Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PC Agenda 05-18-2016
Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING AGENDA Tri-Area Community Center May 18, 2016 P: 360-379-4450 621 Sheridan St. F: 360-379-4451 Port Townsend WA 98368 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us 6:30 pm OPENING BUSINESS Call to Order/Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of Meeting Minutes - 11/04/2015, 12/02/2015, 01/06/2016 Staff Updates Commissioner Announcements 6:45 pm DISCUSSION Topic Speaker Status of Critical Areas Update to include Agriculture Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner/Wetland Specialist Emma Bolin, Assistant Planner Ilon Logan, ESA (Consultant) Pleasant Harbor Development Regulations David W. Johnson, Associate Planner 8:00 pm OBSERVER COMMENT When the Chair recognizes you to speak, please begin by stating your name and address. Please be aware that the observer comment period is … i An optional time period dedicated to listening to the public, not a question and answer session. The Planning Commission is not required to provide response; ii Offered at the Chair’s discretion when there is time; iii Not a public hearing – comments made during this time will not be part of any hearing record; iv May be structured with a three-minute per person time limit. 8:15 pm CLOSING BUSINESS Summary of today’s meeting Follow-up action items Agenda Items for June 1st meeting at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center 8:30 pm ADJOURNMENT Thank you for coming and participating in your government at work! 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center November 04, 2015 Page 1 of 4 Call to Order at 6:31 pm ROLL CALL District 1 District 2 District 3 Staff Present Coker: Present Smith: Present Brotherton: Present David W Johnson, Associate Planner Felder: Present Sircely: Absent E Giske: Absent E Joel Peterson, Associate Planner Koan: Present Jochems: Present Hull: Present Emma Bolin, Assistant Planner Anna Bausher, Assistant Planner Public in Attendance: Ten Approval of Agenda: Approved. Approval of Minutes: None to approve. STAFF UPDATES David Johnson: The date for the Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort (MPR) Public Hearing is on January 6, Assoc. Planner 2016 at the Brinnon School Gymnasium. ANNOUNCEMENTS Cynthia Koan I had an interesting meeting with folks from Land Trust in Chimacum to discuss their Chair proposal for worker housing and farm related activities at Chimacum Corner behind the market. Very preliminary, anyone interested let me know and I can get more information. Info on Land Trust Website also. Land Trust talking with Habitat for Humanity to potential partner to get a traditional mortgage/housing situation. Young people voiced they needed shorter term housing, six months to three years, no mortgages wanted or needed. PUBLIC HEARING PRESENTATION: Joel Peterson Assoc. Planner Last meeting, DCD introduced an amendment to the sign code proposed by Jefferson Transit. It was submitted on 9/29/15 and sponsored by the board of county commissioners. They directed DCD to proceed with an amendment to the UDC for the sign regulations. We provided a threshold determination under SEPA of a Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MDNS). An amendment to sign code last year that had constitutional issues regarding the way communities regulate signs. See that discussion in my staff report. We’ve had an environmental review and a constitutional review of the proposed amendment. Tonight is a public hearing, to take testimony for the planning commission to make a recommendation to either approve, deny or approve with modifications the amendment that will go to the board of County Commissioners. To summarize the amendment is to allow government entities to place a reader board or changing message signs on a government owned property, not closer than 200’ or adjacent to residential property. And we have analysis of this proposal (with a glitch) and we also recommend an alteration to the language of proposal in order to meet with the constitutional muster. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center November 04, 2015 Page 2 of 4 The logistical issues: Currently a reader board sign is prohibited. Last year’s amendment allowed them in limited circumstances in commercial and light industrial areas only. Not within 200’ of a residence and if within 300’ of a residence, the sign would have to be turned off at night. My analysis of SEPA is to observe other public entities that have these signs and look at their zoning. There is no other public entity that isn’t either sited on residential parcel or within 200’ of one. I can’t find one. Perhaps we can change the language from adjacent to abutting. The Environmental Impact Statements we have, don’t have discussions about these electronic signs. Also looked at Comprehensive Plan that embodies the counties vision of what rural character and aesthetics look like. In evaluation, last year’s amendment was not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Looking at the constitutionality of it, issues were brought up in legal review . . . if we use Government Entity, or property is owned by the government entity then it’s a government property. A public entity can have public speech on their property, just as a private entity can have private speech on their private property. It has to be content neutral. See the article from our Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Michael Haas which further reinforces that our approach is going to be constitutional. The planning commission is tasked with listening and formulating public comments and concerns and going through a series of findings (on the record). You may make a determination immediately or defer to another meeting. PRESENTATION Tammi Rubert and Samantha Trone Jefferson Transit Authority Explained they emailed county and were told they could change sign to a reader board. They got approval, modeled the East Jefferson Fire and Rescue sign. We’ve submitted the change and got what we thought was approval. Applied to relocate the sign, and that’s how we found out that it’s not approved. The intent of the sign is to let the riders know before hand of an event or deviation. For instance, when the Hood Canal Bridge was closed, we could have posted that. We researched the sign and are using repurposed wood from the property. East Jefferson Fire and Rescue partnered with us because they fuel at our fuel station and we have a local agreement with them. CONCERNS FROM THE BOARD Does this open us up, if we allow this sign or make an exception, to other reader board signs? Concerned about the proximity to a very dangerous intersection where someone gets killed every other year. If you put a wood sign up, you wouldn’t have to change our codes. My sense of your purpose of the sign was to provide significant public information, but it seems to me there’s other technology that can do that, like an a.m. radio. Could this be referred to the Growth Management Hearing Board for rezoning? Or would we still have to change our code? Pull out language of closeness to residences and use a Conditional Use Permit? We don’t want to cost anyone extra money or time with litigation. ANSWERS/ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED We received a state grant to add additional fifteen parking spaces out front for park and ride (or bike and ride). We moved out stops inside. All of our buses go through that intersection. The sign is not to just alert drivers, it’s the monument sign for our facility, so we can’t relocate it. It’s just one or two lines with messages on it. We don’t currently have a sign. We have tried other modes to get information out. We’ve posted on busses, on the park n ride, on our website. This is just another way to get messages out. The sign is custom made, says Jefferson Transit and has a reader board on it. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center November 04, 2015 Page 3 of 4 PUBLIC COMMENT Brian Belmont, 64 Timber Ridge Dr. Port Ludlow: Support reader board sign. Glee Hubbard, 60 Admiralty Ln., Port Ludlow: Support reader board sign. Dave Armitate, 141 Mt. Constance Way, Port Ludlow: Concern with Ordinance, give people some leeway. Kathleen Klare, Quilcene: Support a reader board sign. Jean Ball, Chimacum: I find reader board or flashing or glowing signs or bill boards annoying. Please consider the location (at 4 corners), it’s not a beautiful residential area. The sign for bridge and ferry on 104 is nice. “Coming to the nuisance” term. Elizabeth V. Admiralty Ln., Port Ludlow: Please be flexible designing this sign so they don’t shut you down. Jefferson Co allowed Port Ludlow, allowed our resort . . . so when you’re trying to maintain our rural forested atmosphere, you have to still be flexible and recognize we have dense areas. Jerry Rupert 125 Cub Rd., Port Townsend: Has there been a study of car accidents at the Fire Hall? It IS a dangerous intersection but I don’t think the sign will distract drivers there because the one at the Fire Hall doesn’t distract drivers. After mitigation it was moved: The Planning Commission supports a revision of the sign code that allows a non‐ commercial, public information sign to violate any requirement of the sign code with a conditional use permit. This movement was seconded. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PRESENTATION: North Olympic Climate Change Preparedness Plan: Kate Dean; Regional Coordinator for N. Olympic Peninsula Resource Conservation and Development Council with Cindy Jane and Judy Surber; City of Port Townsend Planning Department. We’re looking at strategies for adaptation to climate change. We can project the impact of climate change and it’s our responsibility to plan for that focusing on preparedness from a Land Use perspective and how to mitigate the impact of climate change. Planning is a responsibility of ours. Overview of project with climate projections: We’ve gathered observed and projected changes in Jefferson and Clallam Counties. Because of our moderated climate (due to the ocean), we don’t expect to see such dramatic effects, but we’ve already seen warmer temperatures and expect to see more days over 90 degrees and more frost free days. The greatest change we expect to see is in the form of our precipitation: we expect larger storm events happening, more so in the winter, the sea level and seismic activity to rise. Ocean Acidification will have major impacts on the shellfish industry effecting both the economic and ecological functions. Human health and livelihood: Injuries during extreme weather events, heat related illness, forest fires, air quality, pollen production, microbial contamination, emerging risks of shell fish poisoning, crop yield. Power disruptions, flooding, transportation disruptions, expectation of immigration to this area. Sensitivity analysis: Wild Salmon, shellfish, sea and shore bird populations are all sensitive to climate change. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center November 04, 2015 Page 4 of 4 We have three ways to organize the strategies: Critical infrastructure, Ecosystems and Water Supplies. Much more of the Olympic Peninsula will be unfavorable for the wild salmon (due to water temperatures). We expect a decrease in soil water storage (due to surface water runoff and higher temps), agriculture will have a number of impacts including a possible growth due to more carbon dioxide and longer frost free seasons (if there’s enough water). The top strategies or recommendations we make include: Education, Awareness, Policy Land Use, switch from snow pack to rain based watersheds, promotion of smarter irrigation technologies, changes to codes and ordinances. FOLLOW‐UP ITEMS The November 18th meeting for the entire planning commission and sub‐committee meeting and ad hoc committee to brainstorm on the numerous themes for the Comprehensive Plan Review. Defining themes: Aspects of the comp plan that may or may not have their own elements, may show up in multiple elements and/or are high level concerns that we wish to be mindful of. We need to get a notice in the paper on Friday and notify DCD and David. Move that the Planning Commission bring to the attention to the Board of County Commissioners that we are facing a very tough challenge in meeting the deadlines of the Comp Plan Updates and we need to have sufficient staff and resources from DCD dedicated to that program. Motion Passed with all in favor. Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 11/18/2015 at 6:30 pm at the Tri‐Area Community Center Adjourned at 9:12 pm These meeting minutes were approved this ____________ day of ___________________________, 2016. ________________________________________ _________ ______________________________________________________________ Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary/DCD 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center December 02, 2015 Page 1 of 7 Call to Order at 6:30 pm ROLL CALL District 1 District 2 District 3 Staff Present Coker: Present Smith: Absent E Brotherton: Present Joel Peterson, Associate Planner Felder: Present Sircely: Present Giske: Present Koan: Present Jochems: Present Hull: Present Public in Attendance: One Approval of Agenda: Approved. Approval of Minutes: None to approve. STAFF UPDATES There are no meeting minutes to approve yet but we have hired someone who is working on the backlog. David W Johnson wanted to remind us that January 6, 2016 will be the Public Hearing for the Pleasant Harbor EIS in Brinnon. They’re close to finaling it, and baring any delays there will be a public notice on Monday, December 7, 2015 and the FEIS will be available on December 9, 2015. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCMENTS C.K. The DCD Director position had four applicants, two were selected and one showed up. David Goldsmith gave a recommendation, he’s coming from Corvallis, has been a Planning Department Manager and worked around Connecticut for a while. There will be another meeting with him. There is a panel interviewing him. K.C. Many members in our community would like to be involved with this screening. December 11,, 2015 is a meet and greet date. C.K. After our 11/18/15 meeting, the following Monday I went to the Board of County Commissioners and David Sullivan pulled me aside privately and informed me they had a one year, $100,000.00 line item for a Consultant to work on the Comprehensive Plan. So we need to be clear on what we think they should do with that money. They’re also working on an internal reorganization of some of their people to give us a single point of contact. It sounds like David W Johnson will be helping us with the public process piece and mapping it out. I’m hoping he can come on 12/16/15 to help us with that. J.P. It may not be until mid‐January, 2016. It’s a proposal (with outreach) that David W Johnson will be presenting to David Goldsmith. I’m working on a critical path calendar for the backbone of required elements including the skeleton of other elements to fit into a finite number of days I hope to be done by December 18, 2015. C.K. I spoke with David Goldsmith, our Interim Director, and reiterated my interests of a real rewrite and a single author and a readable document of the Comprehensive Plan. He sounded excited and said he could imagine a document that was more of a short narrative with the detail. The technical detail that you guys use in code and policy would be more organized in the supporting document but to have a narrative piece that’s readable to the lay public and has a single author. He seemed to really understand that idea and got excited. K.C. The idea is more to structure things, an equivalent way is to write an introduction, not reinventing the wheel, keeping all the nuts and bolts. Clarify that you’re not talking about a complete re‐write. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center December 02, 2015 Page 2 of 7 C.K. Yes. This is an important discussion I’d like to move to the December 16, 2015 meeting. M.S. Not necessarily a complete re‐write. We need to clarify that a complete re‐write would be to restructure (the document). Or to write a good introduction to (summarize the plan). We don’t want to reinvent the wheel, just make it readable for the public while keeping the nuts and bolts. M.S. Our Sub Committee met and spoke of ways to approach the public, structuring meetings and our approach. It was constructive for an initial meeting with very general ideas regarding how to go about it. J.P. I had hoped but don’t have a sheet of paper to give you with what our required deliverables with having a meeting like that. It would need minutes, a recording that we can keep in our Growth Management Act file that is our background for a public process and the direction that we took. C.K. David Goldsmith said we need: who was there, and a general sketch that I can forward to them daily. M.S. And we’ll want to capture the public comments precisely. T.B. We spoke about the business element aspects of it and how land was zoned and how to make it work. PUBLIC HEARING PRESENTATION: Joel Peterson, DCD: October 7, 2015 was the introductory meeting to the Planning Commission about the proposed sign code, then the application DCD received was a board sponsored amendment, so we ran it through on its own schedule. So on November 4, 2015 we had a public meeting and heard testimony and public comment. I have prepared a staff report for evaluating the application for changing reader board signs for any public or quazi public entity, which later we tightened the definition down to a government entity, a group that’s been formed though an RCW is how we could get to a specific definition. This is to satisfy the situation of Jefferson Transit. Then your documents of October 7th here’s a map of what we’re trying to achieve. The brown zoning color category is real residential 1 and 10. The dark blue is a LAMIRD a (limited area of more intensive rural development), a neighborhood crossroads, so it’s considered commercial. These changing message signs are allowed in commercial and industrial zones. Jefferson Transit was just outside the LAMIRD in a residential zone so their sign application had to be denied or the code changed. So the question is: If we allowed any governmental entity in any residential district to have a changing message sign, what would be the impact? That’s the SEPA analysis I did that came up with a mitigated determination of non‐significance. Meaning that if we applied some mitigations, it probably wouldn’t be a significant environmental impact. The other part of my analysis is to look at the comprehensive plan and is it consistent with the comp plan? This was the hard part as I began to look at the EIS’s and the development of the comp plan, in Chapter 3; Land use and Rural, is where it clearly defines what rural character is and what level of nuisances where going to allow in our rural residential areas. We allow facilities like Jefferson Transit to be in residential zones with a Conditional Use Permit. We don’t allow the signs to be there though. So we’re trying to figure out some alternate text that would clearly define how it’s being applied and provide a solution to Jefferson Transit without opening things up too big. So we’re here today to look at our text. We had a public hearing, about a dozen people came, around 9 people spoke, mostly about Port Ludlow, that they are in the Port Ludlow MPR, which is a little bit different zoning category, but they’re in what you might consider it a mixed use commercial zone however they’re within 200’ of open space and a residence. So the code read that you can’t do that. We looked at the effect of that Prohibition County wide at the governmental entities: the firehouses, the parks, the schools, the shops and nearly everyone is on a residence or near 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center December 02, 2015 Page 3 of 7 a residence so it became what we call “Trapped by the Ordinance”. How do you implement the approval for a sign if 90 times out of 100 you’re going to be faced with this restriction? So after the public hearing was over we began deliberations, and we will complete those deliberations tonight. What I sent out to you on Monday was in preparation of this were some options of how we might blend one or two or parts of different options in order to achieve two basic things. One is how do we allow Jefferson Transit, which is a facility which is a public benefit to us all (some may define it as an essential public facility, or a public purpose facility), next door to a LAMIRD how can we allow them to have a sign? What analysis or logic path would we follow to allow them to have this sign? We’re going to be looking at what are the impacts and how do we address the impacts in our development regulations? We address those, typically in this type of situation with a Conditional Use Permit and there are criteria that I’ve provided in the staff report, of this is how we evaluate a project that needs special permission or special review. The second thing is that they’re across the street, they’re next door, and they’re all around residential. So we have that second prohibition of the 200’ rule and how do we address that? So in our post hearing deliberations last time we talked about this, what came forward was “let’s use the Conditional Use Permit process as a way of evaluating site by site what the impacts and mitigations could be. So in a sense, we’re taking out or not going to make an effort to define a one size fits all code, we’re going to use our Conditional Use Permit process to do a site by site analysis and that would allow Jefferson Transit to have a sign, being across the street from a residence, if they could come up with a design that would avoid problems with that residence, and then it would also address the concerns with Port Ludlow, who were here with a very strong message of “here we are with an MPR and we want to communicate with our other neighbors but we’ve got a lot of residential and open space in our MPR that we’re going to be able to find a place for a sign”. So what I sent out, looks just a bit different than what you have in front of you. You notice that I said revised December 1st. In putting my proposed text together, I’m showing where we started from which was the applicant’s text and DCD’s proposed text, that Mr. David Alverez had some hand in, but then after the Planning Commission’s Public Hearing there is two, and that’s what we want to focus on tonight. This is to be responsive to the public comments. And I’ve put a sentence in yellow, that’s included in alternate proposed text #1 but I left it out of alternate proposed text #2 and that was an oversite of mine. I was trying to pare down the text and be efficient but without including it in the second option, I’m not allowing Port Ludlow to have a sign because it didn’t address that specific case of an entity that is in a commercial district but within 200’ of a residence so it was intended to be a part of both of these so we could use the Conditional Use Permit process to review these rather than having a 200’ rule. So the new document I brought you is updated. So both of these have that yellow sentence in there just to highlight that we mention that 200’ rule but if you’re within 200’ you can use a Conditional Use Process. I was hoping the bullet points at the bottom reflect what each text does. So if you focus on them, we see that our new proposed text that you’re seeing tonight has two methods by reducing the number of changing messages. One is to rezone Jefferson Transit Authority an Essential Public Facility thereby making it the only one and very special, (and that sign would be allowed for them and no one else (generically)). The concern with that approach is that it takes a long time to rezone them to an Essential Public Facility and they would not be able to illuminate the sign until that process is done. We have a draft agreement with them saying: you can put the sign up, test it, but not illuminate until the zoning’s right. The other option may be more direct and helpful to Jefferson Transit and that is: If you’re within 100’ of a LAMIRD and the reason for 100’ is because that’s the width SR19 and SR20 right of way, the State routes have about a 100’ right of way and Four Corner’s Rd is about a 60’ right of way, so that would be inclusive of that. It wouldn’t allow for a diagonal adjacency if you take the hypotenuse of a 60’ triangle, you would end up being about 120’. The thought is we have these designated areas of more intensive rural development and if you’re that close to one, perhaps the nuisance of a lighted sign is not going to be that great, it will only apply to governmental entities which we find, looking at the geography of our governmental entities, they’re in the communities they serve. They’re either on a residential parcel with a firehouse, next to other residential parcels or maybe they’re in a LAMIRD but they’re next to a housing sub‐development. So we’re caught up by not being able to find very many cases by being able to site one right in the middle of a LAMIRD. You can raise the intensity inside a LAMIRD and I’ve got some findings here that might help tonight that might be able to help as I go through our required findings. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center December 02, 2015 Page 4 of 7 I’ve put them in bullet points, it’s kind of a logical path that supports the idea of allowing more intensity near a LAMIRD and this deliberation with the required findings, you can play around with the different elements here but basically were looking at signs for governmental entities being either only for Essential Public Facilities. If you’re close to a LAMIRD and then if you’re within 200’ of a residence or open space we’ll use a Conditional Use Process to permit those. So we’re not out of alignment of how our code is working with Conditional Use Permits in residential zones, we’re opening it up to governmental entities and we’re allowing that governmental entity to go through that Conditional Use process near a residential zone, it’s kind of a fact of life for how Jefferson County’s been developed. As far as going back to the essential public facility, in our use table we already have a category under institutional uses called transit facilities and it says yes they’re allowed here, conditionally and so rural residential 1 in 10 is a conditional use, which they went through so there’s a consideration for transit facilities already in our use table. There are other public facilities that have that same thought process of which ones are going to be conditional or discretionary or allowed out right. There’s even a category for unnamed conditional uses that you could put a transit center into. Similarly we have, in our Public Facility section of our code that has advisory responses to whether they can be used in these different districts. If you’re siting a waste management facility, it’s a conditional use here, maybe a yes there maybe not allowed here. The thing to point out is with an essential use facility, they’re not sited in the same way as a Conditional Use Permit does. The reason being is the way you site an Essential Public Facility is a Type 5 process, is much like a zoning change. The way the RCW was written it has to do with train stations, regional transportation facilities, rails to multi modal, ferry docks, things like that that are difficult to site. Or institutional buildings: Prisons, other kinds of Institutional Health Centers, Hospitals those are the types of things that GMA (Growth Management Act) says a jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plan and development regulations cannot prohibit the citing of these facilities. They’re going to take a little elevated different process, a Type 5 process. So right now we have Jefferson Transit already appropriately located with a Conditional Use Permit on a rural residential parcel, we could rezone them as an Essential Public Facility but I guess I’m wondering how much does that help them, they’ve already been sited. We’re not going to back track and give them a Type 5 process and give them a special use permit at this point but it is a way to limit this sign to a very special circumstances so they’re not all over the County. CONCERNS FROM THE BOARD M.J. Can we go with option #1 but they can’t use the lit part till zoning was approved. Now can you take the lighted part, and give them a Conditional Use Permit (an exception on this case) so they can use their sign? J.P. If we applied #2 they could light the sign as soon as their Conditional Use Permit has been approved and they can re‐zone later. The zoning of Essential Public Facility doesn’t get us anywhere other than limiting the application of this sign. K.C. We’re highly specializing the approach and one thought mentioned in a previous meeting was that we were trying to do it in such a way that we were being a little more inclusive. I’m a little concerned that we may regret it in the future. If this is a problem within the sign code that has a wider application, I’d steer away from a single one up fix for this. Is it true that if an application meets these criteria and goes through the option #2 and goes for a Conditional Use Permit, can they still be denied? Motion & Second for Alternate Proposed Text #2, Item C in December 1, 2015 revised document called Preparation of December 2,2015 Planning Commission Meeting Update Reader‐Board for MLA15‐00063 Proposed UDC amendment, JCC 18.30.150 sign code. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center December 02, 2015 Page 5 of 7 ANSWERS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED The Essential Public Facility approach is an eloquent way of limiting it but it prolongs the pain and if we go with Text 2, (proximity to a LAMIRD) they could apply for a Conditional Use Permit right after this is approved. If it is important for them to be an Essential Public Facility that could be a separate activity they do through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment process and we could have that Type 5 review. My concern is that the EPF, as eloquent as it is, will drag us out quite a long time and maybe it’s not needed. Then we open up Quilcene and Brinnon, who are in similar situations there’s two fire halls each that are right next to the LAMIRD’s there. So we have a handful of places where these may appear. Approved: 5 Nay: 2 Abstention: 1 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR GMA ON THE REQUIRED TEXT Section 8.2 Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioner’s Review of the Growth management Indicators and Required Findings: (i) Strike the last two sentences from staff findings. (ii) Strike first sentence from staff findings. (iii) Residents of Jefferson County want to have input regarding what happens in their neighborhoods and the public value has changed regarding the Conditional Use Permit Review on a site by site basis to allow changing message signs in appropriate areas. Section 8.2.2 Criteria Governing Planning Commission Assessment: (i) No Changes (ii) No Changes (iii) N/A (iv) No Changes (v) Amendments aren’t necessary so it does not apply. (vi) This code change does not dictate a need for a change to the Comprehensive Plan. (vii) The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because we’re linking it to the adjacent LAMIRD and making it a conditional use permit review process which can allow the public to appropriately evaluate the specific impact. Section 8.3 Time, Place and Manner Findings: 8.3.1 Yes 8.3.2 Yes 8.3.3 Yes 8.3.4 Yes 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center December 02, 2015 Page 6 of 7 Section 8.4 Takings Findings: 8.4.1 No 8.4.2 No 8.4.3 No 8.4.4 No 8.4.5 No Section 8.5 Findings on the Record: 8.5.1 The Sign Code process and deliberations 8.5.2 It’s all in the record. 8.5.3 Yes 8.5.4 Yes The proposed amendment was reviewed by the County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and found to meet legal criteria. 8.5.5 No the decision is mindful of all known instances in the county. 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Motion & Second for Alternate Proposed Text #2, Item C in December 1, 2015 revised document called Preparation of December 2, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Update Reader‐Board for MLA15‐00063 Proposed UDC Amendment, JCC 18.30.150 sign code. Approved: 5 Nay: 2 Abstention: 1 Note to Board of County Commissioners: We recognize zoning issues with this particular request that could be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle to more clearly identify proper zoning. During our discussion it was noted that the representation of several types of Public Facilities is inadequate in the use table. We recommend that Jefferson Transit pursue rezoning to EPF. Presentation on December 14, 2015 to the Board of County Commissioners. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jean Bell: Why not rezone transit to commercial instead of altering the code? I find it a little distasteful that we’re going to go through all the trouble of altering the code for one public entity? You wouldn’t have altered it for me, you won’t alter it for my small business, and you won’t alter it for my colleges so I find that a little hard to swallow. About this singular applicant for the position of DCD Director, I find that really disappointing. I hope he’s really qualified and we love him. I wonder if we don’t, can we throw him back and cast the net again? Why is there such low interest in the job? Are we not offering an attractive enough package? You mentioned a single offer of the laymen’s form of the vision and I wonder what that’s all about. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center December 02, 2015 Page 7 of 7 FOLLOW UP ITEMS Our next meeting is December 16, 2015 here at 6:30. We will be working with DCD on the agenda but we will want some sub‐committee reports. I will be getting an outline (a little bit of direction) out to all of you. And the new sub‐committee focus’s and assignments so you’re real clear about that. So I’d love some sub‐committee reports and I’m hoping to start talking about a timeline and some recommendations for that $100,000.00, what do we want them to do with that? Let’s be clear ourselves so we can advocate clearly to the powers that be. We will be coming up with a timeline for outreach so in your sub‐committees be thinking about what you guys need in the way of public interaction so that we can work with both pieces. Old business: last meeting we were discussing proper communication methods. Any of us writing emails, we can’t simply write the Planning Commission Board. That’s not proper. We need to go through DCD channel. We will get clarity on this. Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 12/16/2015 at 6:30 pm at the Tri‐Area Community Center Adjourned at 8:44 pm These meeting minutes were approved this ____________ day of ___________________________, 2016. ________________________________________ _________ ______________________________________________________________ Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary/DCD 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center January 06, 2016 Page 1 of 7 Call to Order at 6:30 pm ROLL CALL District 1 District 2 District 3 Staff Present Coker: Present Smith: Present Brotherton: Present Garth Mann, Statesman Group, Ltd. Felder: Present Sircely: Present Giske: Present David W. Johnson, Assoc. Planner Koan: Present Jochems: Present Hull: Present Haylie Clement, Planning clerk Public in Attendance: Many Approval of Agenda: Approved Approval of Minutes: None to approve STAFF UPDATES: NONE COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS: In 2016 the Planning Commission will meet twice a month, instead of once a month on the first and third Wednesday. At the Tri Area Community Center in Chimacum unless announced otherwise. You can always check the DCD website to see any changes. Garth Mann from Statesman Group is the applicant and he will be telling you about his project: Pleasant Harbor Planning Phase 1A on Pleasant Harbor Resort: We knew when we built it we wouldn’t make any money on it but had to get started. That was done through a BSP (Binding Site Plan) that had been in place twenty years. The Pleasant Harbor and community has been integrated for quite a while. In 2015 we did a study to show how many jobs would be created. The population within a five minute drive of Pleasant Harbor is 491 people. In a fifteen minute drive it’s 1,162 and in a thirty minute drive it’s 2,591. Jefferson County total population in 2015 is 30,635 people. Washington State is a little over 7 million. The population in Brinnon has been declining over the past five years. Compounding the change from 2010 to 2015: The County is increasing in size by ½ of 1% and the State has increased by 1%. The median household income in this area is the lowest in the State at roughly $39,000.00 in 2015 while the average income in Washington State is $63,320.00. You can see that there’s something not positive in the County with regards to growth. The average age in this County is sixty years of age, the average age in the State is roughly thirty‐seven years. So you can see without jobs being created, the County will fade off into the sunset. Negative growth is not a positive thing for a community. It will affect the character or your community. We’re planning to create Phase 1B: Our plan is to create roughly four hundred jobs in that period, with roughly fifty million dollars revenue for the community. It’s at Black Point Rd. and Highway 101. Each Phase takes roughly two years to complete. The community of the Maritime Village Fun Center is for ages four to ninety‐four. A Farmer’s Market, a Health Food Bistro, and a Community Walk Center also. We have sixty‐six one and two bedroom sweets overlooking the harbor for short term stays. A grand total of 891 units, including some for staff housing. A Controlled Pistol Range in the arcade level, with Sheriff’s Office, etc. Phase 2: Davenport Community is a successful Destination Resort: It will have one hundred and ninety‐one suites, 36,000 sq. ft. of commercial. It has a Health Exercise Center and Spa, Rejuvenation Plus Facility, Golf Pro Shop, Variety Store, Olympia Dining and Steamboat Lounge, Commercial Kitchen, Convention Center, Wedding Chapel and Sports Activities. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center January 06, 2016 Page 2 of 7 Phase 3: Will provide another opportunity for development with our fifty‐two suites. They’re designed to accommodate a total of two hundred and eight people. Similar to a time share format. Very well decorated and a nice addition. It will also provide some sort of transportation between Pleasant Harbor and Sea Tac Airport. Phase 4: The completion of everything you see there. The environment gets a lot of press, please see our footprint. We try to maintain as much of the habitat as we can. We’re really improving the two hundred and fifty‐six acres out there and following the footprint. Our plan for the environment is extremely sensitive. Our impervious footprint is less than 12%. A state of the art Waste Water Treatment Plant is a six million dollar plant. It can create class A water from this for our Golf Course and the Fire Smart Program for irrigation. We will improve the design for the well for the quality of the aquifer and will put more water back into it than we take out. We will monitor this per the County as well. We will have no water runoff. We will use a conduit system at the bottom of the reservoir to accomplish heating and cooling. Improvements to Highway 101 and Black Point Rd., and an improvement to parking requirements at State Dock Road. We’ll also use dark sky lighting with LED lights. We’ve reduced the Golf Course, at request, from eighteen to nine holes. We will have public transportation coming to the sight also. A successful resort today has to be year round. We need to attract people from outside the area and work in concert with nature and the environment. David W. Johnson Associate Planner I’m going to cover the regulatory side of this. Specifically what the Planning Commission is being tasked to do as part of the approval process with this resort. There was an open house in 2014 about this project, with the Environmental Impact Statement. There’s Public Review Binders roaming around the room. Please look at them and we can give you copies of them. Mr. Mann started by meeting with us back in 2006 with his plans. SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) is a very long, expensive process you have to do with everything. Under SEPA you can take a large project and narrow it down into phases. Phase 1 was a Comprehensive Plan, from rural zone property to a Master Plan Resort property. That was done, and approved, in January, 2008 with thirty conditions, including another (Supplemental) Environmental Impact Statement, (SEIS) and another Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze those two. In 2013 we hired EAE Engineering to write the new EIS. In December 2014 we released the draft and had a presentation at the Community Center, etc. At the conclusion of the forty‐five day comment period we stopped and looked at them all and we changed the draft, based on the comments, including Alternative #3 (Golf Course, (18 holes to 9 holes)). We finished on December 9, 2015 and have it ready for the Planning Commission. We assume that the final FEIS is adequate for SEPA. The role of the Planning Commission specifically: We need to implement development regulations. We borrowed Port Ludlow’s MPR (Master Plan Resort) Development Regulations. This is what the Planning Commission will review and make recommendations on starting in February, 2016. The final element in Phase 2 is the Development Agreement. Under the Board of County Commissioners. It’s a legal contract we borrowed from Port Ludlow (with changes) as well. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center January 06, 2016 Page 3 of 7 The Staff Report I’ve already forwarded to the Planning Commission. This is the first time we’ve used this code in Jefferson County because we’ve never built a MPR in Jefferson County before. State Law, to Comprehensive Plan, to Unified Development Code and my recommendations and conditions of approval. PUBLIC COMMENT Until we’ve adopted the recommendations there will not be a Master Plan Resort. PUBLIC HEARING Phase 2 review process of the Master Plan Resort M0808‐00188 for Pleasant Harbor Resort: Roma Call, (with Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe): The proposed Pleasant Harbor Resort Project is within our tribes U and A in an area where we rely on fish. We were not consulted after the February meeting and have had no input on it. We continue to oppose this process. We are concerned about the adverse impacts on our land. The County bypassed our Tribal Consultation Process when it approved the Pleasant Harbor Marina and they violated our Tribal Treaty Rights. Barbara Moore‐Lewis I’m speaking for the Brinnon Group the 501c3 group. This will impose a burden to our taxpayer’s that they aren’t willing to pay. Such as the Sheriff’s needing to come down here for three shifts every day. I have a documented study that shows all the extra costs. When the Commissioner’s approved this, they put on thirty conditions which were good but we have no proof they’ve changed to them. Joe of Brinnon, Last spring 95% of our kids qualified for free or reduced lunch. It’s all because we have no economy here. Just from the retiree’s, that’s it. We have to create an economy here. This is an opportunity for Jefferson Co. to take a step into the future here. Phil Best, Hood Canal Environmental Council: Think very hard about the conditions you need for a positive result. Inadequate review time, consider the No Action Alternative, Hood Canal pollution. Mr. Coleman: I’ve been operating a small business out of the marina so this is important to me. Mr. Mann’s replaced docks, the fuel system, met and exceeded all State and Federal requirements, storm water management was NON EXISTANT. Mr. Mann’s improved the dangerous access road approaching Highway 101. Potable water supply was obsolete. Now it’s a state of the art system. Electrical, sanitation, restaurants, etc. Jean Far: I live in Port Townsend zip code, not the city. I’m impressed with all the studies and analysis of this project. We should all figure out ways to approve and move this project forward. Samantha Boing: I’m twenty eight years old, without the Resort and Marina I’d have to move. There’s nothing else here for us. We NEED this kind of growth. Darlene Shenfield: Overall we do support the Brinnon group’s position including the no action alternative. The reuse of wastewater into water isn’t good. It’s terribly toxic. You can’t reuse it. The pathogens that you think you’ve killed will come back to life. You can’t get rid of the metals either. It’s not safe, it will poison the land, animals, children and pets. The State will approve it now but don’t. It’s still not safe. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center January 06, 2016 Page 4 of 7 Brenda McMullan: I’ve been watching the Brinnon project for many years. The water is insufficient. There’s only one aquifer. It will pose severe challenges on using fresh water without seawater intrusion. The mere threat of it should close this project immediately. Monica Fletcher: With Sierra Clubs North Olympic Group: we respectfully request for more time to look at the FEIS and the Staff Report and the MPR regulations that apply to Ludlow but not this area. We want more time for us to respond: wetlands, water availability, fish and wildlife, traffic patterns, sewage waste issues. Denny Schultz: This County has been in economic decline for twenty years. We need something. This will be the largest employer in the County outside of Government. The only other is the Paper Mill. We need this project now. Steve Schibly: I’m the Tourism Marketing Coordinator: This is a game changer that will help with Kalaloch Lodge, Port Ludlow etc. Ken Velbert: My wife and I chose Hood Canal to put our boat in for the rest of our life. We think it’s so beautiful but a very depressed area. We’re excited about what’s going on at Pleasant Harbor. It’s out of this world. Please support this. Unknown: The regulation process is bad. Too many road blocks. I was a Planning Commissioner in 2008. We had many meetings in Brinnon and got the agreement on the first phase. Don’t cut the Golf Course from 18 to 9 holes. We need this and more! Steve Walker: The aquifer issue, the issue of traffic. We are deficient in medical services here. Everyone has to be flown out already. The EIS is deficient. We haven’t seen the esthetic impacts either. The Black Point Resort will increase poverty not decrease poverty. We’ll have two hundred and twenty people laid off after Labor Day every year! George Sickle: I’ve been a property owner here since I was twenty years old. What would have happened to the area had they not come up here in the first place? It was disastrous and polluted. Look what he’s done here already. Richard Whitehall: The only way here is Highway 101 unless you come by boat. How much growth will this produce. You cut the Golf Course back, cut the housing in half please. It will draw too many and the one road can’t take it. Rhonda Black: I support the Resort. I’ve been here for ten years and see NO young people staying. There’s nothing for them. Scott Black: I’ve mixed feelings about the resort. I like the green and don’t really want it to go. I’ve seen how bad it can be. Roger W: I attend all these meetings and see money being spent on how you can’t do this or that, and I see how no one has a job. They get into drugs. Stop preventing the development from trying. Beth Strostern: This is the most beautiful place on earth. We came here in 2000 because of its peace and beauty. The extent of the development will take away what we came to see. We’re very concerned about it. I want to know that there are teeth to enforce the promises that were made. Like will the resort employ two hundred people as we were told? 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center January 06, 2016 Page 5 of 7 Christina Maloney: I’m an eight year resident of Brinnon and small business owner. The final EIS is a vast improvement from the previous one. The County scheduled this meeting when all the snow birds are gone, because it’s winter and didn’t give us much time at all to go over this documentation. I’m surprised about the discussion concerning the displacement of businesses (included in the former EIS drafts) isn’t in this one. The former one said it wouldn’t displace any businesses but it has displaced two, one of which is mine, Kayak Brinnon, and he also chose to compete with me which has resulted in a 60% decreased family income. I can’t speak for the other business owner, but I can tell you she was forced to shut down and liquidate. These actions, along with many other, have caused a great distrust with this company within the community. They will increase population from 797 people to close to 3,000 people. That’s a 250% increase. I and many others enjoy this area because it’s remote. If you add 2,000 people, it will impact our lives greatly. I also am concerned because over 250 low wage workers will be laid off each fall, letting our State Welfare System, Oly Cap and local Food Bank pick up the slack. The final EIS says 52 apartment houses will be built for the workers. In summary, I opt for scenario B. Marion Murdock: As a longtime resident and property owner, I have concerns: traffic effects, controlled storm water overflows, ecological integrity, local water resources, economic impacts on local businesses and infrastructure. Traffic greatly increases every summer. The traffic study done was proved to be inadequate including only intersections. I’ve witnessed a number of accidents and the proposed development would only add to this problem with no expansion of the highway. Also concerned about the overflow of the grey water retention ponds. The wetlands in this project area are classified as Category II and provide high levels of wetland functions and are difficult to replace. The 2006 Wetland Functions Analysis not only used methods not up to date with current Washington State protocols but didn’t include a professional rare plant survey. They’re uncommon in the Puget Sound and Hood Canal area and the No Net Loss Policy dictates that these wetland resources should be maintained. The current project contains no plan for maintaining biodiversity of the remaining wetlands and does not provide adequate mitigation for the loss of wetlands and their ecological, biochemical, hydrological and habitat functions. The FSEIS says there’s enough water for two years of development and after that another well can be drilled. I wonder what everyone feels about that, with the possibility of salt water intrusion. It seems odd that the 2007 draft stated that they wouldn’t displace existing businesses but the first thing they did was open another kayak rental business displacing the existing and professionally run one at Pleasant Harbor Paddle. Rob Mitchell: Once again the FSEIS has been dumped on the Planning Commission and our citizen’s right in the height of our Holidays. We must require another additional review period. The same problems with the DSEIS persist and remain unsolved traffic, water availability, a neighborhood water plan which does not protect current homeowners. Noise and air pollution from an open pit mining operation and massive cut and fill. Disposal of large volumes of bio solids, use of sewage treatment plant recycled water which does contain drugs and chemicals not removed. The loss of peace and tranquility before and after construction. Overcrowding on our limited trail systems, rivers and shell fish areas. The late addition of cutting the Golf Course from eighteen to nine holes which only cuts construction costs. The late addition of scenario B in the no action alternative does not. The Brinnon Sub Area Plan is not developed enough to seriously consider. It’s full of vague and false negative impacts. The costs to all current residents and tax payers, the lack of adequate emergency services, the traffic costs to working commuters, commerce, tourism, and added pollution in the Hood Canal Watershed. Degradation of our only major highway and secondary roads. This directly negatively impacts our health and safety. The high number of poverty level jobs straining our taxpayer funded social services. This will increase our property taxes. An MPR at Black Point is the worst possible location for future sustainable growth not only in Brinnon but for the entire Olympic Peninsula. We should not hand over our last best resource for the developer’s gain. The DSEIS was inadequate, the FSEIS was also inadequate therefore the conclusion is to opt for scenario A the no action alternative. Joanie Hendricks: I’ve been at all of these public meetings and still say this project is way too big. Think about removing one million cubic yards of earth and vegetation, then getting five inches of rain. Think about what that will do to our shell fish beds. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center January 06, 2016 Page 6 of 7 I’m a larva department manager for Taylor Shellfish and I really care about what’s going to happen to she shellfish beds out there. Where I work we hire people from Port Ludlow, Port Townsend, and Sequim because we aren’t getting local people applying. Same with other businesses in this area. There’s a lot of self‐ employed people in this area. Because the scope of this project is so large, and I think it’s detrimental to the environment, I would suggest the no action alternative. I have letters from my family and some neighbors to give you. Kathy Ackerman: When this first started I was a no. I thought it was too big and noisy and the pollution. Now I’m much more encouraged. I love the idea that it’s done in sections. Then more meetings before another section. I’m still concerned about people’s water quality and quantity in wells. But I think the planners and County Officials and Statesman have done a wonderful job working and working this over and like I said it will be done in stages which I think is the best approach. Britney Edwards: I have three young children and my biggest concern is their development. The school is great here but beyond that the opportunities are nonexistent for recreational activities. For basketball, dance or swimming I have to drive at least forty‐five minutes. After talking to Pleasant Harbor Marina, they’re looking at opening the pool to the community, as a membership. That’s a huge opportunity. When my kids get older they’ll need a place to work, even part time, and a place to recreate with their friends. We love the idea of having more options and a place to go and understand why it’s taking so long, as we’d like to see a minimal impact on the environment as well. We appreciate everything the Statesman Group has done so far and we’re excited to see the rest come to fruition. Sesial Culp: I support the idea of the project. Two concerns: traffic, and what the COUNTY will do about alleviating it and the second is that the water studies have been well done I HOPE we won’t run out of ground water. I see many attractions to this project. I’ve heard the Resort will have a walk in Medical Clinic. I think you’re going to get other medical professionals moving here to accommodate that increased population, and I think the people that already live here are going to benefit from that. And I want more medical personnel around here as well because I plan to retire here soon. In short, the pies going to expand, economically, and everyone’s going to get a bigger piece. The existing businesses will have more business. It’s not just the resort it just works that way. In short, change is inevitable, and it’s either going to be a continued deterioration of this community or taking the first step toward the new future. It’s our choice. Eleanor Safar: I’m turning this research in about the Olympic Park Glaciers. The decline of them changes the streamflow, the snowmelt reducing the supply of water for the many competing uses and demands causing far‐ reaching ecological and social economic consequences. We all understand the tremendous trend towards this region and the use of the water with this resort. To add this huge development to this mix poses a long term transformation of the forest landscape. Global warming is a reality. Look at development of Suncadia on Snoqualmie. They’ve been in bankruptcy because of the economy now they’re trying to take the two towns they vested in use of this project and they’re still in litigation because the developer decided to renegotiate their contracts. If you think this is going to be easy, it isn’t. Suncadia was once a 5 star resort, now it’s a 3 star, and that’s what happens when things get bad, they say they’re going to do a lot of good things for you, but look at what does happen. Suncadia is a pretty good example of what I think will happen here, though I hope that’s not the case. Peter Vales: I’d like to urge the Planning Commission to recommend additional time to review this proposal. The scale and location of this project right on Hood Canal, make a potential for a serious and irreversible damage to the environment. The devil is in the details in the mitigation measures and having a review period over the Holiday over something that’s been in the works for ten years is simply not adequate. As an example, my comments made on the draft of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement we simply asked that a letter from Dr. Richard Horner dated 2007 who commented on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement be attached and reviewed as part of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement because he raised a number of issues with storm water. 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend WA 98368 P: 360-379-4450 F: 360-379-4451 plancomm@co.jefferson.wa.us Jefferson County Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES Tri-Area Community Center January 06, 2016 Page 7 of 7 In response to this, “thank you for your comments the 2007 AEIS was found to be adequate and therefore it is assumed that the issues raised in Dr. Horner’s letter were addressed in sufficient degree”. So in other words, because they were blown off in the EIS they should be fine in the SEIS. So, furthermore that letter from Dr. Horner was not included with my comment letter in the response so it doesn’t appear in there. And I’m going to ask the Planning Commission to include it now and I’m giving you a copy of that. One of the issues Dr. Horner raised is with the massive expansion of traffic along 101 and the hundreds of thousands of additional car trips, what the impact of that would be in terms of storm water impacts from automobiles. There’s a big section in here on that. His conclusion with the FEIS was: Concentration of toxic materials such as various metals and road run off is the condition most dangerous to aquatic life, the FEIS is an incomplete and thoroughly inadequate document not addressing these impacts at all. So here’s his letter to the Planning Commission. Phil Benstead: Everyone’s worried about the increase in traffic. When the Hood Canal Bridge was built it pretty much decimated most of the businesses along the canal here, I don’t think a little extra traffic is going to be bad for business for anyone. It’s going to be good for all the businesses along the canal. As far as poverty goes, I was just talking to Mike and Elyse that run the Food Bank. They’re currently servicing up to 900 families. Why are so many using it? The other day someone mentioned the Sheriff and that the Resort wasn’t going to pay for that. I would personally pay to have an extra Sheriff here because I’m tired of the drug dealer’s running up and down our streets, I’m tired of kicking the people out that are making drug deals. The field over by the Marina now is being used as the low life’s furniture deposit depot and the park has thousands of visitors each year, I haven’t seen the elk being disturbed at all. Let’s bring this project. I support it. Catherine Brinnon: I know all the technical stuff has been addressed, however on a personal note; most of us moved to this area because we like rural. We knew we had to drive a distance for anything. Kids never have like rural and always fled to the City. If you want to live by a Resort, go buy property by one, don’t screw it up for the rest of us that are here for the rural. If anyone brought written comments you can turn them in now. I’m going to allow them to be submitted until the February 3, 2016 meeting of the Jefferson County Planning Commission. You can submit them to the DCD or you can bring them on February 3 rd. At that point we will stop taking them. The public testimony is now closed. Deliberations will take place on February 3, 2016 in Chimacum at the Tri Area Community Center. At the regular first Wednesday of the month meeting of the Jefferson County Planning Commission. We will deliberate, then we will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, who will have another hearing, so you will get a chance to talk to them before they make a decision. Thank you. FOLLOW‐UP ITEMS Next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 02/03/2016 at 6:30 pm at the Tri‐Area Community Center Adjourned at 9:04 pm These meeting minutes were approved this ____________ day of ___________________________, 2016. ________________________________________ _________ ______________________________________________________________ Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary/DCD Final JEFFERSON COUNTY CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE UPDATE Best Available Science Report Prepared for December 15, 2015 Jefferson County Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page i Table of Contents Table of Contents CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................1-1 1.1 Report Background and Purpose ...............................................................................1-1 1.2 Current CAO Update Process ....................................................................................1-2 CHAPTER 2. METHODS ....................................................................................................2-1 CHAPTER 3. WETLANDS ..................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Updates to Scientific Literature ...................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Ecology Synthesis & Guidance ............................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.2 Wetland Delineation and Rating ........................................................................................... 3-3 3.1.3 Buffer Effectiveness ............................................................................................................. 3-3 3.1.4 Mitigation .............................................................................................................................. 3-5 3.2 Assessment of Current Wetlands Provisions ..............................................................3-9 3.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 3-11 CHAPTER 4. FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS ...............................................................4-1 4.1 Updates to Scientific Literature ...................................................................................4-1 4.1.1 Functions and Values of Frequently Flooded Areas ............................................................ 4-3 4.1.2 Long-term Climate Trends and Frequently Flooded Areas .................................................. 4-4 4.2 Assessment of Current Frequently Flooded Areas Provisions ....................................4-4 4.3 Conclusions ...............................................................................................................4-5 CHAPTER 5. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS ..........................5-1 5.1 Updates to Scientific Literature ...................................................................................5-1 5.1.1 Stream Typing ...................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 Buffer Widths and Effectiveness .......................................................................................... 5-2 5.1.3 Fish Passage and Stream Restoration Projects .................................................................. 5-3 5.1.4 Wildlife Habitat and Corridors ............................................................................................... 5-3 5.2 Assessment of Current Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Provisions .......5-4 5.3 Conclusions ...............................................................................................................5-5 CHAPTER 6. AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN AND NEAR CRITICAL AREAS ................6-1 6.1 Agriculture and Critical Areas in Jefferson County ......................................................6-1 6.1.1 Regulations and Best Management Practices ..................................................................... 6-3 6.1.2 Voluntary Stewardship Program........................................................................................... 6-4 6.2 Potential Agricultural Impacts and Effectiveness of Existing BMPs.............................6-4 6.2.1 Water Quality ........................................................................................................................ 6-9 6.2.2 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................. 6-9 6.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat ..................................................................................................... 6-10 6.3 Additional Recent Scientific Literature ...................................................................... 6-10 6.3.1 Washington Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Monitoring Summary ........... 6-11 6.3.2 Washington Agricultural Caucus Riparian Buffer Review .................................................. 6-11 6.3.3 Chimacum Watershed Water Quality and Fishes Report .................................................. 6-13 6.3.4 Working Buffers on Agricultural Lands Paper .................................................................... 6-14 6.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 6-16 CHAPTER 7. REFERENCES .............................................................................................7-1 Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page ii December 2015 Table of Contents List of Tables Table 3-1. Types of Alternative Mitigation .............................................................................. 3-8 Table 6-1. Types of Potential Impacts from Agricultural Activities........................................... 6-6 Table 6-2. Climate change mitigation benefits from agroforestry practices. .......................... 6-15 List of Figures Figure 6-1. Figure 4: Conceptual model of integrated design using a Riparian Buffer Zone, Working Buffer Zones, and integrated runoff management....................... 