HomeMy WebLinkAboutWatershed Characterization Report document
Final
JEFFERSON COUNTY
CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE UPDATE
Watershed Characterization Report
Prepared for March 2016
Jefferson County
Chimacum Creek watershed, eastern Jefferson County
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page i
Table of Contents
Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... A-1
CHAPTER 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Report Purpose and Context ....................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Report Organization ................................................................................................................... 1-1
CHAPTER 2. County Overview ....................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Climate and Landscape Setting .................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2.1 Climate ................................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2.2 Geology and Landscape Setting ........................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Vegetation and Land Cover ........................................................................................................ 2-3
2.4 Habitats and Species ................................................................................................................... 2-3
2.4.1 Riparian Habitats and Species .............................................................................................. 2-3
2.4.2 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.4.3 Priority Wildlife Habitats ..................................................................................................... 2-5
2.4.4 Core Habitat Areas and Corridors ........................................................................................ 2-5
2.5 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................. 2-6
2.6 Summary of Watershed Management Issues and Opportunities ................................................ 2-6
CHAPTER 3. Chimacum Creek Watershed ................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Physical Characterization ........................................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Land Use .................................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.4 Habitats and Species ................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors ................................................................................................. 3-3
3.4.2 Fish Use ................................................................................................................................ 3-4
3.4.3 Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions ................................................................................................. 3-6
3.4.5 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.4.6 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................ 3-7
3.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities ..................................................... 3-8
3.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities ............................................................................... 3-8
3.6 Watershed Fact Sheet ................................................................................................................. 3-8
CHAPTER 4. Dabob Bay Watershed .............................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Physical Characterization ........................................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Land Use .................................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.4 Habitats and Species ................................................................................................................... 4-3
4.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors ................................................................................................. 4-3
4.4.2 Fish Use ................................................................................................................................ 4-4
4.4.3 Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... 4-5
4.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions ................................................................................................. 4-5
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page ii March 2016
Table of Contents
4.4.5 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................... 4-5
4.4.6 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................ 4-6
4.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities ..................................................... 4-6
4.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities ............................................................................... 4-7
4.6 Watershed “Fact Sheet” ............................................................................................................. 4-7
CHAPTER 5. Discovery Bay Watershed ......................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Physical Characterization ........................................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Land Use .................................................................................................................................... 5-2
5.4 Habitats and Species ................................................................................................................... 5-2
5.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors ................................................................................................. 5-3
5.4.2 Fish Use ................................................................................................................................ 5-3
5.4.3 Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... 5-4
5.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions ................................................................................................. 5-4
5.4.5 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................... 5-5
5.4.6 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................ 5-5
5.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities ..................................................... 5-5
5.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities ............................................................................... 5-6
5.6 Watershed “Fact Sheet” ............................................................................................................. 5-6
CHAPTER 6. Ludlow Creek Watershed ......................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Physical Characterization ........................................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 Land Use .................................................................................................................................... 6-2
6.4 Habitats and Species ................................................................................................................... 6-2
6.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors ................................................................................................. 6-3
6.4.2 Fish Use ................................................................................................................................ 6-3
6.4.3 Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... 6-4
6.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions ................................................................................................. 6-4
6.4.5 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................... 6-4
6.4.6 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................ 6-5
6.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities ..................................................... 6-5
6.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities ............................................................................... 6-5
6.6 Watershed “Fact Sheet” ............................................................................................................. 6-6
CHAPTER 7. Northeast Jefferson Watershed ................................................................................ 7-1
7.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Physical Characterization ........................................................................................................... 7-1
7.3 Land Use .................................................................................................................................... 7-2
7.4 Habitats and Species ................................................................................................................... 7-2
7.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors ................................................................................................. 7-3
7.4.2 Fish Use ................................................................................................................................ 7-3
7.4.3 Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... 7-3
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page iii
Table of Contents
7.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions ................................................................................................. 7-3
7.4.5 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................... 7-3
7.4.6 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................ 7-4
7.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities ..................................................... 7-4
7.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities ............................................................................... 7-4
7.6 Watershed “Fact Sheet” ............................................................................................................. 7-5
CHAPTER 8. North Hood Canal Watershed .................................................................................. 8-1
8.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 Physical Characterization ........................................................................................................... 8-1
8.3 Land Use .................................................................................................................................... 8-2
8.4 Habitats and Species ................................................................................................................... 8-3
8.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors ................................................................................................. 8-3
8.4.2 Fish Use ................................................................................................................................ 8-3
8.4.3 Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... 8-4
8.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions ................................................................................................. 8-4
8.4.5 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................... 8-4
8.4.6 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................ 8-5
8.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities ..................................................... 8-5
8.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities ............................................................................... 8-5
8.6 Watershed “Fact Sheet” ............................................................................................................. 8-6
CHAPTER 9. Quilcene Bay Watershed ........................................................................................... 9-1
9.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 Physical Characterization ........................................................................................................... 9-1
9.3 Land Use .................................................................................................................................... 9-3
9.4 Habitats and Species ................................................................................................................... 9-4
9.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors ................................................................................................. 9-5
9.4.2 Fish Use ................................................................................................................................ 9-5
9.4.3 Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... 9-7
9.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions ................................................................................................. 9-8
9.4.5 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................... 9-8
9.4.6 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................ 9-9
9.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities ..................................................... 9-9
9.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities ............................................................................. 9-10
9.6 Watershed “Fact Sheet” ........................................................................................................... 9-11
CHAPTER 10. Southeast Hood Canal Watershed ......................................................................... 10-1
10.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................. 10-1
10.2 Physical Characterization ......................................................................................................... 10-1
10.3 Land Use .................................................................................................................................. 10-2
10.4 Habitats and Species ................................................................................................................. 10-3
10.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors ............................................................................................... 10-3
10.4.2 Fish Use .............................................................................................................................. 10-4
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page iv March 2016
Table of Contents
10.4.3 Water Quality ..................................................................................................................... 10-5
10.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions ............................................................................................... 10-5
10.4.5 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 10-5
10.4.6 Wildlife .............................................................................................................................. 10-6
10.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities ................................................... 10-6
10.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities ............................................................................. 10-7
10.6 Watershed Fact Sheet ............................................................................................................... 10-8
CHAPTER 11. Southwest Hood Canal Watershed ........................................................................ 11-1
11.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................. 11-1
11.2 Physical Characterization ......................................................................................................... 11-1
11.3 Land Use .................................................................................................................................. 11-3
11.4 Habitats and Species ................................................................................................................. 11-3
11.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors ............................................................................................... 11-4
11.4.2 Fish Use .............................................................................................................................. 11-4
11.4.3 Water Quality ..................................................................................................................... 11-6
11.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions ............................................................................................... 11-6
11.4.5 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 11-6
11.4.6 Wildlife .............................................................................................................................. 11-6
11.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities ................................................... 11-7
11.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities ............................................................................. 11-8
11.6 Watershed “Fact Sheet” ........................................................................................................... 11-9
CHAPTER 12. References ................................................................................................................ 12-1
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Jefferson County Watershed Characterization Map Themes and Content. ............................. 1-2
Table 2-1. Definitions of Core Habitat Areas and Corridors (Tomassi, 2004) ......................................... 2-5
Table 3-1. Fish Presence in the Chimacum Creek Watershed .................................................................. 3-4
Table 4-1. Fish Presence in the Dabob Bay Watershed ............................................................................ 4-4
Table 5-1. Fish Presence in the Discovery Bay Watershed ...................................................................... 5-4
Table 6-1. Fish Presence in the Ludlow Creek Watershed ....................................................................... 6-4
Table 8-1. Fish Presence in the North Hood Canal Watershed ................................................................. 8-4
Table 9-1. Fish Presence in the Quilcene Bay Watershed ........................................................................ 9-5
Table 10-1. Fish Presence in the Southeast Hood Canal Watershed ...................................................... 10-4
Table 11-1. Fish Presence in the Southwest Hood Canal Watershed ..................................................... 11-4
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page A-1
Acronyms
Acronyms
Acronym Definition
BMP Best management practice
CAO Critical areas ordinance
CARA Critical aquifer recharge area
cfs Cubic feet per second
CMZ Channel migration zone
CREP Conservation Reserve Enhanced Program
DPS Distinct population segment
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FWHCA Fish and wildlife habitat conservation area
GMA Growth Management Act
JCC Jefferson County Code
JCCD Jefferson County Conservation District
NFH National Fish Hatchery
NLCD National Land Cover Database
NPL National Priorities List
ONF Olympic National Forest
ONP Olympic National Park
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
PHS Priority Habitats and Species
RM River mile
RVC Rural Village Center
SMP Shoreline Master Program
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page A-2 March 2016
Acronyms
Acronym Definition
UGA Urban growth area
USFS U.S. Forest Service
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources
WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 1-1
Introduction
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Report Purpose and Context
The purpose of this watershed characterization report is to summarize available biological and physical
information related to critical areas within eastern Jefferson County. This report addresses all types of
critical areas as defined under the Growth Management Act (GMA) with a focus on areas of the County
where agricultural land uses and activities occur. Since very little agricultural activity occurs in the
western portion of Jefferson County, this report only addresses critical areas in the eastern portion of
the county, which is where the majority of agricultural land is located. Information from this report,
along with information provided in the Best Available Science Report (ESA, 2015), will provide a basis
for considering policy and regulatory changes to Jefferson County’s Comprehensive Plan and Critical
Areas Ordinance (CAO). Portions of the CAO that will be updated through this current process include
protections for wetlands, frequently flooded areas, critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs), geologically
hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs).
This report is one of three documents, prepared in coordination with the County, that will support
updates to critical areas regulations in the Jefferson County Code (JCC). The Watershed
Characterization Report (this document) compiles available data, mapping, and reports relating to
critical area protection. The Best Available Science Report (ESA et al., 2015) summarizes current
scientific literature and guidance on best practices for critical areas protection relevant to resources in
Jefferson County. The report incorporates the findings of previous review efforts conducted by the
County and assesses the County’s existing regulations for consistency with best available science. The
Recommendations Report (ESA, 2016, in prep.) will use the results of the Watershed Characterization
Report and Best Available Science Report to identify adjustments to policies, regulations, and programs
that would improve protection and management of critical areas in Jefferson County. The
Recommendations Report will provide a set of options and recommendations for revising the CAO
regulations.
1.2 Report Organization
Chapter 2 presents an overview of eastern Jefferson County, and includes a summary of the major
management issues and opportunities identified in this report. The following chapters present
biological and physical information and data, management recommendations, and restoration
opportunities for each of the nine “watershed analysis units” identified in eastern Jefferson County
(Figure 1). The watershed analysis unit boundaries were based on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Hydrologic Unit (HUC) mapping (USGS, 2015). The units were named based upon the major stream
system within the watershed (e.g. the ‘Chimacum Creek watershed’) or the major receiving waterbody
that the watershed drains to (e.g. the ‘Dabob Bay’ watershed). Where a single major stream system or
receiving waterbody was not present, the watershed unit was named based upon its geographical
location (e.g. the ‘Northeast Jefferson’ watershed).
Each of the nine watershed chapters contains a summary sheet illustrating baseline conditions and
management opportunities, providing an “at-a-glance” reference to accompany each watershed
narrative. The final chapter contains a list of the references used to prepare this report.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 1-2 March 2016
Introduction
This report is presented with a map folio that depicts the existing geospatial critical areas data. The
map themes and content are shown in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Jefferson County Watershed Characterization Map Themes and Content.
Map Theme Content
Hydrography Waterbodies (e.g., lakes) (WDNR, 2006a)
Streams (WDNR, 2006b)
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARAs)
(Jefferson County, 2013)
Wetlands (USFWS, 2015)
Geological Hazards Landslide hazards (WDNR, 2007)
Seismic hazards (Jefferson County, 1997a)
Erosion hazards (Jefferson County, 1997b)
Channel migration zones (Reclamation, 2004)
FEMA Floodplains FEMA 100-year floodplain (FEMA, 1998)
Zoning Jefferson County land use zoning (Jefferson
County, 2006)
Land Cover National Land Cover Database (NLCD) data
(Homer, et al. 2015)
Habitats WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) data
(WDFW, 2016a)
WDFW fish distribution data (WDFW, 2014a)
Core habitat data (Tomassi, 2004).
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 2-1
County Overview
CHAPTER 2. County Overview
2.1 Introduction
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 2014, the County population was estimated
to be 30,228 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016), 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 9,200. Other
population centers include Port Hadlock, Chimacum, and Irondale (the “Tri-Area”), Port Ludlow,
Brinnon, and Quilcene.
This report focuses on the watersheds in eastern Jefferson County (Figure 1), which is defined as the
area east of the federal lands within Olympic National Park (ONP) and Olympic National Forest (ONF)
that encompass most of the Olympic Mountains in the center of the County. Portions of two Water
Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) are located within eastern Jefferson County. The majority of the east
County lies within WRIA 17 (Quilcene-Snow), which includes the Big Quilcene River, Little Quilcene
River, Discovery Bay, Chimacum Creek, and Dabob Bay watersheds, along with several smaller
watersheds that drain to Hood Canal and Puget Sound. Southeast Jefferson County is located within
WRIA 16 (Skokomish-Dosewallips), which includes the Dosewallips River and Duckabush River
watersheds.
2.2 Climate and Landscape Setting
2.2.1 Climate
Eastern Jefferson County has a maritime climate dominated by moderate temperatures and abundant
moisture (ESA, 2008). Maximum Fahrenheit (F) temperatures average in the mid-40s in January in the
lowlands; in the summer, average maximum temperatures average in the mi-70s. Temperatures in the
lowlands rarely reach the 90s or fall into the teens in this region.
Precipitation patterns vary throughout eastern Jefferson County; annual precipitation varies from 50
inches in Quilcene along Hood Canal, to 18 inches in Port Townsend on the northeast tip of the County
(ESA, 2008). 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.
2.2.2 Geology and Landscape Setting
Jefferson County is located within the eastern edge of the Puget Trough section of the Cascade
Mountain province of the Pacific Mountain System. The Olympic Mountains were created by an uplift
of the underlying continental plates. The landscape in eastern Jefferson County was shaped by
repeated glaciations, the last retreating about 12,000 years ago (ESA, 2008). This left a landscape of
layered glacial till and outwash sediments 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
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 2-2 March 2016
County Overview
Douglas-fir and western 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. Streams
flowing through low-lying valleys have also been created by repeated glaciations, some of which
discharge into Port Townsend Bay and Discovery Bay.
Landslide hazard areas are found throughout eastern Jefferson County, particularly within the Olympic
Mountain foothills and along the marine shoreline bluffs. Soil erosion hazard areas are also located in
similar areas, along with the lower reaches of the larger streams that are subject to channel migration.
Seismic hazard areas (areas with a severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake-induced ground
shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, or surface faulting) are also found throughout
eastern Jefferson County. These areas typically have poorly drained soils; loose sand or gravel, peat,
artificial fill, and landslide materials; and/or soils with high organic content.
Designated CARAs (areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water) are
identified along most of the major streams within Jefferson County, as well as around some public
wells. These wells are generally located near population centers (e.g., Port Townsend and Port
Hadlock-Irondale). The majority of Marrowstone Island is underlain by an aquifer. In some areas of the
County, the mapped CARAs extend into marine waters. However, only the CARAs within upland and
freshwater areas are described in this report.
Under the GMA, frequently flooded areas are defined as “lands in the floodplain subject to a one
percent (1%) or greater chance of flooding in any given year, or within areas subject to flooding due to
high groundwater” (WAC 365-190-030). At a minimum, frequently flooded areas include the 100-year
floodplain designations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Flood
Insurance Program. The current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the County has an effective date
of July 19, 1982. A revised FIRM is scheduled to become effective in February 2017.
Due to its geology and existing development, the interior of eastern Jefferson County contains
relatively little floodplain area designated by FEMA. The
Dosewallips, Duckabush, Big Quilcene, and Little
Quilcene rivers are short, steep systems that drain the
steep eastern slopes of the Olympic Mountains. The
rivers are confined to narrow canyons for most of their
length but do contain some limited floodplain areas
before entering Hood Canal or Quilcene Bay. Chimacum,
Snow, and Salmon creeks flow through wetlands prior to
discharging into the marine environment, and have more
extensive floodplain areas. Frequently flooded areas are
also mapped in the marine environment, although only
the floodplains within freshwater and nearshore
estuarine environments are described in this report.
Floodplain Functions
Flooding is a natural process that is integral
to functioning river ecosystems and
generating productive agricultural soils.
Floodplains support high levels of biodiversity
and primary productivity, provide off-channel
refuge habitat for fish, attenuate flood
damage, filter surface waters, and allow for
groundwater recharge. Despite these
benefits, flooding can pose a hazard to
people and property.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 2-3
County Overview
2.3 Vegetation and Land Cover
Eastern Jefferson County falls within the Northwest Coast ecoregion, dominated by coniferous forests
(ESA, 2008). 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. Deciduous
trees species such as red alder (Alnus rubra) and big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) are generally
dominant on lands that have been cleared for urban and agriculture uses within the County. Red alder
and big-leaf maple tend to grow along major watercourses.
While the majority of eastern Jefferson County remains forested, nearly all of the forest lands have
been logged at least once, and timber harvest still occurs regularly, either for commercial timber or land
clearing for residential development. Many of the lower stream valleys in eastern Jefferson County
were historically cleared and converted to agricultural uses, particularly in the Chimacum Creek
watershed. Residential, recreational, commercial, an industrial development is located in several
locations in eastern Jefferson County, which is primarily concentration in and around the City of Port
Townsend, as well as the population centers of Port Hadlock, Chimacum, Irondale, Port Ludlow,
Brinnon, and Quilcene.
2.4 Habitats and Species
Eastern Jefferson County contains diverse habitats and a wide variety of fish and wildlife species; an
overview of these habitats and species is provided below. Since this section focuses on freshwater and
terrestrial habitats and species (areas where agricultural activities are most likely to occur) marine
habitats and species are discussed to a limited extent in the following subsections.
2.4.1 Riparian Habitats and Species
Riparian areas occur at the interface between upland and aquatic areas. 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 (ESA, 2008). Riparian habitat conditions vary throughout the
eastern Jefferson County. Riparian habitat conditions tend to be more intact in the upper portions of
the County’s watersheds, although substantial areas have been impacted by timber harvest and road
construction. Riparian habitat degradation increases in the lowlands, where many areas have been
impacted by development and agriculture.
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 streams (Correa, 2002).
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 in
eastern Jefferson County that have been documented as supporting indigenous summer chum
populations include the Big Quilcene River, Little Quilcene River, Dosewallips River, and Duckabush
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 2-4 March 2016
County Overview
River. Summer chum salmon populations that drain to the Strait of Juan de Fuca in eastern Jefferson
County 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 listed as threatened under the Endangered Special Act. In eastern
Jefferson County, Chinook spawn in the Duckabush and Dosewallips watersheds (Brewer et al., 2005).
Additionally, Puget Sound distinct population segment (DPS) steelhead are listed as threatened under
the Act. In eastern Jefferson County, several streams are documented as supporting indigenous
steelhead populations including Snow and Salmon creeks, Chimacum Creek, Tarboo Creek, Thorndyke
Creek, and Big and Little Quilcene rivers.
In eastern Jefferson County agricultural activities generally occur along streams, and in particular,
Chimacum Creek. As stated above, stream floodplain areas generally contain highly productive soils,
due to the natural processes of overbank flow that provide soil nutrients.
2.4.2 Wetlands
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.” The four principal wetland types identified within eastern Jefferson County include:
Wet meadows, which are characterized by having standing water from late fall to early spring
and are often dominated herbaceous species;
Scrub/shrub wetlands, with seasonal flooding and vegetation dominated by shrubs and small
trees;
Forested wetlands, areas that are not usually flooded but have saturated soils, and where
vegetation is dominated by large trees; and
Shallow marsh, which includes freshwater marshes and open water wetlands (ESA, 2008).
Wetlands are described by vegetation type in this report. “Emergent” wetlands are vegetated primarily
by herbaceous vegetation, such as wet meadows and shallow marshes. “Forested” and/or “scrub/shrub”
wetlands are vegetated primarily by woody vegetation, such as trees and shrubs. “Estuarine” wetlands
also occur within the watersheds and are vegetated or non-vegetated brackish and saltwater marshes.
In general, wetland descriptions in this report are focused on freshwater wetlands, although the
presence and condition of nearshore estuarine wetlands are also noted. T watershed “fact sheets” at
the end of each chapter provide an rough estimate of the proportion of the watershed covered by
wetland based on mapped data and the watershed analysis unit boundaries as shown in Figure 1.
Freshwater wetlands are scattered throughout eastern Jefferson 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. Estuarine wetlands are generally concentrated near stream mouths.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 2-5
County Overview
Similar to floodplain soils, hydric soils tend to be agriculturally productive, particularly when drained.
Many wetland areas in eastern Jefferson County, mostly within the Chimacum Creek watershed, were
historically converted to agriculture. Wetland areas occurring within unconstrained stream floodplains
receive pulses of critical nutrients during flooding events, which serves to maintain soil productivity.
2.4.3 Priority Wildlife Habitats
As stated above, the majority of eastern Jefferson County is covered by relatively contiguous forest;
these areas provide habitat for a wide variety of species. 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 (ESA, 2008). Nonbreeding
concentrations of trumpeter swans, waterfowl, and seabirds have also been identified within the
County.
2.4.4 Core Habitat Areas and Corridors
In 2004, Jefferson County funded the study, Management Strategies for Core Wildlife Habitat Areas in
Eastern Jefferson County, to identify important wildlife habitat units in eastern Jefferson County for
protection and enhancement (Tomassi, 2004). Core habitat areas and corridors used by wildlife for
survival activities (breeding, rearing, foraging, etc.) were considered important wildlife habitat units by
the study. These areas and corridors were delineated using data sources from the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) program, and State and
Federal studies regarding listed species. Delineation of core habitat areas was based on a number of
criteria, including:
The area’s ability to support species of significance;
Continuity with the surrounding landscape;
Presence of features or habitat types of importance to wildlife (e.g. snag-rich stands, mature
forest, or forested wetlands);
Proximity to federal or state forestland; and
Restoration and enhancement potential.
Applying these criteria, the study categorized core habitat areas and corridors as Core 1, Core2,
Core 3, or Corridor (Table 2-1).
Table 2-1. Definitions of Core Habitat Areas and Corridors (Tomassi, 2004)
Designation Criteria
Core 1 Contain the most intact habitat; support species of significance; contiguous with
landscape; and contain features or habitat types of particular importance to wildlife.
Core 2 Areas that meet most of Core 1 criteria, but contain developed areas or less valuable
habitat, or are relatively fragmented by highways.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 2-6 March 2016
County Overview
Core 3 Consist of young forest, ditched or drained wetlands, and degraded riparian habitat and
streams.
Corridor Include existing stream and riparian zones that connect two core areas together.
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. Areas that connect two core areas together were identified as “Corridors”.
2.5 Water Quality
Water quality impairment can occur from a variety of sources, such as fecal coliform discharges from
failing septic systems, heavy metal and petroleum contaminated road runoff, fertilizer and chemicals
from agricultural operations, siltation from timber-clearing activities, and release of toxic contaminants
from industrial facilities. Water quality problems can be exacerbated by loss of wetlands and vegetated
riparian areas, as these habitats can be very effective at filtering out pollutants and sediments.
Water quality monitoring conducted by Jefferson County, the Jefferson County Conservation District
(JCCD), and the Washington State Department of Health indicates that Jefferson County’s surface
waters are generally in good condition (JCPW, 2005). The majority of streams in eastern Jefferson
County meet State Class AA Standards. However, water quality impairments have been documented
in several streams, as described in detail in the following chapters. In general, water quality
impairments have been documented in streams that pass through, or downstream of, developed areas
(including agricultural areas).
In recent years, Jefferson County and other organizations have undertaken target actions to improve
water quality conditions in County streams. These projects include inventorying and replacing failing
septic systems in eastern Jefferson County and installing “exclusion fencing” along streams minimize
livestock access.
2.6 Summary of Watershed Management Issues and
Opportunities
This report provides detailed descriptions of current conditions for each of the nine watershed analysis
units in eastern Jefferson County. Each watershed chapter contains watershed-specific management
issues and opportunities, with a focus on maintaining and/or improving surface water quality and
quantity, wetland, and fish and wildlife habitat conditions. The “management issues” sections
summarize the primary conditions that are degrading, or have the potential to degrade, overall
watershed health and habitat conditions. On a County-wide scale, the key primary management issues
involve:
Water quality impairments;
Lack of stream and wetland buffer vegetation; and
Degradation of fish and wildlife habitats from past and ongoing land use practices.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 2-7
County Overview
The “management opportunities” sections summarize the key actions that are recommended to
improve watershed health and habitat conditions. On a County-wide scale, the main types of
opportunities are:
Implement and/or continue efforts to improve water quality, including actions such as repairing
failing septic systems, constructing livestock exclusion fencing, and restoring wetland and
riparian buffers;
Implement programs that offer incentives to landowners to engage in conservation efforts;
Protect existing, high-quality habitat areas from future development; and
Restore degraded fish and wildlife habitats.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 3-1
Chimacum Creek Watershed
CHAPTER 3. Chimacum Creek Watershed
This chapter describes the conditions of the Chimacum Creek watershed (Figures 2a to 2f). The
watershed is described in terms of its physical, ecological, and human environment/land use
characteristics.
Characteristics for the watershed are summarized in the “fact sheet” included at the end of this
chapter.
3.1 Overview
The Chimacum Creek watershed is approximately 37 square miles in area. Chimacum Creek, the
primary drainage in the watershed, originates in tributaries and lakes on forested hillsides south of the
town of Chimacum (Correa, 2002). The stream is approximately 30 miles in combined length and
discharges into Admiralty Inlet. At river mile (RM) 2.9 the mainstem splits into the East Fork Chimacum
Creek, which flows through Beaver Valley, and Chimacum Creek which continues to flow through
Center Valley (Correa, 2002). Near the confluence of the two streams are the communities of
Chimacum, Port Hadlock, and Irondale. Land uses in the watershed consist of commercial forestry,
agriculture, rural residential, and the Port Hadlock/Irondale Urban Growth Area (UGA). Several
waterbodies (lakes, tributaries, and wetlands) are found within the watershed, including Putaansuu
Creek, Naylor Creek, Anderson Lake, Gibbs Lake, Beausite Lake, Peterson Lake, and Delanty Lake.
Chimacum Creek is designated as a shoreline of the state beginning at the mouth and extending about
two miles past the confluence of the East and West Forks in Center Valley (Jefferson County, 2014).
Gibbs, Beausite, Anderson, and Peterson Lakes are also designated as shorelines of the state.
3.2 Physical Characterization
The lower portion of Chimacum Creek, from the mouth to RM 1.3, is narrow and confined by a forested
ravine with relatively little surrounding development (ESA, 2008). The lower 0.2 mile of the stream is
tidally influenced and supports nearshore and estuarine wetland habitat. From RM 1.3 to RM
3.0Chimacum Creek and East Fork Chimacum Creek flow through agricultural and rural residential
areas. Here the streams are heavily channelized, with little sinuosity or large woody debris (LWD).
Several recent restoration projects have addressed degraded stream conditions by adding meanders
back to the streams and incorporating LWD structures (WDFW, 2016d). Overbank flooding is common
along Chimacum Creek, especially in the low-gradient sections of the watershed.
The primary tributaries of Chimacum Creek include Putaansuu and Naylor Creeks. Putaansuu Creek
originates in Anderson Lake and enters Chimacum Creek at approximately RM 4.0. Anderson Lake has
a surface area of 57.3 acres and is surrounded by a 410-acre forested state park. The lower reach of
Putaansuu Creek has been heavily channelized and is now an incised ditch with poor floodplain
connectivity (Correa, 2002).
Naylor Creek joins Chimacum Creek farther upstream at RM 5.4. Naylor Creek originates in Gibbs Lake,
is surrounded by a County park, and flows out through managed forestland (ESA, 2008). During the
1980s, the upper reaches of the stream were heavily logged and little riparian buffer vegetation remains
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 3-2 March 2016
Chimacum Creek Watershed
(Correa, 2002). The lower reaches of the stream have also been extensively channelized and dredged
for agriculture and rural development.
Beausite Lake is located southwest of Chimacum and surrounded by County parkland. It has a surface
area of about 20 acres (ESA, 2008). Peterson Lake is located south of Discovery Bay and has a surface
area of 23 acres. The surrounding forest was clearcut in 1999, but a forest buffer was left around the
lake (ESA, 2008).
Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) are present in the Chimacum Creek watershed and mapped
throughout Port Hadlock-Irondale, Chimacum, and Center and Beaver Valleys (see Figure 2a) (Jefferson
County, 2006a). CARAs cover over one-third (38 percent) of the total watershed area.
Due to its low-gradient, hilly topography, few landslide hazard areas are mapped in the Chimacum
Creek watershed, primarily on small hillsides of Beaver Valley (see Figure 2b) (Jefferson County, 1997a).
Similarly, limited areas of the watershed have mapped erosion areas, including the hillsides between
Center and Beaver Valleys, and the surrounding uplands of Anderson and Gibbs Lakes (Jefferson
County, 1997c). Seismic hazards are primarily mapped in Center and Beaver Valleys, surrounding lake
areas, and along lower reaches of Chimacum Creek and east of Port Hadlock (Jefferson County, 1997b).
Approximately 4 percent of the watershed is mapped in the FEMA 100-year floodplain (Jefferson
County, 1998). The majority of Chimacum and East Fork Chimacum Creeks are mapped within the
FEMA 100-year floodplain as well as a number of lakes in the watershed, including Anderson, Gibbs,
and Delanty Lakes (see Figure 2c).
3.3 Land Use
During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the lowlands of the Chimacum watershed were cleared of forest
vegetation and converted to pasture (see Figure 2e) (Gately, 2011). Early settlers drained wetlands and
beaver ponds, and channelized both forks of Chimacum Creek and its tributaries for agriculture uses
(JCPW, 2005). At one point, several dairy farms were operating in the watershed, but today only one
dairy farm continues to operate (Bishop Organic Valley Dairy). Other agricultural activities such as
pasturing beef cattle, horses, and sheep and growing hay also continue in large parts of the watershed.
Currently, lands zoned for Local and Commercial Agriculture make up a combined 16 percent of the
watershed area (Jefferson County, 2006b).
Historically, the upper reaches of the watershed were logged for timber production, which still occurs
on private and state forestlands. There is some forest clearing in the middle and lower watershed for
residential and commercial development. Approximately 32 percent of the watershed is zoned
Commercial Forest and 34 percent Rural Residential (see Figure 2d) (Jefferson County, 2006b). Areas
zoned for Rural Forest and Inholding Forest make up 5 percent and 0.1 percent, respectively.
Remaining areas of the watershed include the Port Hadlock UGA located about 5 miles south of Port
Townsend. The Port Hadlock UGA covers approximately 1,300 acres and makes up 4 percent of the
Chimacum watershed. Zoning types in the UGA include Urban Commercial, Urban Light Industrial,
Low Density Residential, Moderate Density Residential, and Public. These zoning designations allow
for more intense development; however, until the sewer system is funded and constructed, more
intensive land uses and development cannot be approved. Therefore, the original zoning designations
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 3-3
Chimacum Creek Watershed
that were in effect prior to adoption of the UGA (e.g., Rural Residential 1:5, Rural Residential 1:10) are
currently being used within the UGA (see Figure 2d).
Some undeveloped areas in the watershed are zoned for high-intensity land uses, such as UGA Urban
Commercial and Moderate Density Residential. These areas are located off of Rhody Drive in southern
Port Hadlock and near Ness’ Corner. Larger undeveloped areas zoned for UGA Low Density Residential
border the lower parts of Chimacum Creek near the estuary. Many of these parcels are within
conservation easements owned by Jefferson Land Trust and Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW).
3.4 Habitats and Species
The following sections describe existing fish and wildlife habitats and species based on available
studies, data, and mapping such as:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
database (WDFW, 2016a);
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), National Heritage Program GIS dataset
(WNHP, 2013);
WDFW SalmonScape Database (WDFW, 2016c);
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List
(Ecology, 2014);
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database (USFWS,
2015);
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Land Cover database (Homer et al., 2015);
Jefferson County critical areas, zoning, and core habitat area GIS mapping;
Jefferson County water quality and other technical reports; and
Aerial imagery.
3.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors
Several core habitat and corridor types (described in Appendix A) are mapped in the Chimacum Creek
watershed (see Figure 2f) (Tomassi, 2004). Core 1 areas signify the most intact habitats in the
watershed while Core 3 areas include important habitats that are degraded or altered. These include
the following:
Core 1 – Habitat overlaps with Ludlow Creek watershed and includes tributaries of Chimacum
Creek watershed. Spans rural residential and commercial forestland.
Core 3– Includes upper Chimacum Creek, Delanty and Peterson Lakes, and surrounding
uplands. Spans commercial forest, rural residential, and agricultural land.
Core 3 – Habitat extends through Center and Beaver Valleys on rural residential, commercial
agriculture, and forestlands.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 3-4 March 2016
Chimacum Creek Watershed
Corridor – Includes a segment of the upper Chimacum Creek riparian corridor below Delanty
and Peterson Lakes before the stream flows north through Center Valley. Spans primarily rural
and commercial forestland.
3.4.2 Fish Use
Before settlement of the watershed, Chimacum Creek had substantial runs of coho and chum salmon,
steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat trout (JCPW, 2005). Timber harvest, agricultural use, and residential
development greatly reduced these fish runs, especially coho and summer chum runs. A substantial
culvert failure on Irondale Road in 1985-1986 resulted in heavy sedimentation of the stream (at RM 1.0),
further reducing summer chum runs in Chimacum Creek (JCPW, 2005). As a result of these combined
pressures, summer chum runs went extinct in the stream during the 1990s. Recently introduced
summer chum stocks and restoration projects have helped reestablish runs in the watershed. From
2001 to 2013, chum salmon returns ranged from 558 to 3,066 adults and coho returns ranged from 333
to 3,539 (JCCD, 2015). Juvenile coho have also become more abundant at restoration sites.
Table 3-1 shows the salmon and trout species documented as present or presumed present in the
watershed.
Table 3-1. Fish Presence in the Chimacum Creek Watershed
Stream
Species Present1
Summer
Chum Fall Chum Coho Pink
(Odd year)
Winter
Steelhead
Coastal
Cutthroat
(Resident)
Chimacum Creek X X X X X X
East Fork
Chimacum Creek X X X X2 X
Putaansuu Creek X X
Naylor Creek X X
Gibbs Lake X X
1Species presence is based on data gathered from WDFW SalmonScape database (2016c).
2Presumed presence (WDFW, 2016c).
Other fish species that use the Chimacum watershed include sculpin, threespine stickleback, and
western brook lamprey (Gately, 2011). According to the WDFW PHS database, Pacific lamprey have
been documented in the lower and middle reaches of Chimacum Creek (WDFW, 2016a).
Several complete and partial fish passage barriers are found along streams and tributaries in the
watershed. Partial culvert barriers are found under Center Road at approximately RM 6.6 and under
Eaglemount Road just south of Delanty Lake (Correa, 2002). Another culvert under Eaglemount Road
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 3-5
Chimacum Creek Watershed
is a complete barrier to fish passage; it is located farther downstream near the intersection with Center
Road (WDFW, 2016b).
Numerous restoration projects have occurred in the watershed, mostly in the middle and lower reaches
of Chimacum and East Fork Chimacum Creeks. These have largely been aimed at improving riparian
habitat for fish in agricultural and rural residential lands. The projects have included reconfiguring
channelized stream segments through the addition of stream meanders; placing LWD within streams;
planting native species in riparian areas; controlling invasive species; and installing livestock fencing
(RCO, 2016; WDFW, 2016d). Projects have also included replacing fish-impassable culverts with
bridges and acquiring property for habitat conservation.
3.4.3 Water Quality
In general, water quality in the Chimacum Creek watershed has shown signs of improvement since
monitoring began in 1988, although parts of Chimacum and East Fork Chimacum Creeks still fall below
state standards. The mouth of Chimacum Creek upstream to RM 1.5 is on the Washington Department
of Ecology 303(d) list for bacteria, pH, and ammonia-nitrate water quality impairments (Ecology, 2012).
From RM 1.5 to 2.8 (confluence of Chimacum and East Fork Chimacum Creeks) the stream has listed
temperature impairments.
From RM 5.2 to RM 7.0 in agricultural areas of Center Valley, Chimacum Creek has impairment listings
for temperature, bacteria, dissolved oxygen, pH, and ammonia-N (Ecology, 2012). Farther upstream in
the watershed from RM 13.7 to RM 16.1, Chimacum Creek is listed only for temperature.
The Jefferson County Conservation District (JCCD) recently completed a comprehensive review of
surface water in agricultural areas of the watershed since the implementation of best management
practices (BMPs) to improve water quality and salmonid habitat (Gately et al., 2015). JCCD assessed
fecal coliform bacteria, temperature, dissolved oxygen, nitrate, pH, phosphorous, turbidity, and
conductivity, as well as salmon and beaver presence. Monitoring stations were located downstream
and upstream of agricultural lands near the mainstem of Chimacum Creek and the East Fork. The
review found improving trends in fecal coliform concentrations, stream temperatures, dissolved
oxygen, and salmon returns.
The conversion of forest to pastureland during early settlement of the watershed caused stream
temperatures to rise due to lack of shade (Gately, 2011). Recent restoration projects in the watershed,
along with buffer vegetation installed through the Conservation Reserve Enhanced Program (CREP),
have worked to improve shaded cover of streams and riparian areas. The JCCD temperature
monitoring in the watershed has shown a decreasing trend since 1998 (2015). Stream temperatures
have dropped 1 oC in the mainstem of Chimacum Creek and 2 oC in the East Fork (Gately, 2015).
However, monitoring stations continue to fail state standards for temperature.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 3-6 March 2016
Chimacum Creek Watershed
When farming first began in the Chimacum watershed,
livestock had full access to streams and tributaries,
resulting in high fecal coliform concentrations in
Chimacum Creek. Outdated and failing septic systems
also likely contributed to high concentrations of fecal
coliform in the watershed (Gately, 2011). Over the last
25 years, exclusion fencing or “water gaps” for livestock
have been installed along streams and tributaries.
Water gaps in fencelines help to minimize livestock
access to streams, while still allowing them to obtain
water. Subsequently, water quality has improved in
the watershed although concentrations of fecal
coliform continued to fail Ecology’s “extraordinary
contact” standard during monitoring in 2011-2012at 24
out of 28 monitoring stations (Gately, 2015). Human
fecal coliform was also more commonly detected in
samples from monitored stations than ruminant fecal
coliform.
The JCCD report concluded that meeting state water quality standards is challenging in the Chimacum
watershed due to the combination of high survival and growth of fecal coliform bacteria in stream
sediment, algae, soil, and animal manure; the capability of bacteria to infiltrate groundwater and be
transported to surface water; and the variety of fecal sources, including human and wildlife (2015).
These factors also make it difficult to demonstrate improvements resulting from BMPs as distinguished
from other pathways.
Despite not meeting water quality standards set by Ecology, JCCD’s review found that the Chimacum
watershed experienced record returns of summer chum and coho salmon in 2013. Similarly, beaver
activity has been increasingly witnessed in the watershed, especially in forested stream buffers,
signaling an improvement in riparian habitat conditions.
While Anderson and Gibbs Lakes are not currently on the Ecology 303(d) list for water quality
impairments, they do have a history of toxic algae blooms and are currently monitored for toxic blue-
green algae. Gibbs Lake exceeded state guidelines for microcystin cyanobacteria algae blooms from
2011 to 2013 and 2015 (Dobrowski et al., 2015; M. Dawson, pers. comm. 2016). Toxic algae blooms in
Anderson Lake have been dominated by the cyanobacteria Anabaena, which produces the toxin
anatoxin-a (Dobrowski et al., 2015). These blooms have primarily occurred in spring and led to
subsequent closures of the lake by Washington State Parks for the remainder of the year. The lake was
only open to public recreation for a period of 10 days in the last two years before anatoxin-a levels
exceeded the warning level. In one case from June 2008, the highest level of anatoxin-a ever recorded
in the world was measured at Anderson Lake (Dobrowski et al., 2015). A study conducted by Oregon
State University on the Anabaena in Anderson Lake determined that the strain can produce large
amounts of anatoxin-a and is the likely reason for such high toxin levels in the lake.
3.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions
During settlement of the watershed, removal of beaver ponds, wetlands, and riparian vegetation, and
ditching of streams, eliminated over 90 percent of habitat for coho juvenile rearing in the watershed
Conservation Reserve Enhanced Program
(CREP)
The CREP aims to restore and protect stream
and riparian habitat for fish on agricultural
land through financial incentives for farmers.
As an entirely voluntary program, farmers
can be under a CREP contract for up to 15
years to restore habitat and preclude
agricultural activities in stream buffers.
Administered by both the U.S. Department
of Agriculture Farm Service Agency and the
Washington State Conservation
Commission, CREP buffers have been
implemented by Jefferson County farmers
for about 14 years.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 3-7
Chimacum Creek Watershed
(Correa, 2002). The necessary habitat features for rearing salmonids such as pool frequency, off-
channel areas, nutrient availability, stream channel complexity, and adequate water flow were severely
diminished or completely lost. Riparian habitat has also been degraded by forestry, agriculture, and
rural development. Without forested riparian cover, streams have experienced low levels of dissolved
oxygen, elevated water temperatures, siltation, increased invasive species, and loss of LWD.
Restoration projects completed over the years have worked to restore some riparian habitat along the
streams (WDFW, 2016d; RCO, 2016).
3.4.5 Wetlands
As previously mentioned, many wetlands in the Chimacum Creek watershed were drained or filled to
facilitate farming and agricultural uses. The remaining wetlands throughout the watershed are mainly
freshwater emergent, and freshwater scrub-shrub. Some wetlands remain along the lower reaches of
Chimacum Creek between Chimacum and Port Hadlock (see Figure 2a). Many of these wetlands are
separated by industrial and residential land uses. Other wetlands in the watershed are found at the
confluence of Chimacum and East Fork Chimacum Creeks; surrounding lakes (Anderson, Delanty,
Gibbs, and Beausite Lakes); and throughout Chimacum and Beaver Valleys. Wetlands adjacent to lakes
in the watershed have generally good forested cover. Larger wetland complexes in Chimacum and
Beaver Valleys primarily occur on or adjacent to agricultural lands. Many of these wetlands have been
partially drained or ditched for agriculture and have little to no natural buffer conditions (USFWS, 2015).
Remaining wetlands associated with smaller tributaries are largely surrounded by commercial
forestland and rural residential development and retain some forested cover. Freshwater and estuarine
wetlands are found in the lower reaches of Chimacum Creek and its estuary. These wetlands are fairly
intact and have good forested cover. In total, wetlands make up approximately 11 percent of the
watershed (USFWS, 2015).
3.4.6 Wildlife
The Chimacum Creek watershed contains diverse habitats of various vegetation cover types for
numerous species of wildlife. Coniferous forest cover in the watershed is 33 percent, mixed forest cover
is 14 percent, deciduous forest cover is 10 percent, shrub cover is 9 percent, pasture/hay cover is also 9
percent, herbaceous cover is 6 percent, and woody and emergent wetland plant cover is 7 percent (see
Figure 2e) (Homer et al., 2015).
According to the WDFW PHS database, several priority bird species have been documented in
developed and undeveloped areas of the watershed. Two bald eagle territory areas are mapped at
Anderson and Beausite Lakes, and an osprey occurrence is mapped at Gibbs Lake (WDFW, 2016a).
Seabird concentrations are mapped in Anderson Lake as well. Waterfowl concentrations also regularly
occur in Anderson Lake and in Chimacum Valley, especially in agricultural fields during the winter
(WDFW, 2016a). A wood duck nesting area is mapped near the intersection of Center, Eaglemount, and
West Valley Roads. Trumpeter swans regularly concentrate at Anderson Lake, Beausite Lake, Gibbs
Lake, Peterson Lake, Delanty Lake, and various dairy fields and farmland in Center and Beaver Valleys
(WDFW, 2016a).
A priority amphibian species is mapped in the watershed as well. Two western toad breeding areas are
mapped in Anderson Lake and near a private residence in the southern watershed near Center Road
(WDFW, 2016a).
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 3-8 March 2016
Chimacum Creek Watershed
3.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities
The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database
does not identify any high-quality vegetation or habitat types in the watershed (2013).
3.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities
Management issues in the Chimacum Creek watershed:
Although improving, water quality in Chimacum Creek does not meet State standards for
temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform bacteria, pH, and ammonia-nitrate.
Overbank flooding is a regular occurrence in the Chimacum Creek mainstem.
Many riparian and wetland buffers associated with Chimacum and East Fork Chimacum Creeks,
and other tributaries in the watershed, are low functioning due to lack of cover and/or existing
land use activities.
Opportunities in the watershed:
Continue restoration efforts (property acquisition, LWD placement, livestock exclusion fencing,
invasive species control, native species planting, stream reconfiguring) in the middle and upper
channels, floodplains, wetlands, and riparian zones of Chimacum and East Fork Chimacum
Creeks.
Continue conservation efforts (property acquisition) in the lower reaches and estuary of
Chimacum Creek.
Continue to provide funding and incentives for landowners to adopt CREP buffers and employ
BMPs.
Continue efforts to remove and/or replace road culverts that impede fish passage.
Protect designated core habitat and corridor areas within the watershed.
Protect habitats mapped by WDFW that support PHS listed species.
3.6 Watershed Fact Sheet
The Fact Sheet for the Chimacum Creek Watershed is presented on the following pages.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 3-9
Chimacum Creek Watershed
CHIMACUM CREEK WATERSHED
WATERSHED AREA:
37 Square Miles
NSERT FIGURE
MAPPED CRITICAL AREAS
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (CARAs)
Approximately 4% of the watershed is located within the
FEMA 100-year floodplain; these floodplain areas are
concentrated along Chimacum and East Fork
Chimacum Creeks as well as Anderson, Gibbs, and
Delanty Lakes.
CARAs are mapped in approximately 38% of the total
watershed area; these areas are found near Port
Hadlock-Irondale, Chimacum, and Center and Beaver
Valleys.
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Landslide hazard areas (4% of watershed area) mainly
include small hillslides of Beaver Valley. Erosion
hazards (5% of watershed area) are mapped in the
hillsides between Center and Beaver Valleys and the
uplands of Anderson and Gibbs Lakes. Seismic hazard
areas (19% of watershed area) are mapped along
Chimacum and East Fork Chimacum Creek.
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION
AREAS
The majority of the streams provide habitat for cutthroat
and coho salmon. Chimacum and East Fork Chimacum
Creeks also provide habitat for steelhead and summer
and fall chum salmon.
Trumpeter swans, shorebird concentrations, and bald
eagle territories are mapped in a number of areas within
the watershed, primarily near Anderson Lake. The
Chimacum Valley also supports waterfowl
concentrations, especially in agricultural fields during
the winter.
Approximately 15% of the watershed contains mapped
core habitat areas.
WETLANDS
Approximately 11% of the watershed is mapped as
wetland habitat, generally associated with streams and
lakes in the watershed.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 3-10 March 2016
Chimacum Creek Watershed
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES
WATERSHED CONFIGURATION LAND COVER
The watershed is relatively hilly. Chimacum Creek and
East Fork Chimacum Creek flow through the wide
Center and Beaver Valleys, respectively. Outside of
these valleys, most of the drainages throughout the
watershed have steeper gradients and confined
floodplains.
Coniferous forest cover in the watershed is 33%, mixed
forest cover is 14%, deciduous forest cover is 10%,
shrub cover is 9%, pasture/hay cover is also 9%,
herbaceous cover is 6%, and woody and emergent
wetland plant cover is 7%. The remaining 12% of the
watershed contains developed areas.
WATER QUALITY
The state water quality assessment (2012) lists the
waters of Chimacum Creek as impaired for bacteria,
pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and ammonia-
nitrate, primarily in the lower reaches and agricultural
areas. At the confluence of Chimacum Creek and the
East Fork the stream has listed temperature
impairments. Anderson and Gibbs Lakes are currently
monitored for toxic algae blooms.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE
EXISTING LAND USES WATERSHED MODIFICATIONS
The primary land uses in the watershed are agriculture
and timber harvest. Agriculture is focused in the Center
and Beaver Valleys. Timber harvest in the upper
watershed primarily occurs on private and state lands.
Some timber harvest occurs in the middle and lower
watershed for residential and commercial development.
Areas of rural residential, limited commercial
development, and conservation easements are present
along the lower parts of Chimacum Creek.
Early settlers drained wetlands and beaver ponds, and
channelized both forks of Chimacum Creek and its
tributaries for agriculture. Much of the upper watershed
was historically logged for timber production, some of
which still occurs.
ZONING
Lands within the watershed are zoned primarily as
Commercial Forest (32% of total watershed area) and
Rural Residential (minimum lot sizes from 5 to 20
acres) (34%). Approximately 16% of the watershed is
zoned for agriculture, with smaller areas of Rural Forest
(5%) and Parks, Preserves, and Recreation (3%).
KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Although improving, water quality in Chimacum Creek does not meet State standards for temperature,
dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform bacteria, pH, and ammonia-nitrate.
Overbank flooding is a regular occurrence in the Chimacum Creek mainstem.
Many riparian and wetland buffers are low functioning due to lack of cover and/or land use activities.
Continue restoration efforts (property acquisition, LWD placement, livestock exclusion fencing, invasive
species control, native species planting, stream reconfiguring) on Chimacum Creek and its tributaries
Continue to provide funding and incentives for landowners to adopt CREP buffers and employ BMPs.
Protect priority and core habitats within the watershed, and continue efforts to remove fish passage barriers.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 4-1
Dabob Bay Watershed
CHAPTER 4. Dabob Bay Watershed
This chapter describes the conditions of the Dabob Bay watershed (Figures 3a to 3f). The watershed is
described in terms of its physical, ecological, and human environment/land use characteristics.
Characteristics for the watershed are summarized in the “fact sheet” included at the end this chapter.
4.1 Overview
The Dabob Bay watershed covers approximately 29 square miles around Dabob Bay, which is
contiguous with Hood Canal to the south (see Figure 3a). Dabob Bay is considered one of the top oyster
seed growing areas in the world (ESA, 2008). The bay is surrounded by mostly undeveloped steep,
eroding feeder bluffs and low, forested bluffs. About 1,193 acres of the bay’s eastern shoreline is
designated as a natural area preserve (the Dabob Bay Natural Area), which is one of Washington’s
highest functioning coastal spit and tidal wetland systems (WDNR, 2016).. Of the nine watersheds
described in this report, the Dabob Bay watershed is the least developed. The U.S. Navy uses Dabob
Bay as a torpedo and submarine testing area, and a small base at Zelatched Point supports these
operations (ESA, 2008). Tarboo Creek, the primary drainage in the watershed, empties into Tarboo Bay
at the head of Dabob Bay. The stream originates four miles south of Discovery Bay at approximately
600 feet elevation (ESA, 2008). Tarboo Creek flows south about 6.8 miles along the west side of the
Toandos Peninsula into Tarboo Bay. The creek is approximately 13 miles in combined length, including
all its tributaries (Correa, 2002). Roughly 400 acres of lower Tarboo Creek and its associated estuary,
coastal spits, and uplands are protected as state-owned Natural Area Preserves (Bahls, 2004).
The primary land use in the watershed is commercial forestry, followed by rural residential
development, aquaculture, and some agriculture. A number of waterbodies (lakes, tributaries, and
wetlands) are located within the watershed, including East Fork Tarboo Creek, Camp Discovery Creek,
Lindsay Creek, Tarboo Lake, and many other unnamed streams and lakes. Tarboo Lake is the only
waterbody in the watershed that is designated as a shoreline of the state.
4.2 Physical Characterization
The upper reaches of Tarboo Creek (above RM 4.0) are characterized by a slight gradient (1 to 2
percent), with a high frequency of large pool habitat (Correa, 2002).The stream flows through a fairly
confined channel between Highway 104 and a logging road and as a result has poor connectivity with
the floodplain. Several mass wasting events caused by stormwater runoff from surrounding roads have
also occurred resulting in increased sediment to the stream (Correa, 2002).
South of Highway 104, the majority of Tarboo Creek is mapped within the FEMA 100-year floodplain
(see Figure 3c). The middle to lower reaches of the stream (below RM 4.0) are characterized by a low-
gradient glide with few pools (Correa, 2002). The lower reaches of the stream have good floodplain
connectivity as the stream empties into Tarboo Bay, an undisturbed and high-quality estuary
maintained by the supply of sediment from the stream. East of the stream mouth is a substantial
concentration of drift logs (ESA, 2008; Johannessen, 1992). Long Spit extends from the eastern
shoreline of Dabob Bay and into the estuary. Beyond this spit, Dabob Bay plunges to a depth of more
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 4-2 March 2016
Dabob Bay Watershed
than 500 feet (Bahls, 2004). East Fork Tarboo Creek is a primary tributary of Tarboo Creek and
originates in low foothills east of Dabob Bay (see Figure 3a). Large sections of the stream channel are
confined by Coyle Road and armoring. This has eliminated much of the stream’s floodplain
connectivity to off-channel habitats and resulted streambank erosion problems (Correa, 2002).
Lindsay Creek is a tributary of Dabob Bay that originates on the Bolton Peninsula (see Figure 3a). The
stream empties into a heavily disturbed and altered small estuary before entering Dabob Bay. The
majority of the estuary’s shorelines have riprap or bulkheads, and an aquaculture facility is located in
the estuary (Correa, 2002). Another tributary of Dabob Bay, Camp Discovery Creek, flows into the east
side of the bay from the western side of the Toandos Peninsula (Correa, 2002). The stream enters
Dabob Bay via a narrow channel cut into a rapidly migrating spit. The spit encloses a long, narrow tidal
lagoon (Correa, 2002).
Tarboo Lake is located about 5.5 miles north of Tarboo Bay, between Highway 104 and Lake Leland
(see Figure 3a). The lake has a surface area of 20.3 acres and no outlet (ESA, 2008). The entire area of
Tarboo Lake is mapped within the FEMA 100-year floodplain (see Figure 3c) (Jefferson County, 1998).
About 1 percent of the watershed area overall is mapped in the FEMA 100-year floodplain.
CARAs are mapped along most shorelines in the watershed as well as the Tarboo Creek drainage and
surrounding uplands (see Figure 3a). Approximately 39 percent of the watershed area has mapped
CARAs (Jefferson County, 2006a).
In general, the western shoreline of Dabob Bay is considered unstable with the exception of some low-
lying areas of Lindsay Beach and Broad Spit (ESA, 2008). The bluffs in this area are prone to failure and
contribute sediment to the nearshore (Ecology, 1978; Correa, 2002). Landslide hazard areas mapped in
the Dabob Bay watershed include shorelines and upland bluffs, including the western bluffs of Dabob
Bay (see Figure 3b) (Jefferson County, 1997a). Similarly, erosion hazards are mapped along shorelines
and upland bluffs in the watershed, primarily on the Bolton Peninsula (Jefferson County, 1997c).
Seismic hazards are mapped along the spits of Tarboo Bay, and surrounding uplands of Tarboo Bay and
Dabob Bay (Jefferson County, 1997b). Most of the shorelines in Dabob Bay have mapped seismic
hazards. Similarly, most of the Tarboo Creek riparian corridor is mapped as a seismic hazard area.
4.3 Land Use
Historical land use in the Dabob Bay watershed was primarily timber harvest and agriculture. As a
result, streams and wetlands in the watershed have been cleared, diked, drained, or channelized to
facilitate these uses (JCPW, 2005). Previously, agriculture was concentrated in lower reaches of the
Tarboo Creek drainage, while the upper reaches were largely harvested for timber (Correa, 2002).
Current forestry activities in the watershed occur on private and state forestlands (JCPW, 2005).
Approximately 57 percent of the watershed is zoned Commercial Forest and 7 percent is zoned Rural
Forest (see Figure 3d) (Jefferson County, 2006b). Additionally, 2 percent of the watershed is zoned
Commercial Agriculture and 1 percent is zoned Local Agriculture.
Remaining areas in the watershed zoned for Rural Residential are located along shorelines of Dabob
Bay and near Zelatched Point, comprising 29 percent of the watershed. Zelatched Point is a U.S. Navy
property with a helicopter pad and small base (Correa, 2002). Rural residential and vacation homes
along Dabob Bay’s shorelines are primarily concentrated at Lindsay Beach, Camp Discovery, and Camp
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 4-3
Dabob Bay Watershed
Harmony. Aquaculture facilities are also located in northeast Dabob Bay and at Broad Spit. Broad Spit
and other areas of Dabob Bay are used for commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting (Correa,
2002).
