to the trees being severely pruned and topped by
strong winds out of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the very steep nature of the bluffs. It is a rare
example of a Douglas fir, madrona, and snowberry dominated ecosystem.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Riparian vegetation is spotty throughout drift cell JEF-25 due to clearing in the Adelma Beach
reach and erosive bluffs in the reaches north. A house is perched on top of an active feeder bluff
(essentially a landslide) in the South Beckett Point Bluffs area (Ecology, 2001). In general, the
area between Tukey and Beckett Point is a quite pristine area of erosive bluffs and forested
slopes with intermittent meadows that support uncommon prairie plants (WDNR, 2001; Ecology,
2001).
Eelgrass is continuous in the northern part of Reach III and patchy near the head of the bay;
herring use it for spawning (Penttila, 2000). Two bald eagles have been documented within this
reach. Surf smelt and sand lance spawn near the origin of drift cell JEF-26 as well as in front of
the old mill pond; sand lance spawn in front of Fairmont (Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005).
Riparian vegetation is generally sparse and absent from the southern part of drift cell JEF-26 due
to the abandoned railroad grade (WDNR, 2001). Some salt marsh vegetation is present in
Fairmont Marsh and Discovery Junction Marsh. It is likely that a shift has occurred from salt
marsh domination to a mixture of fresh and salt marsh vegetation in Fairmont Marsh. A limited
saltwater connection occurs today through a pipe, and a small delta is present on the beach (Todd
et al., 2006).
The estuaries of Salmon and Snow Creeks provide salt marsh and shallow water habitat for
juvenile salmonids. Salmon Creek supports spawning by summer chum and coho (Correa, 2002).
Maynard Lagoon, located just north of the Salmon Creek estuary, was historically an open tidal
flat, with at least two streams entering the nearshore at this site. This area has received fill for a
mill and Highway 101. The Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul railroad grade has enclosed the
lagoon, resulting in filling with sediment due to a reduction in tidal exchange (Todd et al., 2006).
In Reach JJJ, eelgrass is patchy toward the end of drift cell JEF-27 and in front of Mill Point.
Otherwise, eelgrass grows continuously along this drift cell. Herring use this eelgrass for
spawning. Sand lance spawn on the north side of Mill Point, just north of Trend West
Condominiums and continuously for the last kilometer of the cell (Penttila, 2000; Long et al.,
2005). Riparian vegetation covers about 20 percent of the shoreline south of Trend West and is
heavy north of Mill Point. However, for the most part it is lacking over the remainder of this
shoreline (WDNR, 2001). A bald eagle nest occurs within this reach as well.
Eelgrass is continuous along Reach KKK with patches of brown kelp and Ulva. There is a salt
marsh at Kalset Point. Oysters are found south of Contractor’s Point and an aquaculture facility
is located at Kalset Point (Correa, 2002). Sand lance spawn at the origin of the cell and on Kalset
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-85
Point, while herring spawn offshore (Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005). The shoreline between
Kalset Point and Contractor’s Point spit is pristine with abundant riparian vegetation, as is the
area south of Kalset Point (Ecology, 2001; Correa, 2002). The area surrounding Contractors
Point spit has been cleared and fragmented by numerous private roads and drives (WDNR 1994,
2000 aerials). The lower half-mile of Contractor’s Creek was routed through a series of culverts
and the adjacent riparian zone filled for private development. A blocked culvert at the Old
Gardiner Highway temporarily dammed Contractors Creek, which then undercut the highway
and washed the highway and large volumes of highway fill into a new floodway on the north
side of the spit. After the flood, the property owner rerouted the creek back into the culverts and
the Jefferson County Public Works Department replaced the highway and re-routed the creek
channel into a deep ditch. Upstream of Old Gardiner Highway, the Contractors Creek crossing
at State Route 101 has been identified as a Chronic Environmental Deficiencies area due to a
continual need for infrastructure maintenance that is damaging to fish habitat (WSDOT 2007). A
bald eagle nest is located within this reach, and the spit at Contractor’s Creek is a haulout area
for harbor seals.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Eelgrass and Ulva are continuous along Reach LLL. Sand lance spawn along the Gardiner
shoreline and on the north side of Contractor’s Point (Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005). Aerial
photos show that large salt marsh occurs at Gardiner (Ecology, 2001); although truncated by a
road, it appears to provide habitat suitable for juvenile salmonids. This salt marsh is also
important waterfowl and shorebird habitat. Riparian vegetation in this segment is generally good,
with some clearing for views. A pristine area occurs south of Gardiner (Ecology, 2001). Gardiner
Lagoon is located in a small glacial depression with a narrow barrier spit enclosing tidal marsh
and lagoon habitat. A small stream enters the marsh near its west end. Eagle Creek estuary on
the Clallam/Jefferson County line is a bar bound estuary with salt marsh and potential for fish
use (Correa, 2002). Sand lance spawn continuously from the County line south through Gardiner
(Penttila, 2000).
Protection Island north of Discovery Bay is a National Wildlife Refuge and Washington State
Seabird Sanctuary, with a few residential properties (Murray and Ferguson 1998). The Island is
not subject to County shoreline jurisdiction. It harbors significant marine mammal populations
and 80 percent of the nesting seabirds in Puget Sound, including rhinoceros auklets, pigeon
guillemots, black oystercatchers, and glaucous-winged gulls (Nightingale, 2000; Jefferson
County, 2002).The surrounding waters and County shorelines provide foraging areas for these
animals. Two geoduck tracts north of Protection Island are classified as approved for shellfish
harvest; however these areas were closed for 21 days in 2005 due to high levels of biotoxin
(WDH, 2006a).
Within all shoreline reaches, 13.5 percent or less of the planning area is wetland (variation from
reach to reach), with estuarine – intertidal the primary classification. No wetland data are
available in Reach EEE. Significant areas of palustrine wetland (emergent, scrub/shrub,
unconsolidated shore) are located within Reaches GGG, HHH, and III.
4.2.18.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 12 and 22) 40
Land Use and Zoning 41
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-86 November 2008
Land use along the shoreline is dominated by residential development in all reaches. Rural
Residential zoning over more than 98 percent of the planning area reflects existing land use.
1
2
Transportation and Utilities 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Within the marine planning area, Jefferson County and WDNR have mapped 4.4 miles and 11.6
miles of road, respectively. Along the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Lands End Lane, Porter Lane, and
several roads within Cape George parallel the shoreline. Within Discovery Bay, from Beckett
Point to the northern boundary of Reach LLL, Beckett Point Road, Cliffside Drive, South
Discovery Road (State Route 19), Lower Aldema Beach Road, Madrona Beach Road, State
Route 20, Woodman Road, Fairmount Road, Old Gardiner Road, Orcas Drive, Bachelor Road,
and Gardiner Beach Road parallel the shoreline.
Shoreline Modifications 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Shoreline modification statistics for these nearshore reaches are as follows:
• Reach EEE area: No bulkhead data, 3 stairways; 1 launch ramp.
• Reaches FFF, III, and JJJ: 2.5 miles of bulkhead (82 percent to 93 percent rock; concrete
and/or wood in remaining bulkhead areas); 2, 11, and 4 stairways, respectively; 5
docks/piers in Reach III, 3 in Reach JJJ; 1 rail launch in Reach JJJ; 1 marina in Reach
FFF.
• Reach GGG: 0.4 mile of bulkhead (74 percent concrete, 16 percent wood, and 9 percent
rock); no stairs; 1 launch ramp.
• Reach HHH: 0.4 mile of bulkhead (96 percent wood and 4 percent concrete); 11
stairways; 2 docks/piers; 1 rail launch.
• Reaches KKK and LLL: 0.5 mile of bulkhead (97 percent to 100 percent rock, concrete
in all remaining bulkhead areas); 1 stairway in Reach LLL; 1 dock/pier in both Reaches
LLL and KKK.
• Facilities include a State Cleanup Site in Reach EEE.
The Cape George development has seen extensive clearing, possibly contributing to erosion
(Ecology, 2001). Stormwater entering the nearshore is an issue at Cape George. Several private
stormwater drains enter the beach and one large storm drain empties into a ravine, which then
drains untreated into the bay (Correa, 2002).
The marina at Cape George, covering 1,917 square feet, is protected by a jetty that interrupts
longshore transport of sediment and is constructed on a depositional beach or historic salt marsh
and lagoon. In addition, there is extensive shoreline armoring near the marina. There is extensive
armoring with seawalls and riprap along the northwest shore of Beckett Point (Ecology, 2001).
Alongshore drift is interrupted on the north side of Beckett Point by a boat ramp, which has led
to erosion on the down drift side of the boat ramp, toward the tip of the spit. Both the north and
south sides of Beckett Point have several sizable bulkheads, which may be adversely affecting
net shore-drift of sediment.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-87
The shoreline armoring and fill along the Adelma Beach reach (Reaches HHH and III) may be
affecting sediment recruitment into the nearshore (Correa, 2002). In addition, it may interrupt
longshore transport and increase wave reflection, resulting in a coarsening of the beach.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
37
38
39
40
South of Woodman, an aquaculture facility interrupts longshore transport of sediment (Correa,
2002). Between Woodman and the delta of Salmon and Snow Creeks, the backshore is isolated
by a bulkheaded railroad grade that is 2.5 km long. At Fairmont there is extensive armoring
including structures built on armored fill extending into the nearshore (Correa, 2002; Ecology;
2001). The salt marsh at Fairmont is isolated by the railroad grade (Correa, 2002). Due to failure
of a culvert in early 2005, there may currently be limited tidal connection (Todd, personal
communication, 2006).
The shared delta of Salmon and Snow Creeks, at the southern extent of Reach III, is subject to
extensive modification. Snow Creek and Salmon Creek historically converged 100 meters south
of Highway 101 and shared an estuary. However, due to rechannelization, Snow Creek and
Salmon Creek now flow separately to the salt water. Snow Creek’s estuarine function is largely
lost due to channelization, dikes, fill, and truncation by the abandoned railroad grade. Likewise,
Salmon Creek has lost estuary and salt marsh habitat due to truncation by the railroad grade. Mill
ponds northwest of the mouth of Salmon Creek, which are located on a historic broad tide flat
with fringing salt marsh (Todd, personal communication, 2006), have been truncated by road fill.
The Trend West condominiums in the JEF-27 reach are built on armored fill that extends over
the intertidal, eliminating shallow water habitat essential for the migratory success of juvenile
summer chum (Correa, 2002). The mouth of Contractor’s Creek has been highly altered by being
moved and forced through a series of undersized culverts. In addition, portions of Contractor’s
Point spit have been armored for a peripheral access road, eliminating 2 acres of historic salt
marsh (Correa, 2002; Ecology, 2001; Todd et al., 2006). The spit is also covered in invasive non-
native vegetation (Ecology, 2001).
Upland agricultural practices, stormwater runoff, and failing or lack of septic systems may also
contribute non-point pollution to Discovery Bay (Berbells, 2003).
4.2.18.6 Public Access (Map 22) 28
Although the residents of Discovery Bay often have access to the bay through private easements,
public access is limited. Members of the public often walk the beach from North Beach County
Park within the City of Port Townsend down to Middlepoint. There is access at the head of
Discovery Bay in the estuaries of Salmon and Snow Creeks on WDFW property. There is a
public boat ramp maintained by the Port of Port Townsend in Gardiner. There is also a stretch of
WDNR tidelands with boat access between Adelma Beach and Cape George.
4.2.18.7 Restoration Opportunities 35
Habitat could be restored at the mill ponds northwest of the mouth of Salmon Creek by removing
fill. Likewise, removing the fill under the railroad grade and pulling back dikes would increase
intertidal salt marsh habitat and water flow (Correa, 2002). The restoration of the combined
estuary of Salmon and Snow Creek has received funding from the State Salmon Recovery
Funding Board. This restoration will improve water flow and natural vegetation by removing
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-88 November 2008
dikes, and will also place LWD into the nearshore and estuary habitats. The removal of the
bulkheaded railroad grade would increase shallow nearshore habitat and sediment recruitment
into the nearshore.
1
2
3
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Contractor’s Point spit is highly altered and the restoration of the salt marsh and creek mouth
would improve salmonid habitat.
4.2.19 Snow Creek and Salmon Creek (Discovery Bay) 6
4.2.19.1 Overview (Map 1a) 7
Snow Creek’s headwaters are in the eastern foothills of the Olympic Mountains, draining a
watershed area of approximately 22 square miles, with a mainstem length of about 10 miles.
Flow is to the north to Discovery Bay (Correa, 2002). Salmon Creek originates on the northern
slopes of Mount Zion, has a watershed area of 23.6 square miles, and flows 9 miles into
Discovery Bay. Prior to development in the area, which resulted in the present channelized
outlet at the east side of the valley, Snow Creek emptied into Salmon Creek near its estuary.
During certain flood events, Snow Creek overflows into its original channel in the pasture,
reestablishing some direct contact with Salmon Creek. Snow Creek still joins Salmon Creek in
the intertidal area during low tides (Correa, 2002).
Over 90 percent of the watersheds are forested with coniferous forest in various stages of
development. Both drainages have an average annual precipitation of 35.5 inches (Correa, 2002).
4.2.19.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 9) 19
Snow Creek 1: River mouth to approximately RM 1.2.
Snow Creek 2: RM 1.2 to approximately RM 3.3, below Crocker Lake.
Salmon Creek 1: River mouth to approximately RM 0.75.
Salmon Creek 2: RM 0.75 to approximately RM 1.5.
4.2.19.3 Physical Environment (Maps 15, 22, and 25) 24
Over 50 percent of the Salmon-Snow Creek basin is underlain by till soils, and approximately
3,000 acres is covered by palustrine or estuarine wetlands, or hydric soils. A relatively low rate
of groundwater recharge is predicted, which is largely controlled by the presence of bedrock,
which covers about 72 percent of the subbasin (Parametrix et al., 2000). The Salmon Creek
watershed is underlain primarily by the Crescent basalt formation consisting of basalt flows and
mudflow breccias. The basalts are generally harder and more erosion-resistant than the
sedimentary rocks in this area. A fault, running approximately east-west, terminates the basalt
exposure on the watershed’s southern boundary (Tabor and Cady, 1978). The lower watershed is
characterized by sand, gravel, and clay deposited during glaciation. Material transported from the
upper watershed forms a broad alluvial fan (Bernthal et al., 1999 as cited in Parametrix et al.,
2000).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-89
The lower reaches of Snow Creek, from the mouth to RM 4.1, course through a wide alluvial
valley. The Snow Creek riparian zone, once dominated by conifers, is now dominated by
deciduous trees and is rather narrow (76 percent is less than 66 feet wide) (Correa, 2002).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The Salmon Creek riparian zone has largely been converted to agriculture. Cattle exclusion
fencing does exist in Reach 1 with the exception of access points for livestock watering. In 2002
WDFW purchased a 100-acre farm containing most of the summer chum habitat downstream of
Uncas Road. Approximately 2,500 feet of new channel was constructed, and a riparian forest
buffer was planted on this property (Latham, personal communication, 2006).
4.2.19.4 Biological Resources (Map 18) 9
Snow Creek and Salmon Creek support runs of coho, steelhead, and summer chum salmon. Coho
and steelhead are listed as critical in SASSI, and summer chum are listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act (Correa, 2002). Other fish species found here include sculpins
(Cottidae), Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentatus), and brook lamprey (L. richardsoni)
(Parametrix et al., 2000), as well as white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) (Todd, personal
communication, 2006).
The entire lower stream valley is described in the 1869-1870 coastal survey mapping (T-sheet) as
a wetland upstream of the County road, with areas of scrub/shrub or wooded wetlands.
Specifically, the lower 0.3 mile of stream valley was described as dominated by “salmonberry
brier” (Todd et al., 2006).
Within the lower basin (reaches Snow Creek 1, Salmon Creek 1 and 2), 13.5 percent of the
planning area is wetland. Within Snow Creek 2, 33 percent of the planning area is wetland.
Between 40 percent and 70 percent of all wetland is classified as palustrine emergent. Forested,
scrub/shrub, and open water palustrine wetlands represent the remaining wetland cover.
4.2.19.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Maps 12 and 22) 24
Land Use and Zoning 25
26
27
28
29
30
Zoning is 70 percent Rural Residential and 20 percent Commercial Agriculture along Snow
Creek. Zoning is 90 percent Commercial Agriculture along lower Salmon Creek, and 98 percent
Commercial Forest along upper Salmon Creek.
Land use in the Snow Creek and Salmon Creek basin is a mix of rural residential and agricultural
land adjacent to the stream, and commercial forestry dominating the watershed.
Transportation and Utilities 31
32
33
34
35
Within the planning area of Snow Creek Reach 1, Jefferson County and WDNR have mapped
1.35 miles and 1.75 miles of road, respectively. West Uncas Road and National Forest Road
2986 are within the planning area of Salmon Creek. Highway 101, along with interchanges with
Highway 104 and State Route 20, are all near or within the planning area of Snow Creek.
Shoreline Modifications 36
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-90 November 2008
The estuary of both Salmon and Snow Creeks is heavily impacted by transportation, commercial
development, and some residential development associated with the Highway 101 corridor that
passes around the southern end of Discovery Bay. Lower Snow Creek has been channelized both
upstream and downstream of Highway 101. A railroad grade also parallels the highway,
transecting the delta. Extensive logging has occurred in these basins. The timber harvest rate in
the Salmon-Snow watershed has been 19 to 23 percent, higher than the generally accepted rate of
16 percent (Parametrix, 2000).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
27
28
29
30
33
35
36
WDFW operates a salmonid population monitoring weir on Snow Creek at approximately RM
0.8, and on Salmon Creek during August, September, and October at approximately RM 0.3.
Both weirs restrict gravel, sediment, and LWD movement downstream. In Snow Creek, gravel
and sediments are removed periodically and disposed of at an upland site. LWD is passed
downstream and contributes to habitat structure (Correa, 2002). Activities at the Salmon Creek
weir were scheduled to terminate in 2004.
A portion of Snow Creek below RM 3.5 has been armored with riprap.
Forestry and agricultural operations such as livestock and hay production have been identified as
the main potential sources of non-point pollution (such as fecal coliform, excessive nitrogen
loads, and sediment) in the Salmon-Snow subbasin. The Washington State Department of Health
has listed an area within the southwest portion of Discovery Bay as threatened with closure due
to increasing fecal coliform contamination, though recent trends may be improving (WDH,
2006a). Urban and residential use is sparse, and although failing septic systems and urban runoff
occur within this subbasin, they are not considered major sources of non-point pollution
(Parametrix et al., 2000).
4.2.19.6 Public Access (Map 22) 23
There is access at the head of Discovery Bay in the estuaries of Salmon and Snow Creeks on
WDFW property.
4.2.19.7 Restoration Opportunities 26
Portions of Snow Creek could be re-meandered and riparian planting could take place to improve
channel condition and riparian cover. The extensive restoration of the estuary by members of the
Chumsortium, a local salmon recovery group that includes the North Olympic Salmon Coalition,
should improve juvenile salmonid survival.
4.2.20 Crocker Lake (Discovery Bay) 31
4.2.20.1 Freshwater Reaches (Map 9) 32
Crocker Lake: 0.5 mile south of the upstream limit of Snow Creek 2.
4.2.20.2 Description 34
Crocker Lake is in the Snow Creek watershed, discharging to Anderson Creek, which flows to
Snow Creek at RM 3.5. The total surface area of the lake is 74 acres. Crocker Lake is used as
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-91
rearing habitat by coho salmon. The lake is closed to fishing due to the presence of the Snow
Creek Research Station, operated by WDFW, downstream of the lake. Bald eagle habitat has
been mapped across Crocker Lake and in the surrounding area.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Crocker Lake is an area of low-density residential and agricultural lands. Eighty-four percent of
the planning area surrounding the lake has been mapped as wetland (primarily lacustrine –
limnetic). Within the planning area of Crocker Lake, Jefferson County and WDNR have mapped
0.35 mile and 0.26 mile of road, respectively. Fuller Road, Lake View Drive East, East Snow
Creek Way, Crocker Lake Road, and Highway 101 are all within the planning area of Crocker
Lake.
There is a public boat launch on Crocker Lake. Possible restoration on Crocker Lake might
include the planting of native riparian vegetation along its shores and the control of non-native
reed canarygrass.
4.2.21 Additional Lakes in WRIA 17 13
There are several additional lakes in WRIA 17 that have been determined to be too small to
qualify as shorelines of the state. Horseshoe Lake is just north of State Route 104, and is
surrounded primarily by a narrow buffer of trees within commercial forestland. Washington
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) lists Horseshoe Lake in its Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) database, for Low Elevation Freshwater Wetland and Western Spiraea (Spiraea
douglasii) Shrubland. Horseshoe Lake, along with Teal Lake, is within WDNR’s historic NHP
for Golden Indian Paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta).
East Wahl Lake (also referred to as Twin Lakes) is north and east of Wahl Lake Road, and
within Commercial Forest zoning. Surrounding lands are mostly forested. WDNR’s historic
NHP includes East Wahl Lake for Golden Indian Paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta), and its current
NHP includes the lake for Three-Way Sedge (Dulichium arundinaceum) Seasonally Flooded
Herbaceous Vegetation; Western Inflated Sedge (Carex exsiccata) Herbaceous Vegetation
(Provisional); Baltic Rush (Juncus balticus) Herbaceous Vegetation; Western Spiraea (Spiraea
douglasii) Shrubland; Oregon Crabapple (Malus fusca) Shrubland; Low Elevation Bog; and Low
Elevation Freshwater Wetland.
Embody Lake lies just west of SR 19 and south of Embody Road. Adjacent zoning is Rural
Residential 1:10, and surrounding land includes forest and open areas with some residential
housing on the lake’s west side. Embody Lake was identified by Tomassi et al. (2004) as Type 3
Core Habitat (composed mostly of historic wetlands, and selected primarily for their restoration
and enhancement potential).
Delaney Lake lies east of Eaglemount Road. Surrounding land is primarily open, with scattered
residential units set back from the eastern shoreline, and may be used for agriculture. Zoning is
Rural Residential 1:20. Delaney Lake was identified by Tomassi et al. (2004) as Type 3 Core
Habitat (composed mostly of historic wetlands, and selected primarily for their restoration and
enhancement potential).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-92 November 2008
Browns Lake is a small lake, less than 9 acres in size, located approximately 0.6 miles to the
northeast of Tarboo Lake. The lake is located in the headwaters of the Tarboo Creek watershed,
which drains to Tarboo Bay. The County’s wetland inventory maps wetlands extending around
the shoreline of the lake and along the outlet stream. Adjacent zoning is entirely Commercial
Forest. Land use is largely coniferous and mixed forest, with no recent logging activity. There is
no public access to the lake and minimal development of any kind within the shoreline area.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Thorndyke Lake is a very small lake with less than one acre of open water according to Bahls et
al. 2006. It is located approximately 0.3 miles to the north of the Hood Canal shoreline near the
intersection of Thorndyke Road and Kelly Drive. NWI mapping and the County wetland
inventory map the entire are as wetland. Adjacent zoning is a mix of Rural Forest, Commerical
Forest, and Rural Residential. Land use is largely undeveloped, consisting of open areas and
mixed forest. Residential land uses are located to the south of the lake, along Thorndyke Road
and the Hood Canal shoreline. There is no public access to the lake and minimal development of
any kind within the shoreline area.
Larson Lake lies just north of Larson Lake Road at French Road and approximately one mile to
the northeast of Ludlow Lake. The lake is less than 5 acres in size, and from aerial photography
appears to seasonally loose all open water areas. NWI mapping and the County wetland
inventory map the entire are as wetland. Adjacent zoning is Commercial Forest and Inholding
Forest, and surrounding land includes forest and open areas with some small structures and
graded areas located to the north of the lake off of French Road. There is no existing public
access to Larson Lake.
None of the lakes listed above are listed as impaired on Department of Ecology’s 2004 Water
Quality Assessment.
4.3 WRIA 20 – SOL DUC-HOH 24
The Sol Duc-Hoh WRIA includes the northwest corner of Jefferson County and parts of Clallam
County (Figure 4-4). The largest basin in WRIA 20 is the Quillayute with its four major
subbasins: the Dickey, Calawah, Bogachiel, and Sol Duc Rivers. Other basins include the
Waatch, Sooes, Ozette, and Hoh systems, as well as several small independent streams. Within
this WRIA are 569 streams and 1,355 stream miles.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Annual rainfall in the basin is the highest in the state, ranging from 80 inches near the coast to
240 inches in the Olympic Mountains. This region is often exposed to high wind and heavy
rainstorms. Unlike many other areas of the state, this region has a significant portion of unlogged
forestland, located in the ONP. In these undisturbed areas, temperate, coniferous, old-growth
rainforests are dominated by Sitka spruce in the lowlands and western hemlock with silver fir in
the higher elevations. Bigleaf maple is also a component of the rainforests. The old-growth
conifers can reach up to 200 feet in height, and are characterized by somewhat open canopies
and low densities.
Outside of ONP boundaries, timber harvest generally began in this region in the 1920s-1930s,
using rail to transport the logs. Road construction for log trucks began in the 1940s, and early
roads often used side-cast technology on steep slopes, which still create sediment problems
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-93
today. From the 1960s through the 1980s, extensive clearcutting and road construction occurred
throughout the WRIA except in the ONP, which has remained undisturbed. Current timber
harvest practices have improved to increase riparian buffers and reduce road impacts (Smith,
2000).