6-14 Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 1-1 Introduction CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION In 1990, the Washington state legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GMA), which requires cities and counties to designate and protect critical areas. In 1995, the legislature amended the GMA to require that local governments consider Best Available Science (BAS) in developing policies and regulations for protecting critical areas, and also give special consideration to the conservation and protection of anadromous fisheries (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 36.70A.172). BAS is defined as current scientific information produced through a valid scientific process that is peer reviewed and includes clearly stated methods, logical conclusions and reasonable inferences, quantitative analysis, proper context, and references (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 365-195-905). This document summarizes BAS for Jefferson County critical areas and provides preliminary considerations for reviewing the County’s critical area protection standards. As directed by Jefferson County and per RCW 36.70A.050, this document addresses BAS for the following critical areas: Wetlands (Chapter 3); Frequently flooded areas (Chapter 4); and Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs) (Chapter 5). In addition, this document discusses best management practices for existing and ongoing agricultural activities (Chapter 6). 1.1 Report Background and Purpose The information contained within this document is a summary of scientific information relating to designating and protecting critical areas as defined under the GMA. The information provides a basis for recommending changes and additions to the County’s critical areas regulations codified in the Jefferson County Unified Development Code – Chapter 18.22 Critical Areas (Chapter 18.22 JCC). This is not an exhaustive summary of all science related to critical areas, but is instead a summary of the best available scientific information that is pertinent to Jefferson County and applicable to the types of critical areas present. Each chapter of the report is devoted to a specific type of critical area. In many cases, the information presented for one type of critical areas overlaps, complements, or is applicable to another type of critical area because these areas function as integrated components of the ecosystem. The chapters summarize the information and issues for the County to consider within its process for updating policies and regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas (RCW 36.70A.172 (1)). The State legislature and the Growth Management Hearings Boards (GMHBs) have defined critical area “protection” to mean preservation of critical area “structure, function, and value.” Local governments are not required to protect all functions and values of all critical areas, but they are required to achieve “no net loss” of critical area functions and values across the jurisdictional landscape. Local governments are also required to develop regulations that reduce hazards associated with frequently flooded areas. The standard of protection is to prevent adverse impacts to critical areas, to mitigate adverse impacts, and/or to reduce associated risks. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 1-2 December 2015 Introduction In addition to updating the County’s critical areas regulations under the GMA, this report also reviews the science supporting standards for existing and ongoing agricultural activities and uses as regulated in JCC 18.20.030. Existing and ongoing agriculture is defined as “activities conducted on an ongoing basis on lands enrolled in the open space tax program for agriculture or designated as agricultural lands; provided, that agricultural activities were conducted on those lands at any time during the five-year period preceding April 28, 2003.” Existing and ongoing agriculture is exempt from the critical areas regulations in Chapter 18.22 JCC, but is subject to the objectives and standards of JCC 18.20.030 through voluntary compliance. JCC 18.20.030 is primarily based on a set of best management practices (BMPs) that protects the functions and values of critical areas from harm or degradation. New agriculture is defined as “activities proposed or conducted after April 28, 2003, and that do not meet the definition of ‘existing and ongoing agriculture’” and is subject to the critical areas regulations in Chapter 18.22 JCC. 1.2 Current CAO Update Process Jefferson County is updating its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in accordance with the requirements of the GMA (RCW 36.70A). The County recognizes the current update as an opportunity to clarify the purpose of the CAO, and refine policy and development regulations to best balance critical areas protection with other goals of the GMA. This report is one of three documents prepared in coordination with the County that will support the evaluation and update to land use regulations in the Jefferson County Code (JCC) that protect critical areas. First, the Best Available Science Report (this document) summarizes the current scientific literature and guidance on best practices for critical areas protection relevant to resources in Jefferson County. The BAS report incorporates the findings of previous review efforts conducted by the County and assesses current regulations for consistency with current best available science. Second, the Watershed Characterization Report (ESA, in prep.) documents existing biological and physical data and watershed-based information relating to critical areas within the eastern portion of the County, with a focus on stream conditions and agricultural areas. Using fine-scale land cover, topography, streamflow, and other available data, the report assesses trends in environmental quality and ecological functions of streams and wetlands in this area of the County. Third, the Recommendations Report (ESA, forthcoming) will use the assessment of regulations in the BAS report along with the watershed analysis in the characterization report to identify adjustments to regulations that could improve protection and management of critical areas in Jefferson County. The report will provide a set of options and draft recommendations for revising the CAO regulations. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 2-1 Methods CHAPTER 2. METHODS To complete the BAS review, ESA compiled current scientific information, including applicable regulatory agency guidance, and then assessed the County’s regulations in Chapter 18.22 JCC for consistency with this information for the following critical areas: Wetlands Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Frequently Flooded Areas ESA also reviewed regulations for agricultural activities and accessory uses in JCC 18.20.030 against current scientific information. This report relies upon several regulatory guidance and BAS documents pertaining to critical areas. Current examples of regulatory language pertaining to critical areas can be found in Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act (CTED, 2007). Best available science or BAS is defined as scientific information about critical areas, prepared by local, tribal, state, or federal natural resource agencies, or qualified scientific professionals that is consistent with the following criteria: Scientific information is produced through a valid scientific process that includes: o Peer review, o A discussion of methods used to gather information, o Logical conclusions, o Quantitative data analysis, o Information used in the appropriate context, and o References of literature and other sources of information used. Scientific information is obtained through a common source such as: o Research, o Monitoring, o Inventory, o Survey, o Modeling, o Assessment, o Synthesis, or o Expert opinion. In the context of critical areas protection, a scientific process is one that produces reliable information useful in understanding the consequences of regulatory decisions, and in developing critical areas policies and regulations that are effective in protecting the functions and values of critical areas. Common sources of non-scientific information include anecdotal information; non-expert opinion; and hearsay. The County will consider the scientific sources that meet the above criteria along with other factors in its review of critical areas policies and regulations. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 3-1 Wetlands CHAPTER 3. WETLANDS This chapter summarizes recent guidance documents published by state resource agencies, the County, and other organizations concerning wetlands and how they can affect or be affected by land use and other human activities. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a basis for recommending updates to the wetland provisions of the County’s critical areas regulations (JCC Chapter 18.22). Wetlands are defined by state law (RCW 36.70A.030) as: “…areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands." 3.1 Updates to Scientific Literature Most of the latest materials pertaining to wetlands have been prepared by state and federal agencies. The County’s last BAS review was in 2004 (Christensen, 2004). The Department of Community Development (DCD) continued to review and consider BAS documents between 2004 and adoption of the current CAO in 2008. Since then, new scientific findings have been published describing methods for assessing wetlands on a watershed-based and landscape-scale, alternative mitigation strategies (mitigation banking and in-lieu fee programs), improving the success of compensatory mitigation, and buffer effectiveness. Each of these topics are discussed in the following sections. For model code language, the wetland model code found in the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook (CTED, 2007) was updated in 2012 to address small cities. The updated model code in Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities, Western Washington Version (Bunten et al., 2012) and is considered Ecology’s BAS for wetland regulations. 3.1.1 Ecology Synthesis & Guidance In 2005, the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) released a two-volume BAS document that is still the primary source of new information for wetland management: Wetlands in Washington State – Vol. 1 A Synthesis of the Science (Sheldon et al. 2005) and Vol. 2 Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands (Granger et al. 2005). Volume 1 contains a summary and synthesis of the recent literature relevant to the science and management of wetlands in the state of Washington. It describes what the scientific literature says directly about the following topics: Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 3-2 December 2015 Wetlands “How environmental factors control the functions of wetlands across the landscape and at individual sites, how freshwater wetlands are classified according to these controls, and what functions are performed by different classes of freshwater wetlands in the state. How human activities and land uses affect the environmental factors that control the functions of freshwater wetlands How disturbances caused by human activities and land uses impact the performance of functions by freshwater wetlands How wetlands are protected and managed using common tools such as buffers and compensatory mitigation, including what the literature says about the relative effectiveness of these tools How cumulative impacts can result from current approaches to managing and regulating wetlands” Volume 2 translates the scientific findings from Volume 1 into guidance to local governments and others regarding programs they can or currently do use to protect and manage wetlands. The main points of Volume 2 follow: “By relying on a site-by-site approach to managing wetlands, we are failing to effectively protect them To effectively protect wetlands and their functions, we must understand and manage their interaction with the environmental factors that control wetland functions To understand and manage these environmental factors and wetland functions, information generated through landscape analysis is needed Landscape analysis should be the first step in a four-step framework that should be used in developing a diversified program to protect and manage wetlands and their functions; the four-step framework should include analyzing the landscape, prescribing solutions, taking actions, and monitoring results and applying adaptive management Protection and management measures developed and implemented in steps two and three of the four-step framework (prescribing solutions and taking action) should incorporate a full range of components including: Policies and plans such as landscape-based plans (such as Green Infrastructure), comprehensive plans, subarea plans, etc. Regulations such as critical areas ordinances, clearing and grading ordinances, etc. Non-regulatory activities such as incentives that encourage conservation, restoration, and preservation through voluntary efforts” Both Volumes 1 and 2 were written to assist local governments in complying with requirements of the GMA to include the best available science when adopting development regulations to designate and protect wetlands. They are not themselves BAS, but rather are recommendations from WDFW and Ecology as to how a local government could include BAS into policies, plans, and regulations to protect wetlands. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 3-3 Wetlands It should be noted that during the County’s last BAS review a draft version of Volume 1 was available and incorporated into the update process. However, the final version of Volume 1 and Volume 2 were not available until after the County’s BAS review. In 2008, the County made some amendments to its critical areas regulations, which did incorporate the Ecology documents that are summarized in the following section. 