4.4 Habitats and Species
The following sections describe existing fish and wildlife habitats and species based on available
studies, data, and mapping such as:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
database (WDFW, 2016a);
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), National Heritage Program GIS dataset
(WNHP, 2013);
WDFW SalmonScape Database (WDFW, 2016c);
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List
(Ecology, 2014);
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database (USFWS,
2015);
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Land Cover database (Homer et al., 2015);
Jefferson County critical areas, zoning, and core habitat area GIS mapping;
Jefferson County water quality and other technical reports; and
Aerial imagery.
4.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors
A number of core habitat and corridor types (described in Appendix A) are mapped in the Dabob Bay
watershed (see Figure 3f) (Tomassi, 2004). Core 1 areas signify the most intact habitats in the
watershed, Core 2 areas included mostly intact (some fragmentation) habitats, and Core 3 areas include
important habitats that are degraded or altered. These include the following:
Core 1 - Includes large parts of the lower reaches of Tarboo Creek, Tarboo Bay and surrounding
uplands, and shorelines at the head of Dabob Bay. Spans commercial forest and rural
residences.
Core 1 - Small portion in the western part of the watershed at the head of Quilcene Bay. Habitat
overlaps into Quilcene Bay watershed and spans rural residential areas.
Core 2 - Extends into the Southeast Hood Canal watershed in the central portion of Toandos
Peninsula. Habitat is located in commercial forestland.
Core 3 - Includes middle to upper Tarboo Creek and surrounding uplands in a mix of commercial
and local agriculture and rural residential land uses.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 4-4 March 2016
Dabob Bay Watershed
4.4.2 Fish Use
A number of fish species have been documented rearing and spawning in the watershed, including fall
Chinook, fall chum, coho, and pink (odd years) salmon; winter steelhead; and coastal cutthroat trout
(WDFW, 2016c). Table 4-1 shows species documented as present or presumed present in the
watershed.
Table 4-1. Fish Presence in the Dabob Bay Watershed
Stream
Species Present1
Fall
Chinook Fall Chum Coho Pink
(Odd Year)
Winter
Steelhead
Coastal
Cutthroat
(Resident)
Tarboo Creek X X X X X X
East Fork Tarboo
Creek X X X
Browns Lake X
Camp Discovery
Creek X
Lindsay Creek X2 X
1Species presence is based on data gathered from WDFW SalmonScape database (2016c).
2Presumed presence (WDFW, 2016c).
Salt marshes and lagoons provide important resting habitat for migrating salmonids. Summer chum
have been documented in Tarboo and Dabob Bays from late January through early May (Bahls, 2004). A
lagoon at the mouth of Camp Discovery Creek harbors juvenile Chinook, coho, and chum salmon
(Hirschi, 1999). Forage fish species (herring, sand lance, and surf smelt) have been documented
spawning at several areas north of Broad Spit on the west side of Tarboo Bay and along other
shorelines of Dabob Bay (Long et al., 2005).
Several road culverts have been identified as fish passage barriers on Tarboo Creek (JCPW, 2005). Five
of those culverts have been replaced since 1999. Currently, complete culvert barriers are found on roads
along upper Tarboo Creek (WDFW, 2016b). A number of other complete and partial culvert barriers are
found along unnamed tributaries of the watershed (WDFW, 2016b).
A number of restoration projects have occurred in the watershed, mostly focused on protection and
restoration of shorelines and nearshore habitats in Dabob Bay. These projects have involved removal of
structures, riprap, bulkhead, or fill; planting native vegetation; invasive species control; and
reconfiguring of the shoreline (WDFW, 2016d; RCO, 2016). Some projects have involved culvert
replacement where culverts are complete barriers to fish passage. Along East Fork Tarboo Creek, two
projects on Coyle Road replaced culvert barriers (RCO, 2016). One project included log and rock weir
installations in the stream. Similarly, two projects on Center Road in the upper reaches of Tarboo Creek
replaced culverts that were barriers to fish passage (RCO, 2016).
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 4-5
Dabob Bay Watershed
Riparian restoration along Tarboo Creek is also being carried out under the Hood Canal Watershed and
Hood Canal Clean Streams projects (Dawson, 2015). Primarily aimed at improving dissolved oxygen and
temperature 303(d) list impairments, these projects could also reduce bacterial loads by filtering surface
runoff to the stream.
4.4.3 Water Quality
Dabob Bay and Tarboo Creek, amongst other waterbodies in the County, were monitored 2013 to 2014
for surface water quality as part of the Hood Canal Watershed Clean Water Project, a program of the
County’s Public Health Water Quality Division (2014). Various sites were designated for Pollution
Identification and Correction (PIC) because they failed State fecal coliform standards. This includes
seven sites in the Dabob watershed monitored for E. coli; three sites in Tarboo Creek; two suspected
failing onsite sewage systems; one site near a horse pasture on Carl Johnson Road; and another site at a
culvert on Carl Johnson Road (Dawson et al., 2014).
The lower reach of Tarboo Creek (from RM 1.0 to 3.0) is on the Ecology 303(d) list for temperature and
dissolved oxygen impairments (Ecology, 2014). Farther upstream (RM 6.2 to 6.7), Tarboo Creek has
listed temperature impairments.
The Washington State Department of Health manages water quality monitoring stations for bacteria in
Dabob Bay shellfish growing areas. All monitoring stations have met state water quality standards for
bacteria, but one monitoring station at the head of Dabob Bay measured high in fecal coliform (DOH,
2014). As a result, the bay’s shellfish growing area is given a “Concerned” status. Agricultural practices
in the Tarboo Bay drainage have been identified as the primary source for fecal coliform and resulting
water quality impairments in Dabob Bay (Parametrix et al., 2000).
Other potential sources of concern for water quality include creosote pilings near a shellfish facility at
the northeast corner of Dabob Bay, and stormwater from an aquaculture facility at Broad Spit (Correa,
2002).
4.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions
In general, riparian conditions are fair in the watershed (Correa, 2002). The lower reaches of Tarboo
Creek and Tarboo Bay are under public ownership (managed by WDFW) and have intact canopy cover
of coniferous, deciduous, and mixed forest. As a result, the potential for LWD recruitment is high in this
portion of the stream (Correa, 2002). The middle to upper reaches of Tarboo Creek sparse riparian
vegetation and have less LWD. Recent timber harvest and logging roads limit stream buffers in these
reaches, resulting in narrow bands of deciduous tree cover in riparian areas. Similarly, the upper
reaches of East Fork Tarboo Creek have poor riparian conditions due to logging activities adjacent to
Coyle Road. The lower reaches of the stream have higher quality and functioning riparian conditions
(Correa, 2002).
4.4.5 Wetlands
Dabob Bay supports several large salt marsh wetlands and lagoons, including the estuary of Tarboo
Creek, Broad Spit, Tarboo Bay, the mouth of Camp Discovery Creek, and at Zelatched Point (see Figure
3a) (ESA, 2008). Wetlands in and adjacent to the Tarboo Creek estuary are currently protected by the
WDNR’s NHP and are jointly owned by the WDNR and The Nature Conservancy. Many of these
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 4-6 March 2016
Dabob Bay Watershed
wetlands are intact and provide important habitat for salmon and other fish in the watershed. Other
wetlands in the watershed include freshwater emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested. Some have been
partially drained, ditched, or modified, likely for agriculture purposes. One of these wetlands is a large
(approximately 134 acres) freshwater emergent complex, located in the Tarboo Wildlife Preserve
(middle reaches of Tarboo Creek), within an area once used for agriculture (USFWS, 2015). This area is
currently protected by the Northwest Watershed Institute (NWI) as a fish and wildlife refuge (NWI,
2015). Restoration projects in the preserve worked to connect wetlands and restore vegetation cover.
Farther upstream are larger forested and emergent wetland complexes. While portions of these
wetlands retain some intact vegetation cover, others have sparse cover and are fragmented by
residential development. Smaller, natural and man-made scrub-shrub and forested wetlands are also
found throughout the watershed (see Figure 3a). Most of these wetlands are surrounded by
commercial forest, agriculture, and rural residential development. In total, wetlands make up 3 percent
of the watershed (USFWS, 2015).
4.4.6 Wildlife
The Dabob Bay watershed provides habitats of various vegetation cover types for numerous species of
wildlife, largely within undeveloped areas (see Figure 3e). Coniferous forest cover in the watershed is 47
percent, mixed forest cover is 16 percent, shrub cover is 16 percent, deciduous forest cover is 10
percent, herbaceous cover is 9 percent, pasture/hay cover is less than one percent, and woody and
emergent plant cover is 2 percent (Homer et al., 2015).
According to the WDFW PHS database, several priority bird species have been documented in
undeveloped and developed areas of the watershed. Osprey nests and breeding areas are mapped in
several parts of the watershed, including Zelatched Point, Camp Harmony, Camp Discovery, lower
Tarboo Creek, and uplands east of Tarboo Creek (WDFW, 2016a). Bald eagle territories are also
mapped in similar areas, including Camp Harmony and Camp Discovery as well as Tabook Point and
surrounding areas, Silent Lake, western shores of Dabob Bay, Broad Spit, and East Quilcene (WDFW,
2016a). Great blue herons have mapped occurrences at Zelatched Point, near Tarboo Bay, and in
commercial forestland along Tarboo Creek. A purple martin territory is mapped in Tarboo Bay within
the Natural Area Preserve. Waterfowl concentrations and a band-tailed pigeon occurrence are also
mapped in the eastern shores of Quilcene Bay (WDFW, 2016a). In addition, portions of the watershed
are within a northern spotted owl management buffer and a breeding survey area for marbled
murrelets.
Harbor seals, a priority mammal species, have mapped haul-outs on Long Spit and Broad Spit. Western
toads, a priority amphibian species, have a mapped occurrence dated in 2002 in lower Tarboo Creek
near the mouth of the estuary (WDFW, 2016a).
4.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities
The Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) identifies several high-quality vegetation
communities in the watershed. In fact, the spits of Tarboo estuary are recognized as one of the best spit
habitats with native salt marsh and berm plants in Washington State (ESA, 2008). Vegetation
communities include pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), red fescue-silver burrweed (Festuca rubra –
Ambrosia chamissonis), and American dunegrass-Japanese beach pea (Leymus mollis – Lathyrus
japonicus). The WNHP also identifies the following in Tarboo Bay: moderate salinity high marsh (party
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 4-7
Dabob Bay Watershed
enclosed, backshore, polyhaline marsh); coastal spit with native vegetation; and sandy, high salinity,
low marsh (partly enclosed, eulittoral, euhaline marsh) (WNHP, 2013). These areas are currently
protected by the WDNR’s NHP and are jointly owned by the WDNR and The Nature Conservancy.
4.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities
Management issues in the Dabob Bay watershed:
Water quality in Tarboo Creek does not meet State standards for temperature and dissolved
oxygen.
Dabob Bay shellfish growing area is designated as an area of concern due to poor water quality
by the State Department of Health.
Some riparian and wetland buffers associated with Tarboo and East Fork Tarboo Creeks, and
other tributaries in the watershed are low functioning due to lack of cover and/or exiting land
use activities.
Opportunities in the watershed:
Continue restoration efforts (armor removal, LWD placement, livestock exclusion fencing,
invasive species control, native species planting, stream reconfiguring) in the channels,
floodplains, wetlands, and riparian zones of Tarboo and East Fork Tarboo Creeks.
Continue conservation and restoration efforts in the lower reaches and estuary of Tarboo
Creek.
Continue efforts to remove and/or replace road culverts that impede fish passage.
Continue to protect WNHP identified high-quality vegetation communities in the Tarboo
estuary and Dabob Bay.
Remove potential sources of concern for water quality (creosote pilings) in Dabob Bay, and
continue efforts to identify and correct sources of fecal coliform.
Protect designated core habitat and corridor areas within the watershed.
Protect habitats mapped by WDFW that support PHS listed species.
4.6 Watershed “Fact Sheet”
The Fact Sheet for the Dabob Bay Watershed is presented on the following pages.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 4-8 March 2016
Dabob Bay Watershed
DABOB BAY CREEK WATERSHED
WATERSHED AREA:
29 Square Miles
ERT FIGURE
MAPPED CRITICAL AREAS
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (CARAs)
Approximately 1% of the watershed is located within the
FEMA 100-year floodplain; these floodplain areas are
concentrated along Tarboo Creek, its tributaries, and
the area around Tarboo Lake.
CARAs are mapped in approximately 39% of the total
watershed area; these areas are concentrated around
Tarboo Creek and the bay shoreline.
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Landslide hazard areas (24% of watershed area) are
mapped along the shorelines and upland bluffs
including the western bluffs of Dabob Bay. Erosion
hazards (10% of watershed area) are also mapped in
these general areas, primarily along the Bolton
Peninsula. Seismic hazard areas (9% of watershed
area) are mapped in the spits and surrounding upland
of Tarboo Bay, as well as Dabob Bay.
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION
AREAS
Tarboo Creek provides habitat for Chinook, chum,
coho, and pink salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat. The
East Fork provides habitat for coho salmon, steelhead,
and cutthroat. Salt marshes and lagoons along the
shore also provide resting habitat for migrating salmon.
Osprey nests and bald eagle territories are mapped in
several areas along Dabob Bay. Waterfowl
concentrations are mapped on the eastern shores of
Quilcene Bay. Portions of the watershed are within a
northern spotted owl management buffer and a
breeding survey area for marbled murrelets. Seal
haulouts are also mapped along the shores of Long Spit
and Broad Spit.
Approximately 10% of the watershed contains mapped
core habitat areas.
WETLANDS
Approximately 2% of the watershed is mapped as
wetland habitat, which is generally associated with
Tarboo Creek and estuary.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 4-9
Dabob Bay Watershed
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES
WATERSHED CONFIGURATION LAND COVER
The majority of the watershed contains slight to
moderate slopes. With the exception of lower Tarboo
Creek, most of the drainages throughout the watershed
have steeper gradients and confined floodplains.
Coniferous forest cover in the watershed is 47%, mixed
forest cover is 16%, shrub cover is 16%, deciduous
forest cover is 10%, herbaceous cover is 9%,
pasture/hay cover is <1%, and woody and emergent
plant cover is 2%. Less than <1% of the watershed is
covered with developed lands. WATER QUALITY
The state water quality assessment (2012) lists the
lower reach of Tarboo Creek as impaired for
temperature and low dissolved oxygen levels. Several
sites in Dabob Bay and Tarboo Creek are monitored for
surface water quality. In 2014, three of these sites in
Tarboo Creek contained elevated E. coli levels.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE
EXISTING LAND USES WATERSHED MODIFICATIONS
The primary land use in the watershed is commercial
timber harvest and rural residential development.
Current forestry activities occur on private and state
forestlands throughout the watershed. Areas of rural
residential are located near Zelatched Point, a US Navy
property. Residences along Dabob’s Bay shoreline are
concentrated at Lindsey Beach, Camp Discovery, and
Camp Harmony. Broad spit is used for an aquaculture
facility, as well as commercial and recreational shellfish
harvesting.
Streams and wetlands in the watershed have been
diked, drained, or channelized to support historical
logging and agricultural practices. Large sections of
Tarboo Creek channel are confined by roads and
armoring. The majority of the Lindsay Creek estuary
shoreline contains rip/rap and bulkheads.
ZONING
Lands within the watershed are zoned primarily as
Commercial Forest (58% of total watershed area) and
Rural Residential (minimum lot sizes from 5 to 20
acres) (29%). Approximately 2% of the watershed is
zoned for agriculture, with smaller areas of Parks, and
Forest Resource-based Industrial (< 1%).
KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Water quality in Tarboo Creek does not meet State standards for temperature and dissolved oxygen, and the
Dabob Bay shellfish growing area is designated as an area of concern due to poor water quality by the State
Department of Health.
Some riparian and wetland buffers associated with Tarboo and East Fork Tarboo Creeks, and other tributaries
in the watershed are low functioning due to lack of cover and/or land use activities.
Contains conservation and restoration efforts (armor removal, LWD placement, livestock exclusion fencing,
invasive species control, native species planting, stream reconfiguring) in the Tarboo Creek system, and
continue efforts to correct fish passage barriers.
Continue to protect WNHP identified high-quality vegetation communities in the Tarboo estuary and Dabob
Bay.
Protect designated priority habitats and core habitats and corridors.
Remove potential sources of concern for water quality (creosote pilings) in Dabob Bay, and continue efforts to
identify and correct sources of fecal coliform.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 5-1
Discovery Bay Watershed
CHAPTER 5. Discovery Bay Watershed
This chapter describes the conditions of the Discovery Bay watershed (Figures 4a to 4f). The watershed
is described in terms of its physical, ecological, and human environment/land use characteristics.
Characteristics of the watershed are summarized in the “fact sheet” included at the end of this chapter.
5.1 Overview
The Discovery Bay watershed extends into Clallam County and onto USFS land. The portion of the
watershed within Jefferson County is approximately 50 square miles in area. The two major drainages
to the bay are Salmon Creek (approximately 10 miles long) and Snow Creek (approximately 10 miles
long). Both Salmon and Snow Creeks drain into Discovery Bay, a large bay contiguous with the Strait of
Juan de Fuca (see Figure 4a). The bay provides habitat for a small population of rare native Olympia
oysters and is considered one of the most important commercial shellfish harvesting areas in
Washington State (ESA et al., 2012). Other streams and waterbodies located within the watershed
include tributaries to Snow Creek (Trapper Creek, Rixon Creek, Andrews Creek, and Crocker Lake),
Eagle Creek, Contractor’s Creek, and several unnamed drainages. Crocker Lake, Salmon Creek (mouth
to RM 3.3), and Snow Creek (mouth to RM 1.5) are designated as shorelines of the state (ESA, 2008).
The primary land uses in the watershed are commercial forestry and rural residential. More dense
residential development and some commercial uses are located in the unincorporated communities of
Gardiner, Discovery Bay, Adelma Beach, Cape George, Beckett Point, and several other areas adjacent
to the bay.
5.2 Physical Characterization
The lands surrounding Discovery Bay are relatively hilly, with the exception of a wide alluvial valley
associated with Snow and Salmon Creeks (Correa, 2002). Historically, Snow Creek emptied into Salmon
Creek near its estuary at the center of the valley, but Snow Creek was moved to a channelized outlet at
the east side of the valley (ESA et al., 2012). Snow Creek now joins Salmon Creek in the intertidal area
of Discovery Bay during low tides. Bridges along Highway 101 and State Route 20 also cross the
estuaries of Salmon and Snow Creeks (ESA et al., 2012).
The middle and lower reaches of Salmon Creek remain sinuous and have fair amounts of LWD in the
channel. Snow Creek originally meandered through the lower valley, but is now largely linear due to
road crossings (Correa, 2002; ESA et al., 2012). The valley below Uncas Road was historically developed
for agricultural uses. The lower portion of Andrews Creek, between Bolton Road and its confluence
with Snow Creek, has also been channelized and its valley converted to agricultural uses. These valleys
are mapped in the FEMA 100-year floodplain (see Figure 4c), although historic modifications, some of
which were removed in 2015, decreased the floodplain extent and functions. The upper portions of
these streams, as well as the other drainages throughout the watershed, generally have steeper
gradients and confined floodplains. Crocker Lake, which is approximately 74 acres in area, discharges to
Anderson Creek which flows to Snow Creek at RM 3.5. The lake is surrounded by residential and
agricultural lands.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 5-2 March 2016
Discover Bay Watershed
CARAs are mapped throughout approximately one-quarter (24%) of the total watershed area. CARAs
are concentrated along the Snow and Salmon Creek stream system and along the bay shoreline
(Jefferson County, 2006a).
Within the watershed, landslide hazard areas are mapped on bluffs along the Discovery Bay, as well as
the sleeper slopes on the foothills located east and south of the bay (see Figure 4b) (Jefferson County,
1998). Erosion hazard areas are also mapped in these general areas (Jefferson County, 1997b). Seismic
hazard areas are mapped in several locations in the watershed, primarily along Salmon Creek (Jefferson
County, 1997a).
5.3 Land Use
Historic land uses in the watershed were primarily forestry and agricultural development located near
the south end of Discovery Bay (JCPW, 2005). Commercial timber harvest and agriculture continue
today in similar locations. Currently, most of the watershed is zoned for commercial forestry (43
percent) and rural residential (41 percent), with some agriculture-zoned area (1 percent) along Snow
Creek (see Figure 4d) (Jefferson County, 2003). Denser residential subdivisions are located in some
areas within the watershed, near the shoreline of Discovery Bay. Additionally, the Discovery Bay Golf
Club is located just east of Discovery Bay, off of Cape George Road.
Current zoning generally limits single-family residences to lots of 5 acres or larger. Minimal areas are
zoned for more dense development (such as commercial). Overall, the potential for further population
growth in the watershed is limited by the low density of development that is allowed (JCPW, 2005).
5.4 Habitats and Species
The following sections describe existing fish and wildlife habitats and species based on available
studies, data, and mapping such as:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
database (WDFW, 2016a);
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), National Heritage Program GIS dataset
(WNHP, 2013);
WDFW SalmonScape Database (WDFW, 2016c);
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List
(Ecology, 2014);
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database (USFWS,
2015);
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Land Cover database (Homer et al., 2015);
Jefferson County critical areas, zoning, and core habitat area GIS mapping;
Jefferson County water quality and other technical reports; and
Aerial imagery.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 5-3
Discovery Bay Watershed
5.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors
A few core habitat and corridor types are mapped within the Discovery Bay watershed and described in
Appendix A (see Figure 4f) (Tomassi, 2004). Core 1 areas signify the most intact habitats in the
watershed while Core 2 areas include mostly intact (some fragmentation present) habitats and
Corridors connect two core areas together. These include the following:
Core 1 - Habitat block located near the confluence of Snow and Trapper Creeks.
Core 2 - Located along lower Snow Creek (up to the Andrews Creek mouth) and extending to
the south along lower Andrews Creek.
Corridor - Located along upper Snow Creek, riparian corridor from the Andrews Creek mouth to
near the Trapper Creek mouth.
5.4.2 Fish Use
Snow Creek and Salmon Creek support runs of coho, steelhead, and summer chum salmon, as well as
coastal cutthroat (see Figure 4f) (Correa, 2002). Habitat conditions in the lower portions of the creek
have been altered by channelization, bank stabilization, and historic removal of riparian forest cover,
although habitat conditions improve upstream. The estuaries of Salmon and Snow Creeks provide salt
marsh and shallow water habitat for juvenile salmonids. Numerous habitat restoration projects have
occurred along lower Snow and Salmon Creeks and their estuaries in recent years. Restoration has
included large woody debris placement, channel restoration, and removal of tidal barriers (RCO, 2016).
Trapper Creek and Andrews Creek (including Crocker Lake) are the major tributaries to Snow Creek.
Andrews Creek provides habitat for chum and coho salmon, steelhead, and coastal cutthroat.
Additionally, Crocker Lake is used as rearing habitat by coho salmon (ESA, 2008). A total barrier blocks
fish passage at Snow Creek Road on Andrews Creek (Correa, 2002).
Eagle Creek, which drains into Discovery Bay near the Jefferson-Clallam County border, is identified by
WDFW as providing habitat for coho salmon and coastal cutthroat (2016c). North of Highway 101, the
stream is dammed to form two man-made ponds (Correa, 2002). Due to the active management of
water levels in the ponds, the creek is dry below approximately RM 1.0.
To the east of Gardiner, Contractor’s Creek drains into Discovery Bay. The upper portion of the stream
may be suitable to provide fish habitat, but access is blocked by a series of undersized culverts located
near the mouth (Correa, 2002). The stream historically drained to a salt marsh adjacent to Contractor’s
Point, but the marsh has largely disappeared due to shoreline armoring and a service road adjacent to
the beach.
Several of the smaller, unnamed drainages to Discovery Bay likely provide habitat for coastal cutthroat
trout, although the presence of steelhead or salmon species is not identified (WDFW, 2016c).
Table 5-1 shows the salmon and trout species documented as present or presumed present in the
watershed.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 5-4 March 2016
Discover Bay Watershed
Table 5-1. Fish Presence in the Discovery Bay Watershed
Stream
Species Present1
Summer
Chum Fall Chum Coho Pink
(Odd Year)
Winter
Steelhead
Coastal
Cutthroat
(Resident)
Andrews Creek X X X X
Contractor’s
Creek X X X
Eagle Creek X X
Salmon Creek X X X X
Snow Creek X X X X
Crocker Lake X X X X
1Species presence is based on data gathered from WDFW SalmonScape database (2016c).
5.4.3 Water Quality
The Washington Department of Ecology lists the waters of Discovery Bay for low dissolved oxygen
levels (Ecology, 2014). No fresh water bodies in the watershed are listed as impaired on the 303(d) list.
However, water quality samples collected in Snow Creek and its tributaries between June and October
1998 all exceeded standards for temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and fecal coliform at least once
during the testing period (JCPW, 2005).
In 2006, the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) downgraded a portion of a commercial
shellfish growing area near the mouths of Salmon and Snow Creek from “approved” to “restricted”
because of elevated levels of fecal coliform (JPH, 2011). As a result, Jefferson County Public Health
undertook a program to test and repair failing septic systems in the watershed, which reduced fecal
coliform levels and allowed the shellfish beds to be upgraded to “approved” in 2008. Although,
shoreline sampling in Discovery Bay in 2011 and 2015 indicate a slight increase in fecal coliform levels
(JPH, 2011 and 2015).
From 2012-2013, water quality testing took place in the Salmon and Snow Creek drainages as part of
the Clean Water District Activities project (Dawson, 2016). More than half of monitoring stations in the
two drainages failed State standards for fecal coliform. Human and ruminant fecal coliform were
detected in 13 percent and 3 percent of samples, respectively (Dawson, 2016).
5.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions
Most of the Discovery Bay watershed remains forested despite past removal of riparian cover for
agricultural activities and residential development. The remaining forest along the lower portions of
Snow and Salmon Creeks is predominately deciduous, although historical evidence indicates conifers
were present (Correa, 2002). The upstream portions of these streams, along with their tributaries, are
generally bordered by dense coniferous forest habitat.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 5-5
Discovery Bay Watershed
Eagle and Contractor’s Creeks are bordered by dense conifer forest habitats, although some areas have
been altered by adjacent residential developments.
5.4.5 Wetlands
Freshwater forested, shrub-shrub, emergent, and open water wetlands are mapped with the watershed
(2 percent of the total watershed area) (see Figure 4a) (USFWS, 2015). These wetlands are typically
associated with streams, particularly along Salmon and Snow Creeks, that flow into estuaries at the
mouths of these streams. Most of the mapped wetland areas have been historically modified by
agricultural development.
Large estuarine wetlands are present in the Salmon and Snow Creek estuaries as well as surrounding
shorelines of Discovery Bay (USFWS, 2015). These wetlands are relatively intact, with the exception of
some that have been modified by road and railroad crossings. Construction of a railroad grade along
the northern shoreline of Discovery Bay converted a historic spit into a lagoon and pond (ESA et al.,
2012). While the lagoon had tidal connections to the bay via a bridge at the railroad grade, the pond
was isolated from tides (ESA et al., 2012). Restoration within the south end of Discovery Bay in 2015
involved removal of the railroad grade, and fill material around tidal channels and a man-made
freshwater pond. This resulted in restored tidal flow to this portion of the bay and allows for the re-
establishment of conditions that would support estuaries.
5.4.6 Wildlife
The vast forest in the Discovery Bay watershed provides important habitat for multiple species of
wildlife. Coniferous forest cover in the watershed is 41 percent, shrub cover is 18 percent, mixed forest
cover is 13 percent, deciduous forest cover is 8 percent, herbaceous cover is 5 percent, pasture/hay
cover is 2 percent, and woody and emergent wetland plant cover is 2 percent (see Figure 4e) (Homer et
al., 2015).
According to the WDFW PHS database (2016a), the Snow/Salmon Creek estuary provides habitat for
trumpeter swan, as well as waterfowl and shorebird concentrations. A great blue heron breeding area is
identified just to the north of the estuary and east of Discovery Bay. Crocker Lake is also identified as a
trumpeter swan wintering area.