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
4.3.1 Bogachiel River (Bogachiel River Lower) 5
4.3.1.1 Overview (Map 1b) 6
The Bogachiel River has its headwaters in the Olympic Mountains in the Seven Lakes basin, and
flows west to meet with the Quillayute River west of Forks in Clallam County (Map 20). The
upper reaches of the Bogachiel River lie within the ONP, while the middle and lower reaches are
used primarily for timber production and farming. The lower Bogachiel River area is
agricultural and also supports the southern edge of the City of Forks. There is also a state fish
hatchery near Forks (for summer and winter steelhead) at the confluence of the Bogachiel and
Calawah Rivers (Hook, 2004). This report pertains to approximately 4 miles of the river
upstream of the Clallam County line to the boundary of the ONP. The Bogachiel River is a
shoreline of statewide significance.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-94 November 2008
Figure 4-4. WRIA 20 in Northwest Jefferson County 1
2
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
4.3.1.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 10) 3
The entire length of the Bogachiel River within western Jefferson County and outside of federal
land is treated as one reach. The reach extends from approximately RM 17 to RM 22.
4.3.1.3 Physical Environment (Maps 19 and 23) 6
Vegetation within the planning area is composed of 44 percent evergreen forest, 19 percent bare
rock/sand/clay, and 17 percent deciduous forest. Transitional, shrub and brush rangeland, and
mixed forest represent the remaining land cover.
Collapsing banks have been a problem in this section of the Bogachiel River, leading to
sedimentation of the streambed. This erosion has also necessitated moving several roads back
from the river. Channel incision has also exposed clay layers, the erosion of which has led to a
worsening of sediment quality. This parameter is listed as “poor” (Smith and Caldwell, 2000).
The area in the vicinity of Hemp Hill Creek is listed on the 303(d) list for high water
temperatures and low dissolved oxygen.
Washington State Department of Ecology
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-95
Within the Bogachiel River reach, 14 percent of the planning area is wetland. The primary
wetland classifications are palustrine forested and scrub/shrub (63 percent) and riverine upper
perennial (37 percent).
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
4.3.1.4 Biological Resources (Map 19) 4
The Bogachiel River supports coho salmon; summer, fall, and spring Chinook salmon; and
winter and summer steelhead trout. The coho and fall Chinook populations are listed as healthy,
whereas the summer Chinook stock is listed as threatened. The status of the spring Chinook
stock is unknown. The winter steelhead trout run is listed as healthy, and the status of the
summer steelhead run is listed as unknown.
LWD levels are low downstream of Hemp Hill Creek and better upstream. Although systematic
data are lacking, the riparian condition of this stretch of river is though to be “fair” (Smith and
Caldwell, 2000).
Roads within the floodplain act as dikes, disconnecting potential off-channel habitat and
increasing sediment input to the river.
4.3.1.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 23) 15
Land Use and Zoning 16
17
18
19
Land use in this reach of the Bogachiel River is primarily residential and forestry. Zoning within
the reach planning area reflects this, with 55 percent of the area zoned Rural Residential, 29
percent ONF, and 11.6 percent Commercial Forest.
Transportation and Utilities 20
21
22
23
24
Within the planning area of the Bogachiel River, Jefferson County and WDNR have mapped 3.9
miles and 7.2 miles of road, respectively. Highway 101, South Bogachiel Road, and Kallman
Road run along the south bank of the river reach. Undie Road runs along the north bank through
the reach.
Shoreline Modifications 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Some of the major habitat problems for the Bogachiel mainstem include “poor” riparian and
LWD conditions downstream of the ONP boundaries, as well as an aggraded mainstem that
worsens downstream (Smith, 2000). The lack of LWD on the mainstem has led to increased
water velocity and sediment transport on the mainstem of the Bogachiel. This in turn has
increased channel incision and exposed unstable clay layers. This incision has released sediment
into the river and has resulted in a level of fines greater than 17 percent. Collapsing banks from
the Hemp Hill confluence to Highway 101 have required localized road relocation (Hook, 2004).
No information on shoreline modifications specific to this reach is available.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-96 November 2008
4.3.1.6 Public Access (Map 23) 1
Except for areas of federally owned national forest and park, land along the Bogachiel reach is
privately owned by timber companies and individuals.
2
3
5
6
7
8
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
4.3.1.7 Restoration Opportunities 4
Restoration opportunities identified for the Bogachiel River include increasing the amount of
LWD in areas rated as “poor,” routing road sediments to the forest floor rather than to stream
channels, decommissioning side-cast roads, and improving road surfacing to reduce sediment
inputs into streams (Smith, 2000).
4.3.2 Goodman Creek (Goodman Creek) 9
4.3.2.1 Basin Overview (Map 1b) 10
Goodman Creek flows into the Pacific Ocean south of the Quillayute River and north of
Mosquito Creek. The lower 2 miles of the stream are within the ONP, and the headwaters are in
the coastal hills west of Highway 101. There is little information on this watershed.
4.3.2.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 10) 14
Goodman Creek 1: From the ONP boundary upstream to the confluence with Minter Creek.
Goodman Creek 2: From the confluence of Minter Creek upstream to the divergence of the east
and west forks.
Goodman Creek 3: East and west forks of Goodman Creek.
Minter Creek: From the confluence with Goodman Creek to the upstream extent of shoreline
jurisdiction.
4.3.2.3 Physical Environment (Maps 19 and 23) 21
Land cover within the Goodman Creek basin planning area is 88 percent evergreen forest, with
bare rock/sand/clay, deciduous forest, shrub and brush rangeland, and mixed forest representing
the remaining land cover. Goodman Creek contains a high density of wetlands indicating high
groundwater inputs. Approximately 52.4 percent of the area within Reach 1 is wetland; however,
less than 7 percent of the planning area above the Goodman – Minter convergence is wetland.
Information concerning LWD and other habitat attributes in Goodman Creek are lacking;
however, it has been noted that LWD was rated “good” in this basin, except where LWD and
spawning gravel are lacking from Road G 2108 to the G 3000 bridge (Silver, personal
communication, as cited in Smith, 2000). There is also a lack of deep pools and an alder-
dominated riparian zone in the middle section of mainstem Goodman Creek (Silver, personal
communication, as cited in Smith, 2000). Pool habitat, water temperature, and hydrologic
maturity within Goodman Creek have been rated as poor.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-97
Less than 7 percent of the planning area is wetland above the convergence of Goodman Creek
and Minter Creek. Downstream of the convergence (Goodman Creek 1), 52 percent of the
planning area is wetland. The primary wetland classification throughout the Goodman and
Minter Creeks planning area is palustrine scrub/shrub and forested. In Goodman Creek Reaches
1 and 2 there are significant areas of riverine upper perennial wetland (NWI, 2005).
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
4.3.2.4 Biological Resources (Map 19) 6
Fall coho salmon and winter steelhead and cutthroat trout spawn in Goodman Creek but the
status of these stocks is unknown (Smith, 2000).
4.3.2.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 23) 9
Land Use and Zoning 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Land use within the Goodman Creek planning area is predominantly forestry. In the mainstem,
land use is 66 percent to 100 percent commercial forest, and up to 33 percent rural residential.
Within the Minter Creek reach, land use is 100 percent commercial forest.
Extensive logging within the Goodman Creek basin has increased the risk of damaging peak
flow events. Evidence of changes is already noted, such as bank erosion, gravel bar movement,
and scour (Smith, 2000).
Transportation and Utilities 17
18 WDNR has mapped 3.3 miles of road within this planning area. Utilities are unknown.
Shoreline Modifications 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
31
32
Three blocking culverts on left bank tributaries to Goodman Creek created by Roads G 3300 and
G 3310 affect coho, steelhead, and cutthroat habitat. Blocking culverts are also created by Roads
G 2170 and G 2100, affecting coho, cutthroat, and steelhead habitat on five right bank
tributaries.
With a road density of 3.2 miles per square mile and a road erosion rate of 148 percent,
Goodman Creek was rated “poor” for both road density and road erosion (Smith, 2000).
Extensive logging within the basin has increased the risk of damaging peak flow events (Smith,
2000).
4.3.2.6 Public Access (Map 23) 28
The upper watershed is WDNR land.
4.3.2.7 Restoration Opportunities 30
The primary opportunities for restoration in this watershed involve replacement of culverts that
are blocking access to anadromous habitat.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-98 November 2008
4.3.3 Mosquito Creek (Goodman Creek) 1
4.3.3.1 Overview (Map 1b) 2
There is little information on Mosquito Creek. The lower approximately 1.5 miles are within the
ONP. The headwaters are in the coastal hills west of Highway 101.
3
4
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
4.3.3.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 10) 5
Mosquito Creek 1: From the ONP boundary upstream to RM 5.2.
Mosquito Creek 2: From RM 5.2 to the upstream extent of shoreline jurisdiction.
4.3.3.3 Physical Environment (Maps 19 and 23) 8
Vegetation within the Mosquito Creek planning area consists of 84 to 89 percent evergreen
forest, with the remainder composed of deciduous forest, shrub and brush rangeland, transitional,
and mixed forest. Less than 4 percent of the Mosquito Creek planning area is wetland. More
than 75 percent of these wetlands are palustrine forested, while the remainder are scrub/shrub.
Mosquito Creek had water temperatures that exceeded state standards. However, these areas are
located in the ONP in old-growth forest and represent natural conditions (Smith, 2000).
4.3.3.4 Biological Resources (Map 19) 15
Fall coho and winter steelhead use this watershed for spawning; the health of these runs remains
unknown (Smith, 2000).
4.3.3.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 23) 18
Land Use and Zoning 19
20
21
22
The middle and upper reaches of Mosquito Creek are surrounded by private and state
timberlands. Land use in the Mosquito Creek planning area is more than 94 percent commercial
forest, with 5.5 percent zoned Rural Residential in the upper reach.
Transportation and Utilities 23
24
25
WDNR has mapped 2.2 miles of road within the Mosquito Creek planning area. Mapped
roadways provide access to the commercial forest and are predominantly unpaved.
Shoreline Modifications 26
27
28
There are several blocking culverts on Mosquito Creek. Sedimentation due to altered riparian
conditions and forest road usage has degraded channel conditions.
Public Access 29
30 Mosquito Creek flows through WDNR land for about a mile just upstream of the ONP boundary.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-99
4.3.3.6 Restoration Opportunities 1
There are several blocking culverts on Mosquito Creek. These should be replaced to open up
anadromous fish habitat (Silver, personal communication, 2000).
2
3
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
4.3.4 Hoh River and Tributaries (Hoh River Lower, Middle and South 4
Fork)
4.3.4.1 Overview (Map 1b) 6
The headwaters of the Hoh River are in the snowfields and glaciers of Mount Olympus. This
glacially fed river flows out of the Olympic Mountains and winds across a broad floodplain
through coastal hills. The upper watershed is protected in the ONP, and the lower mile of the
river lies within the Hoh Indian Reservation.
The Hoh watershed, and other watersheds on the west side of the Olympic Peninsula, are subject
to the greatest annual precipitation in the U.S. outside of Hawaii, ranging from 70 to 100 inches
of precipitation at the coast, to 150 to 200 inches a year in the foothills of the Olympics.
Although data are sparse for the higher elevations, during the 1957-1958 water year, 542 inches
of snow was recorded at Blue Glacier at the headwaters of the Hoh River. Precipitation was 15
percent below normal that year in the lowlands. The temperate rainforest supports the growth of
enormous moss-covered conifers and bigleaf maples. From the ocean to the ONP boundary the
mainstem of the Hoh River is classified as a shoreline of statewide significance. Its larger
tributaries—Nolan Creek, Winfield Creek, Maple Creek, Owl Creek, and the South Fork of the
Hoh River—all are shorelines of the state.
4.3.4.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 10) 21
Hoh River 1: From the Hoh Indian Reservation boundary upstream to the confluence with Nolan
Creek.
Hoh River 2: From the confluence with Nolan Creek to the confluence with Winfield Creek.
Hoh River 3: From the confluence with Winfield Creek to the confluence with Maple Creek.
Hoh River 4: From the confluence with Maple Creek to the confluence with Owl Creek.
Hoh River 5: From the confluence with Owl Creek to the ONP boundary.
Hoh River South Fork: From the confluence with the mainstem to the upstream extent of
shoreline jurisdiction.
Nolan Creek: From the confluence with the Hoh River mainstem to the upstream extent of
shoreline jurisdiction.
Winfield Creek: From the confluence with the Hoh River mainstem to the upstream extent of
shoreline jurisdiction.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-100 November 2008
Maple Creek: From the confluence with the Hoh River mainstem to the upstream extent of
shoreline jurisdiction.
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Owl Creek 1: From the confluence with the Hoh River mainstem to the impassable falls.
Owl Creek 2: From the falls to the upstream extent of shoreline jurisdiction.
4.3.4.3 Physical Environment (Maps 19 and 23) 5
The Hoh River is a gravel-bed stream with an average slope of 1.3 percent, falling about 3,950
feet in 56 river miles. The Hoh River has a large natural sediment load consisting of material
ranging in size from predominantly silt (glacially derived rock flour) to cobbles. About 35
percent of the basin is covered by Quaternary surficial deposits of glacial and non-glacial origin,
generally consisting of unconsolidated sand, gravel, silt, and clay. These deposits have an
average thickness between 20 and 100 feet, but locally may be up to several hundred feet thick
(Tabor and Cady, 1978 as cited in BOR, 2004). Underlying the surficial deposits are sedimentary
and metamorphic bedrock composed predominantly of sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone,
argillite, slate, and phyllite. The bedrock is exposed along the active channel in Spruce Canyon
(RM 25.5 to 27.2) and Oxbow Canyon, and crops out in a few locations between Oxbow Canyon
and the mouth of the Hoh River (BOR, 2004). The active channel width has ranged between 150
and 800 feet.
The mean daily flow for the period of record is 2,524 cfs. The majority of floods occur between
November and March. It takes a discharge greater than 16,000 cfs at the USGS gauge (RM 15.4)
to completely inundate the active channel (1.5- to 2-year flood), and a 10-year flood completely
inundates the active channel and floodplain (BOR, 2004). Along the lower 4 miles, the river
migrates across a 3,000-foot-wide floodplain bounded by glacial terraces and bedrock. The
floodplain narrows to 400 feet at the river mouth where it is constricted by bedrock on both sides
(Perkins Geosciences and TerraLogic GIS, 2004).
Historic channel migration zones (HCMZ) on the Hoh River between RM 17 and RM 40 are
thoroughly described in BOR (2004). The CMZ on the lower 4 miles are described in Perkins
Geosciences and TerraLogic GIS (2004). The HCMZ can be bounded by terraces composed of
glacial material (till, outwash, or lacustrine sediments) or alluvium, alluvial fans, bedrock, or
engineered bank protection (riprap, engineered logjam, bridge abutment, levees, road
embankment). Overall, the active channel in the ONP is wider, more dynamic, has multiple
channels and more LWD deposited, and runs straighter relative to the valley than reaches of the
Middle Hoh.
The Middle Hoh receives significant flow from the South Fork and woody debris is not as
common in the active channel flow path. Herrera (2004, in BOR, 2004) found more LWD
within the HCMZ (relative to the active channel area) in the upstream ONP reaches than in the
Middle Hoh reaches, creating pools and more complex channels. Logging and clearing of wood
within the river channel limit the amount of large wood that may be recruited to these reaches
downstream from the South Fork confluence (BOR, 2004).
Between the U.S. Highway 101 Bridge (RM 14.8) and the mouth of Nolan Creek (RM 6.2),
meander migration rates have varied between 30 and 50 feet per year since 1939. Upstream from
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-101
the Highway 101 Bridge (between RM 17 and RM 25), meander migration rates fall within the
range of 13 to 76 feet per year (Herrera Environmental and Northwest Hydraulic Consultants,
2002 as cited in BOR, 2004). Average channel migration rates for the lower 4 river miles over
the period 1952 to 1998 varied between 25 and 88 feet per year (Perkins and TerraLogic GIS,
2004).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Because it is fed by glacial meltwater, the Hoh River exhibits more stable flows in summer than
in adjacent non-glacially influenced watersheds (Haggerty, 2003 as cited in 10,000 Years
Institute, 2004). Rain-on-snow events below 610 m elevation frequently initiate floods from
October to March (WDNR, 1999 as cited in 10,000 Years Institute, 2004). Winter peak flows
approach 63,000 cfs at the Hoh oxbow gage, while extreme summer low flows can fall to around
300 cfs (Haggerty, 2003 as cited in 10,000 Years Institute, 2004). The hydrology of tributary
streams outside ONP is predominately influenced by a combination of rainfall and both shallow
and deep groundwater (WDNR, 1999 as cited in 10,000 Years Institute, 2004).
Vegetation within the Hoh River planning area is 25 percent to 50 percent evergreen forest
throughout the mainstem (higher percentages in upper reaches), and 70 percent to 90 percent
evergreen forest along tributaries. Bare rock/sand/clay, deciduous forest, shrub and brush
rangeland, and mixed forest represent significant portions of land cover along mainstem lower
reaches.
Riparian condition in the Hoh basin is variable. The upper reaches within the ONP remain in
good condition. Historically, the watershed was dominated by large old-growth hemlock and
Sitka spruce. However, in the middle reaches of the Hoh River prior to regulation, many of these
areas were logged to the water’s edge. Thus, most of the mainstem of the Hoh downstream of the
South Fork has poor riparian condition, as well as lower Winfield Creek and Maple Creek. The
riparian condition of the South Fork of the Hoh is rated as fair. Good riparian conditions occur in
Nolan, upper Winfield, and Owl Creeks (Smith, 2000).
Wetlands compose 30 percent to 50 percent of the planning area along the mainstem and South
Fork reaches, while less than 10 percent of the planning area is wetland along the tributary
reaches. Riverine upper perennial wetlands are most common (more than 80 percent) in all
reaches.
Water quality problems exist in the Hoh watershed. Portions of the following tributaries are on
the 1998 Ecology 303(d) list for high water temperature: Anderson, Nolan, Small, Willoughby,
Maple, Owl, and Canyon Creeks as well as a portion of the South Fork of the Hoh River. The
background sediment yield from erosion of tributary channel beds was estimated at 531 tons per
year for the Upper Hoh River, and 1,811 tons per year for the Middle Hoh, while the total
sediment erosion from roads was estimated at 2,159 tons per year (Powell, 1999 as cited in BOR,
2004).
Mass wasting is a natural process in the Hoh River basin. About 90 percent of inventoried
landslides in the Middle Hoh River watershed are either shallow rapid failures or debris flows,
and about 80 percent of observed landslides are associated with human disturbance (timber
harvest, roads, etc.) Debris flows regularly occur in areas such as Owl Creek and Maple Creek
(BOR, 2004). A large, active, deep-seated landslide that has not been mapped enters the river on
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-102 November 2008
the right bank downstream of Nolan Creek, below RM 4. This slide is increasing in size and may
have influenced a major channel shift that took place downstream during a flood event in
October 2003 (Howell, 2004 as cited in 10,000 Years Institute, 2004).
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4.3.4.4 Biological Resources (Map 19) 4
The Hoh River watershed supports breeding populations of bald eagle, harlequin duck, marbled
murrelet, and spotted owl.
The Hoh River supports Chinook, coho, fall chum salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout, and bull
trout/Dolly Varden spawning. There are no barriers to anadromous fish on the mainstem of the
Hoh River. All runs are thought to be of native origin with few outside introductions. The
spring/summer Chinook run is thought to be stable with most spawning occurring within the
ONP. Recent information indicates that the fall Chinook stock has shown a decline in spawning
activity within the Hoh River tributaries and the side channels of the Middle Hoh River that have
been impacted by sluice-outs and channel instability (Golder Associates, 2005). However, all of
these Chinook runs have shown some recent decline. The fall chum run is in a long-term decline
and was probably never abundant. The fall coho run is healthy, but again has shown some recent
decline. Winter steelhead have maintained healthy levels within the Hoh system (Golder
Associates, 2005). Quinault River steelhead are planted in the Hoh annually but have different
run return timing and high exploitation rates, resulting in limited interaction with wild fish
(Hook, 2004). The status of the Hoh cutthroat and bull trout runs is unknown.
It is thought that the Hoh River system supports the largest run of char on the coast (Smith,
2000). While the range of Dolly Varden trout (Salvelinus malma) overlaps with that of bull trout
on the Olympic Peninsula, and they are difficult to differentiate, Dolly Varden do not occur in
the Hoh River (10,000 Years Institute, 2004). Bull trout are thought to use the Hoh River as a
migratory corridor and possibly spawn and rear in side channels of the mainstem; the majority of
the redds have been identified within the ONP boundary (Hook, 2004; 10,000 Years Institute,
2004). Anecdotal evidence suggests that bull trout have historically found thermal refugia in
Nolan, Winfield, and Owl Creeks. Tagged anadromous bull trout from the Hoh River were
found to visit multiple adjacent estuaries during their lives including Kalaloch Creek (Brenkman,
2004 as cited in 10,000 Years Institute, 2004).
The Hoh River mainstem and Nolan Creek provide spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous
salmonids and resident fish species, such as pink salmon, sockeye salmon, longnose dace
(Rhinichythys cataractae), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), shorthead sculpin
(Cottus confusus), torrent sculpin (C. rhotheus), reticulate sculpin (C. perplexus), Pacific
lamprey (Lampetra tridentata), and Olympic mud minnow (Novumbra hubbsi) (10,000 Years
Institute, 2004).
Western Rivers Conservancy and the Wild Salmon Center are working to acquire over 7,000
acres of land along the Hoh River between ONP and the Pacific Ocean to serve primarily as a
sanctuary for salmon and steelhead, while also providing protection for several wildlife species
such as marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, bald eagle, and bull trout (Western Rivers
Conservancy, 2006).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-103
4.3.4.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 23) 1
Land Use 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Native Americans have been utilizing the Hoh River valley for many centuries. The entire Hoh
watershed lies within the Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds of the Hoh Tribe. The Hoh
valley was opened to homesteading by non-Indians in 1862, but documentation of land
management history begins in the 1880s (Wray, 1999 as cited in BOR, 2004). In 1891, the Forest
Reserve Act established the Olympic Forest Reserve which included the Hoh River valley, but
the enforcement of this was suspended until March 1, 1898, so prospectors could make claims on
their homesteads or trade the land for other public land in a different area (BOR, 2004). Valley
bottom forests were initially logged around 1950; logging began in the 1960s along the steep
South Fork, but most occurred from the 1970s through the 1990s (Perkins Geosciences and
TerraLogic GIS, 2004).
Between the ONP and the Hoh Reservation, most of the land is currently working timberland
either privately or WDNR owned and has been subject to timber harvest. Other uses include
recreational and commercial fishing, and homesteads and agriculture (cattle). Gravel mines
operated by private landowners and the WDNR are located in the Middle and Lower Hoh
watershed (10,000 Years Institute, 2004). Within the planning area, 60 percent has been zoned
Rural Residential along the mainstem (with areas of approximately 20 percent variation), 30
percent Local Agriculture (along upper and lower reaches of mainstem), and more than 80
percent Commercial Forest along all tributaries, except Nolan Creek, which is 54 percent
Commercial Forest.
Transportation and Utilities 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Roads were not constructed in the Hoh River basin until the 1930s (BOR, 2004). Jefferson
County databases describe 14 miles of road in these reaches, while the WDNR database
identifies 28 miles of road. Highway 101 is aligned near the south bank of the Hoh River from
RM 4 to approximately RM 15.5 (within Reach Hoh River 2) and regularly passes within the
mainstem river’s wide planning area. At RM 15.5, the highway crosses the Hoh River and
continues to the north, outside of the planning area. Other roadways within the planning area of
the Hoh mainstem and tributaries are narrower in width and are frequently unpaved. Roads are
mapped throughout the drainage basin but are most dense in the lower reaches.
Shoreline Modifications 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Flood frequency has increased on the Hoh River in recent years. Potential reasons for this
increase include changes in weather patterns; increases in cleared areas and roads due to timber
harvest in the Middle Hoh resulting in increased total runoff and the magnitude of peaks flowing
into the Hoh River during storms; and decreased forest cover canopy (Edmonds et al., 1998 as
cited in BOR, 2004).
Large sections of Nolan Creek and a 200-foot section of Winfield Creek are impacted by cedar
spalts (Silver, personal communication, 2006). Cedar spalts are waste wood left over from
salvage operations. Instream accumulations can impede water flow, elevating water
temperatures, and leach tannins into the water, thereby affecting water quality. This has
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-104 November 2008
contributed to sections of Winfield and Nolan Creeks being on the 1998 303(d) list for elevated
water temperature (Ecology, 1998). Many other smaller tributaries (not shorelines of the state) to
the Hoh River that are affected by cedar spalts include Pins Creek, Braden Creek, Sand Creek,
Clear Creek, Elk Creek, Lost Creek, and Red Creek (Silver, personal communication, 2006).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
35
36
37
38
39
Blocking culverts occur on the following tributaries as well as several unnamed smaller
tributaries to the Hoh River: Dismal Creek, Alder Creek, Nolan Creek, Braden Creek, Canyon
Creek, Cassel Creek, Mosquito Creek, Cedar Creek, Rock Creek, Elk Creek, Hell Roaring Creek,
and Iota Creek. Numerous unnamed tributaries as well as many acres of floodplain habitat are
also affected.
Constriction from a bridge in the South Fork Hoh River resulted in channel incision and
channelization (Smith, 2000). Channelization due to lack of LWD has also resulted in
sedimentation problems in Nolan and Owl Creeks.
Roads in the floodplain have also reduced floodplain habitat. During floods these act as dikes,
isolating the river from the floodplain. Several streams are rated “poor” for floodplain impact,
including the mainstem Hoh River and Owl Creek. Floodplain habitat is not only important as
rearing habitat for salmonids, but also for groundwater recharge and flow moderation in the Hoh
River (Smith, 2000). The Upper Hoh Road is of particular concern not only because it impacts
floodplain habitat but because continued road maintenance costs millions of dollars.