In the Gardiner vicinity, a bald eagle roosting area is mapped near the mouth of Eagle Creek, and
waterfowl and shoreline concentration areas are mapped in the lagoon just to the south. A harbor seal
haulout area is mapped at the mouth of Contractor’s Creek. Two cavity-nesting duck habitat areas are
identified in the southeastern portion of the watershed. To the north, a waterfowl concentration area is
mapped in the wetland complex just east of the Discovery Bay Golf Course. Additionally, a great blue
heron breeding area is mapped inland of Beckett Point.
5.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities
The Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) identifies one rare plant occurrence in the
watershed: blunt-leaved pondweed (Potamogeton obtusifolius) in Crocker Lake (WDNR, 2016). The
WNHP database also identifies two high-quality vegetation types within the watershed: a western red
cedar/western hemlock (Thuja plicata/Tsuga heterophylla) forest south of Crocker Lake near the
watershed boundary, and a Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forest east of Beckett Point.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 5-6 March 2016
Discover Bay Watershed
5.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities
In general, there is low potential for additional significant development in the watershed due to the
relatively restrictive zoning in the area.
Management Issues in the Discovery Bay watershed:
Water quality in Discovery Bay does not meet State standards for low dissolved oxygen levels.
Water quality in portions of Salmon and Snow Creeks do not meet State standards for fecal
coliform.
Some riparian and wetland buffers associated with Snow and Salmon Creeks, and Discovery
Bay are low functioning due to lack of cover, and/or land use modifications.
Opportunities in the watershed:
Continue efforts to monitor and correct fecal coliform levels in Salmon and Snow Creeks.
Continue restoration efforts in the channels, floodplains, wetlands, and riparian zones of lower
Salmon and Snow Creeks, as well as their estuaries.
Continue restoration efforts in wetlands surrounding Discovery Bay.
Correct fish passage barriers on Andrews Creek and Contractor’s Creek.
Investigate the potential of removing the ponds along Eagle Creek and restoring the stream
channel.
Protect WNHP rare plant and high-quality vegetation communities in Crocker Lake and near
Beckett Point.
Protect designated core habitat and corridor areas within the watershed.
Protect habitats mapped by WDFW that support PHS listed species.
5.6 Watershed “Fact Sheet”
The Fact Sheet for the Discovery Bay Watershed is presented on the following pages.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 5-7
Discovery Bay Watershed
DISCOVERY BAY WATERSHED
WATERSHED AREA:
50 Square Miles
MAPPED CRITICAL AREAS
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (CARAs)
Approximately 2% of the watershed is located within the
FEMA 100-year floodplain; these floodplain areas are
concentrated along Salmon and Snow Creeks and the
low-lying areas along the Discovery Bay shoreline.
CARAs are mapped in approximately 24% of the total
watershed area; these areas are concentrated around
the major streams in the watershed, as well as the bay
shoreline.
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Landslide hazard areas (19% of watershed area) are
mapped along the bay bluffs and the steeper slopes
located east and south of the bay. Erosion hazards
(10% of watershed area) are also mapped in these
general areas. Seismic hazard areas (8% of watershed
area) are mapped in several areas, primarily along
Salmon Creek.
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION
AREAS
Snow and Salmon Creeks, and their tributaries, provide
habitat for steelhead, coho salmon, and summer chum
salmon. Eagle Creek provides habitat for coho salmon.
Trumpeter swan, waterfowl and shorebird
concentrations, bald eagle, great blue heron breeding
areas, and a seal haulout area are mapped along the
Discovery Bay shoreline, as well as Crocker Lake. In
addition, several core habitats and corridors are
identified within the watershed.
Approximately 5% of the watershed contains mapped
core habitat areas.
WETLANDS
Approximately 2% of the watershed is mapped as
wetland habitat, generally associated with streams and
estuaries.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 5-8 March 2016
Discover Bay Watershed
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES
WATERSHED CONFIGURATION LAND COVER
The watershed is relatively hilly, with the exception of a
wide alluvial valley associated with the mouths of Snow
and Salmon Creeks. Most of the drainages throughout
the watershed have steeper gradients and confined
floodplains.
Coniferous forest cover in the watershed is 41%, shrub
cover is 18%, mixed forest cover is 13%, deciduous
forest cover is 8%, herbaceous cover is 5%,
pasture/hay cover is 2%, and woody and emergent
wetland plant cover is 2%. The remaining 11% of the
watershed is covered by developed lands. WATER QUALITY
The state water quality assessment (2012) lists the
waters of Discovery Bay as impaired for low dissolved
oxygen levels. High fecal coliform levels have been
recorded in Salmon and Snow Creeks, although a
County program to test and repair failing septic systems
has been effective at lowering fecal coliform
contamination.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE
EXISTING LAND USES WATERSHED MODIFICATIONS
The primary land use in the watershed is commercial
timber harvest, with some agricultural development
located near the south end of Discovery Bay. Areas of
rural residential and limited commercial development
are present in the unincorporated communities of
Gardiner, Discovery Bay, Adelma Beach, and several
other areas adjacent to the bay. Additionally, a golf
course is located just east of Discovery Bay, off of Cape
George Road.
Portions of lower Snow and Salmon Creeks (along with
their lower tributaries) have been channelized, and the
valley at the south end of Discovery Bay was historically
developed for agriculture. A portion of Eagle Creek was
dammed to form two man-made ponds; due to the way
the ponds are managed, the downstream end of the
creek is often dry. On Contractor’s Creek, fish access is
blocked at its lower end by a series of undersized
culverts. As a whole, the watershed is relatively
unmodified, with the exception of periodic timber
harvest.
ZONING
Lands within the watershed are zoned primarily as
Commercial Forest (45% of total watershed area) and
Rural Residential (minimum lot sizes from 5 to 20
acres) (47%). Approximately 2% of the watershed is
zoned for agriculture, with smaller areas of General
Crossroad, Essential Public Facility (Airport),
Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad, Parks, and Forest
Resource-based Industrial (< 1% each).
KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
In general, development potential in the watershed is low.
Discovery Bay water quality does not meet State standards for dissolved oxygen, and water quality in Salmon
and Snow Creeks does not meet State standards for fecal coliform.
Some riparian and wetland buffers associated with Snow and Salmon Creeks, and Discovery Bay are low
functioning due to lack of cover, and/or land use modifications.
Continue efforts to lower fecal coliform levels in Salmon and Snow Creeks.
Continue restoration efforts in Salmon and Snow Creeks, as well as the freshwater wetlands and estuaries
surrounding Discovery Bay. Investigate the potential of restoring Eagle Creek, and correct the fish passage
barriers on Andrews Creek and Contractor’s Creek.
Protect priority habitats, core habitats, and rare plant habitat within the watershed, and continue efforts to
remove fish passage barriers.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 6-1
Ludlow Creek Watershed
CHAPTER 6. Ludlow Creek Watershed
This chapter describes the conditions of the Ludlow Creek watershed (Figures 2a to 2f). The watershed
is described in terms of its physical, ecological, and human environment/land use characteristics.
Characteristics for the watershed are summarized in the “fact sheet” included at the end of this
chapter.
6.1 Overview
The Ludlow Creek watershed is at the eastern edge of Jefferson County and covers approximately 18
square miles. It is characterized by a mix of contrasting land uses including commercial forestry in the
upper portion of the watershed and residential and resort development near Port Ludlow. The
community of Port Ludlow borders Ludlow Bay on all sides. The primary land uses in the remainder of
the watershed consist of commercial forestry, agriculture, rural residential areas, and the Port Ludlow
Master Planned Resort. Ludlow Creek, the primary drainage in the watershed, is approximately 4.5
miles long and empties into a mudflat estuary at the head of Ludlow Bay (Correa, 2002). Several
waterbodies (lakes, tributaries, and wetlands) are found within the watershed, including Ludlow,
Horseshoe, and Larson Lakes, and many unnamed tributaries.
6.2 Physical Characterization
Ludlow Creek flows generally west to east toward Ludlow Bay (see Figure 2a). The upper portion of the
stream is largely undeveloped except for logging activities located adjacent to the creek, while the
lower portion of the creek is more developed. The middle section of Ludlow Creek near Oak Bay Road
and Beaver Valley Road (SR 19) has been channelized at the confluence of three tributaries with the
mainstem (Correa, 2002). Rural and single-family residences border the lower portion of the stream
before it enters Ludlow Bay. Similarly, the tributary that flows north to south along Beaver Valley in the
watershed is also channelized by Beaver Valley Road. The valley itself consists of mixed rural
residential, rural forest, commercial forest, and commercial and local agricultural land.
CARAs are present in Beaver Valley and surrounding uplands; upper Ludlow Creek; adjacent uplands of
northern and southern Port Ludlow Bay; and western Kala Point (see Figure 2a). These areas cover
approximately 22 percent of the watershed (Jefferson County, 2006a).
Landslide hazard areas are mapped in the Ludlow Creek watershed (see Figure 2b). The majority of
landslide hazard areas are mapped along the northern shoreline of the watershed, the feeder bluffs
west of Tala Point, and just north of Swansonville Road along an unnamed tributary(Jefferson County,
1997a). Seismic hazard areas are mapped primarily along Beaver Valley and feeder bluffs west of Tala
Point (Jefferson County, 1997b). Erosion hazards are also mapped for the feeder bluffs of Tala Point and
in the southern portion of the watershed, partly along Ludlow Creek, but also to the north and west of
the creek (Jefferson County, 1997c).
Approximately 1.4 percent of the watershed is mapped within the FEMA 100-year floodplain (Jefferson
County, 1998). Most of the tributary that flows through Beaver Valley is mapped in the FEMA 100-year
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 6-2 March 2016
Ludlow Creek Watershed
floodplain. Only a small portion of Ludlow Creek in the upper watershed is mapped in the FEMA 100-
year floodplain (see Figure 2c).
6.3 Land Use
Historic land use in the watershed was primarily forestry, and a large lumber mill once operated in Port
Ludlow (JCPW, 2005). Although the mill is no longer in operation today, commercial forestry activities
still occur on both private and state forest land. In fact, Ludlow Creek and its tributaries are primarily
surrounded by zoned Commercial Forest land (50 percent) and zoned Rural Residential areas
(approximately 25 percent) (Jefferson County, 2006b). Similarly, the streams in Beaver Valley are
surrounded by a combination of zoned Rural Residential, Rural Forest, Commercial Forest, and
Commercial and Local Agricultural land (see Figure 2d).
Residential development in the northern area of the watershed began in the mid-1960s, followed by
more development in the lower watershed (Port Ludlow area) in the 1980s (JCPW, 2005). Currently, the
Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort consists largely of single-family residences with some Resort
Complex/Community Facilities and Multiple Family zoning (Jefferson County, 2006b).
Undeveloped areas in the watershed are zoned for more intensive uses such as Master Planned Resort –
Single Family, Single Family Tracts, and Village Commercial. These undeveloped areas are located in
patches throughout Port Ludlow: at the head of the estuary and lower Ludlow Creek; along Paradise
Road; and east of the Port Ludlow Golf Course in southeastern Port Ludlow. Future development could
include marina expansion and condominium development.
6.4 Habitats and Species
The following sections describe existing fish and wildlife habitats and species based on available
studies, data, and mapping such as:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
database (WDFW, 2016a);
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), National Heritage Program GIS dataset
(WNHP, 2013);
WDFW SalmonScape Database (WDFW, 2016c);
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List
(Ecology, 2014);
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database (USFWS,
2015);
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Land Cover database (Homer et al., 2015);
Jefferson County critical areas, zoning, and core habitat area GIS mapping;
Jefferson County water quality and other technical reports; and
Aerial imagery.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 6-3
Ludlow Creek Watershed
6.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors
Several core habitat and corridor types (described in Appendix A) are mapped in the Ludlow Creek
watershed (see Figure 2f) (Tomassi, 2004):
Core 1 – Covers upper Ludlow Creek and Ludlow Lake, mainly on commercial and rural
residential land.
Core1 – Small portion northwest of Ludlow Lake on agricultural land that continues into
Chimacum Creek watershed.
Core 1 – Very small portion in southern boundary of watershed, continues into Southeast Hood
Canal watershed on commercial forestland.
Core 3 – Covers extent of Beaver Valley on mixed-use land (commercial agriculture, commercial
forestry, and rural residential).
Corridor – Covers upper tributaries of Ludlow Lake on commercial forestland.
6.4.2 Fish Use
Streams in the Ludlow Creek watershed mainly support resident coastal cutthroat populations (see
Figure 2f). Coho salmon have been documented in a tributary that runs through Beaver Valley and a
small tributary of Ludlow Creek near the head of Ludlow Bay (WDFW, 2016c). Other species, such as
steelhead and chum, have also been documented in portions of lower Ludlow Creek and tributaries
flowing into Ludlow Bay (Correa, 2002). Table 6-1 shows the salmon and trout species documented as
present or presumed present in the watershed.
Two marshes along the southern shoreline of Ludlow Bay, Ludlow Lagoon and East Ludlow Marsh,
provide important habitat for juvenile salmonids (Todd et al., 2006). Forage fish spawn just west of the
marina and along Ludlow Spit south of the Mats Mats quarry (Long et al., 2005).
Partial barriers to fish passage have been documented in culverts along Paradise Bay Road in the lower
mainstem of Ludlow Creek as it enters Ludlow Bay. The culverts under Paradise Bay Road also impede
the estuary functions of Ludlow Bay. One natural barrier for migrating salmon, a set of cascade falls,
has been documented 0.5 miles from the creek’s mouth (Correa, 2002). Both partial and complete
culvert barriers for resident fish are found on tributaries to Ludlow Creek in the upper portions of the
watershed and along Beaver Valley (WDFW, 2016b).
One restoration project in 2009 removed a fish passage barrier culvert and associated fill on
Swansonville Road (RCO, 2016). Large woody debris was also placed in the stream as part of the
project.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 6-4 March 2016
Ludlow Creek Watershed
Table 6-1. Fish Presence in the Ludlow Creek Watershed
Stream
Species Present1
Fall Chum Coho Winter
Steelhead
Coastal
Cutthroat
(Resident)
Ludlow Creek X X X X
Unnamed
tributary in Beaver
Valley
X X
1Species presence is based on data gathered from WDFW SalmonScape database (2016c).
6.4.3 Water Quality
None of the waterbodies in the Ludlow Creek watershed are on Ecology’s 303(d) list for water quality
impairments (Ecology, 2015). Water quality has stayed relatively consistent for all waterbodies in the
watershed since water quality monitoring began in 1994 by Port Ludlow Associates (JCPW, 2005). In
addition, no identifiable long-term trends have been observed during monitoring. Occasionally during
storm events, samples from small tributaries and roadside ditches exceed individual water quality
parameters (JCPW, 2005). In addition, elevated fecal coliform counts have been documented from
vessel sewage in Ludlow Bay.
6.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions
Commercial timber harvest, agriculture and residential development have reduced riparian cover in the
watershed over time (Correa, 2002). Timber harvest is currently causing the most riparian vegetation
loss along Ludlow Creek and its tributaries, which consist of very limited coniferous cover and some
deciduous forest and shrub cover.
6.4.5 Wetlands
Freshwater forested, scrub-shrub, emergent, and open water wetlands are mapped throughout the
Ludlow Creek watershed. Overall, wetlands make up 6 percent of the watershed (USFWS, 2015). Large
wetland complexes are found in Beaver Valley, Ludlow Lake, Horseshoe Lake, Larson Lake, and the
upper watershed (USFWS, 2015) (see Figure 2a). A sphagnum bog wetland is identified by the
Washington Natural Heritage Program (NHP) within the wetland complex at Ludlow Lake (2013).
Many of the wetlands in Beaver Valley are surrounded by local and commercial agriculture and rural
residential lands. Wetlands associated with Ludlow Creek and its tributaries in the upper watershed are
bordered by commercial forest and some rural residential land. While some of the buffers surrounding
these wetlands are well vegetated, many lack vegetation or no buffer is present. Wetlands with minimal
buffers largely occur on agricultural lands in the watershed.
Fewer wetlands are mapped in the lower watershed and Port Ludlow area compared to the upper
watershed. The Ludlow Creek estuary is bordered by Paradise Bay Road to the west and residential
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 6-5
Ludlow Creek Watershed
development along the shoreline. Estuarine wetlands are present along the southern shoreline of
Ludlow Bay (USFWS, 2015). Single-family residences and rural residential areas border these wetlands
and their buffers. Other mapped wetlands in the lower watershed are primarily man-made and
associated with the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort.
6.4.6 Wildlife
The watershed provides habitats of various vegetation cover types for wildlife species. Although,
vegetation cover is being affected by ongoing timber harvest activities and residential development.
Coniferous forest cover is currently 27 percent, the lowest of nine watersheds described in this report
(Figure 2e). Shrub cover is 20 percent, mixed forest cover is 13 percent, herbaceous cover is 11 percent,
deciduous forest cover is 8 percent, and woody and emergent wetland plant cover is 5 percent (Homer
et al., 2015).
According to the WDFW PHS database, several priority bird species have been documented in both
undeveloped and developed areas. Two bald eagle territory areas that have been long documented by
WDFW are mapped in a rural residential area of Tala Point (WDFW, 2016a). Purple martins have
mapped breeding sites in the Port Ludlow Golf Course and the Port Ludlow Marina. Several osprey
occurrences have been mapped at Ludlow Lake, near the golf course and in north Port Ludlow. Great
blue herons have documented breeding areas in southwestern Port Ludlow and along the southern
shoreline of Ludlow Bay. Species of alcids (marine birds) have mapped occurrences in Ludlow Bay as
well (WDFW, 2016a).
6.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities
The Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) identifies one rare plant occurrence in the
watershed: few-flowered sedge (Carex pauciflora) in and around the southern part of Ludlow Lake
(WDNR, 2016). The WNHP database also identifies a high-quality vegetation type on the northern
border of the lake, a low-elevation sphagnum bog. Other high-quality vegetation types are mapped in
Horseshoe Lake: Spirea douglasii shrubland habitat, and low-elevation freshwater wetland (WDNR,
2016).
6.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities
Management issues in the Ludlow Creek watershed:
Coniferous forest cover is the lowest of all watersheds in eastern Jefferson County due to
current logging activities and residential development.
Many riparian and wetland buffers associated with Ludlow Creek, and other tributaries in the
watershed, are low functioning due to lack of cover and/or existing land use activities.
Opportunities in the watershed:
Restore channels, floodplains, wetlands, and riparian zones of Ludlow Creek and tributaries of
the watershed; restoration actions could include LWD placement, armor removal, invasive
species control, native species planting, and stream reconfiguring.
Continue efforts to remove and/or replace road culverts that impede fish passage.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 6-6 March 2016
Ludlow Creek Watershed
Continue to protect WNHP identified high-quality vegetation communities in Ludlow and
Horseshoe Lakes.
Protect designated core habitat and corridor areas within the watershed.
Protect habitats mapped by WDFW that support PHS listed species.
6.6 Watershed “Fact Sheet”
The Fact Sheet for the Ludlow Creek Watershed is presented on the following pages.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 6-7
Ludlow Creek Watershed
LUDLOW CREEK WATERSHED
WATERSHED AREA:
18 Square miles
MAPPED CRITICAL AREAS
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (CARAS)
Approximately 1% of the watershed is located within the
FEMA 100-year floodplain; these floodplain areas are
concentrated along a tributary running through Beaver
Valley, the low lying areas at the outlet of Ludlow Creek
and a small, unnamed waterbody that flows into Ludlow
Creek in the upper watershed.
CARAs are mapped in approximately 22% of the total
watershed area; these areas are concentrated around
the major streams in the watershed, Beaver Valley, and
the bay shoreline.
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Landslide hazard areas (5% of watershed area) with
majority mapped along the northern shoreline of the
watershed. Erosion hazards (7% of watershed area)
are mapped along the feeder bluffs west of Tala Point
and in the southern portion of the watershed. Seismic
hazard areas (9% of watershed area) are mapped
primarily along Beaver Valley and the feeder bluffs west
of Tala Point.
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION
AREAS
Ludlow Creek provides habitat for steelhead, coho
salmon, cutthroat, and fall chum salmon. The unnamed
tributary in Beaver Valley provides habitat for steelhead
and coho salmon.
Several priority bird species have been documented in
residential areas of the watershed. Bald eagle
territories, purple martins, several osprey occurrences,
and great blue herons have been documented
throughout the watershed.
Approximately 15% of the watershed contains mapped
core habitat areas.
WETLANDS
Approximately 6% of the watershed is mapped as
wetland habitat, which is generally associated with the
streams and lakes in the watershed.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 6-8 March 2016
Ludlow Creek Watershed
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES
WATERSHED CONFIGURATION LAND COVER
The watershed contains slight to moderate slopes and
its streams are generally confined to narrow floodplains,
with the exception of a tributary to Ludlow Creek that
flows through Beaver Valley.
Land cover in the watershed is 27% coniferous forest,
8% deciduous forest, 20% shrub land, 13% mixed
forest, 11% herbaceous, and 5% woody and emergent
wetland plan cover. The remaining 16% of the
watershed is covered by developed lands.
WATER QUALITY
No waterbodies in the watershed are on Ecology’s
303(d) list for water quality impairments. Elevated fecal
coliform counts have been documented from vessel
sewage in Ludlow Bay.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE
EXISTING LAND USES WATERSHED MODIFICATIONS
The primarily land use in the watershed is commercial
timber harvest followed by rural residential. The
streams in Beaver Valley are surrounded by zoned
Rural residential, rural forest, commercial forest, and
agricultural lands.
The mid-section of Ludlow Creek near Oak Bay Road
and Beaver Valley Road has been channelized at the
confluence of three tributaries with the mainstem. The
tributary that flows north to south along Beaver Valley is
also channelized by Beaver Valley Road.
ZONING
Lands within the watershed are zoned primarily as
Commercial Forest (49% of total watershed area) and
Rural Residential (minimum lot sizes from 5 to 20
acres) (25%). Approximately 2% of the watershed is
zoned for agriculture, with smaller areas (15%) zoned
as part of the Master Planned Port Ludlow Resort
(Single family, multiple family, resort complex).
KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Coniferous forest cover is the lowest of all watersheds in eastern Jefferson County due to current logging
activities and residential development.
Many riparian and wetland buffers associated with Ludlow Creek, and other tributaries in the watershed, are
low functioning due to lack of cover and/or land use activities.
Restore channels, floodplains, wetlands, and riparian zones of Ludlow Creek and tributaries of the watershed;
restoration actions could include LWD placement, armor removal, invasive species control, native species
planting, and stream reconfiguring. Additionally, continue efforts to correct fish passage barriers.
Project designated priority habitats, core habitats and corridor areas, and high-quality vegetated communities.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 7-1
Northeast Jefferson Watershed
CHAPTER 7. Northeast Jefferson Watershed
This chapter describes the conditions of the Northeast Jefferson watershed (Figures 2a to 2f). The
watershed is described in terms of its physical, ecological, and human environment/land use
characteristics.
Characteristics for the watershed are summarized in the “fact sheet” included at the end this chapter.
7.1 Overview
The Northeast Jefferson watershed is composed of several small subbasins that drain into Port
Townsend Bay, Admiralty Inlet, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (see Figure 2a) (JCPW, 2005). The
watershed is 17.7 square miles in size. Approximately 7 of the 17.7 square miles of the watershed (40
percent) lie within the City of Port Townsend. Port Townsend is the only incorporated city in Jefferson
County. With a population of 9,255, Port Townsend accounts for 30 percent of the total population of
the County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). While the City of Port Townsend is within this watershed, the
City has development regulations that are applicable to the area within the city limits only. Similarly,
any Jefferson County development regulations are applicable only to the areas outside of the city limits.
However, the physical environment and the natural environmental processes in the watershed may
span both political boundaries.
Of the nine watersheds described in this report, the Northeast Jefferson watershed is the most
intensely developed. Areas of the watershed are designated for urban and industrial development,
including the city itself, Port Townsend Paper Company Heavy Industrial Area and Glen Clove Light
Industrial Area, as well as some other smaller light industrial use areas (JCPW, 2005). Other land uses in
the watershed consist of commercial, manufacturing, rural and single-family residential, parks and
open space, and marine-related uses.
Waterbodies found within the watershed include Buckman Lake, Strangers Lake, Tibbals Lake, Glen
Cove Pond, Hastings Pond, Kai Tai Lagoon, Chinese Gardens Lagoon, and several small unnamed
streams and lakes. Several of these waterbodies, such as the Chinese Gardens lagoon, lie within Port
Townsend city limits and are not described in this chapter.
7.2 Physical Characterization
There are no streams in the Northeast Jefferson watershed other than the origin of an unnamed
stream, which flows south into the Discovery Bay watershed outside of the Port Townsend city limits.
CARAs are mapped across large areas of the watershed (see Figure 2a). Most of the northern interior
and marine shorelines of the watershed have mapped CARAs, covering approximately 59 percent of the
watershed’s area (Jefferson County, 2006a).
Landslide hazards are mapped along most marine shorelines in this watershed (see Figure 2b)
(Jefferson County, 1997a). Erosion hazards are mapped in several bluffs along the shoreline: from the
northern terminus of 49th Street in Port Townsend to McCurdy Point; and along the northwestern
marine shoreline of the watershed (Jefferson County, 1997c). Similarly, most of the watershed’s marine
shoreline has mapped seismic hazards (Jefferson County, 1997b). Seismic hazards are mapped in a
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 7-2 March 2016
Northeast Jefferson Watershed
large area of the Port Townsend Paper Corporation property and areas surrounding lakes and streams
in the watershed, including Strangers Lake, Buckmans Lake, and Tibbals Lake.
Glen Cove Pond and marsh are the only waterbodies in the watershed outside of Port Townsend city
limits associated with the FEMA 100-year floodplain (see Figure 2c) (Jefferson County, 1998).
Approximately 2 percent of the watershed is mapped within the FEMA 100-year floodplain (Jefferson
County, 1998).
7.3 Land Use
This section describes land use and zoning in areas of the watershed outside of Port Townsend city
limits. The unincorporated areas within the watershed (outside of Port Townsend) have experienced an
increase in rural residential development over the last 40 years (JCPW, 2005). In fact, 27 percent of the
watershed is zoned for Rural Residential-5 (1 lot per 5 acres), 11 percent is zoned for Rural Residential-
20 (1 lot per 20 acres), and 9 percent is zoned for Rural Residential-10 (1 lot per 10 acres) (Jefferson
County, 2006b). Only small patches (1 percent) of zoned local agriculture occur. Industrial and
commercial zoned areas, including the Port Townsend Paper Company mill site and the Glen Cove
Light Industrial area, make up 3 percent of the watershed (see Figure 2d) (Jefferson County, 2006b).
Many undeveloped areas in the watershed are zoned for high-intensity land uses; these are largely
within Port Townsend or immediately south of the city limits. Several large parcels zoned for Heavy
Industrial are undeveloped and found immediately north and northwest of the Port Townsend Paper
Corporation mill. In addition, undeveloped parcels zoned for Light Industrial/Commercial/
Manufacturing are found in the Glen Cove neighborhood, south of Port Townsend’s city limits.
7.4 Habitats and Species
The following sections describe existing fish and wildlife habitats and species based on available
studies, data, and mapping such as:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
database (WDFW, 2016a);
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), National Heritage Program GIS dataset
(WNHP, 2013);
WDFW SalmonScape Database (WDFW, 2016c);
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List
(Ecology, 2014);
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database (USFWS,
2015);
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Land Cover database (Homer et al., 2015);
Jefferson County critical areas, zoning, and core habitat area GIS mapping;
Jefferson County water quality and other technical reports; and
Aerial imagery.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 7-3
Northeast Jefferson Watershed
7.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors
There are no core habitat and corridor types mapped within the Northeast Jefferson watershed (see
Figure 2f) (Tomassi, 2004).
7.4.2 Fish Use
No fish occurrences are mapped within freshwater habitats of the watershed (WDFW, 2016c). One
culvert located on a private road near Cape George Way in the western part of the watershed is
identified as a complete barrier to fish passage (WDFW, 2016b). However, there is no mapped fish use
below the barrier.
There are currently no projects planned to restore fish use within the watershed itself, but there is one
project planned for the Fort Townsend State Park nearshore area that will benefit habitat for fish and
waterfowl that use marine and nearshore habitats (WDFW, 2016d). The project includes removal and/or
redesign of fill and large riprap from the beach and intertidal areas of Fort Townsend State Park.
7.4.3 Water Quality
The area of Port Townsend Bay surrounding the ferry terminal is on the Ecology 303(d) list for
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other contaminants (Ecology, 2015). No other areas in the
watershed have impairment listings on the Ecology 303(d) list.
Water quality testing in shorelines of the watershed found E. coli “hot spots” in Cape George, Middle
Point, and Kala Point areas (JPH, 2015). Failing on-site septic systems (OSS) were largely attributed to
the increased levels E.coli.
Fecal coliform levels in the nearshore marine areas adjacent to North Beach and Fort Worden have
been tested annually since 2003 as part of Ecology’s Beach Environmental Assessment,
Communication, and Health (BEACH) Program (Ecology, 2015). The testing shows consistently low
levels of fecal coliform in these waters.
7.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions
Historic land uses and development in areas of the watershed within the County jurisdiction removed
riparian vegetation, reducing the amount of valuable riparian habitat (JCPW, 2005). Currently, riparian
vegetation in the watershed consists mostly of coniferous cover and limited mixed forest and
herbaceous cover (Homer et al., 2015).
7.4.5 Wetlands
Out of Port Townsend city limits, numerous freshwater emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands are found
along waterbodies and in small patches in residential areas throughout the watershed (see Figure 2a)
(USFWS, 2015). The buffers of many wetlands are limited by bordering residences and roads. Several
wetlands have been created or modified, including wetlands at Glen Cove and others in residential
areas of the watershed. Estuarine wetlands are mapped at Kala Point, and along the shoreline south of
the Port Townsend Paper Corporation mill, including Fort Townsend State Park. Wetlands within the
park are fairly intact and have good vegetation cover. Wetlands along shorelines outside of the park are
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 7-4 March 2016
Northeast Jefferson Watershed
relatively intact, although some have been modified by residential development. In total, wetlands
make up 2 percent of the watershed (USFWS, 2015).
7.4.6 Wildlife
The watershed supports habitats of different vegetation cover for wildlife use, primarily in undeveloped
areas. Coniferous forest cover in the watershed is 40 percent, mixed forest cover is 7 percent,
herbaceous cover is 6 percent, pasture/hay cover is 3 percent, shrub cover is 3 percent, deciduous forest
cover is 2 percent, and woody and emergent wetland plant cover is 1 percent (see Figure 2d) (Homer et
al., 2015).
Developed areas of the watershed also provide habitat for wildlife use. Several bald eagle breeding
areas are mapped within residential and public park areas of the watershed, including McCurdy Point
and Old Fort Townsend (WDFW, 2016a). A peregrine falcon breeding area is also mapped in the
watershed east of McCurdy Point in a residential area.
Migrating and resident waterfowl concentrate in numerous parts of the watershed including Strangers
Lake, Hudson Point, along Kala Point, and Glen Cove pond and marsh (WDFW, 2016a).
7.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities
The Washington Natural Heritage Program identifies a forest of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii),
western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)/Pacific rhododendron (Rhododendron macrophyllum), and
evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) in Fort Townsend State Park (WNHP, 2013).
7.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities
Management issues in the Northeast Jefferson watershed:
Water quality in Port Townsend Bay does not meet State standards for PCBs and other
contaminants.
Some wetland buffers in the watershed are low functioning due to lack of cover and/or
surrounding land use activities.
Failing septic system in the Cape George, Middle Point, and Kala Point areas have been
identified as sources of fecal coliform.
Opportunities in the watershed:
Restore wetlands and buffers in the watershed through invasive species control, native species
planting, and fill removal.
Continue efforts to identify and repair failing septic systems.
Continue wetland restoration efforts in Fort Townsend State Park.
Continue to protect WNHP identified high-quality vegetation communities in Fort Townsend
State Park.
Protect habitats mapped by WDFW that support PHS listed species.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 7-5
Northeast Jefferson Watershed
7.6 Watershed “Fact Sheet”
The Fact Sheet for the Northeast Jefferson Watershed is presented on the following pages.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 7-6 March 2016
Northeast Jefferson Watershed
NORTHEAST JEFFERSON WATERSHED
WATERSHED AREA:
17.7 Square miles (including City of Port Townsend)
MAPPED CRITICAL AREAS
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (CARAs)
Approximately 2% of the watershed is located within the
FEMA 100-year floodplain; these floodplain areas are
concentrated along the various waterbodies in the
watershed.
CARAs are mapped in approximately 59% of the total
watershed area; these areas are concentrated around
low lying, undeveloped portions of the watershed.
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Landslide hazard areas (3% of watershed area) are
mapped along the majority of the watershed’s marine
shorelines. Erosion hazards (1% of watershed area)
are mapped near several bluffs along the shoreline.
Seismic hazard areas (9% of watershed area) are
mapped in a large area near the Port Townsend Paper
Corporation and near several lakes and streams in the
watershed.
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION
AREAS
No fish occurrences are mapped within freshwater
habitats of the watershed.
Waterfowl concentrations occur in several industrial and
residential areas of the watershed including Strangers
Lake, Hudson Point, Kala Point, and Glen Cove.
Several bald eagle breeding areas and a peregrine
falcon breeding area are also mapped.
There are no core habitats or corridors mapped within
the watershed.
WETLANDS
Approximately 2% of the watershed is mapped as
wetland habitat, which is generally associated with the
waterbodies in the watershed.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 7-7
Northeast Jefferson Watershed
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES
WATERSHED CONFIGURATION LAND COVER
The watershed is located at the north end of the
Quimper Peninsula; topography varies from relatively
flat to moderate slopes. The marine shoreline along
much of the watershed consists of steep bluffs.
Coniferous forest cover in the watershed is 40%, mixed
forest cover is 7%, herbaceous cover is 6%,
pasture/hay cover is 3%, shrub cover is 3%, deciduous
forest cover is 2%, and woody and emergent wetland
plant cover is 1%. The remaining 38% of the watershed
is covered with developed lands. WATER QUALITY
The waters of Port Townsend Bay near the ferry
terminal are listed as impaired for PCBs and other
contaminants, per the State’s Water Quality
Assessment (2012). Several boating facilities are
present that may cause water quality problems
associated with oil, gasoline, and other hazardous
material spills from vessels.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE
EXISTING LAND USES WATERSHED MODIFICATIONS
The primarily land uses in the watershed include
commercial timber harvest and residential and industrial
use. The Port Townsend Paper Company and the Glen
Cove Light industrial areas make up 3% of the
watershed. Unincorporated areas outside of Port
Townsend have experienced an increase in rural
residential development over the last 40 years.
The watershed includes the City of Port Townsend
which accounts for 30% of the total population of the
County. Several marine shorelines are armored and
multiple large docks exist including the Port Townsend
Paper Company, the Port Townsend Marina, and the
WSDOT Ferry.
ZONING
Lands within the watershed are zoned primarily as
Rural Residential (minimum lot sizes from 5 to 20
acres) (46%). Industrial and commercial zoned areas
make up 3% of the watershed. Small areas of local and
commercial agricultural are present at less than 1%.
KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Water quality in Port Townsend Bay does not meet State standards for PCBs and other contaminants.
Failing septic system in the Cape George, Middle Point, and Kala Point areas have been identified as sources
of fecal coliform; continue efforts to identify and repair failing systems.
Some wetland buffers in the watershed are low functioning due to lack of cover and/or surrounding land use
activities.
There are no streams in the watershed that provide fish habitat.
Restore wetlands and buffers in the watershed through invasive species control, native species planting, and
fill removal.
Continue wetland restoration efforts in Fort Townsend State Park.
Continue to protect WNHP identified high-quality vegetation communities in Fort Townsend State Park.
Protect habitats mapped by WDFW that support PHS listed species.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 8-1
North Hood Canal Watershed
CHAPTER 8. North Hood Canal Watershed
This chapter describes the conditions of the North Hood Canal watershed (Figure 2a to 2f). The
watershed is described in terms of physical, ecological, and human environment/land use
characteristics.
Characteristics for the watershed are summarized in the “fact sheet” included at the end this chapter.
8.1 Overview
The North Hood Canal watershed consists of small subbasins that discharge to Oak Bay, Mats Mats
Bay, Scow Bay, Mystery Bay, Port Townsend Bay, and Admiralty Inlet (see Figure 2a). The watershed
covers approximately 19 square miles and includes both Indian and Marrowstone Islands. The islands
extend north to south for a maximum length of 7 miles (ESA et al., 2012) With the exception of a County
park on the southern shore, Indian Island is owned by the Navy and is a federal naval munitions base for
forces stationed in Puget Sound. Marrowstone Island is primarily rural residential with state parks at the
northern end (Fort Flagler), at Mystery Bay, and the southern end (Kinney Point, accessible only by
boat). The western part of the watershed includes a small portion (0.3 square miles) of the Port Hadlock
UGA. The Port Hadlock UGA consists mainly of residential areas but also includes commercial and light
industrial areas. The remaining southern portion of the watershed is largely commercial forest and rural
residential.
Waterbodies in the North Hood Canal watershed include Little Goose Creek, Piddling Creek, and
several unnamed streams and lakes.
8.2 Physical Characterization
Historically, Little Goose Creek emptied into the northwest estuary of Oak Bay, but was separated from
the estuary by Oak Bay Road so it now enters the bay directly on the beach (Correa, 2002). The creek’s
new outlet on the beach is closed off by sand at low tide. The lower reaches of Little Goose Creek have
been channelized and armored by residential development (Correa, 2002). As a result, floodplain
connectivity has been eliminated. The lower reaches and estuary of Piddling Creek have also been
heavily channelized and armored for residential use (Correa, 2002). The stream is approximately 1.5
miles long with a mile of tributaries that empty out into a low-gradient mudflat in Mats Mats Bay
(Correa, 2002).
The entirety of Marrowstone Island is a mapped CARA (see Figure 2a). Other CARAs are mapped in the
Port Hadlock UGA, portions of shoreline on Indian Island, and small areas throughout the watershed. In
total, CARAs cover 40 percent of the watershed’s area (Jefferson County, 2006a).
Landslide hazards are mapped along most of the northern and eastern marine shoreline of
Marrowstone Island. A shorter landslide hazard area is mapped on Marrowstone Island’s western
shoreline (see Figure 2b) (Jefferson County, 1997a). Similarly, the marine shorelines of Indian Island are
also mapped for landslide hazard areas. Several small landslide hazards are mapped in the remaining
watershed and are largely located near marine shorelines (Jefferson County, 1997a).
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 8-2 March 2016
North Hood Canal Watershed
Seismic hazards are mapped along marine shorelines on Marrowstone and Indian Islands (see Figure
2b) (Jefferson County, 1997b). Large seismic hazard areas are mapped in the northern interior of Indian
Island and small patches in the interior of Marrowstone Island (Jefferson County, 1997b). At the
southern part of Indian Island, near Portage Canal, there is a mapped seismic hazard area. In addition,
southern parts of the watershed along Oak Bay Road are mapped seismic hazard areas. Erosion hazard
areas are mapped in a small portion of the marine shoreline in southwestern Indian Island and a small
area in the southern interior of Marrowstone Island (Jefferson County, 1997c).
None of the waterbodies within the North Hood Canal watershed are mapped in the FEMA 100-year
floodplain (see Figure 2c) (Jefferson County, 1998).
8.3 Land Use
Historic land use in the watershed largely consisted of agriculture, forestry, and coastal defense. Similar
to Fort Worden in the Northeast Jefferson watershed, Fort Flagler in the North Hood Canal watershed
was used to guard Puget Sound until 1955 when it was turned into a state park. The Naval Magazine
Indian Island (formerly Port Hadlock Detachment-Indian Island) site was used by the Navy for munitions
storage and handling from 1939 to 1984. The site was added to the National Priorities List (NPL)
(Superfund) in June 1994 after disposal activities at several locations resulted in soil, groundwater,
sediment, and shellfish contamination. Following extensive remedial activities, the site was removed
from the NPL in June 2005 and is still being used today for Navy operations (ESA, 2008).
The watershed has experienced more residential and commercial growth in recent years, primarily in
the Port Hadlock UGA. Approximately 1.1 percent of the watershed is mapped as Low Density
Residential, followed by 0.1 percent UGA - Moderate Density Residential and 0.04 percent UGA - High
Density Residential (see Figure 2d). Areas zoned for UGA – Urban Commercial make up about 0.2
percent of the watershed (Jefferson County, 2006b). Land use on Marrowstone Island is primarily rural
residential along with farming and commercial forestry (Jefferson County, 2006b). North of Fort Gate
Road the entirety of Marrowstone Island is Fort Flagler State Park. In fact, areas zoned as Parks,
Preserves, and Recreation make up 7 percent of the watershed.
Growth on Marrowstone Island has been limited by the general lack of fresh water resources from
aquifers, although this is expected to change now that a public water system is available on the island.
In contrast, rural residential and commercial development in the southern watershed is growing (JCPW,
2005). Commercial Forest and Rural Residential zoned areas in the remaining watershed make up 15
percent and 45 percent of the total area, respectively (see Figure 2d) (Jefferson County, 2006b).
Commercial shellfish operations also occur in Mats Mats Bay. Other zoned areas in the watershed
include Rural Forest (3 percent) and Local and Commercial Agriculture (1 percent combined).
A number of undeveloped areas in the watershed are zoned for more high-intensity land uses, mainly
within the Port Hadlock UGA. Just south of the Chimacum Creek estuary, near the shoreline in eastern
Port Hadlock, and across from the spit in Portage Canal, are several undeveloped areas zoned for UGA
Low Density Residential. There are less undeveloped areas zoned for UGA High Density Residential and
Commercial in the southern part of the Port Hadlock UGA. These zoning designation allow for more
intense development; however, until the sewer system is funded and constructed, more intensive land
uses and development cannot be approved. Therefore, the original zoning designations that were in
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 8-3
North Hood Canal Watershed
effect prior to adoption of the UGA (e.g., RR 1:5, RR 1:10) are currently being used within the UGA (see
Figure 2d).
8.4 Habitats and Species
The following sections describe existing fish and wildlife habitats and species based on available
studies, data, and mapping such as:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
database (WDFW, 2016a);
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), National Heritage Program GIS dataset
(WNHP, 2013);
WDFW SalmonScape Database (WDFW, 2016c);
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List
(Ecology, 2014);
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database (USFWS,
2015);
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Land Cover database (Homer et al., 2015);
Jefferson County critical areas, zoning, and core habitat area GIS mapping;
Jefferson County water quality and other technical reports; and
Aerial imagery.
8.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors
There are no core habitat and corridor types mapped within the North Hood Canal watershed (see
Figure 2f) (Tomassi, 2004).
8.4.2 Fish Use
Coho salmon and coastal cutthroat have been documented in both Little Goose Creek and Piddling
Creek (WDFW, 2016c) (see Figure 2f). Table 8-1 shows the salmon and trout species documented as
present or presumed present in the watershed.
Fish weirs have been placed in lower Little Goose Creek to allow for fish access through culverts, but a
complete dam barrier to fish passage is found farther up the stream (Correa, 2002). A culvert on Oak
Bay Road along the creek is a partial barrier to fish passage. Another culvert on Bayshore Road farther
up the stream is a complete barrier to fish passage (WDFW, 2016b). Additional complete barriers to fish
passage are found in culverts on an unnamed stream west of the Portage Canal and an unnamed
stream on Oak Bay Road between Mats Mats Bay and Oak Bay.
The shorelines of Marrowstone and Indian Islands support extensive forage fish (sand lance, surf smelt
and herring) spawning beaches (Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005; WDFW, 2014b).
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 8-4 March 2016
North Hood Canal Watershed
An ongoing restoration project in the watershed is located between Indian and Marrowstone Islands.
The project aims to remove road fill and culverts from Highway 116 and replace with a bridge to restore
tidal flow from Kilisut Harbor to the salt marsh south of the road (ESA et al., 2012). These actions would
allow for tidal exchange, and sediment transport.
Table 8-1. Fish Presence in the North Hood Canal Watershed
Stream
Species Present1
Coho Coastal Cutthroat
(Resident)
Little Goose Creek X X
Piddling Creek X X
1Species presence is based on data gathered from WDFW SalmonScape database (2016c).
8.4.3 Water Quality
In 2008, commercial shellfish operations in Mats Mats Bay experienced increasing levels of fecal
coliform bacteria and failed state water quality standards (Dawson and Fickeisen, 2012). To improve
surface water quality in the bay, the Mats Mats Bay Water Quality Improvement Project was developed
as a program of the Jefferson County Public Health Water Quality Department with Ecology grant
funding. The project monitors and corrects water pollution sources in the bay. Since the project began,
water quality monitoring has shown a long-term improving trend despite its standing impairment
listing for bacteria on the Ecology 303 (d) list. The northern waters off of Crane Point on Indian Island in
Port Townsend Bay are also currently on the Ecology 303(d) list for bacteria.
Water quality testing in shorelines of the watershed, as part of the Northeast Jefferson Clean Water
Project, revealed E. coli “hot spots” in areas south of the Chimacum Creek estuary, along lower Little
Goose Creek, Irondale Creek, and areas of Oak Bay (JPH, 2015). These areas are largely surrounded by
residences with on-site septic systems, which potentially contribute to the increased coliform levels
(JPH, 2015).
Fecal coliform levels in the nearshore marine areas adjacent to Fort Flagler and Mystery Bay have been
tested annually since 2003 as part of Ecology’s Beach Environmental Assessment, Communication, and
Health (BEACH) Program (Ecology, 2015). The testing shows consistently low levels of fecal coliform in
these waters.
8.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions
Losses of riparian cover have occurred in the North Hood Canal watershed as a result of forestry
activities and growing residential and commercial development. Where forestry activities have been
most intense, such as upper Piddling Creek, riparian cover is significantly reduced (ESA, 2008).
8.4.5 Wetlands
Several freshwater emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested wetlands are found throughout the North
Hood Canal watershed (see Figure 2a). In total, wetlands make up 2 percent of the watershed (USFWS,
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 8-5
North Hood Canal Watershed
2015). A number of wetlands have been created or modified in residential areas (USFWS, 2015). Large
freshwater emergent wetland complexes are found on the southern shores of both Marrowstone and
Indian Islands. Estuarine and marine wetlands are also found along the shorelines of the two islands,
including salt marshes between the islands on either side of Highway 116. Close to 70 years after it was
constructed, the Highway 116 causeway closed historic tidal channels and eliminated tidal exchange
between Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay (ESA et al., 2012). Reduced tidal exchange caused partial filling of
the channels north and south of the road. Restoration projects mentioned in Section 7.4.2 are working
to restore tidal flows to wetlands in the area.
8.4.6 Wildlife
The watershed provides diverse habitats of various vegetation cover for multiple species of wildlife,
primarily within undeveloped areas. Coniferous forest cover in the watershed is 40 percent, mixed
forest cover is 16 percent, deciduous forest cover is 11 percent, herbaceous cover is 6 percent, shrub
cover is 4 percent, pasture/hay cover is 2 percent, and woody and emergent wetland plant cover is 1
percent (see Figure 2e) (Homer et al., 2015).
Wildlife habitat on Indian Island is considered 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 (ESA, 2008; Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005). According to the WDFW PHS database, bald eagle
breeding areas are found in several locations at Portage Bay and Marrowstone Island: Griffith Point
Road, Nodule Point, Mystery Bay, and near many shorelines (WDFW, 2016a). Other WDFW priority bird
species have been documented in developed and undeveloped areas of the watershed. Purple martin
breeding areas are located at Crane Point on Naval Magazine Indian Island and within Fort Flagler state
park (WDFW, 2016a). Important overwintering areas for brant and other waterfowl are found in Oak
Bay, Killisut Harbor, Scow Bay, and the Indian Island Navy Dock. In addition, the North Hood Canal
watershed is located within a mapped communal roost occurrence area for big brown bat (WDFW,
2016a).
Harbor seals have mapped haulout occurrences on the Kilisut Harbor spit, as well as the rocks east of
Marrowstone Island (WDFW, 2016a).
8.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities
The Washington Natural Heritage Program identifies a Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western
hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), swordfern (Polystitchum munitum) forest habitat in Fort Flagler State
Park (WNHP, 2013).
8.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities
Management issues in the North Hood Canal watershed:
Water quality in waters surrounding Crane Point and Mats Mats Bay do not meet State
standards for fecal coliform bacteria, and on-site septic system in the vicinity may be the cause
of elevated fecal coliform levels in the Chimacum Creek estuary, lower Goose Creek, Irondale
Creek, and area of Oak Bay.
Many wetlands and buffers associated with tributaries and shorelines in the watershed, are low
functioning due to lack of cover and/or extent of past land use activities.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 8-6 March 2016
North Hood Canal Watershed
Opportunities in the watershed:
Restore channels, floodplains, wetlands, and riparian zones of Little Goose and Piddling Creeks
and other tributaries of the watershed; restoration actions could include LWD placement,
armor removal, invasive species control, native species planting, and stream reconfiguring.
Continue restoration efforts in the salt marshes between Marrowstone and Indian Islands.
Identify and repair failing septic systems.
Restore remaining wetlands and buffers in the watershed through fill removal, native species
planting, and invasive species control.
Remove and/or replace road culverts and dams that impede fish passage.
Continue to protect the high-quality vegetation community in Fort Flagler State Park.
Protect habitats mapped by WDFW that support PHS listed species, including important forage
fish spawning beaches in the watershed.
8.6 Watershed “Fact Sheet”
The Fact Sheet for the North Hood Canal Watershed is presented on the following pages.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 8-7
North Hood Canal Watershed
NORTH HOOD CANAL WATERSHED
WATERSHED AREA:
19 Square miles
MAPPED CRITICAL AREAS
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (CARAs)
No portion of the watershed is mapped in the FEMA
100-year floodplain.
CARAs are mapped in approximately 40% of the total
watershed area; these areas are concentrated around
the Mats Mats Bay and the majority of Marrowstone
Island.
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Landslide hazard areas (3% of watershed area) are
mapped along the northern and eastern shoreline of
Marrowstone Island as well as the shoreline of Indian
Island. Small areas of erosion hazards (1% of
watershed area) are also mapped on the southwest
shoreline of Indian Island and the interior of
Marrowstone Island. Seismic hazard areas (10% of
watershed area) are also mapped for the majority of the
shoreline of both islands.
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION
AREAS
Little Goose and Piddling Creeks provide habitat for
cutthroat trout and coho salmon. Sand lance and surf
smelt have also been documented along the shore.
Wildlife habitat on Indian Island is considered regionally
significant. Waterfowl concentration, bald eagle
breeding areas, and purple martin breeding areas are
mapped throughout the watershed, but are primarily
focused near several bays and harbors. Harbor seal
haul-outs are also mapped on the Kilisut Harbor spit
and the rocks east of Marrowstone Island.
There are no core habitats or corridors mapped within
the watershed.
WETLANDS
Approximately 2% of the watershed is mapped as
wetland habitat, which is generally associated with the
shoreline and estuaries of the watershed.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 8-8 March 2016
North Hood Canal Watershed
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES
WATERSHED CONFIGURATION LAND COVER
Indian and Marrowstone Islands contain slight to
moderate slopes, with bluffs located along much of their
marine shorelines. The remaining portion of the
watershed contains similar slopes. In general, few
streams are located within the watershed.
Coniferous forest cover in the watershed is 40%, mixed
forest cover is 16%, deciduous forest cover is 11%,
herbaceous cover is 6%, shrub cover is 4%,
pasture/hay cover is 2%, and woody and emergent
wetland plant cover is 1%. The remaining 20% of the
watershed is covered with developed areas. WATER QUALITY
The waters of Discovery Bay and Crane Point are listed
as impaired for bacteria, per the State’s Water Quality
Assessment (2012). The waters of Mats Mats Bay are
currently part of a water quality monitoring program
implemented by the County due to increased levels of
fecal coliform bacteria in 2008.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE
EXISTING LAND USES WATERSHED MODIFICATIONS
The watershed has experienced residential and
commercial growth in recent years primarily in the Port
Hadlock UGA. Land use on Marrowstone Island is
primarily residential with some farming and commercial
forestry. A large portion of the Island also contains Fort
Flagler State Park.
The lower reaches of Little Goose Creek have been
channelized and armored due to residential
development. The lower reached of Piddling Creek
have also been heavily channelized and armored for
residential use.
Several fish barriers are present within the watershed
along Little Goose Creek and other streams within the
watershed.
ZONING
Lands within the watershed are zoned primarily as
Rural Residential (minimum lot sizes from 5 to 40
acres) (45%) and Commercial Forest (14%).
Approximately 7% of the watershed is zoned as Parks,
and Forest Resource-Based Industrial, with less than
1% zoned for Agriculture.
KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Water quality in waters surrounding Crane Point and Mats Mats Bay do not meet State standards for fecal
coliform bacteria, and elevated fecal coliform levels have been detected in the Chimacum Creek estuary,
lower Goose Creek, Irondale Creek, and area of Oak Bay. Failing septic systems should be identified and
repaired.
Many wetlands and buffers associated with tributaries and shorelines in the watershed, are low functioning
due to lack of cover and/or land use activities.
Restore channels, floodplains, wetlands, and riparian zones of Little Goose and Piddling Creeks and other
tributaries of the watershed; restoration actions could include LWD placement, armor removal, invasive
species control, native species planting, and stream reconfiguring. Additionally, replace or remove fish
passage barriers.
Continue restoration efforts in the salt marshes between Marrowstone and Indian Islands, and restore
remaining wetlands and buffers in the watershed through fill removal, native species planting, and invasive
species control.
Continue to protect the high-quality vegetation community in Fort Flagler State Park.
Protect habitats mapped by WDFW that support PHS listed species, including important forage fish spawning
beaches in the watershed.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 9-1
Quilcene Bay Watershed
CHAPTER 9. Quilcene Bay Watershed
This chapter describes the conditions of the Quilcene Bay watershed (Figures 5a to 5f). The watershed
is described in terms of its physical, ecological, and human environment/land use characteristics.
Characteristics for the watershed are summarized in the “fact sheet” included at the end of this
chapter.
9.1 Overview
The Quilcene Bay watershed extends into Clallam County and onto USFS land. The portion of the
watershed within Jefferson County is approximately 54 square miles in size and contains of two large
rivers and several smaller streams (see Figure 5a) [It is the second largest of the nine watersheds in this
report and supports important rivers and essential habitats for salmon production in eastern Jefferson
County. Quilcene Bay is also famous for its clams, oysters (including the native Olympia oyster), and
mussels (ESA et al., 2012). The Big Quilcene River originates in the Olympic Mountains, flows south of
the town of Quilcene, and empties into Quilcene Bay. The mainstem is 19 miles long with 80 miles of
contributing tributaries, and elevations up to 7,800 feet (ESA, 2008). The upper drainage is protected by
Olympic National Park (ONP) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) wilderness areas (Correa, 2002). The Little
Quilcene River also originates in the northeast Olympic Mountains on the northern side of Mount
Townsend (ESA, 2008). The river flows generally southeast and empties into Quilcene Bay just north of
the town of Quilcene. Unlike the Big Quilcene River, only a small part of the Little Quilcene River
drainage is protected by ONP or USFS designated wilderness areas (ESA, 2008). The mainstem length
of the Little Quilcene River is 12.2 miles with a tributary length of 81.2 miles (Ames et al., 2000). Both
Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene Rivers are designated as shorelines of the state.
Smaller drainages in the watershed include Indian George and Donovan Creeks, as well as many
unnamed streams. Indian George Creek empties into Quilcene Bay approximately 0.5 miles south of Big
Quilcene River, and Donovan Creek empties into the north end of Quilcene Bay.
The town of Quilcene borders Quilcene Bay on all sides; primary land uses in the remainder of the
watershed consists of commercial forestry, agriculture, rural forest, and rural residential. Additional
waterbodies found within the watershed include Rice Lake, Leland Lake, Lords Lake, Devil’s Lake,
Leland Creek, Penny Creek, Ripley Creek, Howe Creek, Townsend Creek, Tunnel Creek, Cedar Creek,
and many other unnamed streams and tributaries. Rice Lake, Leland Lake, and Lords Lake are also
designated as shorelines of the state.
9.2 Physical Characterization
The Big Quilcene River alternates between relatively straight, confined reaches with little LWD, and
sinuous wide channels with more LWD (see Figure 5a) (Klawon, 2004). Penny Creek, Townsend Creek,
and Tunnel Creek are the primary tributaries of the river. However, Townsend Creek and Tunnel Creek
are outside of the Quilcene Bay watershed. The majority of the Big Quilcene River is within the high-
risk channel migration zone (CMZ), especially in the very lower and upper reaches (ESA, 2016b).