Traditionally, the County has shored up the road with rock riprap, which has an adverse effect on
salmonid habitat. Recently however, engineered logjams have been placed to protect the road
while improving salmon habitat. Although not all the logjams remained in place, they are still
providing some protection for the road. A larger project by the Washington State Department of
Transportation to protect Highway 101 using engineered logjams was completed in 2004. During
storm events, forest roads contribute significant amounts of highly turbid water (1,728 tons of
fines per year from 293 miles of road in the Middle Hoh) (WDNR, 1999 as cited in 10,000 Years
Institute, 2004).
The most extensive human impacts in the reaches within the ONP are at the Hoh Ranger Station,
the Rainforest Campground, and other facilities near RM 37. Another prominent human feature
is Taft Pond, which was created by construction of the Park Road some time between 1950 and
1977. Park Road, which parallels the right HCMZ boundary between the Hoh Ranger Station
and the park boundary, restricts movement of the channel along the right bank (BOR, 2004).
4.3.4.6 Public Access (Map 23) 32
There are five WDNR campgrounds along the Hoh River.
4.3.4.7 Restoration Opportunities 34
Throughout the Hoh River basin, fish access to tributary and floodplain habitat could be
improved by replacing barriers to fish passage. In addition, the removal of cedar spalts would
increase habitat access and improve water quality. The acquisition and protection of existing
high-quality floodplain habitat is a high priority. Riparian plantings of conifers could increase the
long-term recruitment of LWD.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-105
4.3.5 Cedar Creek (Hoh River Lower) 1
4.3.5.1 Basin Overview (Map 1b) 2
Cedar Creek is a small independent drainage south of the Hoh River. Most of the lower
watershed is in the ONP. About a mile of the stream upstream of the ONP is within the shoreline
of the state jurisdiction. This section runs through private timberland.
3
4
5
7
9
10
11
12
14
15
4.3.5.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 10) 6
Cedar Creek has been treated as one reach, from the ONP boundary to approximately RM 6.6.
4.3.5.3 Physical Environment (Maps 19 and 23) 8
The Cedar Creek basin is 90 percent evergreen forest. Vegetation in the remainder of the
planning area is recent clearcut, deciduous forest, shrub and brush rangeland, and mixed forest.
Only 3 percent of the planning area is wetland, classified entirely as palustrine scrub/shrub.
Other habitat data for the watershed are lacking.
4.3.5.4 Biological Resources (Map 19) 13
Cedar Creek supports coho and winter steelhead trout spawning. The status of these stocks is
unknown (Smith and Caldwell, 2000).
4.3.5.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 23) 16
Land Use and Zoning 17
18
19
Land use in the Cedar Creek planning area is 52.5 percent commercial forest and 47.5 percent
rural residential.
Transportation and Utilities 20
21 The WDNR database identifies 1.35 miles of road within the planning area.
Shoreline Modifications 22
23
24
25
27
29
30
Cedar Creek has been impacted by cedar spalts, has a reduced level of macroinvertebrates, and
was rated as “poor” for water quality (Smith, 2000). Sedimentation and an altered riparian zone
are problems in some reaches as well.
4.3.5.6 Public Access (Map 23) 26
There is no public access in this reach.
4.3.5.7 Restoration Opportunities 28
Opportunities include removing spalts, and surveying for and repairing other fish passage
blockages (i.e., culverts).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-106 November 2008
4.4 WRIA 21 - QUEETS-QUINAULT 1
The southwest corner of Jefferson County and parts of Grays Harbor County are in WRIA 21
(Figure 4-5). WRIA 21 includes Kalaloch Creek to the north and Conner Creek to the south. The
largest basins within the WRIA are the Queets and Quinault basins.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Both the Queets and Quinault Rivers drain southwest from the glaciated Olympic Mountains,
with peaks higher than 2,200 m. The rivers exit the mountains and flow across a 10 to 30 km
wide coastal piedmont underlain by Quaternary glaciofluvial sediment. The Queets River drains
a total area of about 1,170 km2 and the Quinault River drains 1,134 km2. During fall, winter, and
spring, these basins are repeatedly subject to large storms from the southwest, delivering
substantial rainfall at lower elevations and snow in the higher Olympic Mountains. Summers are
relatively dry. The large precipitation volumes are reflected in high average flows. Average
annual flow generation is 3.4 m3/m2 for the Queets basin and about 3.7 m3/m2 for the Quinault
basin (O’Connor et al., 2003).
Current land uses within the Quinault and Queets basins include timber harvest, agriculture,
fishing, recreation, and tourism. The major landowner in the Quinault basin is the ONP. The
Quinault Indian Nation owns 32 percent of the basin, while the remainder is owned or managed
by the USFS (13 percent) and private landholdings (4 percent). Present-day settlements are small
and include the village of Taholah and the Amanda Park and Neilton areas in the Quinault basin,
and the small communities of Queets and Clearwater in the Queets basin. Currently, two
hatcheries operate within the Quinault watershed: the Quinault National Fish Hatchery, located
near Cook Creek, and the Quinault pen rearing facility, located in Lake Quinault.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-107
Figure 4-5. WRIA 21 in Southwest Jefferson County 1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
4.4.1 Kalaloch Creek (Kalaloch Creek) 3
4.4.1.1 Overview (Map 1b) 4
Kalaloch Creek runs south through private and state timberland and then west through ONP to
empty into the Pacific Ocean between the Queets and Hoh Rivers (Map 20). Shoreline of the
state designation begins at the ONP boundary (roughly RM 1) and continues roughly 2 miles
upstream to where the West Fork of Kalaloch Creek branches from the mainstem.
The Kalaloch basin is 13,649 acres in size including four small, unnamed, independent
tributaries that drain to the Pacific Ocean to the south of Kalaloch Creek. Most of the drainage
consists of either privately owned land (40 percent) or WDNR lands (41 percent). The ONP
owns 18 percent of the basin, including the coastal strip and approximately 1 mile of lower
Kalaloch Creek. The Quinault Indian Nation lands include 1 percent of the drainage.
Washington State Department of Ecology
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-108 November 2008
4.4.1.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 10) 1
Kalaloch Creek 1: From the ONP boundary to the impassable falls. 2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
Kalaloch Creek 2: From the impassable falls to the upstream extent of shoreline jurisdiction.
4.4.1.3 Physical Environment (Maps 19 and 23) 4
The Kalaloch Creek planning area is composed of 94 percent evergreen forest. The vegetation in
the remaining area is shrub and brush rangeland, and mixed forest. Only 4.4 percent of the
planning area is wetland (palustrine scrub/shrub). Riparian conditions in the basin are mostly
“fair” to “good” and hydrologic maturity is rated “good.” (Smith and Caldwell, 2000).
Kalaloch Creek has a fairly confined channel due to topography, but channel conditions,
floodplain connectivity, and sediment conditions are a data gap. The reach upstream from the
ONP is on the 303(d) list for water temperature (Ecology, 1998).
4.4.1.4 Biological Resources (Map 19) 12
Kalaloch Creek supports coho salmon, winter steelhead, bull trout, and coastal cutthroat trout.
Historically, a small run of chum salmon was also present in the watershed (Smith and Caldwell,
2000). All of these runs are wild, native stocks and their current status is unknown.
4.4.1.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 23) 16
Land Use and Zoning 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Land use is predominantly forestry. Within the planning area, 66 percent to 85 percent is zoned
Commercial Forest (with higher percentages in the upstream reach), and 25 percent Inholding
Forest in the lower reach. The remainder of the planning area is composed of ONP and areas not
zoned.
Although the timber harvest history for the private lands is not known, it is surmised that the
WDNR lands were most heavily harvested between the 1940s and mid-1980s (Smith and
Caldwell, 2000).
Transportation and Utilities 25
26
27
Road density is generally high in the Kalaloch Creek basin, at 4.08 miles of road per square mile
of watershed. Within the planning area, WDNR has mapped 1.2 miles of road.
Shoreline Modifications 28
29
30
31
32
Shoreline modifications within the Kalaloch Creek planning area are primarily culverts. The
WDFW SSHEAR database documented passage barriers at five culverts under Highway 101
within this drainage (WDFW, 2000b).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-109
4.4.1.6 Public Access (Map 23) 1
None identified. 2
4
6
8
10
11
12
13
14
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
32
33
34
4.4.1.7 Restoration Opportunities 3
Smith and Caldwell (2001) identified several restoration opportunities in this basin, including:
• Address potential sediment sources from roads, especially roads with large fills or 5
undersized culverts (those that do not meet 100-year flows plus debris).
• Address other road sediment problems, including specific road decommissioning, 7
stabilization, and improvements. This also includes removal of side-cast material.
• Limit inappropriate removal of instream LWD. 9
• Increase channel complexity. Use instream structures as an interim part of a broader
restoration plan in appropriate areas.
• Hardwood riparian areas that were historically conifer should be managed to allow
conifer introduction through the planting and release of shade-tolerant trees with a goal to
increase the size, abundance, and distribution of large conifers.
4.4.2 Clearwater River and Tributaries (Clearwater River Lower and 15
Upper)
4.4.2.1 Overview (Map 1b) 17
The Clearwater River is a tributary of the Queets River that drains the foothills between the
Queets and Hoh Rivers. It is a shoreline of statewide significance from downstream of the Miller
Creek confluence to the ONP boundary (near the Clearwater’s confluence with the Queets).
Upstream of this it is classified as a shoreline of the state, as are the following system tributaries:
Hurst Creek, Miller Creek, Christmas Creek, Snahapish River, Stequaleho Creek, and Sollecks
River.
WDNR lands compose 79 percent of the Clearwater basin. These are managed as part of the
Olympic Experimental Forest, which has the objective of managing the landscape for both
habitat conservation and timber production. The riparian conservation plan for this forest
includes both riparian and windthrow buffers. Upstream of the confluence with the Snahapish
River, the mainstems of the Clearwater and Snahapish Rivers are part of the Clearwater Corridor
Natural Resource Conservation Area (NRCA), an area also owned and managed by WDNR.
4.4.2.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 10) 30
Clearwater River 1: From the ONP boundary to the confluence with Shale Creek.
Clearwater River 2: From the confluence with Shale Creek to the confluence with Miller Creek.
Clearwater River 3: From the confluence with Miller Creek to the confluence with Christmas
Creek.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-110 November 2008
Clearwater River 4: From the confluence with Christmas Creek to the confluence with the
Snahapish River.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
32
Clearwater River 5: From the confluence with the Snahapish River to the confluence with
Stequaleho Creek.
Clearwater River 6: From the confluence with Stequaleho Creek to the confluence with the
Sollecks River.
Clearwater River 7: From the confluence with the Sollecks River to the impassable falls.
Clearwater River 8: From the falls to the upstream extent of shoreline jurisdiction.
Hurst Creek: From the confluence with the mainstem Clearwater River to the upstream extent of
shoreline jurisdiction.
Shale Creek: From the confluence with the mainstem Clearwater River to the upstream extent of
shoreline jurisdiction.
Miller Creek: From the confluence with the mainstem Clearwater River to the upstream extent of
shoreline jurisdiction.
Miller Creek East Fork 1: From the confluence with the mainstem Miller Creek to the
impassable falls.
Miller Creek East Fork 2: From the impassable falls to the upstream extent of shoreline
jurisdiction.
Christmas Creek: From the confluence with the mainstem Clearwater River to the upstream
extent of shoreline jurisdiction.
Snahapish River: From the confluence with the mainstem Clearwater River to the upstream
extent of shoreline jurisdiction.
Stequaleho Creek 1: From the confluence with the mainstem Clearwater River to the impassable
falls.
Stequaleho Creek 2: From the impassable falls to the upstream extent of shoreline jurisdiction.
Sollecks River 1: From the confluence with the mainstem Clearwater River to approximately
RM 6.3.
Sollecks River 2: From RM 6.3 to the upstream extent of shoreline jurisdiction.
4.4.2.3 Physical Environment (Maps 19 and 23) 29
The Clearwater River planning area is 62 percent to 86.5 percent evergreen forest throughout the
mainstem (higher percentages in upper reaches), and greater than 81 percent evergreen forest
along the tributaries. Deciduous forest, pasture hay, recent clearcut, shrub and brush rangeland,
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-111
and mixed forest represent the remaining land cover. The entire Clearwater subbasin is rated
“poor” for hydrologic maturity.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Wetlands compose 25 percent to 41 percent of the mainstem planning area below the Sollecks
River, while less than 4.5 percent of the planning area along the tributaries and upper mainstem
reaches is wetland. Wetland classifications include riverine upper perennial, and palustrine
forested and scrub/shrub.
Stequaleho Creek rated “poor” for percent pool habitat. Segments of the Sollecks River rated
from “poor” to “fair” for percent pool habitat. In addition, Snahapish River had segments that
range from “poor” to “good.” “Good” percent pool habitat was measured in Christmas, East
Fork Miller, Hurst, and Shale Creeks, and the West Fork Snahapish River.
Water temperatures greater than the state Class AA standard (up to 20.1°C) were found in the
lower Clearwater River.
4.4.2.4 Biological Resources (Map 19) 13
Chinook and steelhead spawn in the mainstem of the Clearwater River, Miller Creek, Christmas
Creek, and the Sollecks and Snahapish Rivers. Coho spawn in the mainstem of the Clearwater
River and all accessible tributaries. Chum salmon spawn in the lower mainstem of the
Clearwater River. Fish access conditions have not been fully mapped in the Clearwater
watershed.
Downstream of the Snahapish River confluence, “good” riparian conditions were found on 54
percent of the buffer, 27 percent rated as “fair,” and 19 percent rated as “poor.” Upstream from
this, including the tributaries of the Snahapish and Sollecks Rivers, Stequaleho Creek and other
tributaries, the riparian conditions were rated as 69 percent good, 19 percent fair, and 11 percent
poor. Levels of instream LWD are unknown; however in the Snahapish River levels of old-
growth LWD increased from 56 pieces per 100 meters of stream in 1982, to 63 pieces per 100
meters in 1993 (McHenry et al., 1998 as cited in Smith, 2000).
4.4.2.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 23) 26
Land Use and Zoning 27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
The Clearwater basin is under intensive old-growth timber management by the WDNR, which
manages over 80 percent of the drainage basin. As of 1980, the basin was 40 percent clearcut
(Cederholm et al., 1980).
Land use along the Clearwater River mainstem below Shale Creek is zoned 41 percent Rural
Residential, 32.5 percent Commercial Forest, and 22.3 percent Rural Forest. Above Shale
Creek, land use is 76 to 100 percent Commercial Forest, with minimal Rural Residential zoning.
More than 94 percent of land is zoned Commercial Forest along the tributaries, except Miller
Creek East Fork, which is 76 percent Commercial Forest.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-112 November 2008
Transportation and Utilities 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Road density is rather high (3.7 and 3.2 miles per square mile for lower and upper Clearwater
basin, respectively) and there are likely many blockages to fish passage. As of 1980, over 650
km of logging road existed in the basin, and over half were built with side-cast construction
(Cederholm et al., 1980). Jefferson County databases describe 4.2 miles of road in the planning
area, while WDNR has identified 15 miles of road.
Sedimentation due to landslides and debris torrents has historically been a serious problem;
much of this has been related to road failure and timber harvest activities. Levels of fine
sediments in spawning gravels have been found to be directly related to road density. Salmonid
egg mortality is directly related to higher levels of fine sediments in the spawning gravels. The
rate of timber harvest has slowed in recent decades. The management of the upper Clearwater
River as a Natural Resource Conservation Area (NRCA) by the WDNR should improve the
situation. Side-cast roads have already been removed in the Miller and Christmas Creek
drainages. However there is a data gap in determining if the rate of debris flow and
sedimentation has actually decreased (Smith, 2000).
Utilities within the Clearwater River basin have yet to be inventoried.
Shoreline Modifications 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Loss of off-channel habitat is a major concern in the Clearwater basin. Timber management
along the Clearwater, Salmon, and Sams Rivers, and Matheny Creek has resulted in increased
sediment inputs and loss of LWD recruitment (Smith, 2000).
The impact of roads on the floodplains has not been fully assessed in the Clearwater watershed.
WDFW documented filled areas and blocked culverts to identify areas suitable for restoration.
However, because there has not been a full study the full extent of the impacts is unknown.
Likely the rating is not “good” (Smith, 2000).
4.4.2.6 Public Access (Map 23) 25
None identified.
4.4.2.7 Restoration Opportunities 27
In the Clearwater basin, blocking culverts should be replaced with fish-passable structures.
Roads that are contributing to mass wasting and erosion should be either decommissioned or
repaired so they no longer contribute fine sediments to the system. Riparian planting where trees
are lacking would provide shade and increase LWD input over the long term.
The WDFW has mapped a total of 49 off-channel rearing habitat areas in the Clearwater River
subbasin for potential enhancement or restoration opportunities (Smith and Caldwell, 2001).
Some restoration activity has occurred for sediment problems in the Clearwater subbasin. For
example, side-cast removal projects have been completed in the Miller Creek and Christmas
Creek watersheds.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-113
4.4.3 Salmon River (Queets River and Salmon River) 1
4.4.3.1 Overview (Map 1b) 2
The Salmon River flows into the Queets River in ONP. On some maps this stream is marked as
Salmon Creek. From its headwaters in the ONF and the Quinault Indian Reservation, the Salmon
River flows through two sections of WDNR land and one privately held parcel as well as the
Quinault Indian Reservation before flowing into the Queets River in the ONP.
3
4
5
6
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
4.4.3.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 10) 7
The sections within the shoreline jurisdiction are less than 2 miles in total length, and are
therefore considered a single reach.
4.4.3.3 Physical Environment (Maps 19 and 23) 10
Vegetation within the planning area is 97 percent evergreen forest. Shrub and brush rangeland
and mixed forest compose the remaining land cover. Sitka spruce, Douglas fir, and western red
cedar dominated the historical riparian vegetation, but with past land management, some
conversion to younger conifers and hardwoods has occurred. A greater ratio of hardwoods to
conifers than was historically present is found in many riparian stands, although hardwoods have
always been a component of riparian stands along the mainstem Salmon River and larger
tributaries. While many of the mainstem Salmon River riparian areas currently have a low
recruitment potential rating for LWD, many of the tree sizes are approaching the diameter where
they would be classified as “medium” size and rated as good recruitment potential (Smith and
Caldwell, 2001). Land vegetation cover is rated as “good” for the Salmon River watershed, with
only 19 percent immature vegetation in the lower Salmon River area. High-turbidity events are
not common or chronic in the Salmon River.
4.4.3.4 Biological Resources (Map 19) 23
Chinook, coho, chum, sockeye, and pink salmon, and winter steelhead have been identified in
the Salmon River. Most of the salmonid stocks within the Queets basin are currently believed to
be healthy. Spring/summer Chinook are depressed, while all others are either healthy or
unknown.
4.4.3.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 23) 28
Land Use and Zoning 29
30
31
32
Land use within the planning area is entirely forestry. Timber harvest began during the 1940s
and 1950s in the Sams, Matheny, Salmon, and Clearwater subbasins, with the peak of timber
harvest taking place between 1960 and the mid-1980s (Smith and Caldwell, 2001).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-114 November 2008
Transportation and Utilities 1
2
3
4
Within the planning area surrounding all basin reaches, WDNR has mapped 450 feet of road.
Jefferson County databases have no mapped roads within the planning area. Unpaved National
Forest Roads Nf 2446, Nf 2405, and Nf 2331 all pass within the planning area.
Shoreline Modifications 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
17
18
21
22
23
24
26
27
29
30
31
An assessment of culverts found no blocking culverts in the lower Salmon River in 1998 and
1999, and thus the lower river was rated as “good” for fish habitat access. No loss of fish habitat
access from culverts or other structures was found in the North, Middle, and South Forks of the
Salmon River. In addition, fish access to the floodplain was found to be good and there was no
evidence that land use actions had isolated floodplain habitat.
The Salmon River watershed analysis team noted that timber harvest and road construction have
increased the amounts of sediment entering the Salmon River tributaries over natural levels,
which results in a “poor” rating for sediment quantity (Smith and Caldwell, 2001).
4.4.3.6 Public Access (Map 23) 14
No information.
4.4.3.7 Restoration Opportunities 16
Opportunities appear limited in this area. Improved road management in the watershed could
help to improve altered sediment processes.
4.4.4 Matheny Creek (Queets/Matheny Creek) 19
4.4.4.1 Overview (Map 1b) 20
Matheny Creek originates on the slopes of Matheny Ridge and Higley Peak and flows west
through a narrow valley with a moderate gradient through its lower 14.5 miles to its confluence
with the Queets River at RM 15.8 (Phinney and Bucknell, 1975). A majority of this watershed is
within ONP.
4.4.4.2 Freshwater Shoreline Reaches (Map 10) 25
The segment of Matheny Creek that falls within shoreline jurisdiction extends from the ONP
boundary upstream to the ONF boundary.
4.4.4.3 Physical Environment (Maps 19 and 23) 28
Land cover within the planning area is 68 percent evergreen forest. Bare rock/sand/clay (15
percent), shrub and brush rangeland (4 percent), and mixed forest compose the remaining land
cover (7 percent). Most of Matheny Creek rated “poor” for hydrologic maturity.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-115
Riparian timber harvest and lack of LWD in the lower 2.7 miles of Matheny Creek have
contributed to channel widening. This, coupled with increased sediment yields in headwater
regions, has caused aggradation, which in turn, has contributed to loss of off-channel habitat.
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Water temperatures greater than the state Class AA standard were found in lower Matheny
Creek, and it is listed on the 2004 303(d) list for temperature (Ecology, 2006).
4.4.4.4 Biological Resources (Map 19) 6
Matheny Creek provides spawning, rearing, and migratory habitat for Chinook, coho, and chum
salmon as well as steelhead (Phinney and Bucknell, 1975; Smith and Caldwell, 2001). Spawning
occurs upstream as far as RM 14.5 (Phinney and Bucknell, 1975). Deposition of fine sediment
and embedded substrates indicate degraded spawning habitat in the unconfined, lower-gradient
reaches of Matheny Creek (RM 0 to 2.7).
Wetlands compose 27.7 percent of the planning area. Of this, 67 percent are riverine upper
perennial, 15 percent are palustrine scrub/shrub, and 15 percent are palustrine forested.
4.4.4.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 23) 15
Land Use and Zoning 16
17
18
19
20
Land use within the planning area is 99 percent commercial forestry, and 1 percent ONF and
ONP. Timber harvest began during the 1940s and 1950s in the Sams, Matheny, Salmon, and
Clearwater subbasins, with the peak of timber harvest taking place between 1960 and the mid-
1980s (Smith and Caldwell, 2001).
Transportation and Utilities 21
22
23
24
25
Within the planning area surrounding all basin reaches, WDNR has mapped 0.3 mile of road.
Jefferson County databases have no mapped roads within the planning area. Unpaved National
Forest Road Nf 2405 and an unnamed road which crosses the stream are both aligned within the
planning area.
Shoreline Modifications 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
There are large numbers of in-channel disturbances in Matheny Creek tributaries. Management-
related mass wasting events include coarse and fine sediment inputs from channel-adjacent
landslides, and shallow rapid landslides triggered by clearcuts or roads (USFS, 1995 as cited in
Smith and Caldwell, 2001). Road-related problems include fill and side-cast failure and fine
sediment delivery, and are often associated with mid-slope locations. This results in a “poor”
rating for sediment quantity for Matheny Creek (Smith and Caldwell, 2001).
Two bridge crossings have been identified on Matheny Creek that constrict the river channel at
the point of crossing. A short distance (140 feet) of bank hardening was identified in Matheny
Creek at RM 0.4.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-116 November 2008
4.4.4.6 Public Access (Map 23) 1
WDNR owns and uses the land adjacent to the Matheny Creek 1 reach as timberland. There is no
current or planned public access to the stream or planning area.
2
3
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
4.4.4.7 Restoration Opportunities 4
Recent road stabilization and decommissioning projects are addressing these issues (McConnell,
personal communication, 2001 as cited in Smith and Caldwell, 2001).
4.4.5 Quinault River (Quinault River Upper) 7
4.4.5.1 Overview (Maps 1b and 28) 8
The Quinault River drains the southeastern Olympic Mountains, with the upper watershed
completely protected in ONP. The headwaters are in the vicinity of Mount Anderson and Mount
Christie. The Quinault River then flows into Lake Quinault, a 3,729-acre natural lake.
Downstream of the lake, the Quinault River flows for 33 miles to the Pacific Ocean. The total
watershed area is 293,880 acres. The lowlands in the western part of this watershed contain
several hundred feet of glacial deposits with lake and swamp deposits formed in interglacial
periods. The low terrain downstream of Lake Quinault contrasts with the steep slopes and high
relief of the areas around Lake Quinault and in the headwaters.
Yearly precipitation is high, averaging 146 inches at Lake Quinault. In the upper watershed,
much of this precipitation falls as snow, while most falls as rain downstream of the lake. The
steep topography and shallow soils of the upper watershed generate both a quick hydrologic
response and a high susceptibility to mass wasting events. In contrast, the relatively flat terrain
and outwash silts and clays downstream of the lake result in a low susceptibility to mass wasting
events and a slower hydrologic response. Because Lake Quinault traps all sediment coarser than
silt, the river downstream of the lake is a product of the interactions between the floodplain and
the surrounding coastal piedmont (the area between the mountains and the ocean).
Most of the watershed lies within the Sitka spruce and silver fir vegetation zones. Mountain
hemlock and subalpine and alpine meadows border the mainstem and North Fork Quinault
Rivers. The most common historic disturbances within the watershed have been wildfire and
windstorms. Windstorms typically come from the southwest, heavily affecting the coastal plain
and the windward mountain slopes. The most common recent disturbance within the watershed
has been timber harvest, which has included clearcutting, broadcast burning, and planting of
Douglas fir (Smith and Caldwell, 2001).
4.4.5.2 Freshwater Reaches (Map 28) 32
A 4.9-mile section of the Quinault River downstream of the park boundary and upstream of the
Grays Harbor county line is classified as a shoreline of statewide significance. This section of
river is upstream of Lake Quinault.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-117
4.4.5.3 Physical Environment (Map 28) 1
The upper Quinault River is aggrading behind Lake Quinault, a natural lake that traps most
sediment and wood transported from the Olympic Mountain headwaters. On the upper Quinault
River, logjams promote bar growth and consequent channel shifting, short-distance avulsions,
and meander cutoffs, resulting in mobile and wide active channels. The average floodplain width
is 2,470 m; the active channel width averages 240 m, which is almost everywhere at least twice
as wide as the low-flow channel. The average channel migration rate was found to be 12.7
2
3
4
5
6
+ 3.3
meters per year between 1900 and 1994. Floodplain channel erosion occurs at a rate of about
0.2 percent of the floodplain area per year, with a corresponding floodplain half-life (length of
time in which the channel occupies half of the total floodplain area) of 300 to 500 years.
Floodplain width does not correlate with local geologic controls such as low-flow width, active
channel width, or the frequency of low-flow channels, but is more directly related to overall
sediment, wood, and flow regimes (O’Connor et al., 2003).
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
Water quality in the Quinault River, just upstream of the lake, can be poor with elevated
temperatures in the summer. This may be a natural condition due to low elevation and channel
width.
4.4.5.4 Biological Resources (Map 28) 17
The Quinault River has healthy runs of fall Chinook, sockeye, winter steelhead trout, bull trout,
and Dolly Varden. Even though they are currently classified as “healthy,” runs of coho, sockeye,
and winter steelhead have declined as compared to historical levels. The spring/summer run of
Chinook is rated as depressed. The stock status of chum and pink salmon, cutthroat trout, bull
trout, and Dolly Varden is unknown. All of these species use this stretch of river to spawn or rear.
4.4.5.5 Land Use and Altered Conditions (Map 28) 23
Land Use and Zoning 24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Prior to the Cosmopolis and Quinault River Treaties (circa 1855), the Quinault watershed was
claimed by the Quinault Tribe as their ancestral homeland and was used for subsistence fishing,
hunting, and use of plants for food, medicine, and tools. Formal land ownership began with the
Quinault River Treaty in 1855. Euroamerican settlers arrived in the late 1880s, resulting in
subsistence farming and grazing in valley bottomlands, primarily in the Quinault Lake and Cook
Creek watersheds. Timber harvest began in earnest in 1916, when cedar was salvaged from the
300-acre “Neilton burn.” Railroad construction provided access for timber harvest in the
Quinault River and Cook Creek watersheds between 1917 and 1940. Extensive road construction
and subsequent timber harvesting occurred between 1950 and 1980. While the level of old-
growth harvesting has declined in recent years, second-growth forest management and specialty
forest products continue to be economically important.
In 1978, the Quinault Nation embarked on a program to reacquire lands on the reservation to
return them to tribal ownership and coordinated management. Most or all lands within the
Quinault Indian Reservation and USFS ownership have been harvested at least once. This
includes the lowlands, Quinault valley, and areas on Higley and Quinault Ridges. Much of the
Cook Creek watershed and the lands north and east of Lake Quinault were declared part of the
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 4-118 November 2008
Olympic Forest Reserve in 1897. The USFS managed the area until the establishment of the
Olympic National Park (ONP) in 1938. The USFS designated the Quinault Recreation Area in
1922 and the Quinault Research Natural Area in 1932. The Colonel Bob Wilderness was
included in the federal wilderness areas in 1984 (James, 1999 as cited in Smith and Caldwell,
2001).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Current land uses within the basin include timber harvest, fishing, and tourism. The major
landowner is the ONP, which includes all of the Mount Lawson and Enchanted valley
watersheds. The Quinault Indian Nation owns 32 percent of the basin, comprising most of the
area downstream of Lake Quinault. The USFS manages 13 percent of the watershed, including
the eastern part of the Cook Creek watershed and the southwest half of the Lake Quinault
watershed between Quinault Ridge and the upper Quinault River. Private landholdings compose
only 4 percent of the lands in the basin. Rayonier Timberlands Company is the largest private
landholder, managing 14,030 acres in the Cook Creek area (Quinault Indian Nation and USFS,
1999 as cited in Smith and Caldwell, 2001). State lands managed by the WDNR encompass 0.1
percent of the drainage area.
Present-day settlements are small and include the village of Taholah and the Amanda Park and
Neilton areas. Currently, two hatcheries operate within the watershed. The Quinault National
Fish Hatchery is located near Cook Creek, and the Quinault pen rearing facility is located in
Lake Quinault.
Transportation and Utilities 20
21
22
23
24
Within the planning area surrounding all basin reaches, WDNR has mapped 0.3 mile of road.
Jefferson County databases have no mapped roads within the planning area. Unpaved National
Forest Road Nf 2405 and an unnamed road which crosses the river are both aligned within the
planning area.
Shoreline Modifications 25
26
28
29
30
32
No information.
4.4.5.6 Public Access (Map 28) 27
The ownership of this section of river is the ONP on the northern bank, and a mix of private and
ONF land on the south bank. The vast majority of the river’s watershed within this reach is
protected either in ONP or in National Forest riparian reserve and wilderness.
4.4.5.7 Restoration Opportunities 31
None identified.
4.5 OTHER WEST END SHORELINES (MAPS 1B AND IC) 33
Sufficient information was not available to fully address all of the tributaries to the major west
county rivers (i.e., Clearwater, Hoh, Bogachiel, Queets, and Quinault) and significant
percentage of the river miles that meet the SMP jurisdiction criteria (20 cfs mean annul flow or
more) occur on federal or tribal land and are not under County jurisdiction. Information on the
34
35
36
37
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 4-119
tributary streams that are within county jurisdiction is provided in Appendix D. 1
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 5-1
5.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1
DESIGNATIONS AND BUFFERS 2
5.1 SHORELINE ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS 3
The Ecology guidelines (WAC 173-26-211) recommend a shoreline classification system with
six basic environment designations. According to the guidelines, “This classification system
shall be based on the existing use pattern, the biological and physical character of the shoreline,
and the goals and aspirations of the community as expressed through comprehensive plans as
well as the criteria in this section. Each master program's classification system shall be
consistent with that described in WAC 173-26-211 (4) and (5) unless the alternative proposed
provides equal or better implementation of the act.” The six environment designations described
in the WAC are as follows:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
• High Intensity
• Shoreline Residential
• Urban Conservancy
• Aquatic
• Rural Conservancy
• Natural
The purpose and criteria for each of the Ecology recommended designations are shown in Table
5-1.
Table 5-1. Ecology Recommended Shoreline Environment Designation Menu
(WAC 173-26-211)
SED Purpose Main Criteria
High Intensity Provide high intensity water-oriented
commercial, transportation, and industrial
uses while protecting ecological functions
and restoring functions in degraded
areas. Allow full build out of existing high
intensity areas before expanding this
designation to include new areas.
• Inside Urban Growth Areas and incorporated
municipalities
• Currently support or planned to support and suitable
for high intensity uses
Shoreline
Residential
Accommodate residential development. • Inside Urban Growth Areas and incorporated
municipalities
• Predominantly single-or multi- family development or
planned and platted for development
Urban
Conservancy
Protect and restore ecological functions in
urban and developed settings.
• Potential for ecological restoration
• Floodplains that should not be intensively developed
• Areas that retain ecological function even though
they are partially developed
• Have potential for development that incorporates
ecological restoration
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 5-2 November 2008
SED Purpose Main Criteria
Aquatic Protect, restore, and manage unique
characteristics and resources of the areas
waterward of the ordinary high water
mark.
• Lands waterward of the ordinary high water mark
• May include wetlands
Rural
Conservancy
Protect, conserve, and restore ecological
functions to provide ecological protection,
sustain resource use, and provide
recreational opportunities.
• Applies to areas outside the urban growth area or
municipal city limits
• Supports resource-based uses such as agricultural,
forestry, or recreation
• Supports human uses but subject to environmental
limitations such as steep slopes, or flood prone
areas
Natural
Protect and restore shoreline areas that
are free from human influence or include
minimally degraded functions. Restrict
uses to maintain ecosystem-wide
functions.
• Supports ecosystems that have particular scientific
or educational interest
• Ecologically intact and performing irreplaceable
functions or processes
• Unable to support new development or uses without
impact or risk to ecological functions
These WAC designations differ from those that are currently in effect in Jefferson County (see
Maps 21, 22, and 23 for existing designations). To comply with the state’s requirements, the
County’s existing SED system must be updated to match WAC 173-26-211. The County has
some discretion to develop different designations or identify parallel environments where
appropriate. However, alternative designations must provide a similar level of shoreline
protection.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The proposed SED menu for Jefferson County outlined in this chapter is modeled on the WAC
but includes a few minor modifications that are appropriate for the local conditions. The High
Intensity (HI), Shoreline Residential, (SR) Aquatic (A), and Natural (N) designations proposed
for Jefferson County are consistent with the WAC in terms of the purpose and criteria for
designation. However, the Conservancy (C) designation is proposed in place of the WAC-
recommended Rural Conservancy and Urban Conservancy designations, since there is no
compelling reason to differentiate between rural and urban areas in Jefferson County where the
Conservancy designation is concerned. Also, a special designation--Priority Aquatic (PA)—is
proposed for high value in-water areas
The suggested menu provides a range of designations to suit different types of shorelines from
those that are or could be developed for high intensity uses, including water-dependent uses
(High Intensity), to those areas that are dedicated to residential development (Shoreline
Residential), to those that have relatively intact ecological functions and are able to
accommodate lower intensity uses (Conservancy), to those that are most sensitive to disturbance
and/or provide the highest levels of ecosystem function (Natural). Areas waterward of the
ordinary high water mark would be designated Aquatic and the most vital in-water salmon
streams/nearshore areas and highest value marine shellfish habitats would be designated Priority
Aquatic (Table 5-2).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
Table 5-2. Jefferson County Recommended Shoreline Environment Designation Menu
SED Purpose Main Criteria
High Intensity Ensure optimum use of shorelines
that are either presently urbanized
or planned for urbanization and
provide economic development and
recreational opportunities at a higher
scale and intensity than can be
achieved in more ecologically
sensitive shoreline areas.
• Within designated urban growth areas (UGAs), rural
areas of more intense development (RAMIDs), rural
village centers (RVCs), resort complexes, rural
crossroads (RCs), and resource based industrial zones
(RBIZs)
• Heavy industrial areas outside of UGAs, RAMIDS,
RVCs or RCs
• Do not meet the criteria for the Natural, Public
Conservancy, Conservancy or Shoreline Residential
environments
• Suitable for high intensity uses other than residential
uses (e.g., commercial and industrial use)
Shoreline
Residential
To accommodate residential
development and appurtenant
structures and provide appropriate
public access and recreational uses
in areas where medium and high
density residential developments
and services exist or are planned.
• Shoreline areas inside UGAs, Rural Areas of More
Intense Development or Master Planned Resorts
• Do not meet the criteria for the Natural, Public
Conservancy, Conservancy or High Intensity
environments
• Predominantly single-family or multifamily residential
development or are planned and platted for residential
development
Conservancy
Provide for sustained resource use,
public access and public recreation
while protecting ecological functions,
conserving existing ecological,
historical and cultural resources.
• Private and/or publicly owned lands (upland areas
landward of OHWM) of high recreational value or with
valuable historic or cultural resources or potential for
public access
• Inside or outside of urban growth areas, rural village
centers, and rural crossroads
• Do not meet the designation criteria for the Natural or
Public Conservancy environments
• Currently supporting low-intensity resource-based
uses
• Currently accommodating very low density residential
uses
• Can support low-intensity water-oriented uses without
significant adverse impacts to shoreline functions or
processes
Natural To protect those shoreline areas that
are relatively free of human
influence and/ or that include intact
or minimally degraded shoreline
functions and processes.
• Ecologically intact and performing an important or
irreplaceable function or ecosystem-wide process that
would be damaged by human activity;
• Represents a type of ecosystem or geologic feature
that is of particular scientific and/or educational
interest;
• Unable to support new development or uses without
significant adverse impacts to ecological functions or
risks to human safety;
• Potential to return to near natural conditions with
minimal or no restoration activity;
• Possesses serious development limitations due to the
presence of environmental hazards.
Aquatic To protect, restore, and manage
unique characteristics and resources
of the areas waterward of the
ordinary high water mark.
• Lands waterward of the ordinary high water mark
• May include wetlands
Priority Aquatic To protect to the highest degree
possible and, where feasible, restore
• Lands waterward of the ordinary high water mark
• The most vital salmon streams and nearshore areas
November 2008 page 5-3
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 5-4 November 2008
SED Purpose Main Criteria
waters and their underlying
bedlands deemed vital for salmon
and shellfish.
• The highest value marine shellfish habitats
• Documented Endangered Species Act-listed salmonid
streams and marine habitats (summer chum, chinook,
and steelhead)
• Estuaries that support Endangered Species Act-listed
salmonid rearing
• Other freshwater shorelines that provide habitat for
salmonid species (coho, fall chum, pink, and cutthroat)
and are relatively undeveloped
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 5-5
Using the proposed designation menu as a guide, preliminary SED recommendations were
developed for each shoreline reach (Tables 5-3 to 5-5 and Maps 29-31 in Appendix C). The
initial recommendations were determined based on the inventory information that was available
and appropriate, summarized in the preceding chapters. Some of this data was only available for
eastern Jefferson County. Specific consideration was given to the presence of the following key
ecological and land use attributes:
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
• Degree of ecological function (function score as identified by Diefenderfer et al., 2006) 7
• Degree of stress (stressor score as identified by Diefenderfer et al., 2006) 8
• Salmonid Nodal Corridor/ Refugia (as identified by May and Peterson, 2003) 9
• Nearshore Salmonid Refugia (as identified by May and Peterson, 2003)
• Salmonid Use
• Salt Marsh / Lagoon / Intertidal Wetland (as identified by Todd et al., 2006)
• Terrestrial Priority Species Use
• Erosive/ Hazardous Slope/CMZ
• Zoning (and assessor’s information on parcel density and vacant parcels)
• Public Land
• Public Tidelands
• Commercial Shellfish Status
The initial results of this analysis are presented in Table 5-3 to 5-5 (Readers are encouraged to
review the SED maps in Appendix C for a more precise depiction of the proposed SEDs for each
reach). These tables show the initial designations that were developed for the marine and river
shores based on the inventory and the revised SED recommendations that were developed with
extensive input from the STAC and SPAC after detailed review of oblique aerial photography for
each section of the marine shoreline. The oblique photos allowed a more precise assessment of
feeder bluffs, riparian conditions, extent of shoreline modification, land use intensity, and other
factors that are essential for developing SEDs recommendations. As a result the revised
recommendations represent the best available information regarding SEDs for Jefferson County.
In some cases, multiple designations are recommended for a given shoreline reach, and the
approximate ‘break’ in the designation boundary is provided. In general reaches or portions of
reaches were designated Natural if they had minimal shoreline modification (stairs, bulkheads,
etc) or other high quality/pristine habitat characteristics (very limited development), or were
important feeder bluffs or otherwise unsuitable for development (due to geological conditions,
presence of environmentally sensitive areas, or other factors). Reaches or portions of reaches
were designated Shoreline Residential if they were platted and/or developed for relatively high-
density residential development and showed signs of more intense modification/use. Shorelines
that are currently devoted to higher intensity uses and/or located in areas planned for higher
intensity development including marinas and commercial developments received a High
Intensity designation. All other shorelands received a Conservancy designation.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 5-6 November 2008
An Aquatic or Priority Aquatic designation is recommended for all areas waterward of ordinary
high water mark--essentially creating a parallel designation for all shorelines (one for the
shoreland or upland area and one for the water). The Priority Aquatic designation provides a
higher level of protection to in-water areas than the Aquatic designation, so priority Aquatic
areas are well protected even when paired with designations that allow more intensive uses in the
shoreland area (e.g., Shoreline Residential). Priority Aquatic areas include the deltas of all the
major rivers draining eastern slope of Jefferson County; important bays and estuaries such as
Quilcene Bay, Discovery Bay, Tarboo Bay, Thorndyke Bay, Squamish estuary, and Ludlow
estuary; and portions of the Toandos Peninsula, Kilisut Bay and Oak Harbor (see SED maps for
more information).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
For streams or lakes that are potential shorelines of the state, but currently not designated as such
per WAC 173-18 or 173-22 (see section 1.3.2.1), a default Conservancy designation is
recommended until additional information is gathered. The same applies to associated wetlands
that are not otherwise formally designated.
Shoreline environment designations are one determinant of how individual shoreline reaches are
to be used, developed and managed/protected. For example, the types of uses allowed along a
given shoreline reach will generally vary depending on the designation. The level of allowed
development density would also vary by SED. In many other respects, shoreline reaches will be
managed and regulated equally regardless of designation differences. Initial recommendations
are to require the same shoreline buffer (from OHWM) for each type of shoreline (marine, river,
or lake) regardless of the SED. Vegetation management, water quality, and other environmental
protection standards would also be generally consistent regardless of SED. Specific
management recommendations are available for public review in the draft SMP which is
available at the Jefferson County Community Development Department.
5.2 PRELIMINARY BUFFER RECOMMENDATIONS 25
The recommended shoreline buffer 1 for lakes is 100 feet. For river and marine shores, the
recommended buffer is 150 feet, consistent with the existing County critical areas regulations in
JCC 18.22.270. One hundred and fifty feet is also the buffer standard adopted by Whatcom
County for marine shorelines. King County currently applies a 165-foot buffer to Type S
shorelines outside of urban growth areas via the King County critical areas ordinance. Kitsap
County is proposing to adopt a 150 foot marine shore buffer in certain shoreline environment
designations as a result of a decision by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings
Board (CPSGMHB).
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
2
1 The terms buffer refers to the horizontal distance that structures would have to be set back, landward, from the
ordinary high water mark. The buffer area would be required to be maintained in a vegetated, undisturbed and
undeveloped condition to protect shoreline functions and processes. Policies and regulations could be developed to
require increases or allow reductions in buffer width as appropriate to reflect site-specific conditions.
2 Hood Canal, et al., v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No. 06-3-0012c. See also
http://www.kitsapgov.com/dcd/lu_env/cao/remand/planning_commission_status_mem_122806.pdf
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 5-7
Levings and Jamieson (2001) cite findings from the Canadian Ministry of Forestry in British
Columbia recommending buffers of 300 to 450 feet for marine shores depending on the type of
shore, wind conditions, and other factors. Depending on the specific nearshore resources being
protected and the specific functions being provided by the buffer, recommended widths may
differ.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
The effectiveness of riparian buffers for protecting water quality depends on a number of factors
including soil type/stability, vegetation type, slope, annual rainfall, type and amount of pollution,
surrounding land uses, and buffer width. Soil stability and sediment control are directly related
to the amount of impervious surface. In areas where riparian vegetation has been removed and
soils have been compacted, soils are less capable of intercepting and absorbing rainfall (May,
2003). Water that is not absorbed/intercepted by vegetation runs off the surface leading to
erosion, siltation, burial of aquatic environs, and introduction of contaminants into water and can
increase potential for landslides. Pollutants such as excess nutrients, metals, and organic
chemicals are commonly found in stormwater and agricultural runoff, usually in particulate form.
Sediment control therefore is essential for removing a large percentage of the pollutant load
(May, 2000). In general, a 50-foot buffer is estimated to be approximately 60 percent effective at
removing sediments, while an 82- to 300-foot buffer would remove approximately 80 percent of
sediment load (Brennan and Culverwell, 2004; Pentec 2001). Although sediment carried into
nearshore marine environments will seldom be of a magnitude to significantly compromise water
clarity, the minimum recommended buffer width for sediment control and pollutant removal is
98 feet (30 meters) (May, 2003).
According to the literature, buffer widths as small as 27 feet could reduce nitrogen by as much as
60 percent, while widths up to 200 feet would be required to reduce nitrogen by 80 percent
(Desbonnet et al., 1994, in Pentec, 2001). Minimum buffer recommendations for controlling
agricultural runoff are 79 feet for 20 percent slopes with slight erosion, and 160 feet for 30
percent slopes with severe erosion (Brennan and Culverwell, 2004). Control of fecal coliform
inputs from agriculture or septic systems to acceptable levels for primary contact recreational use
could be achieved by a 115 feet buffer (Young et al., 1980, in Pentec, 2001).
For wildlife, the principal functions of riparian buffers are to provide habitat and travel corridors,
microclimate regulation, organic input, and to ameliorate the impacts of human disturbance such
as light and noise (Parametrix et al., 2005). Bald eagles, kingfishers, and other birds use logs on
beaches, tideflats, and estuarine channels as perches (which provide visibility for foraging,
resting areas), and to reduce flight times (energy conservation) between foraging areas and
nesting sites. Herons and egrets will use drifted trees that are partially out of the water, as well
as floating logs and log rafts for foraging and resting. Cormorants, pelicans, small shorebirds,
and some waterfowl also require perches and platforms for rest between periods of foraging to
spread their wings to dry their feathers and for preening themselves. As rotting trees on land
near the water become limiting, purple martins and other cavity-nesting birds will use rotting
snags on beaches for nesting. Gulls use log beaches and estuarine meadows for breeding. Logs
function to visually isolate adjacent nests, provide thermoregulatory benefits for egg
development, and cover for newly hatched chicks. Logs enable gulls to spend less time
protecting the nest and more time foraging, resulting in increased survival of chicks. LWD is
suspected to serve similar functions for other ground nesting wildlife. In addition, LWD and
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 5-8 November 2008
beach wrack provide habitat structure for species that are prey for fish and wildlife (Brennan and
Culverwell, 2004).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
For Washington State, the average width reported to retain riparian function for wildlife habitat
is 288 feet (Knutson and Naef, 1997). No requirements for riparian corridor connectivity have
been established in scientific literature; however Booth et al. (2002, in King County, 2004)
recommend riparian buffer zones that minimize road and utility crossings as well as overall
clearing.
Microclimatic influences on air that passes through riparian vegetation include humidity,
temperature, and wind speed. This in turn affects plant growth, therefore influencing ecosystem
processes such as decomposition, nutrient cycling, plant succession, and plant productivity.
(Snohomish County, 2005). The minimum recommended buffer for microclimate protection is
328 feet (May, 2003).
Recent studies have shown that riparian vegetation on open marine shorelines may play an
important role in producing terrestrial insect prey for juvenile salmon. Eelgrass beds are known
to provide habitat for numerous fish and invertebrates, abundant fish prey production, as well as
spawning habitat for herring. Buffer recommendations have not been made for protection of fish
prey production function.
Shade provided by riparian vegetation along marine shorelines is not likely to influence marine
water temperatures due to mixing and tidal fluctuations, but may be an important factor in
moderating water temperature in pocket estuaries. Solar radiation is also an important factor
determining distribution, abundance, and species composition of upper intertidal organisms
(Brennan and Culverwell, 2004). Moisture and direct solar radiation also influence egg viability
of intertidal-spawning forage fish such as surf smelt and sand lance (Penttila, 2001). Buffer
recommendations range from 98 to 262 feet for natural temperature regulation and shading, or
providing equivalent shading as a mature forest (May, 2003).
Large woody debris provides a multitude of functions in aquatic ecosystems including habitat
structure. In the marine riparian zone, vegetation and large woody debris trap and stabilize
sediments in salt marshes and on beaches, creating back beaches, berms, and spits. Beach logs
retain moisture that becomes important to the establishment and survival of dune plants, which
further stabilize sediments, provide wildlife habitat, and contribute nutrients to the system. In
the lower intertidal and subtidal areas, LWD may become immobilized and become colonized by
sessile invertebrates, algae, and mobile invertebrates for feeding opportunities, refuge, and
spawning substrate, thereby increasing habitat complexity and attracting other species in search
of prey, refuge, or spawning substrate. In riverine environments, more than half of all large
woody debris is recruited from within 15 feet of streams. About 90 percent of all large woody
debris comes from trees growing within about 50 feet of streams (Herrera, 2005). Appropriate
widths for natural levels of recruitment and retention have been reported as one Site Potential
Tree Height (SPTH) (May, 2003). The minimum buffer width recommended for LWD
recruitment is 1 SPTH, or approximately 165 meters (May, 2003).
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 5-9
Because most buffer recommendations have been developed for riverine systems, marine buffer
requirements may need to be adjusted to account for the effects of wind, salt spray, desiccation,
and general microclimatic effects (Brennan and Culverwell, 2004).
1
2
3
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 5-10 November 2008
This page intentionally left blank 1
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
NO
T
E
S
:
x=
Y
E
S
(
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
)
p
=
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
NA
=
N
o
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
(
n
o
c
o
u
n
t
y
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
)
S=
s
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
L=
l
a
g
o
o
n
IW
=
I
n
t
e
r
t
i
d
a
l
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
RR
=
r
u
r
a
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
CF
=
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
PP
R
=
P
a
r
k
s
/
P
r
e
s
er
v
e
s
/
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
s
C
C
=
C
r
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
HI
=
H
e
a
v
y
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
AL
=
L
o
c
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
AP
=
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
RF
=
R
u
r
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
MP
R
=
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
R
e
s
o
r
t
R
V
C
=
R
u
r
a
l
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
A=a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
U=u
n
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
e
d
P=p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
C=c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
R=r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
SR
=
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
HI
=
H
i
g
h
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
#
=
S
E
D
a
p
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
t
ea
s
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
r
e
a
c
h
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
page 5-11
Ta
b
l
e
5
-
3
.