Underlying geology includes volcanic bedrock present in the upper reaches of the drainage with some
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 9-2 March 2016
Quilcene Bay Watershed
alluvial or glacial deposits present along major
tributaries. Although, intensive logging in the upper
watershed has also contributed to increases in
sediment deposits and transport in the river as well as
deposition in the lower reaches and delta (ESA et al.,
2012). At the mouth of the Big Quilcene River these
deposits make up the principal aquifer for many of the
domestic wells in the area (Parametrix et al., 2000;
Simonds et al., 2003).
To protect the town of Quilcene and adjacent
properties from flooding, dikes were constructed along
both the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers. The
construction of dikes along the rivers interrupted
hydraulic processes and resulted in an almost
complete loss of floodplain habitat (Correa, 2002; ESA
et al., 2012). Subsequent channel aggradation has
increased the elevation of the Big Quilcene River
streambed and extended the river mouth more than
1,500 feet into the estuary (ESA, 2008). Ongoing
restoration projects to remove dikes near the mouth of
the Big Quilcene River are working to restore some of the lost floodplain and wetland habitat of
Quilcene Bay (ESA et al., 2012; WDFW, 2016d).
Similar to the Big Quilcene River, the Little Quilcene River also fluctuates in sinuosity. From the mouth
to RM 1.3 the channel is mostly unconfined. The lower 0.2 mile of the channel is relatively wide
compared to upstream reaches of the river and tidally influenced (ESA, 2008). A large portion of this
segment is mapped within the high-risk channel migration zone, especially near the mouth and mid-
channel farther upstream (ESA, 2016b). The lower to middle channel has little LWD and is highly
unstable and confined by dikes. Ongoing restoration projects have added LWD structures, and
removed a dike on the north side of river and a sea-dike from the eastern portion of the estuary
(PSNERP, 2014).The upper reaches of the river contain more LWD, but feature less pool habitat in the
stream channel (ESA, 2008).
The Little Quilcene River flows over bedrock until about RM 3 where the streambed is mainly 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 drainage is largely controlled by the
presence of bedrock and till (ESA, 2008). Recessional outwash and alluvium are prevalent near the
mouth of the Little Quilcene River, Leland, and Donovan Creeks. Similar to the Big Quilcene drainage,
these deposits potentially compose the principal aquifer for many of the domestic wells in this area
(Parametrix et al., 2000, Simonds et al., 2003).
Both Leland and Lords Lakes drain into the Little Quilcene River drainage and have a surface area of
approximately 108 and 60 acres, respectively (see Figure 5a). Lords Lake, which was created by
damming Howe Creek at the north end of the lake, is a reservoir in the water supply system for the City
of Port Townsend. Water from the lake is typically used when water cannot be diverted from the Big
Quilcene River for municipal use as a result of low flows or excessive suspended sediment (ESA, 2008).
Channel Migration Zone
A channel migration zone (CMZ) is an area
within which a river channel is likely to move
over a period of time. It is further delineated
into areas of relative risk for future channel
erosion: severe, high, moderate, or low
(Ecology, 2016).
Channel migration zones (CMZs) occur in
Jefferson County within the floodplains of
the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, the
Dosewallips River, the Duckabush River, and
the lower Hoh River. Although the majority
of CMZs for these rivers fall under Shoreline
Management Program (SMP) jurisdiction,
portions of the CMZs are outside of SMP
jurisdiction and fall under critical areas
jurisdiction.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 9-3
Quilcene Bay Watershed
Rice Lake is located in uplands east of the lower reach of the Little Quilcene River, but does not appear
to drain into the river. The lake has a surface area of 20 acres.
Indian George Creek is a smaller drainage of the watershed, entering Quilcene Bay approximately 0.5
mile south of Big Quilcene River (Correa, 2002). Poor logging practices and associated road networks
have contributed to mass wasting events in the upper part of the drainage, leading to increased
sedimentation of habitat in the lower drainage (Correa, 2002). Donovan Creek flows into the north end
of Quilcene Bay and is approximately 3 miles long with tributary length of 2.6 miles. The drainage has
been heavily modified (straightened and confined), and it lacks LWD and riparian vegetation (Correa,
2002). Restoration projects in the lower drainage have worked to restore the sinuosity of the stream,
add LWD structures, and plant riparian vegetation (RCO, 2016).
CARAs are mapped in the major river and stream drainages in the watershed, as well as their estuaries
(see Figure 5a). They cover 43 percent of the total watershed area (Jefferson County, 2006a).
Landslide hazards are mapped throughout the Quilcene Bay watershed, including the Big Quilcene
River drainage; areas above and south of Linger Longer Road in Quilcene; along the southern shoreline
of the watershed; and patches surrounding Lords Lake, Little Quilcene River, and numerous other
unnamed streams and tributaries in the watershed (see Figure 5b) (Jefferson County, 1997a). Erosion
hazards in the watershed are mapped in similar locations as landslide hazards, but they are more
common in stream and river drainages. Seismic hazards are mapped for a large portion of Quilcene, the
Quilcene Bay estuary, along the Big and Little Quilcene River drainages, and the Leland Creek drainage
(Jefferson County, 1997c).
The majority of the Big Quilcene River within the County’s jurisdiction is mapped in the FEMA 100-year
floodplain (see Figure 5c) (Jefferson County, 1998). The Little Quilcene River is mapped in the FEMA
100-year floodplain from the mouth to just north of the river crossing at Fern Hollow Road, and
Donovan Creek is mapped as well. In addition, Leland Lake is entirely mapped in the FEMA 100-year
floodplain, including parts of Leland Creek that flow into and out of the northern and southern ends of
the lake. In total, about 2 percent of the watershed area is within the FEMA 100-year floodplain
(Jefferson County, 1998).
9.3 Land Use
Intensive logging occurred in the watershed historically; timber harvest and road building significantly
affected stream channels, leading to instability and flooding in the lower reaches of the watershed
(ESA, 2008). Less intense logging occurs today in the National Forest and on state and private
forestlands in the middle and upper reaches of the watershed (JCPH, 2005). Agriculture, aquaculture,
and residential development have become the primary land uses in the watershed. Aquaculture
activities include commercial and Tribal (commercial, ceremonial, and subsistence) shellfish growing
and harvest (ESA et al., 2012).
Presently, the town of Quilcene is zoned for Rural Residential areas and Rural Village Center (RVC)
commercial areas (see Figure 5d). The Quilcene RVC covers 51 acres and makes up 0.1 percent of the
total watershed area (Jefferson County, 2006b). In addition, a small portion of the Quilcene RVC is
within the FEMA 100-year floodplains of the Big and Little Quilcene River (JCPW, 2005).
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 9-4 March 2016
Quilcene Bay Watershed
Zoning in the rest of the watershed includes Commercial Forest (33 percent); Light Industrial/
Manufacturing (22 percent); Inholding Forest (4 percent); Rural Forest (7 percent); Local Agriculture (1
percent); Commercial Agriculture (1 percent); Rural Residential (21 percent); and Parks, Preserves, and
Recreation (1 percent) (see Figure 5d) (Jefferson County, 2006b).
The upper Big Quilcene River drainage is largely zoned Commercial Forest, but lands adjacent to lower
reaches of the river, which includes Agriculture and Rural Residential zoning, have been modified . The
lower reach of the river that runs beside the National Fish Hatchery has been heavily modified by riprap,
water diversion structures, and an electronic fish weir (Correa, 2002). Upstream from the hatchery next
to a residential development, further diking, riprap, and development have occurred in the river’s
floodplain. In addition, the City of Port Townsend maintains a water right of 30 cubic feet per second
(cfs) to the Big Quilcene River (ESA, 2008). The water is diverted out of the basin at RM 9.4.
Land use in the lower reaches of the Little Quilcene River and on Donovan Creek has largely been
agriculture and rural residential as well. To create more available land for agriculture in the reach, dikes
and levees were constructed near the river mouth at Quilcene Bay (JCPH, 2005). These modifications
exacerbated flooding, and salmon habitat in the estuary was negatively impacted. It is estimated that
about 50 percent of the floodplain of the lower Little Quilcene has been developed (May and Peterson,
2003). Recent restoration projects, discussed in Section 8.4.1, have worked to remove some of the
dikes and restore habitat. Land in the lower reaches of these streams is still zoned for Rural Residential,
and Commercial and Local Agriculture.
Leland Lake is surrounded on all sides by land zoned Rural Residential. Zoning along Leland Creek is
Rural Residential with limited Local Agriculture and Commercial Agriculture zoning. Lords Lake is
completely surrounded by Inholding Forest zoning, while Rice Lake is surrounded by a mix of Rural
Residential and managed Commercial Forest zoning.
9.4 Habitats and Species
The following sections describe existing fish and wildlife habitats and species based on available
studies, data, and mapping such as:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
database (WDFW, 2016a);
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), National Heritage Program GIS dataset
(WNHP, 2013);
WDFW SalmonScape Database (WDFW, 2016c);
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List
(Ecology, 2014);
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database (USFWS,
2015);
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Land Cover database (Homer et al., 2015);
Jefferson County critical areas, zoning, and core habitat area GIS mapping;
Jefferson County water quality and other technical reports; and
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 9-5
Quilcene Bay Watershed
Aerial imagery.
9.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors
Numerous core habitat and corridor types (described in Appendix A) are mapped in the Quilcene Bay
watershed (see Figure 5f) (Tomassi, 2004). Core 1 areas signify the most intact habitats in the
watershed while Core 2 areas include mostly intact (some fragmentation present) and Core 3 areas are
important habitats that are degraded or altered. These include the following:
Core 1 – Covers Lords Lake, the surrounding uplands, and parts of Howe and Ripley Creeks.
Habitat located primarily on commercial forestland and National Forest.
Core 1 – Includes the mouths of Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, Donovan Creek, and head of
Quilcene Bay estuary.
Core1 – Includes reaches, tributaries, and upland areas of the Big Quilcene River, as well as
Devil’s Lake and adjacent hillside areas. Mostly within National Forest, commercial forest, and
rural forest.
Core 2 – Extends through the upper and lower reaches of Leland Creek drainage and tributaries,
Leland Lake, and surrounding riparian areas. Primarily located on rural residential land with
smaller areas on commercial forest or local agricultural land.
Core 2 – Covers lower reach of Penny Creek and surrounding uplands above the National Fish
Hatchery. Most habitat is on commercial forestland, but some lies in land used for rural
residential.
Core 2 – Includes lower reaches of Big Quilcene River and surrounding uplands. Habitat is
located within commercial forest, but also on land used for rural residences and agriculture.
Core 3 – Small habitat area covering middle reach of Big Quilcene River next to rural residential
areas.
Core 3 – Middle to lower reaches of Donovan Creek and its tributaries, and surrounding uplands.
Located on land used for commercial and local agriculture, rural residential, and commercial
forestry.
Core 3 – Extends over agricultural lands immediately south of lower Little Quilcene River.
9.4.2 Fish Use
Multiple fish species use the upper and lower reaches of the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, including
summer chum, fall chum, fall Chinook, pink (odd year runs), and coho salmon; winter steelhead; and
coastal cutthroat trout (see Figure 5f) (WDFW, 2016c). Rainbow trout have only been documented in
the Big Quilcene River in the watershed. Table 9-1 shows species documented as present or presumed
present in the watershed.
Table 9-1. Fish Presence in the Quilcene Bay Watershed
Stream Species Present1
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 9-6 March 2016
Quilcene Bay Watershed
Su
m
m
e
r
Ch
u
m
Fa
l
l
C
h
u
m
Co
h
o
Pi
n
k
Ch
i
n
o
o
k
Wi
n
t
e
r
St
e
e
l
h
e
a
d
Ra
i
n
b
o
w
Tr
o
u
t
Co
a
s
t
a
l
Cu
t
t
h
r
o
a
t
(R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
)
Bu
l
l
T
r
o
u
t
Big Quilcene
River X X X X X X X X X
Little Quilcene
River X X X X X X X
Donovan Creek X2 X X2 X
Leland Creek X X X X
Indian George
Creek X X X X
Penny Creek X
1Species presence is based on data gathered from WDFW SalmonScape database (2016c).
2Presumed presence (2016c).
The USFWS Quilcene National Fish Hatchery (NFH) is located at the confluence of the Big Quilcene
River and Penny Creek along Highway 101. Roughly 47 acres in size and in operation since 1911, the
NFH has raised several species of fish, including: coho, chum, pink, Chinook, and sockeye salmon; and
cutthroat, brook, and rainbow trout (USFWS, 2011). Currently, the NFH raises coho salmon for release
on location and provides coho salmon eggs and fingerlings to tribal programs (USFWS, 2011). It also
coordinates with other groups to monitor local summer chum salmon runs. The NFH fish production
program also partners with several tribes, federal, state, and local agencies.
Lake Leland is presumed habitat for coho salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout (WDFW, 2007).
Forage fish species, such as sand lance and herring, have been documented spawning in Jackson Cove,
north of Whitney Point, and in Quilcene Bay (WDFW, 2016a). Another forage fish species, surf smelt,
has been documented spawning along segments of the beach from Whitney Point to a boat marina
(Long et al., 2005).
Two culverts on Fish Hatchery Road along Penny Creek are complete barriers to fish passage (WDFW,
2016b). Another nearby complete barrier is the electronic weir operated by the Quilcene National Fish
Hatchery at RM 2.8. During low river flows and when the weir is in operation between September and
December, it is a complete barrier to upstream passage of fish (ESA, 2008). The fish hatchery also
diverts water from the Big Quilcene River and Penny Creek through a water intake structure, which
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 9-7
Quilcene Bay Watershed
permanently blocks fish access to Penny Creek, a potentially excellent refugium (Correa, 2002; May et
al., 2003).
There are no barriers to fish passage in the lower 6 miles of the Little Quilcene River (Correa, 2002).
There is an unscreened irrigation canal on the Little Quilcene River that allows coho, cutthroat, and
steelhead juveniles access to the canal (ESA, 2008). In addition, a partial culvert fish passage barrier is
found in lower Donovan Creek off of Center Road (WDFW, 2016b).
A variety of restoration projects aimed at restoring habitat for fish use have been completed in the
Quilcene Bay watershed. Many projects have occurred in the Little Quilcene River estuary to benefit
spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids as well as steelhead and cutthroat trout. Estuary
restoration involves the removal of river and sea dikes. Other projects have involved reconfiguring or
remeandering portions of the river, adding LWD structures, and removing aggraded heavy sand and
gravel (WDFW, 2016d). A bridge was also installed over Donovan Creek, which flows into the Little
Quilcene estuary, to benefit tidal flow and fish passage.
Numerous restoration projects have been concentrated in the lower reaches of the Big Quilcene River
and Indian George Creek, including their estuaries (WDFW, 2016d). These projects have also involved
adding LWD, and removing levees and dikes along the river and in the estuary (WDFW, 2016d; RCO,
2016). A restoration project completed in the Indian George Creek estuary removed fill associated with
a parking lot at a WDFW shellfish harvesting site, and an abandoned barge (ESA, 2008).To remedy
water quality impairments in Leland Creek (see Section 8.4.2), restoration projects removed invasive
plants, planted live stakes and bareroot trees, and installed livestock fencing (Dawson et al., 2014).
9.4.3 Water Quality
In general, water quality in the Quilcene Bay watershed is excellent with the exception of the upper bay,
which experiences intermittent fecal coliform issues (ESA, 2008). Problems with fecal coliform
contamination have been attributed to natural harbor seal populations, animal keeping practices, and
onsite septic systems (Parametrix et al., 2000).
Two stretches of the lower Big Quilcene River are impaired according to Ecology’s 303(d) listing. The
lower stretch has listed impairments for temperature, bacteria, and pH. Ecology lists the upper stretch
for temperature, instream flow, bacteria, and pH impairments (2012). Fecal contamination caused by
recreational fishing users in the lower stretches of the river led to an emergency closure of commercial
shellfish beds in Quilcene Bay by the DOH (Dawson et al., 2014). The JPH assisted with this issue by
providing proper sanitation facilities in following fishing seasons helping to lower fecal coliform levels
and reopen the commercial shellfish growing area. Livestock access coupled with malfunctioning onsite
septic systems have also been considered to be the source of fecal coliform loading for the lower river
reach (Parametrix et al., 2000; Dawson et al., 2014).
From RM 2.9 to RM 4.7, the Little Quilcene River is listed as having temperature impairments and is
currently being studied as part of the Hood Canal Clean Streams project (Ecology, 2012; Dawson, 2016).
In the past, low-levels of fecal coliform have also been measured in the Little Quilcene River and
attributed to residential development and agriculture (Gately, 1992 as cited in Parametrix et al., 2000).
A pond used for cattle watering with outflows back into the Little Quilcene River has been documented
as a priority site of fecal coliform contamination by the JPH and JCCD (Dawson et al., 2014). Similarly, a
site on Indian George Creek with a nearby old septic system has been designated a priority for fecal
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 9-8 March 2016
Quilcene Bay Watershed
coliform contamination (Dawson et al., 2014). Several other sites monitored for water quality located in
the center of Quilcene consistently fail State standards for fecal coliform (Dawson et al., 2014).
Lake Leland is on the Ecology 303(d) list for several water quality impairments including total
phosphorous, PCBs, mercury, invasive exotic species, and other toxins (Ecology, 2012). Growth of
invasive weeds such as reed canarygrass in and surrounding the lake has contributed to habitat
degradation and extremely low dissolved oxygen conditions in the summer (Correa, 2002).
Donovan, Ripley, Howe, and Leland Creeks are all on the Ecology 303(d) list for temperature
impairments (Ecology, 2012). Leland Creek also has pH and dissolved oxygen impairments. At the
southern end of the watershed, Jackson Cove is listed for bacteria impairments, although recent
monitoring shows that fecal coliform levels are decreasing (Ecology, 2012 and 2014).
9.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions
Past forestry activities and rural residential development have resulted in a loss of riparian cover in the
upper watershed (Correa, 2002). This is also true for the middle and upper Big Quilcene River drainage,
where riparian conditions have been degraded substantially by historic forestry and residential
development. Although, riparian cover has improved in recent decades as logging activities have
decreased. The lower reaches of the Big Quilcene River have retained some coniferous coverage
scattered throughout a largely deciduous riparian zone despite residential development (ESA, 2008).
The lower reach lacks LWD structures. The Little Quilcene River drainage has experienced riparian
cover loss primarily from agriculture and residential development, especially in the lower reaches. It
lacks LWD structures and coniferous cover in this segment (Correa, 2002). The upper reaches have
experienced some riparian loss from past logging activities as well; however, riparian cover is improving
since activities have decreased and restoration plantings in the riparian buffer have occurred.
9.4.5 Wetlands
A large estuarine wetland complex is mapped at the head of Quilcene Bay where the Big and Little
Quilcene Rivers and Donovan Creek deltas merge (see Figure 5a). This mudflat and salt marsh complex
is 0.75 mile wide and approximately 1.5 miles long (ESA et al., 2012). Although, several historic
wetlands in the deltas have been diked, drained, or filled for agriculture and residential development
(Correa, 2002). Freshwater and upland forested wetlands are found primarily in the Big Quilcene River
drainage and estuary (USFWS, 2015). Limited freshwater wetlands are found in the upper reaches of
the Little Quilcene River drainage compared to the Big Quilcene River. Freshwater forested, scrub-
shrub, and emergent wetlands are located along Penny Creek in commercial forestland.
Estuarine and marine wetlands are also mapped along the shorelines of Quilcene and Dabob Bay in the
watershed. One historic lagoon and spit located along the shoreline of Whitney Point have been
partially filled by WDFW to create ponds for shellfish rearing (ESA et al., 2012). Currently, the ponds are
controlled by three tide grated culverts and used as intakes for private, commercial fish-rearing
operations. Remaining areas of the lagoon and spit have been hardened by development (concrete,
asphalt, riprap, etc.) (ESA et al., 2012). At the eastern end of the spit are two buildings used by the
WDFW Shellfish Laboratory with road access.
A large freshwater emergent and scrub-shrub wetland is found in the upper reaches of Leland Creek,
just below Leland Lake, entirely within land zoned Rural Residential. A freshwater forested and
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 9-9
Quilcene Bay Watershed
emergent wetland located above the lake is also entirely within zoned Rural Residential land. Two rare
wetland types are mapped in Devil’s Lake by the Washington Natural Heritage Program: a low-
elevation sphagnum bog and a low-elevation freshwater wetland (2013). The lake is primarily
surrounded by zoned commercial forest and USFS forestland. Remaining wetlands associated with
smaller tributaries in the watershed are largely surrounded by zoned commercial forestland. In total,
wetlands cover 3 percent of the watershed area (USFWS, 2015).
9.4.6 Wildlife
The watershed provides habitats of diverse vegetation types and cover for a variety of wildlife species,
primarily within undeveloped areas. Coniferous forest cover in the watershed is 49 percent, scrub shrub
cover is 17 percent, mixed forest cover is 12 percent, deciduous forest cover is 7 percent, herbaceous
cover is 4 percent, pasture/hay cover is 2 percent, and woody and emergent wetland plant cover is 3
percent (see Figure 5e) (Homer et al., 2015).
The WDFW PHS database documents several priority bird species in undeveloped and developed areas
of the watershed. Bald eagle breeding areas and communal roosts are mapped within the watershed,
including Pulali Point, Whitney Point, shorelines of Quilcene Bay, near the Quilcene hatchery, lower Big
Quilcene River, Penny Creek, and Leland Lake (WDFW, 2016a). Bald eagles regularly concentrate along
the lower reaches of the Big Quilcene River and Penny Creek. Several osprey occurrences have been
mapped on Pulali Point, Whitney Point, Leland Lake, Rice Lake, and along the lower reach of the Big
Quilcene River. Great blue herons have documented breeding areas in Devil’s Lake and southern
Quilcene.
Winter concentrations of waterfowl are found in northern Quilcene Bay, including trumpeter swans,
brant, and diving ducks (ESA, 2008; WDFW, 2016a). Trumpeter swan roosting and winter foraging
areas are also mapped in Lords Lake, farm fields north of Leland Lake, and Leland Creek below Leland
Lake. A wood duck breeding area is mapped in Devil’s Lake and Rice Lake, and a harlequin duck
breeding area is mapped throughout the lower reach of the Big Quilcene River (WDFW, 2016a). In
addition, the upper reaches of the Big Quilcene River drainage are within a mapped northern spotted
owl territory and marbled murrelet breeding territory.
Oysters and clams are present along the shorelines of the watershed. A geoduck tract extends from just
north of the lagoon at Whitney Point to just south of Frenchman’s Point (Correa, 2002). In fact,
Quilcene Bay is famous for its clams and oysters; there are several commercial and recreational
shellfish harvesting areas within the bay. Pacific oyster, shrimp, and Dungeness crab are also abundant
in areas of Dabob Bay.
WDFW maps harbor seal haulouts on the western side of Pulali Point in Jackson Cove near rural
residences. A regular concentration of big brown bat is also mapped in Quilcene, just north of Highway
101 (WDFW, 2016a).
9.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities
The Washington Natural Heritage Program identifies several high-quality vegetation communities in
and around Devil’s Lake, including a Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla), Pacific rhododendron (Rhodendron macrophyllum), and evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium
ovatum) forest; a western hemlock (T. heterophylla), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), bog Labrador-
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 9-10 March 2016
Quilcene Bay Watershed
tea (Ledum groenlandicum), and sphagnum species woodland; a Douglas’ spirea (Spirea douglasii)
shrubland; a low-elevation sphagnum bog; and a low-elevation freshwater wetland (WNHP, 2013). A
rare plant occurrence, Sitka sedge (Carex aquatilis), is also mapped in Devil’s Lake.
Another rare plant occurrence, bristly sedge (Carex comosa), is mapped below Leland Lake. In the
northern portion of the watershed on state-managed timberlands, a western red cedar (T. plicata),
western hemlock (T. heterophylla), skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus) forest is mapped (WNHP,
2013).
9.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities
Management issues in the Quilcene Bay watershed:
Several waterbodies in the watershed are below State water quality standards;
o The Big Quilcene River does not meet State standards for temperature, bacteria,
instream flow, and pH;
o The Little Quilcene River does not meet State standards for temperature;
o Lake Leland does not meet State standards for total phosphorous, PCBs, mercury,
invasive exotic species, and other toxins
o Donovan, Ripley, Howe, and Leland Creeks do not meet State standards for
temperature;
o Leland Creek also does not meet State standards for pH and dissolved oxygen; and
o The waters of Jackson Cove do not meet State standards for bacteria.
Flooding is a regular occurrence in the lower Big and Little Quilcene Rivers within the town of
Quilcene.
Some riparian and wetland buffers associated with the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, and other
tributaries in the watershed are low functioning due to lack of cover and/or surrounding land
use activities.
Opportunities in the watershed:
Continue restoration efforts (armor and dike removal, LWD placement, livestock exclusion
fencing, invasive species control, native species planting, stream reconfiguring) in the channels,
floodplains, wetlands, and riparian zones of the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, and other
streams and tributaries in the watershed.
Continue restoration efforts in the estuaries of the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers.
Continue efforts to remove and/or replace road culverts that impede fish passage.
Continue to protect WNHP identified high-quality vegetation communities and rare plant
occurrences in Leland and Devil’s Lakes.
Protect habitats mapped by WDFW that support PHS listed species.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 9-11
Quilcene Bay Watershed
9.6 Watershed “Fact Sheet”
The Fact Sheet for the Quilcene Bay Watershed is presented on the following pages.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 9-12 March 2016
Quilcene Bay Watershed
QUILCENE BAY WATERSHED
WATERSHED AREA:
54 Square miles
MAPPED CRITICAL AREAS
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (CARAs)
Approximately 2% of the watershed is located within the
FEMA 100-year floodplain; these floodplain areas are
concentrated along the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers
and the Quilcene Bay estuary.
CARAs are mapped in approximately 24% of the total
watershed area; these areas are concentrated around
the major streams in the watershed, as well as the bay
shoreline.
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Landslide hazard areas (13% of watershed area) are
mapped along the Big Quilcene River drainage, areas
near Ling Longer Road, the southern shoreline, and
around the watersheds various lakes. Erosion hazards
(13% of watershed area) are also mapped in these
general areas. Seismic hazard areas (6% of watershed
area) are mapped in for a large portion of the Quilcene
Bay estuary and along various stream drainages.
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION
AREAS
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers provide habitat for
multiple species including steelhead, cutthroat, and
chum, coho, pink, and Chinook salmon. Big Quilcene
River also supports bull trout and rainbow trout. Lake
Leland also supports coho salmon, steelhead, and
cutthroat.
The upper reaches of the Big Quilcene drainage is
within mapped northern spotted owl territory and
marbled Murrelet breeding territory. Waterfowl and
shorebird concentrations, bald eagle, and great blue
heron breeding areas are mapped in several areas
along the Quilcene Bay shoreline. A seal haul out area
is mapped in Jackson Cove. Numerous core habitat s
and corridors are also mapped throughout.
WETLANDS
Approximately 3% of the watershed is mapped as
wetland habitat, which is generally associated with the
streams in the watershed, and the Big Quilcene
estuary.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 9-13
Quilcene Bay Watershed
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES
WATERSHED CONFIGURATION LAND COVER
The western portion of the watershed is located within the
foothills of the Olympic Mountains, and contains steep to
moderate slopes. The western portion of the watershed is
contains slight to moderate slopes. Topography is relatively flat
near the north end of Quilcene Bay; the lower end of the Big
Quilcene River has a relatively wide floodplains.
Coniferous forest cover in the watershed is
49%, scrub shrub cover is 17%, mixed forest
cover is 12%, deciduous forest cover is 7%,
herbaceous cover is 4%, pasture/hay cover is
2%, and woody and emergent wetland plant
cover is 3%. The remaining 6% of the
watershed is covered by developed lands. WATER QUALITY
The lower stretch of the Big Quilcene River is listed as impaired
for temperature, bacteria, and pH, per the State’s Water Quality
Assessment (2012). The Little Quilcene River is listed for
temperature impairments. Lake Leland is listed for several
impairments including phosphorous, PCBs, mercury, invasive
species, and other toxins.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE
EXISTING LAND USES WATERSHED MODIFICATIONS
Portions of the watershed belong to the Olympic National Park
and the USFS wilderness. Commercial forestry activities occur
in the National Forest and on state and private lands in the
middle and upper watershed. Areas of rural residential and
limited commercial development are present throughout the
watershed but focused in the in the unincorporated community of
Quilcene. Land use in the lower reaches of lower reaches of
Donovon Creek and Big Quilcene River has largely been
agriculture and rural residential as well.