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
E
D
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
y
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
R
e
a
c
h
–
M
a
r
i
n
e
S
h
o
r
e
s
Fa
c
t
o
r
s
U
s
e
d
t
o
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
Proposed Environment Designation (These designations are superseded by SEDs shown on the official SED map)
Re
a
c
h
Ar
e
a
Hi
g
h
Fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
Lo
w
St
r
e
s
s
Sa
l
m
o
n
i
d
No
d
a
l
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
/
Re
f
u
g
i
a
Ne
a
r
s
h
o
r
e
Sa
l
m
o
n
i
d
Re
f
u
g
i
a
Sa
l
t
M
a
r
s
h
/
La
g
o
o
n
/
In
t
e
r
t
i
d
a
l
We
t
l
a
n
d
Er
o
s
i
v
e
/
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
S
l
o
p
e
Zo
n
i
n
g
Pu
b
l
i
c
L
a
n
d
Pu
b
l
i
c
Ti
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
Commercial Shellfish Status Original SED Recommendation ( May 2007) Revised STAC/SPAC Recommendation Priority Aquatic
x=
Y
E
S
x=
Y
E
S
x=
Y
E
S
A
Fu
l
t
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
a
n
d
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
N
e
a
r
S
h
o
r
e
x
x
RR
,
P
P
R
x
x
A Conservancy Conservancy, Natural at creek delta #
B
Fu
l
t
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
a
n
d
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
N
e
a
r
S
h
o
r
e
x
RR
x
A Conservancy Conservancy
C
Fu
l
t
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
a
n
d
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
N
e
a
r
S
h
o
r
e
x
p
RR
,
A
L
A Conservancy Conservancy; Natural at McDaniel Cove #
D
Du
c
k
a
b
u
s
h
R
i
v
e
r
a
n
d
B
l
a
c
k
P
o
i
n
t
x
p
S
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
p
RR
,
A
L
x
A Conservancy (numerous shoreline modifications) Natural at McDaniel Cove, Conservancy and SR at north end #
E
Du
c
k
a
b
u
s
h
R
i
v
e
r
a
n
d
B
l
a
c
k
P
o
i
n
t
x
x
x
x
S
x
RR
x
x
A Natural at mouth of Duckabush River and on feeder bluff on south side of Quatsop Point, Conservancy (Impacts from HWY 101) Natural at Duckabush delta #
F
Du
c
k
a
b
u
s
h
R
i
v
e
r
a
n
d
B
l
a
c
k
P
o
i
n
t
S
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
x
RR
x
A, U Conservancy Conservancy and some SR
G
Du
c
k
a
b
u
s
h
R
i
v
e
r
a
n
d
B
l
a
c
k
P
o
i
n
t
RR
U High Intensity (dense development) SR
H
Du
c
k
a
b
u
s
h
R
i
v
e
r
a
n
d
B
l
a
c
k
P
o
i
n
t
x
RR
x
x
P High Intensity (Marina, modified shore) ST and HI on inner Pleasant Harbor bay
I
Do
s
e
w
a
l
l
i
p
s
R
i
v
e
r
a
n
d
B
r
i
n
n
o
n
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
S
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
p
RR
p
U, R, P Conservancy SR
J
Do
s
e
w
a
l
l
i
p
s
R
i
v
e
r
a
n
d
B
r
i
n
n
o
n
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
x
p
S
x
RR
,
P
P
R
,
A
L
,
RV
C
,
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
NF
x
x
A, R Natural at mouth of Dosewallips and Jackson Creek, Conservancy, NA at Seal Rock CG, Shoreline Residential at Brinnon, High Intensity at RVC Natural at mouth of Dosewallips and Jackson Creek, Conservancy, SR at Brinnon #
K
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
x
S,
L
RR
,
C
C
p
x
A Conservancy Natural and Conservancy#
L
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
x
S
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
,
L
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
x
RR
,
P
P
R
,
Na
t
i
o
n
a
l
W
R
x
x
A, U Natural (Pulali Pt), Conservancy Conservancy
M
Qu
i
l
c
e
n
e
B
a
y
x
L
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
x
RR
,
P
P
R
,
C
F
x
x
A Natural (undeveloped, high bluff) Natural #
N
Qu
i
l
c
e
n
e
B
a
y
x
x
x
x
RR
,
C
F
,
R
F
x
x
A, C Natural Natural, HI at marina #
O
Qu
i
l
c
e
n
e
B
a
y
x
x
S,
L
,
I
W
x
RR
,
A
P
,
A
L
,
PP
R
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
x
x
A, U, C Natural SR at South end; HI at marina; Natural at Big Quilcene delta; Conservancy at Little Quilcene mouth; SR at East Quilcene #
P
Qu
i
l
c
e
n
e
Ba
y
x
x
p
IW
x
RR
x
A, U Natural SR at north end; #
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
NO
T
E
S
:
x=
Y
E
S
(
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
)
p
=
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
S=
s
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
L=
l
a
g
o
o
n
IW
=
I
n
t
e
r
t
i
d
a
l
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
RR
=
r
u
r
a
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
CF
=
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
PP
R
=
P
a
r
k
s
/
P
r
e
s
er
v
e
s
/
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
s
C
C
=
C
r
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
HI
=
H
e
a
v
y
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
AL
=
L
o
c
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
AP
=
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
RF
=
R
u
r
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
MP
R
=
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
R
e
s
o
r
t
R
V
C
=
R
u
r
a
l
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
A=a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
U=u
n
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
e
d
P=p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
C=c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
R=r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
SR
=
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
HI
=
H
i
g
h
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
#
=
S
E
D
a
p
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
t
ea
s
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
r
e
a
c
h
pa
g
e
5
-
1
2
November 2008
Fa
c
t
o
r
s
U
s
e
d
t
o
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
Proposed Environment Designation (These designations are superseded by SEDs shown on the official SED map)
Re
a
c
h
A
r
e
a
Hi
g
h
Fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
Lo
w
St
r
e
s
s
Sa
l
m
o
n
i
d
No
d
a
l
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
/
Re
f
u
g
i
a
Ne
a
r
s
h
o
r
e
Sa
l
m
o
n
i
d
Re
f
u
g
i
a
Sa
l
t
M
a
r
s
h
/
La
g
o
o
n
/
In
t
e
r
t
i
d
a
l
We
t
l
a
n
d
Er
o
s
i
v
e
/
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
S
l
o
p
e
Zo
n
i
n
g
P
u
b
l
i
c
L
a
n
d
Pu
b
l
i
c
Ti
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
Commercial Shellfish Status Original SED Recommendation ( May 2007) Revised STAC/SPAC Recommendation Priority Aquatic Conservancy; Natural at Fisherman’s Pt.
Q
Da
b
o
b
B
a
y
x
x
x
p
S,
L
,
I
W
x
RR
,
P
P
R
,
C
F
,
AL
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
x
x
A Natural Natural at Red Bluff; Conservancy; Natural mostly from Broad Spit to north end of reach #
R
Da
b
o
b
B
a
y
x
S,
I
W
x
RR
,
C
F
x
x
A Natural Conservancy, except Natural at spit on west side of Tarboo Bay #
S
Da
b
o
b
B
a
y
x
p
S,
L
,
I
W
x
RR
,
C
F
,
A
L
,
Mi
l
i
t
a
r
y
R
e
s
.
,
RF
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
x
x
A Natural, NA on military land Mostly Natural, but Conservancy north of camp Harmony #
T
So
u
t
h
e
r
n
T
o
a
n
d
o
s
P
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
,
T
h
o
r
n
d
y
k
e
B
a
y
,
a
n
d
Sq
u
a
m
i
s
h
H
a
r
b
o
r
x
x
x
S
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
,
L
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
x
RR
x
A, P Natural Natural except for head of Fisherman’s Harbor #
U
So
u
t
h
e
r
n
T
o
a
n
d
o
s
P
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
,
T
h
o
r
n
d
y
k
e
B
a
y
,
a
n
d
Sq
u
a
m
i
s
h
H
a
r
b
o
r
x
S
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
,
L
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
x
RR
#
A Natural (undeveloped, high bluff) Natural #
V
So
u
t
h
e
r
n
T
o
a
n
d
o
s
P
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
,
T
h
o
r
n
d
y
k
e
B
a
y
,
a
n
d
Sq
u
a
m
i
s
h
H
a
r
b
o
r
x
x
x
p
S,
L
x
RR
,
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
Re
s
.
,
C
F
,
R
F
,
I
F
x
#
A, P Natural Natural except Conservancy just north and south of Thorndyke Bay; SR at Bridgehaven; Natural on inner shore near South Point Road; SR on south side of Squamish estuary #
W
So
u
t
h
e
r
n
T
o
a
n
d
o
s
P
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
,
T
h
o
r
n
d
y
k
e
B
a
y
,
a
n
d
Sq
u
a
m
i
s
h
H
a
r
b
o
r
x
x
x
S,
L
x
RR
p
x
A Possible parallel designation with Natural south of Shine Road and Shoreline Residential north of Shine Road Natural at Squamish estuary, otherwise SR #
#
Ho
o
d
C
a
n
a
l
B
r
i
d
g
e
t
o
T
a
l
a
P
o
i
n
t
x
x
S,
L
x
RR
x
x
A Conservancy at Wolfe SP/Natural Natural at Termination Point and Bywater Bay, some Conservancy just south of Bywater Bay #
Y
Ho
o
d
C
a
n
a
l
B
r
i
d
g
e
t
o
T
a
l
a
P
o
i
n
t
S,
L
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
p
RR
x
A Conservancy Conservancy and Natural#
Z
Ho
o
d
C
a
n
a
l
B
r
i
d
g
e
t
o
T
a
l
a
P
o
i
n
t
x
x
x
RR
x
A, U Natural (landslides, undeveloped) Natural
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
NO
T
E
S
:
x=
Y
E
S
(
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
)
p
=
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
NA
=
N
o
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
(
n
o
c
o
u
n
t
y
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
)
S=
s
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
L=
l
a
g
o
o
n
IW
=
I
n
t
e
r
t
i
d
a
l
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
RR
=
r
u
r
a
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
CF
=
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
PP
R
=
P
a
r
k
s
/
P
r
e
s
er
v
e
s
/
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
s
C
C
=
C
r
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
HI
=
H
e
a
v
y
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
AL
=
L
o
c
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
AP
=
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
RF
=
R
u
r
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
MP
R
=
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
R
e
s
o
r
t
R
V
C
=
R
u
r
a
l
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
A=a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
U=u
n
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
e
d
P=p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
C=c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
R=r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
SR
=
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
HI
=
H
i
g
h
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
#
=
S
E
D
a
p
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
t
ea
s
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
r
e
a
c
h
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
page 5-13
Fa
c
t
o
r
s
U
s
e
d
t
o
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
Proposed Environment Designation (These designations are superseded by SEDs shown on the official SED map)
Re
a
c
h
A
r
e
a
Hi
g
h
Fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
Lo
w
St
r
e
s
s
Sa
l
m
o
n
i
d
No
d
a
l
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
/
Re
f
u
g
i
a
Ne
a
r
s
h
o
r
e
Sa
l
m
o
n
i
d
Re
f
u
g
i
a
Sa
l
t
M
a
r
s
h
/
La
g
o
o
n
/
In
t
e
r
t
i
d
a
l
We
t
l
a
n
d
Er
o
s
i
v
e
/
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
S
l
o
p
e
Zo
n
i
n
g
P
u
b
l
i
c
L
a
n
d
Pu
b
l
i
c
Ti
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
Commercial Shellfish Status Original SED Recommendation ( May 2007) Revised STAC/SPAC Recommendation Priority Aquatic
AA
Ho
o
d
C
a
n
a
l
B
r
i
d
g
e
t
o
T
a
l
a
P
o
i
n
t
x
x
S,
L
x
RR
x
x
A Natural (feeder bluff, small lots but many vacant parcels) Natural at Pt Hannon, Conservancy at White Rock and Tala Pt, SR
BB
Po
r
t
L
u
d
l
o
w
p
S,
L
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
x
RR
,
M
P
R
(S
i
n
g
l
e
f
a
m
i
l
y
)
P, U, A Shoreline Residential SR #
CC
Po
r
t
L
u
d
l
o
w
x
L
x
MP
R
(
S
i
n
g
l
e
fa
m
i
l
y
,
M
u
l
t
i
fa
m
i
l
y
,
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Ce
n
t
e
r
,
R
e
s
o
r
t
Co
m
p
l
e
x
/
C
o
m
m
un
i
t
y
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
)
p
P Shoreline Residential, Conservancy at Ludlow Creek estuary SR, Conservancy at Ludlow estuary, HI at Marina
DD
Po
r
t
L
u
d
l
o
w
x
L
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
x
RR
,
M
P
R
(S
i
n
g
l
e
f
a
m
i
l
y
,
Re
s
o
r
t
Co
m
p
l
e
x
/
C
o
m
m
un
i
t
y
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
)
x
P, U Shoreline Residential, High Intensity South end of reach is HI, SR at north end of reach
EE
Ma
t
s
M
a
t
s
B
a
y
x
S
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
RR
x
U, A, C Natural (undeveloped) Mostly SR, with Conservancy at Basalt Pt, HI at marina
FF
Oa
k
B
a
y
S,
L
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
RR
x
A Shoreline Residential SR
GG
Oa
k
B
a
y
RR
x
A Shoreline Residential SR
HH
Oa
k
B
a
y
x
x
RR
x
A Shoreline Residential SR
II
Oa
k
B
a
y
S,
L
RR
,
P
P
R
x
x
A, U Natural (Portage, undeveloped) Conservancy #
JJ
So
u
t
h
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
s
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
M
a
r
r
o
w
s
t
o
n
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
S,
L
Mi
l
i
t
a
r
y
R
e
s
.
ot
h
e
r
f
e
d
p
A, U NA NA
KK
So
u
t
h
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
s
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
M
a
r
r
o
w
s
t
o
n
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
x
S,
L
x
RR
,
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
Re
s
.
ot
h
e
r
f
e
d
x
A, U NA, Natural on County lands on Marrowstone Natural at Kinney Pt and Scow Bay portage, otherwise SR #
LL
So
u
t
h
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
s
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
M
a
r
r
o
w
s
t
o
n
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
S
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
,
L
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
x
RR
,
A
L
,
P
P
R
x
x
U Natural, Conservancy on Fort Flagler Conservancy and Natural at Fort Flagler and Lilip Pt
MM
So
u
t
h
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
s
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
M
a
r
r
o
w
s
t
o
n
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
x
S,
L
x
PP
R
x
x
U Conservancy (Fort Flagler) Natural
NN
So
u
t
h
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
s
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
M
a
r
r
o
w
s
t
o
n
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
S
x
PP
R
x
x
U Natural, Conservancy on Fort Flagler Natural except at boat launch
OO
So
u
t
h
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
s
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
M
a
r
r
o
w
s
t
o
n
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
S
x
RR
,
P
P
R
x
x
A, U, P (SMALL) Natural, Conservancy on Fort Flagler Natural at Walan Pt, Conservancy
PP
So
u
t
h
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
s
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
M
a
r
r
o
w
s
t
o
n
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
x
S,
L
x
RR
x
x
A, C Natural (undeveloped) Conservancy and SR
QQ
So
u
t
h
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
s
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
M
a
r
r
o
w
s
t
o
n
e
I
s
la
n
d
S
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
x
RR
,
C
C
p
x
A, C Natural (undeveloped) SR, HI at boat launch #
RR
So
u
t
h
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
s
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
M
a
r
r
o
w
s
t
o
n
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
x
x
RR
x
A Natural (undeveloped) SR #
SS
So
u
t
h
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
s
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
M
a
r
r
o
w
s
t
o
n
e
I
s
l
a
n
d
x
S,
L
p
RR
,
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
Re
s
.
ot
h
e
r
f
e
d
x
A Natural (undeveloped) Natural #
TT
So
u
t
h
I
n
d
i
a
n
I
s
l
a
n
d
(
N
a
v
y
)
x
x
S,
L
p
Mi
l
i
t
a
r
y
R
e
s
.
ot
h
e
r
f
e
d
x
A NA NA
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
NO
T
E
S
:
x=
Y
E
S
(
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
)
p
=
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
S=
s
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
L=
l
a
g
o
o
n
IW
=
I
n
t
e
r
t
i
d
a
l
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
RR
=
r
u
r
a
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
CF
=
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
PP
R
=
P
a
r
k
s
/
P
r
e
s
er
v
e
s
/
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
s
C
C
=
C
r
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
HI
=
H
e
a
v
y
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
AL
=
L
o
c
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
AP
=
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
RF
=
R
u
r
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
MP
R
=
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
R
e
s
o
r
t
R
V
C
=
R
u
r
a
l
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
A=a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
U=u
n
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
e
d
P=p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
C=c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
R=r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
SR
=
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
HI
=
H
i
g
h
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
#
=
S
E
D
a
p
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
t
ea
s
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
r
e
a
c
h
pa
g
e
5
-
1
4
November 2008
Fa
c
t
o
r
s
U
s
e
d
t
o
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
Proposed Environment Designation (These designations are superseded by SEDs shown on the official SED map)
Re
a
c
h
A
r
e
a
Hi
g
h
Fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
Lo
w
St
r
e
s
s
Sa
l
m
o
n
i
d
No
d
a
l
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
/
Re
f
u
g
i
a
Ne
a
r
s
h
o
r
e
Sa
l
m
o
n
i
d
Re
f
u
g
i
a
Sa
l
t
M
a
r
s
h
/
La
g
o
o
n
/
In
t
e
r
t
i
d
a
l
We
t
l
a
n
d
Er
o
s
i
v
e
/
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
S
l
o
p
e
Zo
n
i
n
g
P
u
b
l
i
c
L
a
n
d
Pu
b
l
i
c
Ti
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
Commercial Shellfish Status Original SED Recommendation ( May 2007) Revised STAC/SPAC Recommendation Priority Aquatic
UU
In
d
i
a
n
I
s
l
a
n
d
(
N
a
v
y
)
x
x
S
x
Mi
l
i
t
a
r
y
R
e
s
.
ot
h
e
r
f
e
d
x
A, P, U NA NA
VV
In
d
i
a
n
I
s
l
a
n
d
(
R
a
t
I
s
l
a
n
d
)
x
x
S
x
Un
z
o
n
e
d
i
s
l
a
n
d
ot
h
e
r
f
e
d
x
U, P NA (or Natural if county jurisdiction) Natural
WW
In
d
i
a
n
I
s
l
a
n
d
(
N
a
v
y
)
x
x
S
p
Mi
l
i
t
a
r
y
R
e
s
.
ot
h
e
r
f
e
d
P, U NA NA
##
In
d
i
a
n
I
s
l
a
n
d
(
N
a
v
y
)
x
S
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
x
Mi
l
i
t
a
r
y
R
e
s
.
ot
h
e
r
f
e
d
x
U, A NA NA
YY
Po
r
t
T
o
w
n
s
e
n
d
B
a
y
S,
L
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
RR
x
A, P, U High Intensity (marina) HI, SR, Conservancy
ZZ
Po
r
t
T
o
w
n
s
e
n
d
B
a
y
p
S
x
RR
,
R
V
C
p
x
U, A, P (SMALL) Shoreline Residential (low bank residential) HI, SR, Conservancy #
AA
A
Po
r
t
T
o
w
n
s
e
n
d
B
a
y
x
x
S,
L
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
x
RR
x
U Shoreline Residential or High Intensity, Conservancy at estuary Natural, Conservancy at Chimacum estuary #
BB
B
Po
r
t
T
o
w
n
s
e
n
d
B
a
y
x
x
p
S,
L
x
RR
,
P
P
R
x
x
U Conservancy Natural #
CC
C
Po
r
t
T
o
w
n
s
e
n
d
B
a
y
(
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
C
i
t
y
)
L
x
RR
,
P
P
R
,
H
I
,
PT
U
G
A
x
x
U, A, P High Intensity Natural near State Park, HI
DD
D
Ci
t
y
o
f
P
T
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
x
x
PT
U
G
A
x
x
U, A NA NA
EE
E
Ci
t
y
o
f
P
T
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
x
x
x
RR
,
P
T
U
G
A
x
x
U, A, P NA and Natural in County jurisdiction (feeder bluff, unstable slopes) Natural outside City
FF
F
St
r
a
i
t
o
f
J
u
a
n
d
e
F
u
c
a
a
n
d
D
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
y
B
a
y
x
L
x
RR
,
A
L
x
U, A Conservancy Natural, SR and HU at Cape George
GG
G
St
r
a
i
t
o
f
J
u
a
n
d
e
F
u
c
a
a
n
d
D
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
y
B
a
y
x
S,
L
x
RR
A Conservancy SR at Beckett Pt, Natural south of Pt.
HH
H
St
r
a
i
t
o
f
J
u
a
n
d
e
F
u
c
a
a
n
d
D
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
y
B
a
y
x
S,
L
x
RR
A Conservancy Natural, SR at Adelma Beach, Conservancy south of Adelma Beach #
II
I
St
r
a
i
t
o
f
J
u
a
n
d
e
F
u
c
a
a
n
d
D
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
y
B
a
y
x
x
S,
L
x
RR
,
N
C
x
A, U Conservancy, Natural at Salmon /Snow estuary mouth Natural, SR and Conservancy at creek mouth #
JJ
J
St
r
a
i
t
o
f
J
u
a
n
d
e
F
u
c
a
a
n
d
D
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
y
B
a
y
x
x
RR
p
x
A, U (SMALL) Conservancy SR, HI, Natural, and Conservancy north of Kalset Pt #
KK
K
St
r
a
i
t
o
f
J
u
a
n
d
e
F
u
c
a
a
n
d
D
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
y
B
a
y
x
x
S
x
RR
A Conservancy Natural, some Conservancy at north end#
LL
L
St
r
a
i
t
o
f
J
u
a
n
d
e
F
u
c
a
a
n
d
D
i
s
c
o
v
e
r
y
B
a
y
x
S,
L
x
RR
x
A Conservancy Natural, Conservancy at Contractor’s Pt and north of Pt to County line #
Is
l
a
n
d
X
Si
t
t
i
n
g
i
n
S
t
r
a
i
t
o
f
J
u
a
n
d
e
Fu
c
a
L
x
Na
t
i
o
n
a
l
WR
x
x
U, A NA NA
Is
l
a
n
d
X
I
Si
t
t
i
n
g
i
n
S
t
r
a
i
t
o
f
J
u
a
n
d
e
Fu
c
a
L
x
Na
t
i
o
n
a
l
WR
x
x
U, A NA NA
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
NO
T
E
S
:
x=
Y
E
S
(
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
)
p
=
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
NA
=
N
o
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
(
n
o
c
o
u
n
t
y
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
)
S=
s
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
L=
l
a
g
o
o
n
IW
=
I
n
t
e
r
t
i
d
a
l
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
RR
=
r
u
r
a
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
CF
=
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
PP
R
=
P
a
r
k
s
/
P
r
e
s
er
v
e
s
/
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
s
C
C
=
C
r
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
HI
=
H
e
a
v
y
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
AL
=
L
o
c
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
AP
=
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
RF
=
R
u
r
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
MP
R
=
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
R
e
s
o
r
t
R
V
C
=
R
u
r
a
l
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
A=a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
U=u
n
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
e
d
P=p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
C=c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
R=r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
SR
=
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
HI
=
H
i
g
h
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
#
=
S
E
D
a
p
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
t
ea
s
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
r
e
a
c
h
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
page 5-15
Th
i
s
p
a
g
e
i
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
l
e
f
t
b
l
a
n
k
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
NO
T
E
S
:
x=
Y
E
S
m=
p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
/
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
s=
s
p
a
w
n
i
n
g
r
=
r
e
a
r
i
n
g
RR
=
r
u
r
a
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
CF
=
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
PP
R
=
P
a
r
k
s
/
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
/
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
ea
s
C
C
=
C
r
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
HI=Heavy Industrial
AL
=
L
o
c
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
AP
=
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
RF
=
R
u
r
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
MP
R
=
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
R
e
s
o
r
t
R
V
C
=
R
u
r
a
l
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
E/
l
h
=
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
/
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
h
a
z
a
r
d
a
r
e
a
c
m
z
=
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
z
o
n
e
(
F
O
R
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
I
V
E
R
S
O
N
L
Y
X
=
Y
e
s
)
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
page 5-17
Ta
b
l
e
5
-
4
.
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
E
D
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
y
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
R
e
a
c
h
–
R
i
v
e
r
s
3
Fa
c
t
o
r
s
U
s
e
d
t
o
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
Re
a
c
h
Ar
e
a
Sa
l
m
o
n
i
d
Us
e
Sa
l
m
o
n
i
d
No
d
a
l
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
/
Re
f
u
g
i
a
Te
r
r
e
s
t
r
i
a
l
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
Us
e
Er
o
s
i
v
e
/
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
Sl
o
p
e
o
r
C
M
Z
Zo
n
i
n
g
Pu
b
l
i
c
L
a
n
d
Recommended SED
Bi
g
Q
u
i
l
c
e
n
e
R
i
v
e
r
1
Bi
g
Q
u
i
l
c
e
n
e
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
,
r
x
x
x
RR
,
A
L
,
R
F
,
R
V
C
x Natural , Conservancy
Bi
g
Q
u
i
l
c
e
n
e
R
i
v
e
r
2
Bi
g
Q
u
i
l
c
e
n
e
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
x
x
x
RR
,
C
F
,
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
N
F
x Conservancy
Bo
g
a
c
h
i
e
l
R
i
v
e
r
Bo
g
a
c
h
i
e
l
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
,
r
cl
o
s
e
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
e/
l
h
CF
,
R
R
,
R
F
x Conservancy
Ce
d
a
r
C
r
e
e
k
Ce
d
a
r
C
r
e
e
k
m,
s
,
r
RR
,
C
F
x Conservancy
Ch
i
m
a
c
u
m
C
r
e
e
k
1
Ch
i
m
a
c
u
m
C
r
e
e
k
m,
s
,
r
x
x
RR
x
(
i
n
h
o
l
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
e
s
t
)
Natural
Ch
i
m
a
c
u
m
C
r
e
e
k
2
Ch
i
m
a
c
u
m
C
r
e
e
k
m,
s
x
AP
,
R
R
,
P
P
R
x Shoreline Residential
Ch
i
m
a
c
u
m
C
r
e
e
k
3
Ch
i
m
a
c
u
m
C
r
e
e
k
m,
s
x
RR
,
P
P
R
,
C
C
x Shoreline Residential
Ch
i
m
a
c
u
m
C
r
e
e
k
4
Ch
i
m
a
c
u
m
C
r
e
e
k
m,
s
,
r
x
x
AP
,
R
R
,
P
P
R
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
x
(
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
)
Conservancy
Ch
r
i
s
t
m
a
s
C
r
e
e
k
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
s,
r
e/
l
h
CF
,
R
F
x Conservancy
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
1
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
,
r
x
e/
l
h
RR
,
R
F
,
A
L
,
C
F
x Conservancy
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
2
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
CF
,
R
F
Conservancy
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
3
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
x
CF
,
R
F
Conservancy
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
4
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
CF
,
R
F
,
I
F
x Conservancy
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
5
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
x
e/
l
h
CF
,
I
F
,
R
R
x Conservancy
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
6
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
CF
x Conservancy
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
7
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
x
e/
l
h
CF
x Conservancy
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
8
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
Me
r
l
i
n
i
n
c
l
o
s
e
pr
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
e/
l
h
CF
x Conservancy
Do
s
e
w
a
l
l
i
p
s
R
i
v
e
r
1
Do
s
e
w
a
l
l
i
p
s
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
,
r
x
x
x
RR
,
C
F
,
R
F
,
R
V
C
,
PP
R
,
A
L
x Natural
3 C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
n
c
y
i
s
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
d
e
f
a
u
l
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
l
l
u
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
s
.
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
NO
T
E
S
:
x=
Y
E
S
m=
p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
/
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
s=
s
p
a
w
n
i
n
g
r
=
r
e
a
r
i
n
g
RR
=
r
u
r
a
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
CF
=
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
PP
R
=
P
a
r
k
s
/
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
/
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
ea
s
C
C
=
C
r
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
HI=Heavy Industrial
AL
=
L
o
c
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
AP
=
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
RF
=
R
u
r
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
MP
R
=
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
R
e
s
o
r
t
R
V
C
=
R
u
r
a
l
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
E/
l
h
=
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
/
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
h
a
z
a
r
d
a
r
e
a
c
m
z
=
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
z
o
n
e
(
F
O
R
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
I
V
E
R
S
O
N
L
Y
X
=
Y
e
s
)
pa
g
e
5
-
1
8
November 2008
Fa
c
t
o
r
s
U
s
e
d
t
o
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
Re
a
c
h
A
r
e
a
Sa
l
m
o
n
i
d
Us
e
Sa
l
m
o
n
i
d
No
d
a
l
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
/
Re
f
u
g
i
a
Te
r
r
e
s
t
r
i
a
l
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
Us
e
Er
o
s
i
v
e
/
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
Sl
o
p
e
o
r
C
M
Z
Zo
n
i
n
g
P
u
b
l
i
c
L
a
n
d
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
S
E
D
Du
c
k
a
b
u
s
h
R
i
v
e
r
1
Du
c
k
a
b
u
s
h
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
,
r
x
x
x
RR
,
R
F
,
C
F
,
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
NF
,
x Natural, Shoreline Residential
Fu
l
t
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
1
Fu
l
t
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
m,
s
,
r
x
x
CF
,
R
R
Natural
Fu
l
t
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
2
Fu
l
t
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
m,
s
x
x
CF
Natural
Go
o
d
m
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
1
Go
o
d
m
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
m,
s
CF
Conservancy
Go
o
d
m
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
2
Go
o
d
m
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
m,
s
e/
l
h
CF
,
R
R
x Conservancy
Go
o
d
m
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
3
Go
o
d
m
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
m
e/
l
h
CF
,
R
R
x Conservancy
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
S
o
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
1
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
,
r
x
e/
l
h
CF
,
I
F
,
U
n
z
o
n
e
d
x Conservancy
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
1
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
,
r
x
cm
z
CF
,
A
L
,
R
R
,
R
F
,
Un
z
o
n
e
d
x Conservancy
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
2
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
,
r
x
e/
l
h
RR
,
A
L
,
C
F
,
R
F
,
Un
z
o
n
e
d
x Conservancy
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
3
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
x
cm
z
RR
,
C
F
,
R
F
,
O
l
y
N
F
,
Un
z
o
n
e
d
x Conservancy
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
4
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
x
cm
z
RR
,
A
L
,
C
F
,
Un
z
o
n
e
d
Conservancy
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
5
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
,
r
x
cm
z
RR
,
A
L
,
C
F
,
Un
z
o
n
e
d
x Conservancy
Hu
r
s
t
C
r
e
e
k
1
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
,
r
x
CF
,
R
F
x Conservancy
Ka
l
a
l
o
c
h
C
r
e
e
k
1
Ka
l
a
l
o
c
h
C
r
e
e
k
m
e/
l
h
CF
,
R
R
,
I
F
,
O
l
y
N
P
x Conservancy
Ka
l
a
l
o
c
h
C
r
e
e
k
2
Ka
l
a
l
o
c
h
C
r
e
e
k
m
e/
l
h
(
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
)
CF
Conservancy
Li
t
t
l
e
Q
u
i
l
c
e
n
e
R
i
v
e
r
1
Li
t
t
l
e
Qu
i
l
c
e
n
e
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
x
x
RR
,
R
F
,
C
F
,
R
V
C
,
AL
Natural, Conservancy
Li
t
t
l
e
Q
u
i
l
c
e
n
e
R
i
v
e
r
2
Li
t
t
l
e
Qu
i
l
c
e
n
e
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
x
CF
,
R
F
,
R
R
x Conservancy
Ma
p
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
m
x
e/
l
h
CF
,
R
R
,
U
n
z
o
n
e
d
x Conservancy
Ma
t
h
e
n
y
C
r
e
e
k
1
Ma
t
h
e
n
y
C
r
e
e
k
m,
s
x
e/
l
h
CF
x Conservancy
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
NO
T
E
S
:
x=
Y
E
S
m=
p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
/
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
s=
s
p
a
w
n
i
n
g
r
=
r
e
a
r
i
n
g
RR
=
r
u
r
a
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
CF
=
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
PP
R
=
P
a
r
k
s
/
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
/
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
ea
s
C
C
=
C
r
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
HI=Heavy Industrial
AL
=
L
o
c
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
AP
=
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
RF
=
R
u
r
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
MP
R
=
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
R
e
s
o
r
t
R
V
C
=
R
u
r
a
l
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
E/
l
h
=
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
/
l
a
n
d
s
l
i
d
e
h
a
z
a
r
d
a
r
e
a
c
m
z
=
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
z
o
n
e
(
F
O
R
E
A
S
T
C
O
U
N
T
Y
R
I
V
E
R
S
O
N
L
Y
X
=
Y
e
s
)
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
page 5-19
Fa
c
t
o
r
s
U
s
e
d
t
o
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
Re
a
c
h
A
r
e
a
Sa
l
m
o
n
i
d
Us
e
Sa
l
m
o
n
i
d
No
d
a
l
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
/
Re
f
u
g
i
a
Te
r
r
e
s
t
r
i
a
l
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
Us
e
Er
o
s
i
v
e
/
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
Sl
o
p
e
o
r
C
M
Z
Zo
n
i
n
g
P
u
b
l
i
c
L
a
n
d
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
S
E
D
Mi
l
l
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
s,
r
e/
l
h
CF
,
R
F
x Conservancy
Mi
l
l
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
E
a
s
t
F
o
r
k
1
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
s,
r
CF
,
R
F
x Conservancy
Mi
l
l
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
E
a
s
t
F
o
r
k
2
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
s,
r
CF
x Conservancy
Mi
n
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
Go
o
d
m
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
m
x
eh
CF
x Conservancy
Mo
s
q
u
i
t
o
C
r
e
e
k
1
Mo
s
q
u
i
t
o
C
r
e
e
k
m
CF
x Conservancy
Mo
s
q
u
i
t
o
C
r
e
e
k
2
Mo
s
q
u
i
t
o
C
r
e
e
k
m
CF
,
RF
Conservancy
No
l
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
CF
,
R
R
x Conservancy
Ow
l
C
r
e
e
k
1
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
x
e/
l
h
CF
,
A
L
x Conservancy
Ow
l
C
r
e
e
k
2
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
m
e/
l
h
CF
x Conservancy
Ro
c
k
y
B
r
o
o
k
Do
s
e
w
a
l
l
i
p
s
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
x
x
x
RR
Conservancy
Sa
l
m
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
1
Sn
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
m,
s
,
r
x
AP
,
R
R
,
C
C
,
A
L
,
R
F
,
CF
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
WD
F
W
(
U
N
C
A
S
sc
h
o
o
l
)
Conservancy
Sa
l
m
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
2
Sn
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
m,
s
x
e/
l
h
CF
,
R
F
,
R
R
(
s
m
a
l
l
)
Conservancy
Sa
l
m
o
n
R
i
v
e
r
Sa
l
m
o
n
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
,
r
x
e/
l
h
CF
x Conservancy
Sh
a
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s,
r
x
e/
l
h
CF
x Conservancy
Sn
a
h
a
p
i
s
h
R
i
v
e
r
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s,
r
x
e/
l
h
CF
x Conservancy
Sn
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
1
Sn
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
m,
s
x
RR
,
A
P
,
C
C
,
A
L
WD
F
W
(
U
N
C
A
S
sc
h
o
o
l
)
Conservancy
Sn
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
2
Sn
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
m,
s
x
cl
o
s
e
p
r
ox
i
m
i
t
y
e/
l
h
RR
,
A
P
,
A
L
Conservancy
So
l
l
e
k
s
R
i
v
e
r
1
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
CF
x Conservancy
So
l
l
e
k
s
R
i
v
e
r
2
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
s
CF
x Conservancy
St
e
q
u
a
l
e
h
o
C
r
e
e
k
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
m,
s
CF
x Conservancy
St
e
q
u
a
l
e
h
o
C
r
e
e
k
2
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
p
e/
l
h
CF
x Conservancy
Wi
n
f
i
e
l
d
C
r
e
e
k
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
ms
r
x
e/
l
h
CF
,
R
R
x Conservancy
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
NO
T
E
S
:
x=
Y
E
S
m=
p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
/
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
S=
s
p
a
w
n
i
n
g
R
=
r
e
a
r
i
n
g
RR
=
r
u
r
a
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
CF
=
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
PP
R
=
P
a
r
k
s
/
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
/
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
ea
s
C
C
=
C
r
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
HI=Heavy Industrial
AL
=
L
o
c
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
AP
=
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
RF
=
R
u
r
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
MP
R
=
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
R
e
s
o
r
t
R
V
C
=
R
u
r
a
l
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
page 5-21
Ta
b
l
e
5
-
5
.
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
E
D
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
y
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
R
e
a
c
h
–
L
a
k
e
s
4
Fa
c
t
o
r
s
U
s
e
d
t
o
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
Re
a
c
h
Ba
s
i
n
Sa
l
m
o
n
i
d
Us
e
Te
r
r
e
s
t
r
i
a
l
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Sp
e
c
i
e
s
Us
e
Zo
n
i
n
g
Pu
b
l
i
c
L
a
n
d
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Im
p
a
i
r
m
e
n
t
Recommended SED
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
L
a
k
e
Ch
i
m
a
c
u
m
x
PP
R
x
To
t
a
l
P
h
o
s
p
h
o
r
u
s
Natural
Be
a
u
s
i
t
e
L
a
k
e
Ch
i
m
a
c
u
m
RR
,
C
F
,
R
F
x
Conservancy
Cr
o
c
k
e
r
L
a
k
e
Sn
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
m,
s
,
r
x
RR
x
Fe
c
a
l
C
o
l
i
f
o
r
m
Natural and Conservancy
Gi
b
b
s
L
a
k
e
Ch
i
m
a
c
u
m
m,
r
x
PP
R
x
To
t
a
l
Ph
o
s
p
h
o
r
u
s
Natural
La
k
e
L
e
l
a
n
d
Li
t
t
l
e
Q
u
i
l
c
e
n
e
m
x
RR
,
A
L
,
P
P
R
x
In
v
a
s
i
v
e
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
Conservancy
Lo
r
d
s
L
a
k
e
Li
t
t
l
e
Q
u
i
l
c
e
n
e
m
IF
(i
n
h
o
l
d
i
n
g
fo
r
e
s
t
)
Natural
Lu
d
l
o
w
L
a
k
e
Po
r
t
L
u
d
l
o
w
CF
Natural
Mi
l
l
P
o
n
d
Po
r
t
T
o
w
n
s
e
n
d
B
a
y
x
HI
,
R
R
High Intensity
Pe
t
e
r
s
o
n
L
a
k
e
Ch
i
m
a
c
u
m
m
CF
,
R
F
Natural
Ri
c
e
L
a
k
e
Do
n
o
v
a
n
RR
,
C
R
,
R
F
Natural
Sa
n
d
y
S
h
o
r
e
L
a
k
e
So
u
t
h
e
r
n
T
o
a
n
d
o
s
P
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
,
T
h
o
r
n
d
y
k
e
Ba
y
,
a
n
d
S
q
u
a
m
i
s
h
H
a
r
b
o
r
m
CF
To
t
a
l
P
h
o
s
p
h
o
r
u
s
Conservancy
Ta
r
b
o
o
L
a
k
e
Da
b
o
b
B
a
y
x
CF
,
I
F
x
To
t
a
l
P
h
o
s
p
h
o
r
u
s
Natural
Te
a
l
L
a
k
e
Sq
u
a
m
i
s
h
H
a
r
b
o
r
RR
Natural
Wa
h
l
L
a
k
e
So
u
t
h
e
r
n
T
o
a
n
d
o
s
P
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
,
T
h
o
r
n
d
y
k
e
Ba
y
,
a
n
d
S
q
u
a
m
i
s
h
H
a
r
b
o
r
CF
Natural
4 C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
n
c
y
i
s
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
d
e
f
a
u
l
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
l
l
u
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
s
.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 6-1
6.0 LITERATURE CITED 1
10,000 Years Institute. 2004. Integrated Population and Environmental Baseline Evaluation for
Bull Trout, Lower Hoh River. Prepared for Jefferson County Public Works Department.
July 2004.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Admiralty Audubon Society. 1990. Jefferson County Significant Natural Areas Vol. 1. East
Jefferson. Port Townsend, Washington.
Allan, J.D. 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems.
Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 35: 257-284.
Bahls, P. 2004. Fish Distribution and Abundance in Shallow Intertidal Habitats of Tarboo and
North Dabob Bays. Prepared for Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee.
February 2004.
Bahls, P. 2006. Personal communication to ESA Adolfson, comments on preliminary draft I&C
report. October 2006.
Bahls, P., C. Kindberg, M. Wait, J. Glasgow. 2006. An Assessment of Error in State Shoreline
Designation for Lakes in Washington. Northwest Watershed Institute and Washington
Trout. August, 2006.
Bargmann, G. 1998. Forage Fish Management Plan. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
Benda, L.E., P. Bigalow, and W. Worsley. 2002. Recruitment of instream large wood in old-
growth and second-growth redwood forests, northern California, U.S.A. Canadian
Journal of Forestry Research 32: 1460–1477.
Berbells, R.S. 2003. Shoreline Survey of the Discovery Bay Shellfish Growing Area. Prepared
by Scott Berbells, Public Health Advisor. March 2004.
Beschta, R.L. 1978. Long-term patterns of sediment production following road construction and
logging in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research. 14:1101-1016.
Bilby, R. E. 1984. Characteristics and frequency of cool-water areas in a western Washington
stream. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 2: 593-602.
Bilby, R.E. and J.W. Ward. 1989. Changes in characteristics and function of woody debris with
increasing size of streams in western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 188:368-378.
Bishop D.M. and M.E. Stevens. 1964. Landslides on logged areas in southeast Alaska. U.S.
Dept. Agr. For. Serv. Res. Pap. NOR-1.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 6-2 November 2008
Blunt, D.J., D.J. Easterbrook, and N.W. Rutter. 1987. Chronology of Pleistocene sediments in
the Puget Lowland, Washington, Washington Division of Earth Resources Bulletin 77:
321-353.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Booth, D.B. 1994. Glaciofluvial infilling and scour of the Puget Lowland, Washington, during
ice-sheet glaciation. Geology 22: 695-698.
Booth, D.B. 2000. Forest Cover, Impervious-Surface Area, and the Mitigation of Urbanization
Impacts in King County, Washington. Prepared for King County Water and Land
Resources Division. Seattle, Washington. 18 pp.
Booth, D.B. and C.R. Jackson. 1997. Urbanization of aquatic systems: degradation thresholds,
stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association 33(5): 1077-1090.
Booth, D.B. and L.E. Reinelt. 1993. Consequences of urbanization on aquatic systems –
Measured effects, degradation thresholds, and corrective strategies. Proceedings from
Watershed ’93 A National Conference on Watershed Management, March 21-23, 1993.
pp. 545-550.
Brabec, E., S. Schulte, and P.L. Richards. 2002. Impervious Surfaces and Water Quality: A
Review of Current Literature and Its Implications for Watershed Planning. Journal of
Planning Literature 16(4) 499-514.
Brennan, J.S., and H. Culverwell. 2004. Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions
in Marine Ecosystems. Published by Washington Sea Grant Program Copyright 2005,
UW Board of Regents, Seattle, WA. 27p.
Brewer, S., J. Watson, D. Christensen, and R. Brocksmith. 2005. Hood Canal and Eastern Strait
of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Salmon Recovery Plan. Hood Canal Coordinating
Council, version November 15, 2005.
Brosofske, K.D., J. Chen, R.J. Naiman, and J.F. Franklin. 1997. Harvesting effects on
microclimatic gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington.
Ecological Applications 7:188-1200.
Bulthuis, D.A. 1994. Light environments/implications for management. Pages 23-27 in Wyllie-
Echeverria, S., A.M. Olson, and M.J. Hershman (eds.). Seagrass Science and Policy in
the Pacific Northwest: Proceedings of a Seminar Series School of Marine Affairs.
University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Cascadia Consulting Group. 2003. Watershed Management Plan for the Quilcene-Snow Water
Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 17). Report to the Jefferson County Natural Resources
Division. October 28, 2003.
Casola, J., J. Kay, A. Snover, R. Norheim, and L. Whitely Binder. 2005a. Climate Impacts on
Washington’s Hydropower, Water Supply, Forests, Fish, and Agriculture. Prepared for
King County Conference on Climate Change, by University of Washington Climate
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 6-3
Impacts Group. October 27, 2005. Available at:
http://www.cses.washington.edu/cig/outreach/workshops/kc2005.shtml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Casola, J., J. Kay, and A. Snover. 2005b. Climate Change Impacts Sector Fact Sheets. Prepared
for King County Conference on Climate Change, by University of Washington Climate
Impacts Group. October 27, 2005. Available at:
http://www.cses.washington.edu/cig/outreach/workshops/kc2005.shtml
Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size
requirements—a review. Journal of Environmental Quality 23:878-882.
Cederholm, C.J., L.M. Reid, and E.O. Salo. 1980. Cumulative Effects of Logging Road
Sediment on Salmonid Populations in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County,
Washington. Contribution No. 543, College of Fisheries, University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington.
Christensen, D. 2004. Environmental Analysis of Brinnon Subarea and Associated
Comprehensive Plan and UDC Amendments, Jefferson County Natural Resources
Division. Available at:
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/Brinnon%20Plan/Addendum%20to%2
0FEIS%201-26-2004%20FINAL%20.pdf
Chu, Y.H., 1985. Beach erosion and protection: a case study at Lincoln Park, Seattle: Shore and
Beach 53: 26-32.
Clogston, S. and S. Hopkins, personal communication to Michelle McConnell, Project
Coordinator, May 17, 2007.
Coffin, B.A. and R.D. Harr. 1992. Effects of forest cover on volume of water delivery to soil
during rain-on-snow. Final Report, Project SH-1. Sediment, Hydrology, and Mass
Wasting Steering Committee, Timber/Fish/Wildlife program, Olympia, Washington.
Collins, B.D., and Sheikh A.J. 2005. Historical reconstruction, classification, and change
analysis of Puget Sound tidal marshes. Project Completion Report to: Washington Dept.
Natural Resources, Aquatic Resources Division. Olympia, Washington 98504-7027.
Puget Sound River History Project, Dept. of Earth and Space Sciences, Seattle,
Washington 98195.
Collins, B.D., D.R. Montomery, and A.J. Sheikh. 2003. Chapter 4: Reconstructing the historic
riverine landscape of the Puget lowland. In: Montgomery, D.R., S. Bolton, D.B. Booth,
and L. Wall (eds.). Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers. University of Washington
Press.p. 79-128.
Correa, G. 2002. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors WRIA 17, Quilcene-Snow
Basin, Washington State Conservation Commission.
Correa, G. 2003. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors WRIA 16, Washington
Conservation Commission.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 6-4 November 2008
Cox, S.E., F.W. Simonds, L. Doremus, R.L. Huffman, and R.M. Defawe. 2005. Ground
Water/Surface Water Interactions and Quality of Discharging Ground Water in Streams
of the Lower Nooksack River Basin, Whatcom County, Washington. U.S. Geological
Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5255. 46 p.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Cullinan, T. 2001. Important Bird Areas of Washington, Audubon Washington. Available at:
http://www.audubon.org/chapter/wa/wa/PDFs/IBA-51-92_Western_Lowlands.pdf
Davis, J. 2006. personal communication to ESA Adolfson, comments on preliminary draft I&C
report. October 2006
Diefenderfer, H L., K L. Sobocinski, R. M. Thom, C. W. May, S. L. Southard, A. B. Borde, C.
Judd, J. Vavrinec, and N. K. Sather. 2006. Multi-Scale Restoration Prioritization for
Local and Regional Shoreline Master Programs: A Case Study from Jefferson County,
Washington. Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, Washington Report No.
PNWD-3762. November 22, 2006.
Downing, J. 1983. The Coast of Puget Sound, Its Processes and Development. Washington Sea
Grant Publication, University of Washington Press, Seattle. 126 pp.
Dunne, T., L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in environmental planning. New York: W.H. Freeman and
Co. 818 p.
Easterbrook, D.J. 1969. Pleistocene chronology of the Puget Lowland and the San Juan Islands,
Washington, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 80, p. 2273-2286.
Easterbrook, D.J. 1986. Stratigraphy and chronology of Quaternary deposits of the Puget
Lowland and Olympic Mountains of Washington and the Cascade Mountains of
Washington and Oregon, In Sibrava, V., D.Q. Bowen, and G.M. Richmond, eds.,
Quaternary glaciation in the northern hemisphere, Quaternary Science Reviews. p. 145-
159.
Easterbrook, D.J. 1992. Advance and retreat of Cordilleron ice sheets in Washington, USA:
Geographie physique et Quaternaire, 46(1): 51-68.
Ebbert, J.C., S.S. Embrey, R.W. Black, A.J. Tesoriero, and A.L. Haggland. 2000. Water Quality
in the Puget Sound Basin, Washington and British Columbia, 1996-1998. U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 1216. 31pp.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. Source water protection: its role in controlling
disinfection by-products (dbps) and microbial contaminants. In: R. Clark and B. Boutin
(eds.). Controlling disinfection by-products and microbial contaminants in drinking
water. EPA 600R01110: 4-1 to 4-36.
Euliss, N.H. Jr. and D.M. Mushet. 1999. Influence of agriculture on aquatic invertebrate
communities of temporary wetlands in the prairie pothole region of North Dakota, USA.
Wetlands 19:578-583.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 6-5
Fagergren, D., A. Criss, and D. Christensen. 2004. Hood Canal Low Dissolved Oxygen
Preliminary Assessment and Corrective Action Plan. Puget Sound Action Team and
Hood Canal Coordinating Council. Publication #PSAT04-06. May 6, 2004.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Federal Register. 2005a. Volume 70, Number 170. Friday, September 2, 2005. Endangered and
Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant
Units of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.
Federal Register. 2005b. Volume 70, Number 185. Monday, September 26, 2005. Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Bull Trout.
Federal Register. 2006. Volume 71, Number 115. Thursday, June 15, 2006. Endangered and
Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Southern Resident Killer
Whale.
Floberg, J., M. Goering, G. Wilhere, C. MacDonald, C. Chappell, C. Rumsey, Z. Ferdana, A
Holt, P. Skidmore, T. Horsman, E. Alverson, C. Tanner, M. Bryer, P. Ianchetti, A.