Diking and armoring has occurred near the
mouth of Big Quilcene River. Lower reaches
have been modified for residential and
agricultural zoning in addition to the riprap and
water diversion structures of the fish hatchery.
Lords Lake was created by damming Howe
Creek at its north end. Several fish passage
barriers exist along Penny Creek, Donovan
Creek, and Big Quilcene River. Riparian
conditions have been substantially by forestry
and residential development.
ZONING
Lands within the watershed are zoned primarily as Commercial
Forest (32% of total watershed area) and Rural Residential
(minimum lot sizes from 5 to 20 acres) (21%). Approximately 2%
of the watershed is zoned for agriculture, with smaller areas of
Light Industrial/Manufacturing and Parks, and Forest Resource-
Based Industrial (< 1% each). The remaining areas within the
watershed are USFS and National Park lands.
KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Water quality impairments for temperature, fecal coliform, pH, dissolved oxygen, and various toxins are
identified in several streams and waterbodies and do not meet State standards.
Some riparian and wetland buffers in the watershed are low functioning due to lack of buffer vegetation and/or
surrounding land use activities.
Flooding occurs regularly along the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers within the town of Quilcene.
Continue stream restoration efforts (armor and dike removal, LWD placement, livestock exclusion fencing,
invasive species control, native species planting, stream reconfiguring), and remove and/or repair fish
passage barriers.
Protect priority habitats, core habitats and corridors, high-quality vegetation communities, and rare plants.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 10-1
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
CHAPTER 10. Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
This chapter describes the conditions of the Southeast Hood Canal watershed (Figures 6a to 6f). The
watershed is described in terms of its physical, ecological, and human environment/land use
characteristics.
Characteristics for the watershed are summarized in the “fact sheet” included at the end of this
chapter.
10.1 Overview
The Southeast Hood Canal watershed is approximately 41.6 square miles in area. It spans from the
eastern half of Kala Point south to the eastern half of the Toandos Peninsula, which separates Dabob
Bay and Hood Canal. Thorndyke Creek is the primary drainage in the watershed with a combined
length of approximately 13 miles (JCPW, 2005). The stream empties into Thorndyke Bay and Hood
Canal. Smaller drainages in the watershed include Nordstrom, Shine, Bones, and Fisherman Harbor
Creeks (Correa, 2002). Other waterbodies within the watershed include Sandy Shore Lake, Wahls Lake,
Thorndyke Lake, Silent Lake, Lost Lake, Pheasant Lake, Twin Lakes, Tule Lake, and Teal Lake, and
many additional unnamed lakes and tributaries (see Figure 6a). Sandy Shore, Wahl, and Teal Lakes are
all designated as shorelines of the state (ESA, 2008).
Primary land uses in the watershed consist of rural residential development and commercial forestry.
However, the southern limits of the Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort (MPR) also lie within the
watershed. Agricultural areas are very limited in the watershed.
10.2 Physical Characterization
Thorndyke Creek originates from Sandy Shore Lake and generally flows southward toward Hood Canal.
The drainage is managed by Olympic Resource Management for long-term forestry with multi-staged
vegetation growth. Little rural development has occurred in the drainage (Correa, 2002). As a result,
the stream has maintained a natural channel with good floodplain connectivity and off-channel habitat.
Thorndyke Bay is characterized by undisturbed estuarine wetland habitat and extensive tidal channels.
The estuary is identified as a priority conservation area by the Nature Conservancy and is one of the
best examples of an unaltered estuary in Jefferson County (ESA, 2008). The stream experiences low
summer flows, which may be related to consumptive use of groundwater. This has been identified as a
factor that limits coho salmon production in Thorndyke Creek (ESA, 2008). 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).
Nordstrom Creek begins in the foothills of the Toandos Peninsula, flows through forestlands, and
empties into Hood Canal north of Thorndyke Bay. It is approximately 1.4 miles long. Like Thorndyke
Creek, the Nordstrom Creek drainage is mostly owned by Pope Resources and managed by Olympic
Resource Management for timber harvest (Correa, 2002). Mass wasting events from logging in the
upper reaches have resulted in excessive sediment in the stream. An access road and culvert have
modified the Norstrom Creek estuary (Correa, 2002).
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 10-2 March 2016
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
Shine Creek originates in a forested wetland near the Port Ludlow Golf Course in the Port Ludlow MPR
(Correa, 2002). The stream generally flows southward, following Highway 104 at one point, and
empties into Squamish Harbor through a large estuarine wetland (ESA, 2008). Again, most of the
drainage is owned by Pope Resources and managed by Olympic Resources Management for timber
harvest, recreation, and rural development (Correa, 2002). Although the lower reaches of the stream
(mouth to Highway 104) have been channelized, floodplain connectivity remains good. At one time, the
Shine estuary was approximately 85 acres in size, but it was reduced by the construction of South Point
Road and its associated fill and culverts (Correa, 2002). The upper reaches of Shine Creek (above
Highway 104) have been impacted by the construction of the Port Ludlow Golf Course, which
eliminated some headwater wetlands and floodplain habitat. Despite development in the upper
reaches, the stream retains fair pool habitat (Correa, 2002).
Bones Creek flows southward through forested and residential areas into a modified estuary in
Squamish Harbor (Correa, 2002). The stream has been channelized and armored in the lower reaches,
resulting in limited estuarine function.
Sandy Shore Lake is located approximately 1.5 miles west of the intersection of Highway 104 and
Highway 19 (ESA, 2008). It has a surface area of approximately 34.9 acres. Wahl Lake is located south of
Highway 104 and has a surface area of 21.6 acres. It is one of several isolated lakes in the Southeast
Hood Canal watershed (ESA, 2008). Both Sandy Shore Lake and Wahl Lake are owned by Pope
Resources and experience logging in surrounding areas. Teal Lake is located about 1.4 miles south of
Port Ludlow along Teal Lake Road. The lake empties into Port Ludlow via a small, unnamed stream.
Thorndyke Lake is located approximately 0.3 miles north of the intersection of Thorndyke Road and
Kelly Drive (ESA, 2008). It is a small lake with less than an acre of open water. Little development has
occurred in areas surrounding the lake (ESA, 2008).
CARAs are mapped throughout the watershed, including marine shorelines and adjacent uplands. The
drainages of Thorndyke, Nordstrom, and Shine Creeks also have mapped CARAs (see Figure 6a). In
total, CARAs cover 32 percent of the watershed area (Jefferson County, 2006a).The lower reaches of
Thorndyke Creek and its estuary are within the FEMA 100-year floodplain (see Figure 6c) (Jefferson
County, 1998). The lower reaches of Shine Creek and its estuary are also within the FEMA 100-year
floodplain. Fisherman’s Harbor is in the FEMA 100-year floodplain as well. About 2 percent of the
watershed is within the FEMA 100-year floodplain (Jefferson County, 1998).
Landslide hazard areas are mapped along most shorelines and upland areas in the watershed (see
Figure 6b) (Jefferson County, 1997a). Several locations along the shoreline have experienced past slides
(ESA, 2008). Erosion hazard areas are not as frequently mapped in the watershed as landslide hazard
areas, but still exist along shoreline and upland areas (Jefferson County, 1997c). They are also found in
hillsides surrounding the Port Ludlow Golf Course and the middle reach of Shine Creek. Seismic hazards
are mapped along the Thorndyke Creek riparian corridor, surrounding uplands, and estuary (Jefferson
County, 1997b). They are also mapped in many lakes, shorelines, bluffs, and surrounding areas.
10.3 Land Use
Historical land use in the watershed has primarily consisted of commercial forestry and rural residential
development. As a result, some wetlands and streams have been drained or channelized, resulting in
the loss of wetlands and floodplain habitat. Despite this loss, many wetlands and streams are still in
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 10-3
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
relatively natural condition. Current forestry activities in the watershed occur on private and state
forestlands. Approximately 62 percent of the watershed is zoned Commercial Forest, 1 percent is zoned
Inholding Forest, and 4 percent is zoned Rural Forest. Minimal agriculture occurs in the watershed; only
0.1 percent is zoned Local Agriculture (see Figure 6d).
Residential use is concentrated at the southern end of Toandos Peninsula, south of Thorndyke estuary,
Bridgehaven, South Point, the Port Ludlow MPR, and Tala Point. Areas in the watershed zoned for
Rural Residential make up 25 percent of the watershed. The Port Ludlow MPR makes up 1 percent of
the watershed with several different zoning types, which include Multiple Family, Single Family, Open
Space Reserve, and Recreation Area.
Several undeveloped areas are currently zoned for the Master Planned Resort, a high-intensity land use
in the watershed. Undeveloped areas zoned for MPR – Single Family and Multiple Family are found
surrounding the Port Ludlow Golf Course.
10.4 Habitats and Species
The following sections describe existing fish and wildlife habitats and species based on available
studies, data, and mapping such as:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
database (WDFW, 2016a);
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), National Heritage Program GIS dataset
(WNHP, 2013);
WDFW SalmonScape Database (WDFW, 2016c);
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List
(Ecology, 2014);
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database (USFWS,
2015);
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Land Cover database (Homer et al., 2015);
Jefferson County critical areas, zoning, and core habitat area GIS mapping;
Jefferson County water quality and other technical reports; and
Aerial imagery.
10.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors
A few core habitat and corridor types are mapped within the Discovery Bay watershed and described in
Appendix A (see Figure 6f) (Tomassi, 2004). Core 1 areas signify the most intact habitats in the
watershed while Core 2 areas include mostly intact (some fragmentation present) habitats. These
include the following:
Core 1 - Includes lower to middle reaches of Shine Creek riparian corridor, surrounding uplands,
and estuary. Habitat is primarily located on commercial forestland and some rural forestland.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 10-4 March 2016
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
Core 1 - Covers lower to middle reaches of Thorndyke Creek riparian corridor, surrounding
uplands, and estuary. Spans entirely over commercial forestland.
Core 2 - Small portion of habitat extends into Dabob Bay watershed. Includes foothills and
small tributary drainages of Hood Canal in the upper portion of the Toandos Peninsula. Mostly
located on commercial forestland and some rural forest areas.
10.4.2 Fish Use
The watershed provides spawning and rearing habitat for fall chum, coho, winter steelhead, and coastal
cutthroat trout (WDFW, 2016c). Table 10-1 shows species documented as present or presumed present
in the watershed.
Table 10-1. Fish Presence in the Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
Stream
Species Present1
Fall Chum Coho Winter
Steelhead
Coastal
Cutthroat
(Resident)
Thorndyke Creek X X X X
Shine Creek X X X2 X
Nordstrom Creek X
Bones Creek X
Sandy Shore Lake X2 X
Teal Lake X
1Species presence is based on data gathered from WDFW SalmonScape database (2016c).
2Presumed presence (WDFW, 2016c).
Many estuaries and spit features in the watershed provide important habitat for fish. The Shine Creek
estuary supports salmon, trout, and steelhead spawning(see Figure 6f) (ESA, 2008). Large tidal lagoons
at the head of Bywater Bay and along Point Hannon Spit are commonly used by chum and Chinook
salmon. Forage fish species also use most nearshore areas in the watershed for spawning habitat
(Penttila, 2000; Long et al., 2005).
Three culverts along Thorndyke Creek are partial barriers to fish passage (WDFW, 2016b). One culvert is
located in the lower reach on Thorndyke Road, and the other two are located in the upper reaches of
the stream. Fish migration through these culverts is possible during certain flows (Correa, 2002). Three
culverts mapped along Shine Creek are partial barrier for fish passage (WDFW, 2016b). These are
located on Highway 104 and further upstream, near the Port Ludlow Golf Course. Several culverts 100
km and greater in length are located beneath the golf course and obstruct fish passage in upper Shine
Creek (Correa, 2002). There are many other culverts that are complete barriers to fish passage
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 10-5
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
throughout the watershed along unnamed tributaries of Hood Canal and other streams (WDFW,
2016b).
Only one restoration project has been documented in the watershed. This project focused on Shine
Creek estuary restoration and involved removing two culverts to allow for tidal and stream flow, as well
as improved fish passage to the upper estuary (WDFW, 2016d; RCO, 2016). The culverts were replaced
with a bridge.
10.4.3 Water Quality
No waterbodies within the watershed are on the Ecology 303(d) list for impairments (2014). However,
the surrounding waters of Hood Canal are listed for various water quality impairments. Along the
southern Toandos Peninsula, Ecology lists dissolved oxygen and temperature impairments in Hood
Canal. Farther north, in southern Squamish Harbor, Ecology lists a variety of contaminants, including
mercury, nickel, and PCBs (Ecology, 2014).
Several sites within the watershed have been monitored for fecal coliform as part of the Hood Canal
Watershed Clean Water project, and the majority have failed State standards (JPH, 2014). One of these
sites is located in the Paradise Bay area where there is a high density of older and failing septic systems.
These systems have been a focus of study in the Hood Canal Regional PIC project and a large,
communal septic system was proposed for the community to reduce water quality impacts from the
existing, individual septic tanks (Dawson, 2016). However, the project has yet to be implemented
(Dawson, 2016). Another monitoring site that failed State standards for fecal coliform in the watershed
is located in the Fishermans Harbor area. Similar to Paradise Bay, the Fishermans Harbor area also has
a high density of older septic systems that pose a potential risk to water quality.
In 2011, Silent Lake experienced a toxic cyanobacteria bloom, but the toxin levels remained below state
recreational criteria for closure (Thomason et al., 2013)
10.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions
Overall, riparian habitat conditions are good in the watershed (Correa, 2002). Thorndyke Creek has
excellent canopy cover, predominantly mixed forest. However, due to logging activities in the
watershed, LWD and recruitment potential is poor (Correa, 2002). Shine Creek also has exceptional
canopy cover of primarily deciduous and mixed forest. Logging activities in the lower drainage have
resulted in minimal stream buffers and low LWD recruitment potential (Correa, 2002). Invasive and
non-native species are also present in the lower drainage. The upper portion of the drainage within the
golf course has poor riparian function due to maintenance and expansion activities (Correa, 2002). The
riparian corridor of Nordstrom Creek consists mainly of deciduous cover with few conifers.
10.4.5 Wetlands
Estuarine and marine wetlands are commonly found throughout the watershed. Most estuarine
wetlands are located along shorelines, nearshore areas, and stream mouths, including Fisherman’s
Harbor, Thorndyke Bay, South Point Spit, Squamish Harbor, and Bywater Bay (see Figure 6a).
Estuarine wetlands at the mouths of Thorndyke and Shine Creeks have freshwater forested, scrub-
shrub, and emergent fringe wetlands. A larger freshwater wetland complex is located just upstream of
the mouth of Shine Creek. Other freshwater wetlands are found throughout the watershed, primarily
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 10-6 March 2016
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
bordering lakes and small tributaries. The majority of wetlands and buffers in the watershed have
intact vegetation cover. In total, wetlands comprise 3 percent of the watershed (USFWS, 2015).
10.4.6 Wildlife
The Southeast Hood Canal watershed supports habitats of diverse vegetation types and cover for
multiple wildlife species, primarily in undeveloped areas. Coniferous forest cover in the watershed is 43
percent, shrub cover is 16 percent, mixed forest cover is 9 percent, herbaceous cover is 9 percent,
deciduous forest cover is 8 percent, and woody and emergent herbaceous wetland plant cover is 2
percent (See Figure 6e) (Homer et al., 2015).
According to the WDFW PHS database, priority species have been documented in undeveloped and
developed areas of the watershed (WDFW, 2016a). Several bald eagle territories are mapped in the
shoreline of southern and eastern Toandos Peninsula; the shorelines of Thorndyke Bay; the mouth of
Thorndyke Creek; the uplands surrounding Squamish Harbor; just west of the Hood Canal Bridge; and
the nearby uplands surrounding Bywater Bay. Two purple martin breeding sites are mapped at South
Point Spit and immediately south of the spit (WDFW, 2016a). Great blue heron breeding areas are
mapped in the Shine estuary, and upland of the lagoon wetland of Bywater Bay. Osprey nests are
mapped on the eastern shorelines of the Toandos Peninsula; along the riparian corridor of Thorndyke
Creek; east of Twin and Sandy Shore Lakes; the shoreline uplands of Bywater Bay; and on Tala Point
(WDFW, 2016a).
Winter concentrations of waterfowl are mapped in Thorndyke Bay. Wood duck breeding areas are also
found in Silent and Pheasant Lakes, as well as the mouth of Thorndyke Creek. Harbor seal haulout sites
are mapped in the rocks north and east of Kala Point (WDFW, 2016a).
10.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities
Numerous high-quality vegetation communities and rare plants are identified in the Southeast Hood
Canal watershed by the Washington Natural Heritage Program. Various high-quality habitat and
vegetation communities are identified in Thorndyke Bay:
Organic, sand, mixed-fine, or mud partly enclosed, backshore oligohaline marsh;
Organic, partly enclosed, backshore, polyhaline marsh;
Sand or mixed fine lagoon, hyperhaline, euhaline marsh;
Sand, party enclosed, eulittoral, polyhaline marsh;
Coastal spit with native vegetation;
Tufted hairgrass/Lyngby’s sedge/saltgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa/Carex lyngbyei/Distichlis
spicata);
Saltgrass/pickleweed (Distichlis spicata/Salicornia virginica);
Lyngby’s sedge/saltgrass/seaside arrowgrass (Carex lyngbyei/ Distichlis spicata/ Triglochin
maritima);
American dunegrass/Japanese beach pea (Leymus mollis/Lathyrus japonicus);
Red fescue/silver burweed (Festuca rubra/Ambrosia chamissonis);
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 10-7
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
Hard-stem bulrush (Shoenoplectus acutus);
Broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia); and
Pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) (WHNP, 2013).
High-quality vegetation and habitats identified in Thorndyke Lake include the following:
Low-elevation freshwater wetland;
Douglas’ spirea (Spirea douglasii);
Dulichium (Dulichium arundinaceum);
Hard-stem bulrush (Shoenoplectus acutus);
Yellow pond-lily (Nuphar lutea ssp. Polysepala); and
Western crabapple (Malus fusca) (WHNP, 2013).
Several isolated lakes in the watershed are identified with high-quality vegetation types, including
Wahl, Tule, and Twin Lakes. Twin Lakes and a few other lakes to the south and north have low-
elevation sphagnum bog communities as well as the following vegetation: Douglas spirea (Spirea
douglasii), yellow pond-lily (Nuphar lutea), western inflated sedge (Carex exsiccate), Baltic rush (Juncus
balticus), beakrush (Rhynchospora sp.), bog cranberry/sphagnum species (Vaccinium oxycoccos),
Cusick’s sedge (Carex cusickii), Sitka sedge (Carex aquatillis), bog Labrador tea/bog laurel tea (Ledum
groenlandicum/Kalmia polifolia), and western crabapple (Malus fusca) (WHNP, 2013). Dulichium
(Dulichium arundinaceum) is also mapped within Wahl Lake. In addition Bywater Bay has sand or mixed
fine lagoon habitat (hyperhaline and euhaline) (WHNP, 2013).
10.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities
Management issues in the Southeast Hood Canal watershed:
Water quality in the waters surrounding the southern Toandos Peninsula does not meet State
standards for dissolved oxygen and temperature.
Paradise Bay and Fishermans Harbor have experienced increases in fecal coliform levels,
primarily due to failing septic systems.
Water quality in waters surrounding Squamish Harbor does not meet State standards for a
variety of contaminants, including mercury, nickel, and PCBs.
Some riparian and wetland buffers associated with Shine Creek, and other tributaries in the
watershed are low functioning due to lack of cover and/or land use activities.
Opportunities in the watershed:
Continue restoration efforts (fill removal, invasive species control, native species planting,
stream reconfiguring) in the channels, floodplains, wetlands, and riparian zones of lower Shine
Creek.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 10-8 March 2016
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
Restore riparian and wetland buffers associated with other streams and tributaries in the
watershed.
Identify and repair failing septic systems.
Continue efforts to remove and/or replace road culverts that impede fish passage.
Continue to protect WNHP identified high-quality vegetation communities in Thorndyke Bay
and Lake, and isolated lakes in the Toandos peninsula.
Protect designated core habitat areas within the watershed.
Protect habitats mapped by WDFW that support PHS listed species.
10.6 Watershed Fact Sheet
The Fact Sheet for the Southeast Hood Canal Watershed is presented on the following pages.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 10-9
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
SOUTHEAST HOOD CANAL WATERSHED
WATERSHED AREA:
42 Square miles
MAPPED CRITICAL AREAS
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (CARAs)
Approximately 2% of the watershed is located within the
FEMA 100-year floodplain; these floodplain areas are
concentrated along the eastern Hood Canal shoreline
and the lower reaches of Thorndyke and Shine Creeks.
CARAs are mapped in approximately 32% of the total
watershed area; these areas are concentrated around
the major streams in the watershed, as well as the
canal shoreline.
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Landslide hazard areas (less than 9% of watershed
area) are mapped along the shorelines and upland
areas. Erosion hazards (2% of watershed area) are also
mapped in these general areas but with less frequency.
Seismic hazard areas (10% of watershed area) are
mapped in along Thorndyke Creek, surrounding
uplands, and estuary, as well as many lakes, shoreline,
and bluffs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION
AREAS
Cutthroat trout are found in the majority of the major
streams of the watershed. Thorndyke and Shine Creek
also support steelhead, chum salmon, and coho
salmon.
Waterfowl and shorebird concentrations, bald eagle,
osprey nests, and great blue heron breeding areas, are
mapped in several areas within the watershed. Two
purple martin breeding sites are mapped at South Point
Spit. Harbor seal haul-outs are mapped north and east
of Tala Point.
Approximately 15% of the watershed contains mapped
core habitat areas.
WETLANDS
Approximately 3% of the watershed is mapped as
wetland habitat, which is generally associated with the
streams and estuaries in the watershed.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 10-10 March 2016
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES
WATERSHED CONFIGURATION LAND COVER
The majority of the watershed contains slight to
moderate slopes; the steeper slopes are generally
located on the Toandos Peninsula, which slopes
eastward towards Hood Canal. Thorndyke Creek has a
relatively confined floodplain, except for just upstream
of its estuary.
Coniferous forest cover in the watershed is 43%, shrub
cover is 16%, mixed forest cover is 9%, herbaceous
cover is 9%, deciduous forest cover is 8%, and woody
and emergent herbaceous wetland plant cover is 2%.
The remaining 13% of the watershed is covered by
developed lands.
WATER QUALITY
Per the State’s Water Quality Assessment (2012), the
waters of Hood Canal are listed as impaired for low
dissolved oxygen levels and temperature impairments
along the southern Toandos peninsula and for a variety
of contaminants in southern Squamish Harbor.
Thorndyke Creek is monitored for water quality by the
County’s Clean Water District.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE
EXISTING LAND USES WATERSHED MODIFICATIONS
Current forestry activities occur on private and State
forest lands. Residential use is primarily concentrated
in the unincorporated community of Port Ludlow, with
smaller concentrations in Bridgehaven, South Point,
and Tala Point.
As a result of commercial forestry and residential
development, some wetlands and streams have been
drained or channelized. The upper reaches of Shine
Creek have been impacted by the construction of the
Port Ludlow Golf Course. Several fish passage
barriers, primarily culverts, exist within the watershed.
ZONING
Lands within the watershed are zoned primarily as
Commercial Forest (62% of total watershed area) and
Rural Residential (minimum lot sizes from 5 to 40
acres) (24%). Smaller areas of Local Agriculture and
Resorts also occur (< 1% each).
KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Water quality in the waters surrounding the southern Toandos Peninsula does not meet State
standards for dissolved oxygen and temperature.
Water quality in waters surrounding Squamish Harbor does not meet State standards for a variety
of contaminants, including mercury, nickel, and PCBs.
Paradise Bay and Fishermans Harbor have experienced increases in fecal coliform levels, primarily
due to failing septic systems; failing system should be identified and repaired.
Some riparian and wetland buffers associated with Shine Creek, and other tributaries in the
watershed are low functioning due to lack of cover and/or land use activities.
Continue restoration efforts on lower Shine Creek, and continue efforts to correct fish passage
barriers.
Restore riparian and wetland buffers associated with other streams and tributaries in the
watershed.
Protect priority habitats, core habitats, and high-quality vegetation communities in the watershed.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 11-1
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
CHAPTER 11. Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
This chapter describes the conditions of the Southwest Hood Canal watershed (Figures 7a to 7f). The
watershed is described in terms of its physical, ecological, and human environment/land use
characteristics.
Characteristics for the watershed are summarized in the “fact sheet” included at the end this chapter.
11.1 Overview
The Southwest Hood Canal watershed extends into Mason County and onto USFS land. The portion of
the watershed within Jefferson County is approximately 71 square miles, which is the largest of the nine
watersheds in this report. The watershed contains two large rivers and several smaller drainages, which
support essential habitats for salmon production.
The Duckabush River originates in the eastern Olympic Mountains and is one of the largest rivers
flowing into Hood Canal (ESA, 2008). The mainstem is 24.5 miles long, with 94.3 miles of contributing
tributaries. The upper part of the drainage is protected by ONP and USFS wilderness areas (Correa,
2002). The other large river drainage, the Dosewallips River, is 28.3 miles long with 140 miles of
contributing tributaries. The Dosewallips River also originates in the eastern Olympic Mountains near
Mt. Claywood and empties into Hood Canal at the town of Brinnon (ESA, 2008). The majority of the
upper drainage is protected by ONP, while the middle is partly within the USFS wilderness area. Both
Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers are designated as shorelines of the state.
Smaller drainages in the watershed include Spencer, Marple, Rocky Brook, McDonald, and Fulton
Creeks. Spencer and Marple Creeks flow into the northwest corner of Jackson Cove in Dabob Bay, south
of the Big Quilcene River (see Figure 7a) (Correa, 2002). Rocky Brook Creek is the largest tributary to
the Dosewallips River (Correa, 2003). McDonald Creek enters McDaniel Cove (which is also referred to
as McDonald Cove) south of the Duckabush River. Fulton Creek empties into Hood Canal north of
McDaniel and Triton Coves in the southern part of the watershed. Fulton Creek is also a designated
shoreline of the state.
Primary land uses in the watershed consist of commercial forestry, rural residential development, and
the Brinnon Master Planned Resort. Additional waterbodies found within the watershed include several
unnamed streams and tributaries.
11.2 Physical Characterization
The Duckabush River generally flows eastward and empties into Hood Canal, about 4 miles south of
Brinnon. The average annual discharge of the river is 411 cubic feet per second (cfs) at a gauging station
at RM 4.9 (Correa, 2003). The middle to lower drainage is fairly confined and steep throughout except
for the last 2 miles of the river, which flow through a broad floodplain (Correa, 2003). Floodplain
connectivity is considered fair overall but poor in the lower half mile because many streambanks are
heavily armored and restrict flooding (Correa, 2003).The estuary is an extensive mud and gravel flat
area that supports productive shellfish beds. Highway 101 crosses the estuary via bridges. Historically,
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 11-2 March 2016
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
the estuary consisted of a broad tidal channel network, but have since been blocked or modified by
berms (ESA et al., 2012).
Roads in the lower drainage have also contributed to 31 mass wasting events, with an estimated 78
percent of these events contributing sediment to the river (USFS, 1998). Similarly, the upper reaches of
the Duckabush River are also steep and have few tributaries. This portion of the river lies within ONP
and USFS boundaries (see Figure 7a). However, the County’s jurisdiction over the river extends into
private inholdings within USFS boundaries to approximately RM 4.9 (ESA, 2008). Most of the river is
within the high-risk channel migration zone, especially to the south of the channel near its mouth as
well as its upper reaches (ESA, 2016b). Similar to the Duckabush River, the Dosewallips River flows in a
general eastward direction toward Hood Canal (Correa, 2003). It is also relatively steep in the upper
reaches, and more gradual and meandering in the lower reaches. The average annual discharge of the
river is 446 cfs at a gauging station at RM 7.1 (ESA, 2008). A large portion of the Dosewallips River is
within the high-risk channel migration zone, especially to the south of the channel (ESA, 2016b). The
Dosewallips estuary features a deltaic fan and well-developed tidal marsh complex bordered by spits at
the outer edges. Wolcott Slough is a prominent feature of the estuary and is fish-bearing.
Upstream of the Duckabush estuary, the lower river floodplain and middle reaches have been largely
modified for forestry, rural, and agricultural development (Correa, 2003). Several wetlands and side
channels of the river have been drained or disconnected by development. Logging road failures and
subsequent sediment deposits in the middle to upper reaches of the river remain an issue (Correa,
2003). However, of the 50 mass wasting events identified by the USFS, only one was road-related
(USFS, 1999). USFS ownership begins at RM 6.1 of the Dosewallips River.