Harcombe, B. McDonald, T. Cook, M. Summers, and D. Rolph. 2004. Willamette
Valley- Puget Trough- Georgia Basin Ecoregional Assessment, Volume One: Report.
Prepared by the Nature Conservancy with support from the Nature Conservancy of
Canada, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of
Natural Resources, Oregon State Natural Heritage Information Center and the British
Columbia Conservation Data Centre.
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT ). 1993. Forest ecosystem
management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. U.S. Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. Portland, Oregon.
Freeze R.A., and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
GeoEngineers. 2004. Characterization of Functions and Ecosystem-Wide Processes, Jefferson
County, Washington. Prepared for City of Port Townsend. November 23, 2004.
Gerstel, W.J., M.J. Brunengo, W.S. Lingley Jr., R.L. Logan, H.S. Shipman, and T.J. Walsh.
1997. Puget Sound Bluffs: The Where, Why, and When of Landslides Following the
Holiday 1996/97 Storms. Washington Geology. March 1997. Vol. 25, no. 1.
Glasoe, S. and A. Christy. 2004. Literature Review and Analysis: Coastal Urbanization and
Microbial Contamination of Shellfish Growing Areas. Puget Sound Action Team
Publication #PSAT04-09.
Golder Associates. 2002. Skokomish- Dosewallips Basin Watershed Planning (WRIA 16) Level
1 Assessment- DRAFT. Prepared for WRIA 16 Planning Unit Steering Committee,
Shelton.
Golder Associates. 2005. Mulit-Purpose Storage Assessment, Water Resources Inventory Area
20. Prepared for Clallam County and the WRIA 20 Planning Unit. June 30, 2005.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 6-6 November 2008
Gorsline. 2004. Personal communication to ESA Adolfson, comments on preliminary draft I&C
report. October 2006
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Granger, T., T.Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, and E.
Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and
Managing Wetlands. FINAL. April 2005. Ecology Publication #05-06-008.
Gray, D., and R.B. Sotir. 1996. Biotechnical and Soil Bioengineering Slope Stabilization: A
Practical Guide for Erosion Control, John Wiley and Sons.
Groot, C. and L. Margolis. 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. University of British Columbia
BC Press. Vancouver, British Columbia. Reprinted in 2003
Gustafson R.G., W.H. Lenarz, B.B. McCain, C.C. Schmitt, W.S. Grant, T.L. Builder, and R.D.
Methot. 2000. Status review of Pacific Hake, Pacific Cod, and Walleye Pollock from
Puget Sound, Washington. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-
44, 275 p.
Hampton, M., G. Griggs, T. Edil, D. Guy, J. Kelly, P. Komar, D. Mickleson, and H. Shipman.
2004. Processes that Govern the Formation and Evolution of Coastal Cliffs: Formation,
Evolution, and Stability of Coastal Cliffs—Status and Trends. USGS Professional Paper
1693, p. 7-38.
Hanson, B.S. and D.J. Easterbrook. 1974. Stratigraphy and palynology of late Quaternary
sediments in the Puget Lowland, Washington: Geological Society of America Bulletin,
85: 587-602.
Haring, D. 1999. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors, Water Resource Inventory
Area 18. Washington State Conservation Commission. December 27, 1999.
Harrison, P.J., D.L. Mackas, B.W. Frost, R.W. Macdonald, and E.A. Crecelius. 1994. An
assessment of nutrients, plankton and some pollutants in the water column of Juan de
Fuca Strait, Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound, and their transboundary transport. Can.
Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1948:138-172
Heifetz, J., M.L. Murphy, and K.V. Koski. 1986. Effects of logging on winter habitat of juvenile
salmonids in Alaskan streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6: 52-
58.
Hemond, H.F. and J. Benoit. 1988. Cumulative Impacts on water quality functions of wetlands.
Environmental Management 12(5):639-653.
Herrera Consultants and Northwest Hydraulics. 2002. Reach Analysis. Hoh River in the vicinity
of U.S. Highway 101, milepost 17.6.6 170.2. Prepared for the Washington State
Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs Office.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 6-7
Herrera Environmental Consultants (Herrera). 2005. City of Bellevue’s Critical Areas Update,
2005 Best Available Science (BAS) Review. Report to the City of Bellevue, Bellevue,
WA. March 23, 2005.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Hirschi, R. 1999. Critical nearshore habitats, Tala to Kala Point, Jefferson County. Prepared for
Jefferson County Long Range Planning, Port Townsend, 33 p.
Hirschi, R., T. Doty, A. Keiler, and T. Labbe. 2003a. Juvenile salmonid use of tidal creek and
independent marsh areas in North Hood Canal: summary of first year findings. Point No
Point Treaty Council.
Hirschi, R., T. Labbe, and A. Carter- Mortimer. 2003b. Shoreline Alterations in Hood Canal and
the Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca. Point No Point Treaty Council Technical Report 03-1.
Hirschi. 2003. personal communication to Neil Harrington, Jefferson County.
Hoh River Trust. 2006. www.hohrivertrust.org (accessed 11/1/06). 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Hood Canal Coordinating Council. 2005. Salmon Habitat Recovery Strategy for the Hood Canal
& Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca, Version 09-2005. Poulsbo, WA.
Hood Canal Dissolved Oxygen Program (HCDOP). 2006. www.hoodcanal.washington.edu
Hook, A. 2004. WRIA 20 Technical Assessment Level I, Water Quality and Habitat. Prepared
for the WRIA 20 Planning Unit. June 10, 2004.
Hruby, T., S. Stanley, T. Granger, T. Duebendorfer, R. Friesz, B. Lang, B. Leonard, K. March,
and A. Wald. 2000. Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions, Volume II: Depressional
Wetlands in the Columbia Basin of Eastern Washington. Publication #00-06-47.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis – Summary for Policy Makers. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. February
2007. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/
Jacobsen, E. E. and M.L. Schwartz. 1981. The use of geomorphic indicators to determine the
direction of net shore-drift. Shore and Beach, 49: 38-42.
Jefferson County Department of Community Development (JCDCD). 2005. Wahl permit
decision with SEPA MLA03-00377.
http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/PDFS/FINAL%20WAHL%20decision
%207-18-05.pdf
Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee (MRC). 2006. Jefferson County Marine
Resource Maps. Available at: http://jefferson.wsu.edu/mrc/maps.html
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 6-8 November 2008
Jefferson County. 2002. Jefferson County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. September
2002.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Jeffries, S.J., P.J. Gearin, H.R. Huber, D.L. Saul, and D.A. Pruett. 2000. Atlas of Seal and Sea
Lion Haulout Sites in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Wildlife Science Division, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia WA. pp. 150.
Johannessen, J. 1992. Net Shore-Drift of San Juan and parts of Jefferson, Island and Snohomish
Counties, Washington. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington
Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.
Johannessen, J. 1999. Critical shoreline areas relative to critical nearshore habitats at Tala Point
to Kala Point, Eastern Jefferson County, Washington. Prepared for Jefferson County
Planning Department. Prepared by Coastal Geologic Services, Inc.
Johannessen, J.W. 1993. Net Shore-Drift of San Juan County and Parts of Jefferson, Island and
Snohomish Counties, Washington. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Western Washington
University., Bellingham, 175 p.
Johannessen, J.W. and M.C. Chase. 2003. Point Whitehorn to Birch Bay State Park Shoreline
Reach Analysis, Whatcom County WA. Final Report. Prepared for Whatcom County
Public Works, River and Flood Division by Coastal Geologic Services, Inc. 33p.
Johannessen, J.W., and M.C. Chase. 2002. Coastal Processes, Historic Shoreline Change, and
Sediment Distribution of Portage Bay, Lummi Indian Reservation, WA. Prepared for the
Lummi Nation by Coastal Geologic Services, Inc. Bellingham, Washington.
Johnson, A.W. and D. Ryba. 1992. A literature review of recommended buffer widths to
maintain various functions of stream riparian areas. King County Surface Water
Management Division, Seattle, Washington.
Kahler, T., M Grassley, and D. Beauchamp. 2000. A Summary of the Effects of Bulkheads,
Piers, and Other Artificial Structures and Shorezone Development on ESA-listed
Salmonids in Lakes: Final Report. Prepared for City of Bellevue, July 2000.
Kalina, B. 2000. personal communication to Neil Harrington, Jefferson County.
Keuler, R.F. 1979. Coastal zone processes and geomorphology of Skagit County, Washington.
Unpublished M.S. thesis, Western Washington University., Bellingham, 127 p., 8 maps.
Keuler, R.F. 1988. Map showing coastal erosion, sediment supply, and longshore transport in the
Port Townsend 30- by 60-minute quadrangle, Puget Sound region, Washington. U.S.
Geologic Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-1198-E, scale 1:100,000.
King County Department of Natural Resources (KCDNR). 2001. Reconnaissance Assessment of
the State of the Nearshore Report: Including Vashon and Maury Islands (WRIAs 8 and
9). Seattle, WA
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 6-9
King County. 2006. King County Shoreline Master Program. DRAFT. December 2006. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
King County. 2004. Best Available Science, Volume I: A Review of Science Literature. Critical
Areas, Stormwater, and Clearing and Grading Proposed Ordinances. King County
Executive Report. Seattle, Washington. February, 2004.
Klawon, J.E. 2004. Channel Migration Zone Study for the Duckabush, Dosewallips, Big
Quilcene and Little Quilcene Rivers, Jefferson County, Washington. US Department of
Interior Bureau of Reclamation. September 2004.
Knutson, K.L. and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority
Habitats: Riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
Komar, P.D. 1976. Beach Processes and Sedimentation. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
429 p.
Labbe, T. 2004. personal communication to Neil Harrington, Jefferson County.
Labbe, T., A. Adams, and B.Conrad. 2006. Hood Canal riparian landscapes: early historical
condition and ecological changes. Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
Labbe, T., R. Grotefendt, A. Carter-Mortimer, and J.L. Jones. 2005. Dosewallips River Habitat
Assessment: Coupling High-Resolution Remote Sensing and Ground Surveys to
Prioritize Aquatic Conservation, Olympic Mountains, Washington State. Final Report to
USDI – Bureau of Indian Affairs. December 6, 2005.
Lance, M., S. Richardson, and H. Allen. 2004. State of Washington Sea Otter Recovery Plan.
Prepared by WDFW, Olympia WA.Lambert, G. 2005. Invasive Ascidians in Washington
State—Problematic Species and Current Status. Prepared for WDFW. December 2005.
available online at http://www.psat.wa.gov/Programs/Aquatic.htm (accessed 10/31/06) 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Latham, A. 2006. personal communication to Michelle McConnell, Jefferson County, October
12, 2006.
Lemieux, J.P., J.S. Brennan, M. Farrell, C.D. Levings, and D. Myers (Editors). 2004. Canadian
Manuscript Report Of Fisheries And Aquatic Sciences No. 2680. Proceedings of the
DFO/PSAT Sponsored Marine Riparian Experts Workshop, Sawwassen, BC, February
17-18, 2004.
Leon, H.C. and A.L. Driscoll. 1975. The tidal marshes of Jefferson County, Washington.
Prepared for: Jefferson County Planning Department, Port Townsend, Washington
Levings, C. and G. Jamieson. 2001. Marine and estuarine riparian habitats and their role in
coastal ecosystems, Pacific region. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research
Document 2001/109. 41 p. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/.
Long, K. 2004. personal communication to Neil Harrington, Jefferson County.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 6-10 November 2008
Long, K., N.E. Harrington and P.J. Mackrow. 2003. Forage fish spawning site investigation for
Eastern Jefferson County, Northeastern Kitsap County and North Mason County, North
Olympic Salmon Coalition. Second year status report to the Jefferson County Marine
Resources Committee.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Long, K., N.E. Harrington and P.J. Mackrow. 2005. Intertidal forage fish spawning site
investigation for Eastern Jefferson County, Northeastern Kitsap County and North Mason
County 2001-2004. Prepared by North Olympic Salmon Coalition. Final Report to:
Salmon Recovery Funding Board, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee, Jefferson County, and City of Port
Townsend.
Lowrie, R. 2005. Personal communication to Neil Harrington, Jefferson County.
MacDonald, K., D. Simpson, B. Paulsen, J. Cox, and J. Gendron. 1994. Shoreline Armoring
Effects on Physical Coastal Processes in Puget Sound, Washington. Coastal Erosion
Management Studies Volume 5. Shorelands and Water Resources Program, Washington
Department of Ecology, Olympia. Report # 94-78.
May, C. and G. Peterson. 2003. East Jefferson County Salmonid Refugia Report.
May, C.W. 2000. Protection of stream riparian ecosystems: a review of best available science.
Prepared for Kitsap County Natural Resources Coordinator. July 2000.
McConnell, M. 2007. Personal communication to ESA Adolfson, comments on final draft
STAC report. April 2007.
McDade, M.H., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, J.F. Franklin, and J. VanSickle. 1990. Source
distances for coarse woody debris entering small streams in western Oregon and
Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 20: 326-330.
Menashe, E. 2001. “Bio-structural” Erosion Control: Incorporating Vegetation in Engineering
Designs to protect Puget Sound Shorelines. In: Puget Sound Research 2001, Conference
Proceedings, Puget Sound Action Team. Bellevue, WA, 2001.
Menashe, E., 1993, Vegetation Management: A guide for Puget Sound bank property owners,
Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of
Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Morgan, D.S. and J.L. Jones. 1999. Numerical Model Analysis of the Effects of Ground-Water
Withdrawals on Discharge to Streams and Springs in Small Basins Typical of the Puget
Sound Lowland, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2492. 73 pp.
Murray, M and L. Ferguson. 1998. The Status of Marine Protected Areas in Puget Sound,
Volume II: MPA Site Profiles & Appendices. March 1998. Prepared for the Puget
Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force Work Group on Marine Protected Areas
with support from Puget Sound Action Team U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 6-11
Nelson, E. 2000. Sediment Budget of a Mixed-use, Urbanizing Watershed. Proceedings
AWRA’s 1999 Annual Water Resources Conference - Watershed Management to Protect
Declining Species. December 1999, Seattle, WA. American Water Resources
Association, 469.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Newton, J.A., S.L. Albertson, K. Nakata, and C. Cishe. 1998. Washington State Marine Water
Quality in 1996 and 1997, No. 98-338. Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Nightingale, B. 2000. Summary report from a literature and data search on the status of marine
resources in Jefferson County, WA. Prepared for the Jefferson County Marine Resources
Committee, 67p.
Nightingale, B. 2002. Shoreline inventory summary report, Jefferson County Planning
Department, p. 94 pp.
Norris, J. 2007. Personal communication to ESA Adolfson. May 2007.
O’Connor, J.E., M.A. Jones, and T.L. Haluska. 2003. Flood plain and channel dynamics of the
Quinault and Queets Rivers, Washington, USA. Geomorphology 51 (2003): 31–59.
Olympic National Park (ONP). 2006. Questions and Answers about the Proposed Reintroduction
of Fishers to Olympic National Park. January 2006.
Parametrix, Adolfson Associates, Earth Systems, Coastal Geologic Services, and Jennifer
Thomas and Associates. 2005. Final Whatcom County Critical Areas Ordinance Best
Available Science Review and Recommendations for Code Update. Prepared for
Whatcom County Planning and Development Services, Bellingham, WA. May 2005.
Parametrix, Inc., Olympic Park Institute, and Olympic National Park. 2005. Environmental
Assessment: OPI and Rosemary Inn Historic District Improvement Project. Prepared for
Olympic Park Institute and Olympic National Park. February 2005.
Parametrix, Inc., Pacific Groundwater Group, Inc., Montgomery Water Group, Inc., and
Caldwell and Associates. 2000. Stage 1 technical assessment as of February 2000 of
WRIA 17. Prepared for WRIA 17 planning group. October 2000.
Paul, M.J., and J.L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics 32: 333–365.
Paulson, A.J., C.P Konrad, L.M. Frans, M. Noble, C. Kendall, E.G. Josberger, R.L. Huffman,
and T.D. Olsen. 2006. Freshwater and saline loads of dissolved inorganic nitrogen to
Hood Canal and Lynch Cove, western Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2006-5106.
Pentec Environmental. 2001. Use of Best Available Science in City of Everett Buffer
Regulations. Report to the City of Everett Planning and Community Development
Department. Edmonds, WA. March 15, 2001.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 6-12 November 2008
Penttila, D. 2000. Documented spawning areas of the pacific herring (Clupea), surf smelt
(Hypomesus) and Pacific Sand Lance (Ammodytes) in East Jefferson County. Washington
State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marine Resources Division Manuscript Report.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Penttila, D.E. 1978. Studies of the surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) in Puget Sound. Wash.
Dept. Fisheries Technical Report 42. 47pp.
Penttila, D.E. 1995. Investigations of the spawning habitat of the Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes
hexapterus) in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Research ’95 Proceedings, Bellevue, WA.
Perkins Geosciences and TerraLogic GIS. 2004. Lower Hoh Channel Migration Study Summary
Report. Prepared for the Hoh Indian Tribe, June 2004.
Perkins Geosciences and TerraLogic GIS. 2004. Lower Hoh River Channel Migration Study.
Prepared for the Hoh Tribe .
Perkins, S.J. and J. Klawon. 2004. Channel Migration Hazard Maps for the Dosewallips,
Duckabush, Big Quilcene, and Little Quilcene Rivers, Jefferson County, Washington.
Final Draft Report. Prepared for Jefferson County Natural Resources Division. October
2004.
Pessl, F., Jr., D.P. Dethier, D.B. Booth, and J.P. Minard. 1989. Surficial geology of the Port
Townsend 1:100,000 quadrangle. Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous
Investigations Map I-1198F.
Peterson, G. 2005. Estimating Impervious Surface in the Hood Canal/Eastern Strait of Juan de
Fuca Summer Chum ESU Geographic Area Under Buildout Conditions. 2005 Mid-year
Report. Submitted to Hood Canal Coordinating Council.
Phillips, R.C. 1994. The ecology of eelgrass meadows in the Pacific Northwest: A community
profile. USFWS tech. rep. FWS/OBS-84/24. U.S. Dept. of the Interior Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Phinney, L.A. and P. Bucknell. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization,
Volume 2, Coastal Region. Washington Department of Fisheries.
Pollock, M. M. and P. M. Kennard, 1998. A low-risk strategy for preserving riparian buffers
needed to protect and restore salmonid habitat in forested watersheds of Washington
State, 10,000 Years Institute, Bainbridge Island, WA.
Puget Sound Action team (PSAT). 2001. Sound Facts: Eelgrass. Available at:
http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/Fact_sheets/eelgrass.pdf 31
32
33
Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT). 2005. Regional Nearshore and Marine Aspects of Salmon
Recovery in Puget Sound. Prepared for Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. June 28, 2005.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 6-13
Puget Sound Action Team (PSAT). 2006. Aquatic Nuisance Species News. October 6, 2006. 1
http://www.psat.wa.gov/Programs/ANS/tunicate_update_100606.htm (accessed
10/31/06).
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Rapp, A., D.H. Murray-Rust, C. Christiansson and L. Berry. 1972. Soil erosion and
sedimentation in four catchments near Dodoma, Tanzania. Geografiska Annaler, Series
A, 54A(3): 255-318.
Redman, S., D. Myers, and D. Averill. 2005. Regional Nearshore and Marine Aspects of
Salmon Recovery in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Action Team. From contributions by the
editors and Kurt Fresh and Bill Graeber, NOAA Fisheries. Delivered to Shared Strategy
for Puget Sound for inclusion in their regional salmon recovery plan. June 28, 2005.
Reeves, G.H., K.M. Burnett, and E.V. McGarry. 2003. Sources of large wood in the main stem
of a fourth-order watershed in coastal Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources
33:1363-1370.
Rice, C.A. 2006. Effects of Shoreline Modification on a Northern Puget Sound Beach:
Microclimate and Embryo Mortality in Surf Smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus). Estuaries and
Coasts 29(1): 63–71.
Roering, J.J., K.M. Schmidt, J.D. Stock, W.E. Dietrich and D.R. Montgomery. 2003. Shallow
landsliding, root reinforcement, and the spatial distribution of trees in the Oregon Cost
Range, Canadian Geotechnical Journal 40: 237-253.
Rosen, J.. 1977. Increasing shoreline erosion rates with decreasing tidal range in the Virginia
Chesapeake Bay: Chesapeake Science 18: 383-386.
Rot, Byron. 1996. The importance of floodplain backchannels to overwintering salmonids: a
literature review with specific references to the floodplain at RM 19 on the Hoh River,
Washington. Report commissioned by the Hoh Indian Tribe.
Ruckelshaus, M. H. and M. M. McClure. 2007. Sound Science: Synthesizing ecological and
socioeconomic information about the Puget Sound ecosystem. prepared in cooperation
with the Sound Science collaborative team. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic
& Atmospheric Administration (NMFS), Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle,
Washington.93 p.
Schueler, T.R., and H.K. Holland (eds.). 2000a. Article 1: The Importance of Imperviousness. In
The Practice of Watershed Protection. The Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City,
MD.
Schueler, T.R., and H.K. Holland (eds.). 2000b. Article 19: Dynamics of Urban Stream Channel
Enlargement. In The Practice of Watershed Protection. The Center for Watershed
Protection, Ellicott City, MD.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 6-14 November 2008
Schueler, T.R., and H.K. Holland (eds.). 2000c. Article 20: Stream Channel Geometry Used to
Assess Land Use Impacts in the Northwest. In The Practice of Watershed Protection. The
Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Schueler, T.R., and H.K. Holland (eds.). 2000d. Article 129: The Peculiarities of Perviousness.
In The Practice of Watershed Protection. The Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott
City, MD.
Schwartz, M.L., B.D. Harp, B.E. Taggart, and M. Chrzastowski. 1991. Net shore-drift in
Washington state: Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program. WA Dept. of
Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Shipman, H. 1991. Coastal barriers and accreted landforms in Washington state: Inventory and
characterization. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington
Department of Ecology, Olympia.
Shipman, H. 2001. Coastal Landsliding on Puget Sound: A review of landslides occurring
between 1996 and 1999. Publication #01-06-019, Shorelands and Environmental
Assistance Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia.
Shipman, H. 2004. Coastal Bluffs and Sea Cliffs on Puget Sound, Washington. In M.A.
Hampton and G.B. Griggs (eds.). Formation, Evolution, and Stability of Coastal Cliffs-
Status and Trends. USGS Professional Paper 1693. United States Geological Survey.
p81-94.
Silver, J. . personal communication to ESA Adolfson, comments on preliminary draft I&C
report. October 2006
Simenstad, C.A., K.L. Fresh, and E.0. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington
Coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function, p. 343-
364. In V. S. Kennedy (ed.), Estuarine Comparisons, Academic Press, New York.
Simenstad, C.A.. 2000. Appendix Report 3.5. Estuarine Landscape Impacts on Hood Canal and
Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Salmon and Recommended Actions. In Summer
Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative An Implementation Plan to Recover Summer
Chum in the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Region. Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes. April 2000.
Simonds, F.W., C.I. Longpré, and G.B. Justin. 2003. Hydrogeology of the Chimacum Creek
Basin and Surface Water / Groundwater Interactions in the Quilcene Bay Area, Eastern
Jefferson County, Washington. US Geological Survey, prepared in cooperation with the
Jefferson Count Department of Natural Resources. Tacoma, WA.
Smith, C.J. 2000. Salmon and steelhead habitat limiting factors in the North Washington coastal
streams of WRIA 20. Washington State Conservation Commission.
Smith, C.J. and J. Caldwell. 2001. Salmon and steelhead limiting factors in the Washington
coastal streams of WRIA 21. Washington State Conservation Commission
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 6-15
Snohomish County, 2005. Draft Summary of Best Available Science for Critical Areas. June
2005. Snohomish County Planning and Development Services. Everett, WA.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Soehl, D. 2001. Personal communication to Neil Harrington, Jefferson County.
Speck. 2004. Personal communication to Neil Harrington, Jefferson County.
Stanley, S., J. Brown, and S. Grigsby. 2005. Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems: A Guide for Puget
Sound Planners to Understand Watershed Processes. Washington State Department of
Ecology. Publication #05-06-027. Olympia, Washington.
Strickland, R.M. 1983. The Fertile Fjord: Plankton in Puget Sound. Seattle, WA. Washington
Sea Grant, University of Washington.
Swanson, F.J., L.E. Benda, S.H. Duncan, G.E. Grant, W.F. Megahan, L.M. Reid, and R.R.
Ziemer. 1987. Mass failure and other processes of sediment production in Pacific
Northwest forest landscapes. Pages 9-38 in E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy, eds. Streamside
management : forestry and fishery interaction. College of Forest Resources Contribution
Number 57, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Tabor, R.W. and Cady, W.M. 1978. Geological map of the Olympic Peninsula, Washington:
U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigation Series Map I-994, scale 1:125,000.
Thom, R. M., A. B. Borde, G. D. Williams, J. A. Southard, S. L. Blanto and D. L. Woodruff,.
2001. Effects of Multiple Stressors on Eelgrass Restoration Projects. Battelle Marine
Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. In Puget Sound Research.
Thom, R., L. Antrim, A. Borde, W. Gardiner, D. Schreffler, P. Farley, J. Norris, S.Willey-
Echeverria, and T. McKenzie. 1998. Puget Sound's eelgrass meadows: Depth distribution
and spatial patchiness. Puget Sound '98,Conference Proceedings, March 12-13, 1998,
Seattle, WA.
Thorsen, G.W. 1987. Soil Bluffs + Rain = Slide hazards. Washington Geologic Newsletter 15(3):
3-11.