Rocky Brook Creek is a major tributary of the Dosewallips River with a drainage area of approximately
5,672 acres (Correa, 2003). Historically, the drainage was clearcut for timber harvest and experienced 45
mass wasting events. Most of these events (36) were road-related (Correa, 2003). Spencer Creek, a
tributary of Hood Canal, is approximately 3.8 miles in length with 1.1 miles of contributing tributaries
(Correa, 2003). Marple Creek, another tributary of Hood Canal just south of Spencer Creek, is
approximately 2.4 miles in length with 2.2 miles of contributing tributaries. The upper reaches of both
Marple and Spencer Creeks are entirely or partly within USFS boundaries. The lower reach of Marple
Creek is privately owned and was moved to accommodate housing development in the floodplain
(Correa, 2002). As a result, channel migration and estuarine functions are limited in the Marple Creek
estuary.
McDonald Creek is a 1.9-mile-long tributary to Hood Canal south of the Duckabush River (Correa,
2003). A small portion of the upper drainage lies within USFS boundaries. The upper reaches of the
drainage are characterized by a steep gradient that becomes more gradual in the middle reaches and
then steep again in the lower reach. The lower reach flows through a steep, confined section that
empties into a short alluvial fan (Correa, 2003). The stream mouth and floodplain in the lower reach are
constricted by Highway 101 and associated fill.
Fulton Creek originates in the foothills of the Olympic Mountains and empties into Hood Canal south of
McDonald Creek (ESA, 2008). Including the South Fork, the stream is approximately 9.0 miles long
(Correa, 2003). Much like McDonald Creek, the upper reaches of Fulton Creek are steep in gradient. The
middle reach is also more gradual, while the lower reach becomes confined and steep before emptying
into a short alluvial fan (Correa, 2003). Floodplain connectivity and habitat have been largely lost due to
bank armoring and/or diking for residential development in the lower reach.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 11-3
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
CARAs are mapped in the major river and stream drainages, as well as their estuaries within the
watershed (see Figure 7a). In total, CARAs cover 75 percent of the watershed area (Jefferson County,
2006a). The majority of the Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers, Fulton Creek, and estuaries in the
watershed are also within the FEMA 100-year floodplain (see Figure 7c). About 3 percent of the
watershed is within the FEMA 100-year floodplain (Jefferson County, 1998)
Landslide hazards are mapped along the slopes of many of the major streams and rivers in the
watershed (see Figure 7b) (Jefferson County, 1997a). A segment of the shoreline just north of the
Duckabush River estuary also has mapped landslide hazard areas. Erosion hazards in the watershed
largely overlap with many landslide hazard areas. They are mapped in the upland slopes for a majority
of the major tributaries, streams, and rivers (Jefferson County 1997c). Similarly, seismic hazards are also
mapped in adjacent uplands of major tributaries, streams, and rivers (Jefferson County, 1997b).
11.3 Land Use
In the late 1800s, many of the drainages within the Southwest Hood Canal watershed were converted
to pastureland (Correa, 2003). Early settlers drained, ditched, and channelized rivers and streams and
their associated wetlands to facilitate agriculture. The slopes of many drainages in the watershed also
experienced intensive timber harvest and fires during this time (Correa, 2003). Logging still occurs
today on federal, state, and privately owned forestland. Approximately 16 percent of the watershed is
zoned Commercial Forest, 5 percent is zoned Inholding Forest, and 1 percent is zoned Rural Forest
(Jefferson County, 2006b). Only 0.1 percent of the watershed is zoned for Local Agriculture.
As previously mentioned, the floodplains of the Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers, and Marple and
Fulton Creeks, have been developed for rural residential and commercial use. The town of Brinnon,
located near the mouth of the Dosewallips River, has a combination of zoned Master Planned Resort
(MPR), Rural Village Center (RVC), and Rural Residential areas. Some residential development is
located just south of the Duckabush River delta and on the north and east sides of Black Point as well
(ESA et al., 2012). Overall, about 1 percent of the watershed is zoned MPR, 0.1 percent is zoned RVC,
and 13 percent is zoned Rural Residential. Dosewallips State Park is located on the south side of the
Dosewallips River, estuary, and is 425 acres in size (ESA, 2016b). Areas zoned for Parks, Preserves, and
Recreation make up 1 percent of the watershed.
Undeveloped areas in the watershed are zoned for more intensive uses, including Master Planned
Resort and Rural Village Center (see Figure 7d). These undeveloped areas are in parcels found on Black
Point, nearby Pleasant Harbor Marina, and the Dosewallips estuary.
11.4 Habitats and Species
The following sections describe existing fish and wildlife habitats and species based on available
studies, data, and mapping such as:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
database (WDFW, 2016a);
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), National Heritage Program GIS dataset
(WNHP, 2013);
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 11-4 March 2016
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
WDFW SalmonScape Database (WDFW, 2016c);
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List
(Ecology, 2014);
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) database (USFWS,
2015);
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Land Cover database (Homer et al., 2015);
Jefferson County critical areas, zoning, and core habitat area GIS mapping;
Jefferson County water quality and other technical reports; and
Aerial imagery.
11.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors
Several core habitat and corridor types (described in Appendix A) are mapped in the Southwest Hood
Canal watershed (see Figure 7f) (Tomassi, 2004). Core 1 areas signify the most intact habitats in the
watershed, while Core 2 areas include mostly intact (some fragmentation present) habitats, Core 3
areas are important habitats that are degraded or altered, and Corridors connect two core areas
together. These include the following:
Core 1 - Covers the Duckabush River estuary.
Core 1 - Includes the Dosewallips River estuary, lower reach, and uplands west of the river.
Spans mixed land uses, including Master Planned Resort, Rural Village Center, and Rural
Residential.
Core 1 - Upper reaches of Spencer Creek and surrounding uplands. Habitat extends into
Quilcene Bay watershed, primarily in commercial forestland.
Core 2 - Middle to upper reaches of Dosewallips Rivers and surrounding uplands. Spans
commercial forest, rural forest, rural residential, and inholding forestlands.
Core 3 - Lower to middle reaches of the Duckabush River to USFS boundary. Located primarily
on commercial forest, but rural residential land as well.
Corridor - Follows riparian corridor of the Duckabush River from the mouth to lower reach.
Extends over areas zoned as Rural Residential.
11.4.2 Fish Use
The watershed provides spawning and rearing habitat for summer chum, fall chum, coho, pink (odd
year runs), and fall Chinook salmon; winter and summer steelhead; rainbow and coastal cutthroat trout;
bull trout; and kokanee (WDFW, 2007). Table 11-1 shows species documented as present or presumed
present in the watershed.
Table 11-1. Fish Presence in the Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
Stream Species Present1
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 11-5
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
Su
m
m
e
r
C
h
u
m
Fa
l
l
C
h
u
m
Co
h
o
Pi
n
k
(o
d
d
y
e
a
r
)
Fa
l
l
C
h
i
n
o
o
k
Wi
n
t
e
r
S
t
e
e
l
h
e
a
d
Su
m
m
e
r
St
e
e
l
h
e
a
d
Co
a
s
t
a
l
C
u
t
t
h
r
o
a
t
(R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
)
Bu
l
l
T
r
o
u
t
Ko
k
a
n
e
e
Ra
i
n
b
o
w
T
r
o
u
t
Duckabush
River X X X X X X X2 X X X
Dosewallips
River X X X X X X X2 X X X
Rocky Brook
Creek X X X
Fulton Creek X X X
Marple
Creek X X X
Spencer
Creek X X2 X
McDonald
Creek X X X
1Species presence is based on data gathered from WDFW SalmonScape database (2016c).
2Presumed presence.
The tidal channels and salt marsh habitat of the Dosewallips River estuary are identified as important
nursery habitat for several species of salmon and coastal cutthroat trout (May et al., 2003). The
adjacent nearshore also provides high-quality rearing and migration habitat for salmonids (ESA, 2008).
Forage fish species (surf smelt, sand lance, and herring) also use nearshore areas of the watershed,
especially near Pleasant Harbor, Black Point, and Quatsap Point (Penttila, 2000; Bargmann, 1998).
Two culverts along Spencer Creek are partial barriers to fish passage. One culvert is located on Bee Mill
Road near the mouth of the stream and impairs estuarine functions of the Spencer Creek estuary
(Correa, 2003). The second culvert is located farther upstream on Highway 101 (WDFW, 2016b). Other
partial and complete barriers in the watershed are found in small unnamed streams and tributaries of
Hood Canal.
Most restoration projects in the watershed have focused on restoring floodplains and estuaries of the
Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers. These projects have involved removal of structures, dikes, and fill;
invasive species control; native tree and shrub planting; and property acquisition (WDFW, 2016d; RCO,
2016). A multi-phased project in the Dosewallips River floodplain and estuary also includes engineered
log jams (RCO, 2016). Other restoration projects in the watershed involve similar actions and are
located in drainages of smaller tributaries to Hood Canal.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 11-6 March 2016
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
11.4.3 Water Quality
The Hood Canal Watershed Clear Water Project monitors surface water quality in the Southwest Hood
Canal watershed and other parts of the County. The Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers, and Fulton,
Marple, McDonald, Rock Brook, and Spencer Creeks, all passed water quality standards during
monitoring (Dawson et al., 2014). However, Ecology identifies a number of water quality impairments
in the watershed. Jackson Cove, near the mouths of Marple and Spencer Creeks, is listed for bacteria
impairments. The first mile of Marple Creek has temperature and fish and shellfish habitat impairments
(Ecology, 2014). From the mouth of the Dosewallips River to RM 1.1, Ecology identifies temperature
and pH impairments. The first 0.3 mile of Fulton Creek also has a listing for temperature impairments.
Water quality monitoring stations for bacteria near the mouths of the Duckabush and Dosewallips
Rivers in Dabob Bay near Long Spit are managed by the State Department of Health. These stations
have been assigned a ‘Threatened’ or ‘Concerned’ status because of water quality concerns based on
monitoring results (DOH, 2014). Homes in Duckabush have documented water quality issues with
graywater discharges, unsecured tank lids, and unpermitted holding tanks or outhouses (Dawson,
2016). The areas of Brinnon, Pleasant Harbor, and Duckabush have been identified as high priority
areas by the Hood Canal Regional Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) program (Dawson,
2016).
11.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions
Riparian habitat conditions are poor in the watershed due to intensive logging activities in the upper
drainages and land conversion in the lower drainages by early settlers (Correa, 2002, 2003). Natural
causes such as fire and wind have had minor impacts on riparian areas compared to development
activities. As a result riparian areas have mostly deciduous cover and very little LWD. Invasive plant
species such as bull thistle, tansy ragwort, and knotweed are prevalent as well (USFS, 1999).
11.4.5 Wetlands
Many historic forested wetlands throughout the watershed were drained or filled to accommodate
agricultural and residential development. Dikes and fill were also constructed. Recent restoration
projects in the watershed have aimed at removing structures such as dikes and associated fill to restore
wetland habitat, especially in estuaries. Currently, wetlands cover 1 percent of the watershed (USFWS,
2015). The majority are estuarine wetland complexes, located largely at the mouths of the Duckabush
and Dosewallips Rivers and along shorelines (see Figure 7a). Salt marshes in the northwest part of the
Duckabush estuary are partially disconnected from tidal flows due to the Highway 101 crossing (ESA et
al., 2012). Many estuarine wetland complexes have some freshwater emergent, scrub-shrub, or
forested fringe wetlands as well. Smaller estuarine wetlands are found at the mouths of Fulton,
McDonald, Marple, and Spencer Creeks. Riverine wetlands are present along the middle to lower
reaches of the Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers. Larger freshwater emergent, scrub-shrub, and
forested wetlands are found along these reaches as well.
11.4.6 Wildlife
The Southwest Hood Canal watershed supports habitats of diverse vegetation types and cover for
many species of wildlife, primarily in undeveloped areas. It has the largest amount (69 percent) of
coniferous forest cover out of the nine watershed described in this report. Shrub cover is 13 percent,
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 11-7
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
mixed forest cover is 5 percent, herbaceous cover is 3 percent, deciduous forest cover is 2 percent, and
woody and emergent wetland plant cover is 1 percent (see Figure 7e) (Homer et al., 2015).
According to the WDFW PHS database, priority species have been documented in undeveloped and
developed areas of the watershed (WDFW, 2016a). Bald eagle territories are mapped just south of
Jackson Cove; north of the Dosewallips River, along the shoreline; south of the Dosewallips estuary; on
Black Point, north of the Duckabush estuary; in uplands between Fulton and McDonald Creeks; upland
of McDonald Cove; and south of the Duckabush River delta (WDFW, 2016a). Osprey occurrences are
mapped in the riparian corridors of the Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers, and the head of Pleasant
Harbor. Two purple martin occurrences are documented in Pleasant Harbor and Brinnon.
Great blue heron breeding areas are mapped in the upper drainages of Marple and Spencer Creeks, as
well as the Dosewallips estuary and lower Duckabush River riparian area (WDFW, 2016a). Mountain
quail occurrences are also mapped in the uplands north and south of Duckabush River, and between
Fulton and McDonald Creeks. Waterfowl species such as harlequin ducks and hooded mergansers are
mapped in the Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers and estuaries as well as wetlands on Black Point. In
addition, most of the watershed lies within mapped northern spotted owl occurrence and management
buffer areas (WDFW, 2016a).
A few priority mammal species are documented in the watershed, including marten, harbor seal, and
bat (WDFW, 2016a). A marten occurrence mapped within County jurisdiction is in Jackson Cove,
between the mouths of Spencer and Marple Creeks. Harbor seal haulout sites are documented in both
the Dosewallips and Duckabush estuaries throughout the year (WDFW, 2016a; ESA et al., 2012). Winter
harbor seal pupping occurs in the Duckabush estuary (ESA et al., 2012). Two species of bat, long-legged
myotis and Yuma myotis, have mapped concentrations within the Dosewallips estuary.
Other priority species identified in the watershed include ungulates and amphibians. A mapped elk
winter range spans the uplands and riparian corridors of the Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers. A
western toad occurrence is mapped within the Duckabush estuary.
11.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities
The Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) identifies a number of high-quality vegetation
communities and rare plant occurrences in the Southwest Hood Canal watershed. The upper drainage
of Marple Creek within USFS boundaries is identified as having a Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)–
Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) community; and a
Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)– Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), sword fern (Polystichum
munitum) community (WHNP, 2013). The WNHP identifies the following high-quality vegetation
communities in the Duckabush estuary:
Sandy, moderate salinity, low marsh;
Low salinity high marsh;
Gravelly low marsh;
Silty, low salinity, low marsh;
Lyngby’s sedge/saltgrass /seaside arrowgrass (Carex lyngbyei , Distichlis spicata, Triglochin
maritima);
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 11-8 March 2016
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
Pacific silverweed/Baltic rush (Argentina egedii, Juncus balticus);
Saltgrass/pickleweed (Distichlis spicata, Salicornia virginica);
Sea milkwort (Glaux maritima);
Lygnby’s sedge (Carex lyngbyei); and
Pickleweed (Salicornia virginica).
Two occurrences of the rare chain-fern (Woodwardia fimbriata) are identified in the watershed (WHNP,
2013). One occurrence is located just north of Pleasant Harbor along the shoreline and nearby uplands.
The second occurrence is found between McDonald and Fulton Creeks.
11.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities
Management issues in the Southwest Hood Canal watershed:
Several waterbodies in the watershed do not meet State water quality standards:
o A portion of Jackson Cove within the watershed does not meet State standards for
bacteria;
o Marple Creek does not meet State standards for temperature, and fish and shellfish
habitat;
o The Dosewallips River does not meet State standards for temperature and pH;
o Fulton Creek does not meet State standards for temperature; and
o The mouths of the Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers have been assigned a
‘Threatened’ or ‘Concerned’ status because of water quality concerns due to elevated
bacteria levels.
The areas of Brinnon, Pleasant Harbor, and Duckabush have been identified as high priority
areas by the Hood Canal Regional Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) program.
Many riparian and wetland buffers associated with the Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers, and
other streams in the watershed are low functioning due to lack of cover and/or existing land use
activities.
Opportunities in the watershed:
Continue restoration efforts (property acquisition, armor removal, LWD placement, invasive
species control, native species planting, stream reconfiguring) in the channels, floodplains,
estuaries, wetlands, and riparian zones of the Duckabush and Dosewallips rivers.
Restore riparian and wetland buffers associated with other streams in the watershed.
Continue efforts to remove and/or replace road culverts that impede fish passage.
Continue to protect WNHP identified high-quality vegetation communities and rare plant
occurrences in the watershed.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 11-9
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
Identify and correct sources of water pollution originating from the Brinnon, Pleasant Harbor,
and Duckabush areas.
Protect designated core habitat and corridor areas within the watershed.
Protect habitats mapped by WDFW that support PHS listed species.
11.6 Watershed “Fact Sheet”
The Fact Sheet for the Southwest Hood Canal Watershed is presented on the following pages.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 11-10 March 2016
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
SOUTHWEST HOOD CANAL WATERSHED
WATERSHED AREA:
71 Square miles
MAPPED CRITICAL AREAS
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (CARAs)
Approximately 3% of the watershed is located within the
FEMA 100-year floodplain; these floodplain areas are
concentrated along Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers
and the low-lying areas along the Hood Canal
shoreline.
CARAs are mapped in approximately 75% of the total
watershed area; these areas are concentrated around
the major streams in the watershed, as well as the
Hood Canal shoreline.
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Landslide hazard areas (75% of watershed area) are
mapped along the slopes of many of the major rivers in
the watershed. Erosion hazards (14% of watershed
area) are also mapped in these general areas. Seismic
hazard areas (4% of watershed area) are mapped in
several areas, also primarily along major rivers.
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION
AREAS
The Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers provide habitat
for several species including rainbow trout, bull trout,
cutthroat trout, and chum, coho, pink, and Chinook
salmon. Several other streams also support coho and
cutthroat trout.
The Duckabush and Dosewallips estuaries provide
habitat for several species of birds including bald eagle,
osprey, great blue heron, and waterfowl. Seal haul-out
areas are also mapped in the estuaries. The majority of
the watershed lies within the mapped Northern spotted
owl occurrence and management buffer.
Approximately 5% of the watershed contains mapped
core habitat areas.
WETLANDS
Approximately 1% of the watershed is mapped as
wetland habitat, which is generally associated with the
estuaries at the mouth of the Duckabush and
Dosewallips Rivers, and along the shoreline.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 11-11
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES
WATERSHED CONFIGURATION LAND COVER
The majority of the watershed is located within the
foothills of the Olympic Mountains, and contains steep
to moderate slopes. The lower end of the Dosewallips
River, near its estuary, contains a moderately-wide
floodplain.
Coniferous forest cover in the watershed is 69%, shrub
cover is 13%, mixed forest cover is 5%, herbaceous
cover is 3%, deciduous forest cover is 2%, and woody
and emergent wetland plant cover is 1%. The remaining
7% of the watershed is covered by developed lands.
WATER QUALITY
The Dosewallips River is listed as impaired for
temperature and pH per the State’s Water Quality
Assessment (2012). Marple Creek is listed for
temperature and shellfish impairments and Fulton
Creek is listed for temperature. Many of the
watersheds waterbodies are monitored by the County
through the Hood Canal Watershed Clear Water
Project.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE
EXISTING LAND USES WATERSHED MODIFICATIONS
The primarily land use in the watershed is commercial timber
harvest and residential use. Limited agricultural activities
occur within the watershed. Residential use is concentrated in
the unincorporated town of Brinnon north of the mouth of the
Dosewallips River. In addition to the Dosewallips River, much
of the floodplain of the Duckabush River and Marple and
Fulton Creeks have been developed for residential use.
Many historic forested wetlands have been
drained due to agricultural and residential
development, which also required the
construction of dikes and fill. Many streambanks
are heavily armored. Two culverts along
Spencer Creek are partial barriers to fish
passage.
ZONING
Lands within the watershed are zoned primarily as Rural
Residential (minimum lot sizes from 5 to 20 acres) (38%) and
Commercial Forest (16% of total watershed area). Smaller
areas are zoned as Parks, Preserves, and Recreation (1%)
and local agriculture (< 1%) General Crossroad, Essential
Public Facility (Airport), Neighborhood/Visitor Crossroad,
Parks, and Forest Resource-Based Industrial (< 1% each).
The remaining areas within the watershed are USFS and
National Park lands.
KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Water quality impairments for temperature, fecal coliform, and pH, that do not meet State standards are
identified in several waterbodies.
Many riparian and wetland buffers associated with the Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers, and other streams
in the watershed are low functioning due to lack of cover and/or land use activities.
The areas of Brinnon, Pleasant Harbor, and Duckabush have been identified as high priority areas by the
Hood Canal Regional Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) program.
Continue restoration efforts (property acquisition, armor removal, LWD placement, invasive species control,
native species planting, stream reconfiguring) in the channels, floodplains, estuaries, wetlands, and riparian
zones of the Duckabush and Dosewallips rivers.
Restore riparian and wetland buffers associated with other streams in the watershed, and continue efforts to
repair fish passage barriers.
Protect priority habitats, core habitats, and high-quality vegetation communities within the watershed.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 12-1
References
CHAPTER 12. REFERENCES
Ames, James and Bucknell, Patrick 1981. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization.
Washington State Department of Fisheries.
Ames, Jim et al. 2000. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative. Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife and Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes.
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.
Bargmann, G. 1998. Forage Fish Management Plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
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.
Correa, G. 2002. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors – Water Resource Inventory Area 17
Quilcene-Snow Basin. Washington State Conservation Commission. November 2002.
Correa, G. 2003. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors – Water Resource Inventory Area 16
Dosewallips – Skokomish Basin. Washington State Conservation Commission. June 2003.
Dawson, M. 2016. Personal communications with Michael Dawson, Water Quality Manager Jefferson
County Environmental Health, for water quality monitoring results in Eastern Jefferson County.
Dawson, M. 2015. Jefferson County Clean Water District Water Quality Monitoring Plan. Jefferson
County Public Health. June 2015.
Dawson, M. and D. Fickeisen. 2012. Mats Mats Bay Water Quality Improvement Project Final Report.
Jefferson County Public Health. December 2012.
Dawson, M., A. Watkins, and G. Gately. 2014. Hood Canal Watershed Clean Water Project Final Report.
Jefferson County Public Health and Jefferson County Conservation District. December 2014.
Dobrowski, E. and M. Dawson. 2015. Jefferson County Toxic Cyanobacteria Project Final Report.
Jefferson County Public Health. June 2015.
DOH (Washington Department of Health). 2014. Washington State Department of Health 2014 Early
Warning System Summary for Shellfish Growing Areas in Jefferson County.
Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). 1978. Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington, Volume
Eleven, Jefferson County. General editor Carl Youngman.
Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). 2014. Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) list.
Accessed January 2016.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 12-2 March 2016
References
Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). 2014. BEACH Program: Bacteria Trends at Core Marine
Beaches, 2003-2014. December 2015.
Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). 2016. Shoreline Management: Channel migration zones.
Accessible at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st_guide/jurisdiction/CMZ.html#Top.
EPA. 2005. Nutrient Pollution Webpage. Accessed August 17, 2015. Available:
http://www2.epa.gov/nutrientpollution
ESA (Environmental Science Associates) Adolfson. 2008. Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program
Update Project – Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report, Revised. Prepared for
Jefferson County, November 2008.
ESA, ESA PWA, Anchor QEA, Coastal Geologic Services, KPFF, and Pacific Survey & Engineering. 2012.
Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP): Strategic Restoration
Conceptual Engineering – Design Report, prepared for the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. May 2012.
ESA. 2015. Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance Update – Best Available Science Report.
Prepared for Jefferson County, December 2015.
ESA (Environmental Science Associates). 2016a, in prep. Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance
Update – Recommendations Report. Prepared for Jefferson County, May 2016.
ESA (Environmental Science Associates). 2016b. Jefferson County No Net Loss Project– Inventory
Update Reach Summaries. Prepared for Jefferson County. February 2016.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1996. Q3 Flood Data, Jefferson, WA.
Gately, G. 2011. Water Quality Monitoring Report: Chimacum Creek Clean Water Project. Jefferson
County Conservation District. June, 2011.
Gately, G., J. Clarke, D. Ecelberger, and C. Schrader. 2015. Chimacum Watershed Water Quality and
Fishes A Comprehensive Review. Jefferson County Conservation District. May, 2015.
Hirschi, R. 1999. Critical nearshore habitats, Tala to Kala Point, Jefferson County. Prepared for Jefferson
County Long Range Planning, Port Townsend, 33 p.
Homer, C.G., Dewitz, J.A., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G., Coulston, J., Herold, N.D., Wickham,
J.D., and Megown, K., 2015, Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the
conterminous United States-Representing a decade of land cover change information.
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 81, no. 5, p. 345-354. Available:
http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2011.php
Jefferson County. 1997a. Landslide Hazard GIS layer data. Conducted January 2016.
Jefferson County.1997b. Seismic Hazard GIS layer data. Conducted January 2016.
Jefferson County. 1997c. Erosion Hazard GIS layer data. Conducted January 2016.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 12-3
References
Jefferson County. 2006a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas GIS layer data. Conducted January 2016.
Jefferson County. 2006b. Parcel GIS layer for zoning data. Conducted January 2016.
Jefferson County. 2014. Shoreline Master Program: Comprehensive Update. February 2014.
JPH (Jefferson County Public Health). 2011.Discovery Bay Clean Water Project (Final).
JPH (Jefferson County Public Health). 2015. Northeast Jefferson Clean Water Project (Final). December
2015.
JCPW (Jefferson County Public Works). 2005. Surface Water Management Plan. December 2005.
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.
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.
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.
May, C. and G. Peterson. 2003. East Jefferson County Salmonid Refugia Report.
NWI (Northwest Watershed Institute). 2015. Tarboo Watershed Program webpage. Available at:
http://www.nwwatershed.org/tarboo-wildlife-preserve.html.
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.
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.
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 County
Department of Natural Resources. Tacoma, WA.
RCO (Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office). 2016. PRISM project database. Accessed
January 2016.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Page 12-4 March 2016
References
Reclamation (U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation). 2004. Channel Migration Zone
Study, Jefferson County, Washington: Duckabush, Dosewallips, Big Quilcene and Little
Quilcene Rivers.
Thomason, G. and M.Dawson. 2013. Jefferson County Lakes Toxic Algae Project Final Report. February
2013.
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.
Tomassi, S. 2004. Management Strategies for Core Wildlife Habitat Areas in Eastern Jefferson County.
Prepared for Jefferson County Natural Resources Division. March 2014.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. State and County QuickFacts database information. Accessed January 2016.
USFS (United States Forest Service). 1998. Duckabush River watershed analysis. US Department of
Agriculture, Olympic National Forest, Olympia, WA.
USFS (United States Forest Service). 1999. Dosewallips River watershed analysis. US Department of
Agriculture, Olympic National Forest, Olympia, WA.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011. Quilcene National Fish Hatchery. Accessible at:
http://www.fws.gov/quilcenenfh/.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015. National Wetlands Inventory spatial view GIS data layer.
Accessed January 2016.
USGS (U.S. Geologically Survey). 2015. Hydrologic unit data. Accessed December 5, 2015.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2014a. Statewide Washington Integrated Fish
Distribution (SWIFD) GIS layer. Conducted January 2016.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) 2014b. Forage Fish Spawning interactive map.
Available at:
http://wdfw.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=19b8f74e2d41470cbd80b1
af8dedd6b3&extent=-126.1368,45.6684,-119.6494,49.0781.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016a. Priority Habitats and Species database
information. Accessed January 2016.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016b. Fish passage barrier map information.
Accessed January 2016.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016c. SalmonScape interactive mapping tool.
Available at http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
March 2016 Page 12-5
References
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016d. Puget Sound Nearshore Projects site
database. Available at http://www.psnerp.ekosystem.us/.
WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2006a. Washington State Water Body (WBWS)
Hydrography GIS layer data. March 2006.
WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2006b. Washington State Watercourse (WC)
Hydrography GIS layer data. March 2006.
WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2016. Dabob Bay Natural Area Preserve.
Available at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/dabob-bay-natural-area-preserve.
WNHP (Washington Natural Heritage Program). 2013. Geographic information data set for rare plant
species and ecosystems. October 2013.