Todd, S., N. Fitzpatrick, A. Carter-Mortimer , and C. Weller. 2006. Historical Changes to
Estuaries, Spits, and Associated Tidal Wetland Habitats in the Hood Canal and Strait of
Juan de Fuca Regions of Washington State. Final Report. Point No Point Treaty Council
Technical Report 06-1. December 2006.
Todd, Steve. 2006. Point No Point Treaty Council Habitat Biologist, personal communication to
Michelle McConnell, Jefferson County Department of Community Development,
October 2006.
Tomassi, S. 2004. Management Strategies for Core Wildlife Habitat Areas in Eastern Jefferson
County. Final Draft. Prepared for Jefferson County Department of Natural Resources.
March 1, 2004.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 6-16 November 2008
Tubbs, D.W. 1974. Causes, Mechanisms and Prediction of Landsliding in Seattle. Unpublished
dissertation, University of Washington, November 1975.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
United States Bureau of Reclamation (2004) , Geomorphic Assessment of the Hoh River,
Washington State, Hoh River Miles 17 to 40: Oxbow Canyon and Mount Tom Creek
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center,
Denver, Colorado.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Puget Sound Georgia Basin
Ecosystem: Species at Risk. Available at:
http://epa.gov/region10/psgb/indicators/species_at_risk/
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Listed and Proposed Endangered and
Threatened Species and Critical Habitat; Candidate Species; and Species of Concern in
Jefferson County. Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office. Revised December 20,
2005.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. Determination of Upstream Boundaries on
Western Washington Streams and Rivers Under the Requirements of the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971. By David L. Kresch, Water-Resources Investigations Report
96-4208. Prepared in cooperation with Washington State Department of Ecology.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. An Assessment of Available Data and
Information and Possible Methods of Analysis of the Water Resources of the Elwha-
Morse Watershed, Washington. Tacoma, WA. March 2000.
USDA, Forest Service (USFS). 1998. Forest plan monitoring and evaluation report - 1998. Idaho
Panhandle National Forests. Coeur d'Alene, ID. 166 pp. [835k]
USDA, Forest Service (USFS). 1999. Forest plan monitoring and evaluation report - 1999. Idaho
Panhandle National Forests. Coeur d'Alene, ID. 77 pp. [795k]
Vaccaro, J.J., A.J. Hansen Jr., and M.A. Jones. 1998. Hydrogeologic Framework of the Puget
Sound Aquifer System, Washington and British Columbia. Part of the Regional Aquifer-
System Analysis – Puget- Willamette Lowland. U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 1424 – D. 77 pp.
Van Metre, P., B. Mahler, and E. Furlong. 2000. Urban sprawl leaves its PAH signature.
Environmental Science Technology 34:4064-4070.
Van Sickle, J., and S.V. Gregory. 1990. Modeling inputs of large woody debris to streams from
falling trees. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20: 1593-1601.
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 1978. Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington,
Volume Eleven, Jefferson County. General editor Carl Youngman.
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2001 Shoreline Photos Shorelands and
Environmental Assistance Program
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 6-17
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2005. Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington. Publication Numbers 05-10-029 through 05-10-032. February
2005.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2006. Cleanup sites.
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2007. Draft Watershed Characterization for
Jefferson County, Version 2. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program. January
26, 2007. Prepared for Jefferson County Department of Community Development.
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). Puget Sound Shorelines. Available at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pugetsound/species/shorebird.html
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2000a. Critical spawning habitat for
herring, surf smelt, sand lance, and rock sole in Puget Sound Washington. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Program. Olympia, Washington.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2000b. Salmonid and Steelhead Stock
Inventory (SaSSI). Accessed August 2006. Available at:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sassi/intro.htm
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2006. Aquatic Invasive Species Fact
Sheets: Tunicates. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/factshts/tunicates_fact_mar06.htm
Washington Department of Health (WDH). 2006a Early warning system summary for shellfish
growing areas on Jefferson County. Available at:
http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/sf/growreports.htm#county
Washington Department of Health (WDH). 2006b. Recreational Shellfish Beach Closures Due to
Biotoxin or Pollution. Jefferson County. Available at:
http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/sf/BiotoxinProgram.htm
Washington Department Of Health (WDOH). 2005. Report to the Puget Sound Action Team.
Nitrogen Reducing Technologies for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. Office Of
Environmental Health & Safety. Wastewater Management Program Division. June 2005.
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 1991. Rain on Snow Zones. GIS
mapping and metadata prepared by WDNR Forest Practices Division. Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2001. Washington State ShoreZone
Inventory, Nearshore Habitat Program, Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2005. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement on the Policy for Sustainable Forests. April 2005.
Washington Forest Practices Board (WFPB). 1997. Standard Methodology for Conducting
Watershed Analysis, Version 4.0. Appendix D, pg. D-18. Washington Department of
Natural Resources, Olympia, WA.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 6-18 November 2008
Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA). 2007. Spartina Eradication Program
2006 Progress Report. WSDA Spartina Program , Olympia, WA.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA). 2001 Spartina Management Plan for
Hood Canal. WSDA Spartina Program, Olympia, WA.
Washington State Parks (WSP). 2006. Parks Information website. Available at:
http://www.parks.wa.gov/parks/
WDFW and PNPTC. 2000. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative, An Implementation
Plan to Recover Summer Chum in the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Region.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes. April
2000.
Welch, E.B. J.M. Jacoby, and C.W. May. 2003. Stream Quality. In: R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby,
eds. River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific coastal ecoregion.
Springer-Verlag New York Inc., New York. pp. 69-85.
Western Rivers Conservancy. 2006. Washington Campaigns, Creating a Salmon Sanctuary, Hoh
River, Jefferson County, Washington. http://www.westernrivers.org/camp_wa_hoh.html
(accessed 11/2/06).
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Whetton, J.T., P.I. Carroll, H.D. Grower, E.H. Brown, and F. Pessl Jr. 1988. Bedrock geological
map of the Port Townsend 30- by 60-minute quadrangle, Puget Sound region,
Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-1198-G, scale
1:100,000.
Williams, G. D. and R.M., Thom. 2001. Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Modification Issues.
Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of
Ecology, and the Washington Department of Transportation. April 2001. Battelle Marine
Sciences Laboratory Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Williams, G.D., and R.M. Thom. 2001. Development of Guidelines for Aquatic Habitat
Protection and Restoration: Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Modification Issues. PNWD-
3087. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Washington Department of Ecology, by
Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, Washington.
Williams, G.D., R.M. Thom, and N.R. Evans. 2004. Bainbridge Island Nearshore Habitat
Characterization and Assessment, Management Strategy Prioritization, and Monitoring
Recommendations. Prepared for City of Bainbridge Island. November 2004.
Winter, T.C. 1988. A conceptual framework for assessing cumulative impacts on the hydrology
of nontidal wetlands. Environmental Management 12(5):605-620.
Woodruff, D., A. Borde, G. Williams, J. Southard, R. Thom, C. Simenstad, R. Garono, R.
Robinson, and J. Norris. 2002. Mapping of subtidal and intertidal habitat resources: Hood
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
November 2008 page 6-19
Canal Floating Bridge, Washington. Prepared for the Washington State Transportation
Commission.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
WRIA 16 Planning Unit. 2006. Watershed Management Plan, Skokomish-Dosewallips Water
Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 16), Including the WRIA 14 South Shore Sub-basin.
February 2006.
Zelo, I. and H. Shipman, 2000. Alternative Bank Protection Methods for Puget Sound
Shorelines, prepared for the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program,
Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington, Publication #00-06-012.
Ziemer, R.R. and D.N. Swanston. 1977. Root strength changes after logging in southeast Alaska.
U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Res. Note PNW-306. Portland, OR, USA.
Not Cited In Text 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Caicco, S.L. 1989. Natural Features Report: Dabob Bay Natural Area Reserve. Prepared for
Division of Land and Water Conservation, Department of Natural Resources, Olympia,
Washington
Finlayson, D., and H. Shipman. 2003. Puget Sound Drift Cells: The importance of waves and
wave climate: Puget Sound Notes, v. 47, p. 1-4.
Heufelder, G.R. and S.G. Rask. No date. Survival and Transport of Enteric Bacteria and Viruses
in the Nearshore Marine Environment: An Annotated Bibliography. Excerpted on:
http://www.learntitle5.org/Apendix1.htm 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Jefferson County Department of Public Works. 1998. Lower Big Quilcene River Comprehensive
Flood Hazard Management Plan, Quilcene, Washington. Prepared for Jefferson County
Department of Public Works and State of Washington, Department of Ecology. Grant
Number G9700029.
Jones, M.A. 1998. Geologic Framework for the Puget Sound Aquifer System, Washington and
British Columbia. Part of the Regional Aquifer-System Analysis – Puget- Willamette
Lowland. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1424 – C. 31 pp.
Magnuson, M.D. 1972. Washington Climate for these counties: Clallam, Grays Harbor,
Jefferson, Pacific, Wahkiakum. Washington State University Cooperative Extension
Service
Mahala, J. 1985. Net shore-drift along the Pacific Coast of Clallam and Jefferson counties,
Washington, unpublished masters thesis, Western Washington University.
Montgomery, D.R. and J.M. Buffington. 1993. Channel classification, prediction of channel
response, and assessment of channel conditions. Washington State Dept. of Natural
Resources, Timber/Fish/Wildlife Agreement, Rpt. TFW-SH10-93-002, 84 p.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
page 6-20 November 2008
Nysewander, D.R. and J.R. Evenson. 1999. Status and trends for selected diving duck species
examined by the marine Bird Component, Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program
(PSAMP). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Team. 1992. The Discovery Bay Watershed. Discovery
Bay Watershed Management Committee, Jefferson County, Washington.
Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. 2002. 2002 Puget Sound Update: Eighth Report of the
Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team.
Olympia, Washington
Thompson, R.E. 1994. Physical oceanography of the Strait of Georgia-Puget Sound-Juan de
Fuca Strait System. Institute of Ocean Sciences, Sidney, BC. P36-100. In Wilson, R.C.H.,
R.J. Beamish, F. Atkins and J. Bell (eds). Review of the marine environment and biota of
Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound and Juan de Fuca Strait: Proceedings of the BC/WA
Symposium on the Marine Environment, Jan 13 and 14, 1994. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish
Aquat. Sci. 1948: 398p.
Washington Sea Grant. 2000. Draft Northwest Straits Overview, A Science Gap Report. Seattle,
Washington. April 2000. Prepared for the Northwest Straits Commission.
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
Appendix A – Grant Agreement With Ecology
November 2008 Appendix A
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
Appendix B – Maps From Neil Harrington’s 2005
Shoreline Inventory And Analysis Report
November 2008 Appendix B
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
Appendix C – Final Inventory And Characterization Map Folio
November 2008 Appendix C
Jefferson County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report – Revised November 2008
Appendix D – Assessment Of Conditions For Additional
Streams Designated By Ecology’s Updated List Of
Streams/Rivers Meeting The Definition Of Shorelines Of The
State In Jefferson County
November 2008 Appendix D
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
-
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
o
f
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
t
r
e
a
m
s
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
b
y
E
c
ol
o
g
y
’
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
S
t
r
e
a
m
s
/
R
i
v
e
r
s
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
D
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
of
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
i
n
J
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
St
r
e
a
m
Re
a
c
h
#
w
i
t
h
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
WR
I
A
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
Mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
io
n
T
y
p
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
In
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Se
c
t
i
o
n
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
In
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Pg
.
#
La
n
d
U
s
e
Zo
n
i
n
g
Current SMP Designation (Downstream if New) Biological Resources Additional information
Do
w
a
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
Ne
w
20
Bo
g
a
c
h
i
e
l
Ri
v
e
r
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
.
6
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
Do
w
a
n
s
C
r
e
e
k
;
n
o
t
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
4.
3
.
1
4
91
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19)
Ea
s
t
a
n
d
W
e
s
t
Fo
r
k
s
G
o
o
d
m
a
n
Cr
e
e
k
3
20
Go
o
d
m
a
n
Cr
e
e
k
su
b
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
G
o
o
d
m
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
Re
a
c
h
3
.
T
h
e
n
e
w
l
i
m
i
t
i
s
0
.
4
mi
l
e
s
u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m
o
f
t
h
e
E
/
W
fo
r
k
c
o
n
v
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
a
l
o
n
g
E
f
o
r
k
4.
3
.
2
4
94
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19)
Mi
n
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
1
20
Go
o
d
m
a
n
Cr
e
e
k
su
b
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
M
i
n
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
,
2
0
CF
S
l
i
m
i
t
n
o
w
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
2
.
8
mi
l
e
s
a
b
o
v
e
c
o
n
v
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
Go
o
d
m
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
4.
3
.
2
4
94
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory (Map 19)
Mo
s
q
u
i
t
o
C
r
e
e
k
,
N
F
o
r
k
M
o
s
q
u
i
t
o
Cr
e
e
k
2
20
Mo
s
q
u
i
t
o
Cr
e
e
k
su
b
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
/
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
LB
T
r
i
b
n
o
l
o
n
g
e
r
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
M
a
i
n
s
t
e
m
n
o
w
en
d
s
a
t
c
o
n
v
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
N
Fo
r
k
,
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
.
1
m
i
l
e
s
al
o
n
g
N
F
o
r
k
M
o
s
q
u
i
t
o
C
r
e
e
k
4.
3
.
3
4
96
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19)
No
l
a
n
C
r
e
e
k
1
20
Ho
h
(
R
e
a
c
h
1/
2
)
su
b
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
N
o
l
a
n
C
r
k
,
2
0
CF
S
l
i
m
i
t
n
o
w
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
4
.
3
mi
l
e
s
a
b
o
v
e
c
o
n
v
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
Ho
h
4.
3
.
4
4
97
Ru
r
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19)
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
ne
w
20
Ho
h
(
R
e
a
c
h
2
)
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
0
.
5
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
r
k
;
n
o
t
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
4.
3
.
4
4
97
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19)
He
l
l
R
o
a
r
i
n
g
Cr
e
e
k
ne
w
20
Ho
h
(
R
e
a
c
h
2
)
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
.
7
m
i
l
e
o
f
H
e
l
l
Ro
a
r
i
n
g
C
r
k
;
n
o
t
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
4.
3
.
4
4
97
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19) Inventoried Landslide Hazard (Map 16)
Wi
n
f
i
e
l
d
C
r
e
e
k
1
20
Ho
h
(
R
e
a
c
h
3
)
su
b
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
W
i
n
f
i
e
l
d
C
r
e
e
k
,
20
C
F
S
l
i
m
i
t
n
o
w
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
4
.
0
mi
l
e
s
a
b
o
v
e
c
o
n
v
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
Ho
h
R
i
v
e
r
4.
3
.
4
4
97
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19) Inventoried Landslide Hazard (Map 16)
Wi
n
f
i
e
l
d
C
r
e
e
k
LB
T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y
ne
w
20
Wi
n
f
i
e
l
d
C
r
e
e
k
to
H
o
h
(
R
e
a
c
h
3)
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
.
1
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
Wi
n
f
i
e
l
d
C
r
e
e
k
L
B
T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y
;
no
t
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
4.
3
.
4
4
97
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19) Inventoried Landslide Hazard (Map 16)
Al
d
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
ne
w
20
Ho
h
(
R
e
a
c
h
3
)
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
.
3
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
A
l
d
e
r
Cr
e
e
k
;
n
o
t
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
4.
3
.
4
4
97
Ru
r
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
/
R
u
r
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
/
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19)
El
k
C
r
e
e
k
ne
w
20
Ho
h
(
R
e
a
c
h
3
)
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
3
.
1
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
E
l
k
Cr
e
e
k
;
n
o
t
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
4.
3
.
4
4
97
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy
Wi
l
l
o
u
g
h
b
y
Cr
e
e
k
ne
w
20
Ho
h
(
R
e
a
c
h
3
)
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
0
.
4
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
Wi
l
l
o
u
g
h
b
y
C
r
e
e
k
;
n
o
t
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
4.
3
.
4
4
97
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19)
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
-
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
o
f
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
t
r
e
a
m
s
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
b
y
E
c
ol
o
g
y
’
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
S
t
r
e
a
m
s
/
R
i
v
e
r
s
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
D
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
of
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
i
n
J
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
St
r
e
a
m
Re
a
c
h
#
w
i
t
h
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
WR
I
A
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
Mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
io
n
T
y
p
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
In
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Se
c
t
i
o
n
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
In
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Pg
.
#
Current SMP
La
n
d
U
s
e
Additional Designation Biological Resources
Zo
n
i
n
g
(Downstream information if New)
Ma
p
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
1
20
Ho
h
(
R
e
a
c
h
3/
4
)
ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
Up
s
t
r
e
a
m
e
x
t
e
n
t
o
f
M
a
p
l
e
Cr
e
e
k
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
,
M
a
p
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
ma
i
n
s
t
e
m
s
u
b
t
r
a
c
t
e
d
1
.
1
mi
l
e
s
a
n
d
m
a
j
o
r
R
B
t
r
i
b
a
d
d
e
d
0.
8
m
i
l
e
s
t
o
2
0
C
F
S
u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m
ex
t
e
n
t
4.
3
.
4
4
97
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory (Map 19) Inventoried Landslide Hazard (Map 16)
Ow
l
C
r
e
e
k
2
20
Ho
h
(
R
e
a
c
h
4
)
su
b
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
O
w
l
C
r
e
e
k
,
2
0
CF
S
l
i
m
i
t
n
o
w
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
5
.
5
mi
l
e
s
a
b
o
v
e
c
o
n
v
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
Ho
h
4.
3
.
4
4
97
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory (Map 19) Inventoried Landslide Hazard (Map 16)
Ce
d
a
r
C
r
e
e
k
1
20
Ce
d
a
r
Cr
e
e
k
su
b
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
e
d
a
r
C
r
e
e
k
;
2
0
CF
S
l
i
m
i
t
n
o
w
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
2
.
4
mi
l
e
s
a
b
o
v
e
O
N
P
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
4.
3
.
5
4
1
0
3
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19)
Ka
l
a
l
o
c
h
C
r
e
e
k
2,
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
21
Ka
l
a
l
o
c
h
Cr
e
e
k
su
b
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Ka
l
a
l
o
c
h
C
r
k
R
e
a
c
h
2
n
o
lo
n
g
e
r
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
;
2
0
C
F
S
li
m
i
t
n
o
w
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
6
.
5
m
i
l
e
s
ab
o
v
e
O
N
P
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
4.
4
.
1
4
1
0
5
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19) Inventoried Landslide Hazard (Map 16)
Ea
s
t
F
o
r
k
Ka
l
a
l
o
c
h
C
r
e
e
k
ne
w
21
Ka
l
a
l
o
c
h
Cr
e
e
k
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
.
5
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
E
a
s
t
Fo
r
k
K
a
l
a
l
o
c
h
C
r
k
;
n
o
t
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
4.
4
.
1
4
1
0
5
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19)
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
8
21
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
su
b
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
l
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
Re
a
c
h
8
b
y
1
.
1
m
i
l
e
s
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19)
Hu
r
s
t
C
r
e
e
k
su
b
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
21
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
(R
e
a
c
h
1
)
su
b
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
H
u
r
s
t
C
r
e
e
k
,
2
0
CF
S
l
i
m
i
t
n
o
w
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
4
.
2
mi
l
e
s
a
b
o
v
e
c
o
n
v
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
4.
4
.
2
4
1
0
7
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19)
Mi
l
l
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
1
21
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
(R
e
a
c
h
3
)
su
b
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
M
i
l
l
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
,
2
0
CF
S
l
i
m
i
t
n
o
w
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
4
.
2
mi
l
e
s
a
b
o
v
e
c
o
n
v
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
4.
4
.
2
4
1
0
7
Ru
r
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
/
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning/Rear ing (Map 19)
EF
M
i
l
l
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
2
21
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
(R
e
a
c
h
3
)
su
b
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
E
F
M
i
l
l
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
,
20
C
F
S
l
i
m
i
t
n
o
w
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
4
.
2
mi
l
e
s
a
b
o
v
e
c
o
n
v
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
4.
4
.
2
4
1
0
7
Ru
r
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
/
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning/Rear ing (Map 19) Inventoried Landslide Hazard (Map 16)
Sh
a
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
1
21
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
(R
e
a
c
h
3
)
su
b
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
h
a
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
,
2
0
CF
S
l
i
m
i
t
n
o
w
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
3
.
6
mi
l
e
s
a
b
o
v
e
c
o
n
v
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
4.
4
.
3
5
1
0
7
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19)
Ch
r
i
s
t
m
a
s
C
r
e
e
k
1
21
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
(R
e
a
c
h
4
)
su
b
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
h
r
i
s
t
m
a
s
Cr
e
e
k
,
2
0
C
F
S
l
i
m
i
t
n
o
w
ex
t
e
n
d
s
4
.
9
m
i
l
e
s
a
b
o
v
e
co
n
v
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
C
l
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
4.
4
.
2
4
1
0
7
Ru
r
a
l
F
o
r
e
s
t
/
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning/Rear ing (Map 19)
De
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
ne
w
21
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
(R
e
a
c
h
4
)
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
.
1
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
De
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
;
n
o
t
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
4.
4
.
2
4
1
0
7
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19)
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
F
i
n
a
l
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
–
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
D
-
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
o
f
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
t
r
e
a
m
s
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
b
y
E
c
ol
o
g
y
’
s
U
p
d
a
t
e
d
L
i
s
t
o
f
S
t
r
e
a
m
s
/
R
i
v
e
r
s
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
D
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
of
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
i
n
J
e
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
8
St
r
e
a
m
Re
a
c
h
#
w
i
t
h
Re
v
i
s
e
d
Ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
WR
I
A
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
Mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
io
n
T
y
p
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
In
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Se
c
t
i
o
n
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
In
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Pg
.
#
La
n
d
U
s
e
Zo
n
i
n
g
Current SMP Designation (Downstream if New) Biological Resources Additional information
Sn
a
h
a
p
i
s
h
R
i
v
e
r
Tr
i
b
u
t
a
r
y
ne
w
21
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
(R
e
a
c
h
4
)
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
.
0
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
un
n
a
m
e
d
S
n
a
h
a
p
i
s
h
R
i
v
e
r
tr
i
b
u
t
a
r
y
;
n
o
t
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
4.
4
.
2
4
1
0
7
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19)
Ma
n
o
r
C
r
e
e
k
/
So
u
t
h
F
o
r
k
Ma
n
o
r
C
r
e
e
k
ne
w
21
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
(R
e
a
c
h
4
)
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
.
9
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
S
F
Ma
n
o
r
C
r
e
e
k
;
n
o
t
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
4.
4
.
2
4
1
0
7
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19)
St
e
q
u
a
l
e
h
o
Cr
e
e
k
2
21
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
(R
e
a
c
h
6
)
su
b
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
t
e
q
u
a
l
e
h
o
Cr
e
e
k
,
2
0
C
F
S
l
i
m
i
t
n
o
w
ex
t
e
n
d
s
5
.
4
m
i
l
e
s
a
b
o
v
e
co
n
v
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
C
l
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
4.
4
.
2
4
1
0
7
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19)
So
l
l
e
k
s
R
i
v
e
r
2
21
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
(R
e
a
c
h
6
)
su
b
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
o
l
l
e
k
s
R
i
v
e
r
,
2
0
CF
S
l
i
m
i
t
n
o
w
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
5
.
1
mi
l
e
s
a
b
o
v
e
c
o
n
v
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
4.
4
.
2
4
1
0
7
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19)
So
l
l
e
k
s
R
i
v
e
r
Tr
i
b
u
t
a
r
y
ne
w
21
So
l
l
e
k
s
R
i
v
e
r
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
0
.
9
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
So
l
l
e
k
s
R
i
v
e
r
T
r
i
b
;
n
o
t
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
4.
4
.
2
4
1
0
7
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19)
Ku
n
a
m
a
k
s
t
Cr
e
e
k
ne
w
21
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
(R
e
a
c
h
7
)
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
.
1
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
Ku
n
a
m
a
k
s
t
C
r
e
e
k
;
n
o
t
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
4.
4
.
2
4
1
0
7
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19)
Up
p
e
r
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
Tr
i
b
u
t
a
r
y
ne
w
21
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
(R
e
a
c
h
8
)
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
.
1
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
U
p
p
e
r
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
T
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
y
;
no
t
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
4.
4
.
2
4
1
0
7
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
Conservancy
Mc
K
i
n
n
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
ne
w
21
Qu
e
e
t
s
(L
o
w
e
r
)
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
0
.
4
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
Mc
K
i
n
n
o
n
C
r
e
e
k
;
n
o
t
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
4.
4
.
3
4
1
1
1
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
No previous designation Priority Fish Use - Migratory (Map 19) Inventoried Landslide Hazard (Map 16)
Mu
d
C
r
e
e
k
ne
w
21
Qu
e
e
t
s
(L
o
w
e
r
)
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
.
2
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
M
u
d
Cr
e
e
k
;
n
o
t
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
4.
4
.
3
4
1
1
1
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
No previous designation Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19) Inventoried Landslide Hazard (Map 16)
Ta
c
o
m
a
C
r
e
e
k
ne
w
22
Qu
e
e
t
s
(L
o
w
e
r
)
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
.
3
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
Ta
c
o
m
a
C
r
e
e
k
;
n
o
t
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
4.
4
.
3
4
1
1
1
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
No previous designation Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19) Inventoried Landslide Hazard (Map 16)
Sa
m
s
R
i
v
e
r
ne
w
22
Qu
e
e
t
s
(P
o
c
k
e
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
l
a
n
d
s
)
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
.
2
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
S
a
m
s
Cr
e
e
k
;
n
o
t
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
4.
4
.
3
4
1
1
1
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
s
t
No previous designation Priority Fish Use - Migratory/Spawning (Map 19) Only left (south) bank within non-federal lands