3.1.2 Wetland Delineation and Rating In 2010, the Corps released the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps, 2010). The regional supplement updates portions of the 1987 Corps’ Wetland Delineation Manual and provides additional technical guidance and updated procedures for identifying and delineating wetlands. State law requiring the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology, 1997) was repealed in 2011, and the state manual is no longer required. The Regional Supplement is now identified by state rules (WAC 173-22- 035). Ecology released an update to the state wetland rating system, the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Hruby, 2014), that went into effect January 2015. The rating system is still a four-tier system and most of the material in the 2014 updated manual remains the same as that in the 2004 manual. The updated wetland rating system includes a new scoring range (i.e., between 9 and 27 under the updated system versus 1 to 100 in the 2004 system) that is based on a qualitative scale of functions from high, medium, or low. The new approach to scoring wetland functions on a high, medium, or low scale is more scientifically supportable than Ecology’s 2004 rating system (Hruby, 2014). The 2014 system also includes new sections for assessing a wetland’s potential to provide functions and values on a landscape scale. 3.1.3 Buffer Effectiveness As summarized previously, the document, Wetlands in Washington State – Vol. 1 A Synthesis of the Science (Sheldon et al., 2005), synthesized literature related to wetland buffers and buffer effectiveness among other wetland-related topics. In 2013, Ecology published Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science, Final Report which updated the 2005 synthesis with a literature review of scientific documents published between 2003 and 2012 (Hruby, 2013). The review addressed each of the conclusions in the Sheldon et al. (2005) report and consulted 144 articles. Water Quality The updated buffer synthesis confirmed that buffers perform an important water quality function by trapping pollutants before they reach a wetland. It also confirmed that generally, the wider the buffer, the more effective it is at protecting water quality, while sheet flow, vegetation, and slope are also important factors. Recent research shows that processes such as denitrification, adsorption, and conversion of nutrients and bacteria are more complicated and can be very site specific (Dosskey et al., 2010; Owens et al., 2007; Sahu and Gu, 2009; Yuan et al., 2009; Polyakov et al., 2005). Many factors besides width affect the effectiveness of buffers to address water quality, including: Slope gradient and length (Yuan et al., 2009, Zhang et al., 2010). Vegetation type, spacing, and density (Buffler et al., 2005; Polyakov et al., 2005; Yuan et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2010). Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 3-4 December 2015 Wetlands Soil type, geochemical and physical properties, infiltration rates, and soil water content (Mayer et al., 2007; Polyakov et al., 2005). Type and concentration of pollutants (Gumiero et al., 2011; Hoffman et al., 2009; Mayer et al., 2007; Ranalli and Macalady, 2010; Uusi-Kamppa, 2005). Flow path through the buffer – surface and subsurface flow paths are important (Mayer et al., 2007; Polyakov et al., 2005; Yuan et al., 2009). Adjacent land use practices (Hoffman et al., 2009) The 2013 update also included more research regarding how buffers function to remove specific chemicals. The processes to remove phosphorus and nitrogen are different, and thus the characteristics of buffers needed to treat these potential pollutants are different: Phosphorus – Soil type (redox, pH), the amount of phosphorus already in the soil, slope, buffer width, presence of other minerals that bind to dissolved phosphorus, and the amount of phosphorus entering the buffer are important factors for buffer effectiveness; the capacity of buffers to trap phosphorus is finite (Buffler et al., 2005; Hickey and Doran, 2004; Hoffman et al., 2009; Owens et al., 2007). Buffers release phosphorus under certain conditions (Buffler et al., 2005; Homan et al., 2004, Uusi-Kamppa, 2005). Nitrogen – The subsurface denitrification process, nitrogen uptake by vegetation, and immobilization of microorganisms play a larger role than buffer width in removing nitrogen. The presence of organic matter and anoxic conditions and amount of nitrate in groundwater are also important in nitrogen removal (Baker et al., 2006; Dosskey et al., 2002; Ranalli and Macalady, 2010; Mayer et al., 2007). Wetland Hydrology There is little recently published research regarding how buffers affect the hydrologic functions of wetlands; however, Hruby has inferred how buffers protect depressional wetlands (2013). Surface flows that fill depressional wetlands during storms often contain sediment, which can reduce the storage capacity of the wetland. A vegetated buffer helps to protect a wetland’s storage capacity by trapping sediments from surface flows. Hruby points out that this inference has not been supported by any studies (2013). Wildlife Habitat Research in the past decade supports previous conclusions made by Sheldon et al. that larger buffers are needed for protecting habitat than are needed to protect water quality functions (2005). The research also shows that there is a large variability in the habitat needs of wetland-dependent and wetland-associated species and that habitat needs are complex. Thus, while larger buffers are generally more effective, habitat protection requires consideration of the broader landscape condition, including connectivity and proximity between wetlands are other habitat types (Hruby, 2013). Research also indicates that wetland buffers are themselves an important habitat component, or core habitat. This is because many species use the habitat adjacent to wetlands for breeding, foraging, resting, or for movement between otherwise isolated habitats (Baldwin et al., 2006; Bauer et al., 2010; Crawford et al., 2007; Ribeiro et al., 2011; Rittenhouse and Semlitsch, 2006; Semlitsch, 2007; Semlitsch and Bodie, 2003; Semlitsch and Jensen, 2001; Slawski, 2010). Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 3-5 Wetlands Birds Several studies have been conducted on the value of buffers or core habitats to bird species (DeLuca et al., 2004; Hannon et al., 2002; Hanowski et al., 2006; Hays et al., 1999; Mayer etal., 2007; McKinney et al., 2011; Pickett et al., 2007; Pearson and Manuwal, 2001; Smith and ChowFraser, 2010; Smith et al., 2008). Habitat protection provided for wetland-dependent birds depends on the specific species, the type of vegetation in the buffer, land uses within 500m or 1 km of the wetland, and whether the setting is urban or rural. For example, obligate marsh-nesting birds preferred rural wetlands; generalist marsh- nesting birds showed no preference for rural or urban wetlands; while species adapted to living in developed and residential areas had greater richness and abundance in urban marshes (Houlahan et al. 2004). Mammals Literature of effective buffer widths for mammals indicates that dimensions are specific to a species’ life-history needs (e.g., nesting sites, foraging ranges, etc.) and can range from 30m (Foster et al. 1984, Castelle et al. 1992) to 1,000m (Richter 1997). New literature indicates that mammal diversity and abundance showed a positive trend with 500m and 1000m buffers, but not 250m buffers (Francl et al. 2004). Supporting research found that the highest richness of small mammals was in wetlands with at least the first 500m of buffer in forest cover with large woody debris (Richter 2001). Amphibians Two amphibians, the northern red-legged frog and the western toad, have been found to commonly move 1,000 feet or more away from wetland areas (Hayes et al. 2008, Richter et al. 2008; 87). Similar to wetland-dependent birds, habitat protection provided for amphibians depends on the specific species, the type of vegetation in the buffer, land uses within 500m or 1 km of the wetland, and whether the setting is urban or rural. Research has also been done extensively on the value of buffers or core habitats to amphibians (Bauer et al., 2010; Eigenbrod et al., 2009; Harper et al., 2008; Trenham and Shaffer, 2005). Further, new literature confirms that certain species prefer certain types of vegetation in the wetland buffer as some species prefer grasslands while other prefer shrubs and forests (Goldberg and Waits, 2010; McIntyre, 2011; Rittenhouse and Semlitsch, 2006). For example, the western toad prefers uplands that are forested (Bartlet and Peterson, 2004; McIntyre, 2011) while the Woodhouse toad and northern leopard frog prefer non-forested landscapes dominated by natural or unmaintained grasses (McIntyre, 2011). 3.1.4 Mitigation Mitigation means avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for adverse critical areas impacts. Impacts to wetlands must be mitigated in step-wise fashion in accordance with the “mitigation sequence” of actions, which is mandated by WAC 197-11-768: 1. Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. 2. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. 3. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. 4. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 3-6 December 2015 Wetlands 5. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. 6. Monitor the impact and take appropriate corrective measures. Avoidance and minimization measures occur first during project design and are intended to avoid and reduce a project’s effects prior to completion of project design. Once a determination is made that project effects are unavoidable, compensatory mitigation is required. This type of mitigation is designed to compensate for wetland losses that cannot be avoided during project construction. Compensatory wetland mitigation is step five in the mitigation sequence. Compensatory Mitigation In general, there are four types of compensatory wetland mitigation. Federal and state agencies that regulate wetlands recommend they be used following this order of preference: restoration, creation, enhancement, and preservation (Corps, 2002; Ecology et al., 2006a). Compensatory mitigation can occur either on-site, off-site or at an established mitigation bank or through an approved in-lieu fee program. According to the National Research Council (NRC), compensatory mitigation, particularly onsite mitigation installed by the permittee (so called permittee-responsible mitigation) has frequently been unsuccessful and not achieved the national policy of “no net loss” of wetland area and functions (NRC, 2001). For example, a watershed-based assessment of wetland impacts and compensatory mitigation in northeastern Ohio found that the majority of projects (67%) that restored or created wetlands independently (not a mitigation bank) were not successful in meeting permit requirements in terms of wetland area (Kettlewell et al. 2008). In Washington State, Ecology also studied the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation within Washington and came to similar conclusions and the NRC report (Ecology, 2000, 2001). In 2006, the Corps, EPA, and Ecology cooperatively published a two-part guidance documented called Wetland Mitigation in Washington State. Part 1 - Agency Policies and Guidance (Ecology, Corps, and EPA, 2006a) provides a brief background on wetlands, an overview of the factors that go into the agencies’ permitting decisions, and detailed guidance on the agencies’ policies on wetland mitigation, particularly compensatory mitigation. It outlines the information the agencies use to determine whether specific mitigation plans are appropriate and adequate. Part 2, Developing Mitigation Plans (Ecology, Corps, and EPA, 2006b) provides technical information on preparing plans for compensatory mitigation. Some of the Compensatory Mitigation and Order of Preference Restoration (re-establishment or rehabilitation). The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former or degraded wetland. Creation (establishment). The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics to develop a wetland on an upland or deepwater site, where a wetland did not previously exist. Enhancement. The manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a wetland to heighten, intensify or improve specific function(s) or to change the growth stage or composition of the vegetation present. Preservation (protection/maintenance). Removing a threat to, or preventing the decline of, wetland conditions by an action in or near a wetland. Preservation is an approved method for compensatory mitigation only in limited circumstances. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 3-7 Wetlands information provided Part 1 has been superseded by recent guidance discussed in the Alternative Mitigation section below; however, wetland mitigation ratios listed in this document are the basis for many local jurisdictions’ mitigation requirements. A 2008 review by Kihslinger documented ongoing concerns with standard compensatory mitigation practices. Kihslinger noted that alternative forms of mitigation, such as mitigation banks and in-lieu fee (ILF) programs, and advance mitigation were not established uniformly across the country, or within individual states, and there were numerous cases where alternative mitigation programs were operated unsuccessfully. To address these mitigation deficiencies, the Corps and EPA released revised regulations governing compensatory mitigation for authorized impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The 2008 Federal Rule, formally known as the Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule, lays out criteria and performance standards designed to improve the success and quality of mitigation activities (Corps and EPA, 2008). The new order of preference for compensatory mitigation mechanisms at the federal level is now: 1. Formally approved mitigation bank credits 2. In lieu fee program credits 3. Permittee-responsible mitigation under a watershed approach 4. Permittee-responsible mitigation through on-site and in-kind mitigation 5. Permittee-responsible mitigation through off-site and/or out of kind mitigation The Federal Rule emphasizes a watershed approach to mitigation as part of the planning, implementation, and management of mitigation projects. A watershed approach is an analytical process for making compensatory mitigation decisions that support the sustainability or improvement of aquatic resources in a watershed; it involves consideration of watershed needs, and how locations and types of compensatory mitigation projects address those needs. Alternative Mitigation Alternatives to permittee-responsible mitigation are increasingly implemented within Washington State and around the country to compensate for authorized impacts to aquatic resources. Alternative mitigation is used to restore, establish, enhance, and/or preserve aquatic resources and can satisfy federal, state, and local regulations depending on the type of impact and the agency with jurisdictional authority. Common forms of alternative mitigation are listed in Table 3-1. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 3-8 December 2015 Wetlands Table 3-1. Types of Alternative Mitigation Mitigation Type Responsible Party Implementation Schedule Mitigation Location Additional Information Mitigation Banks Public or private sponsor The sponsor has already secured a mitigation site and initiated mitigation activities before fees are accepted Typically, mitigation banks exist at one location Ecology provides banking resources for potential sponsors on their Wetland Mitigation Banking website (Ecology, 2015) In-Lieu Fee (ILF) Programs Governmental or non- profit natural resources management entity In-lieu fee programs accept mitigation fees before securing and implementing projects Mitigation is implemented at multiple sites Ecology provides direction in Guidance on In-Lieu Fee Mitigation (Ecology, 2012a) Consolidated Off-site Mitigation Public or private entity As compensatory mitigation fees are paid, portions of the mitigation site are constructed Typically occurs at a single location Guidance for mitigation found Wetland Mitigation in Washington State: Part 1 - Agency Policies and Guidance and Part 2 - Developing Mitigation Plans (Ecology, Corps, and EPA, 2000a and b) Advance Mitigation Public or private permit applicants The permittee implements mitigation prior to commencing the development project Advance mitigation typically occurs at one site The Corps, Ecology, and WDFW provide direction in Interagency Regulatory Guide – Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation (Ecology, 2012b) Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 3-9 Wetlands Alternative forms of mitigation do not change the requirements for permit applicants to adhere to “mitigation sequencing” required by regulatory agencies. In the Federal Rule, the Corps outlines a mitigation hierarchy, preferring mitigation banks over ILF programs and ILF programs over permittee-responsible mitigation. Mitigation Ratios Mitigation ratios have historically been used in administering both permittee-responsible and alternative mitigation programs. The 2008 Corps Mitigation Rule points to mitigation ratios that are determined on a case-by-case basis but generally at least 1:1 when replacing lost wetland area and higher depending upon the type of mitigation used and the functions to be replaced. Ecology’s Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands (Granger et al. 2005) provides guidance on ratios for compensatory mitigation which are used by most local jurisdictions including Jefferson County (see Appendix 8-C). The mitigation area required (ratios) is based on wetland category, function, and special characteristics. Ecology notes that the ratios for compensatory mitigation are based on the assumption that the category and hydro-geomorphic (HGM) class or subclass of the affected wetland and the mitigation wetland are the same. The ratios may be adjusted either up or down if the category or HGM class or subclass of the wetland proposed for compensation is different. For example, ratios may be lower if impacts to a Category IV wetland are to be mitigated by creating a Category II wetland. The ratios provided in the guidance should be considered a starting point for discussion with each proponent of compensatory mitigation. As an alternative to using mitigation ratios, Ecology developed Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington (Hruby, 2012) for estimating whether a project’s compensatory mitigation plan adequately replaces lost wetland functions and values. Termed the “Credit-Debit Method,” this manual uses a “functions and values”-based approached to score functions lost at the project site (i.e., “debits”) compared to functions gained at a mitigation site (i.e., “credits”). A mitigation project is considered successful when the “credit” score for a compensatory mitigation project is higher than the “debit” score. Ecology does not require use of this method, but the Corps and Ecology are increasingly relying on the Credit-Debit Method instead of mitigation ratios alone. 3.2 Assessment of Current Wetlands Provisions Jefferson County updated its wetlands ordinance in 2008 based on the BAS review conducted in 2004 (Christensen, 2004) as well as BAS documents that had been prepared while CAO language was being drafted for the 2008 CAO update. The information produced is still generally valid for current conditions, but some new information has been produced that supersedes the documents or their findings (as described above). Based on our review of current literature, regulatory guidelines, and our best professional judgment, we note the following topics. Wetland designation and delineation Wetlands in Washington State must be identified and delineated in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements (WAC 173-22-035). The Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 3-10 December 2015 Wetlands current language in JCC 18.22 refers to an outdated manual for wetland delineation and should be revised for clarification. Wetland rating system As discussed in Section 3.1.3, the Ecology rating system was updated in 2014. JCC 18.22 refers to the previous 2004 Ecology rating system, but includes the phrase “as amended”. The code could be revised to clarify which wetland rating system is adopted by Jefferson County. Wetland buffers The County’s approach to wetland buffers and the standard buffer widths are still consistent with current agency guidance and were previously approved by Ecology in 2008. The County uses Ecology’s “Buffer Alternative 3” in Granger et al. (2005). This system allows for the wetland buffer width to be based on wetland category, intensity of impacts, and wetland functions such as water quality and wildlife habitat. As a result of the update to the wetland rating system, Ecology released a modified version of its guidance for Buffer Alternative 3. Ecology is not changing the recommended buffer widths, but the scale of scores for buffer functions has been changed. Minor changes to Tables 18.22.330(1, 2, and 3) in JCC 18.22 are needed to reflect the updated guidance. There are also additional land uses in the guidance that are not included in the tables for low, moderate, and high impact land uses. The code could be revised to include these additional land uses for consistency with the guidance. Compensatory mitigation ratios and alternative mitigation The County’s approach to compensatory mitigation and the mitigation ratios in Table 18.22.350 of JCC 18.22 mirror the Ecology recommendations in Granger et al. (2005) and are based on BAS, with a few possible exceptions. However, the mitigation ratios apply to creation or restoration activities that are in-kind, onsite, and accomplished prior to or concurrently with wetland alteration. The County’s code should be updated to give preference for watershed-based mitigation rather than in-kind and on-site and if an alternative mitigation approach is used. The code should allow for temporal delay when implementing mitigation (as is the case with ILF programs and consolidated off-site mitigation). While mitigation ratios in JCC 18.22.350 do not explicitly take into account the ecological needs of the watershed, the County does have an overall mitigation goal of no net loss of wetland function, value, and acreage. The County could account for wetland functional loss by allowing the use of the Credit- Debit Method (described in Section 3.1.5) to assess wetland impacts associated with development. However, use of the 2014 wetland rating system will also evaluate functions according to Ecology. For wetlands that exhibit moderate to high functional value, in-kind and onsite mitigation is the County’s preferred mitigation type. If the impacted wetland is of lower functional value, onsite mitigation is still preferred, but out-of-kind mitigation may be implemented to achieve the highest likelihood of success and greatest functional value. If out-of-kind mitigation is acceptable to the County, greater mitigation ratios are required to compensate for lost functions and values. This CAO language allows for the potential use of out-of-kind and offsite mitigation, supporting watershed-based mitigation and the associated decision framework to determine the type and location of mitigation. The County’s CAO varies from mitigation banking and ILF program mitigation in that the CAO requires offsite mitigation for Category I to III wetlands to occur within the same watershed as the wetland impact, while alternative forms of mitigation typically do not place within-watershed geographic limitations. Similarly, the CAO states that stormwater storage function provided by Category IV Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 3-11 Wetlands wetlands must be provided for within the development project design (e.g., onsite) as proposed by the applicant. A requirement for onsite mitigation of water quantity functions is not shared by mitigation banking and ILF programs, which mitigate for all wetland functions (water quantity, water quality, and habitat) where most functionally-appropriate within the watershed. 3.3 Conclusions There are some specific regulations that should be updated to reflect current state law and BAS guidance provided by regulatory agencies, such as the current versions of the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps, 2010) are now required to be used under state law. Also, the regulatory agencies are encouraging the use of alternative mitigation strategies including mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs, and Jefferson County could expand its code to take advantage of these options by providing an enhanced authorizing environment for these strategies. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule (Corps and EPA, 2008), Making Mitigation Works: The Report of the Mitigation that Works Forum (Ecology, 2008), and Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington (Hruby, 2012) include current guidance. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 4-1 Frequently Flooded Areas CHAPTER 4. FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS Frequently flooded areas are specifically identified for protection as a critical area by GMA (WAC 365- 190-110). 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. Washington Administrative Code 365-190-110(2) states that counties and cities should consider the following when designating and classifying frequently flooded areas: Effects of flooding on human health and safety, and to public facilities and services; Available documentation including federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and programs, local studies and maps, and federal flood insurance programs, including the provisions for urban growth areas in RCW 36.70A.110; The future flow floodplain, defined as the channel of the stream and that portion of the adjoining floodplain that is necessary to contain and discharge the based flood flow at build out; The potential effects of tsunami, high tides with strong winds, sea level rise, and extreme weather events, including those potentially resulting from changing global climate conditions; Greater surface runoff caused by increasing impervious surfaces. Due to its geology and existing development, the County’s interior contains relatively little floodplain area as 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 before entering Hood Canal or Quilcene Bay. Chimacum, Snow, and Salmon creeks flow through wetlands prior to discharging into the marine environment. In addition to streams and rivers, frequently flooded areas include the marine environment. The majority of marine shorelines in the County are within 100- year floodplain designated by FEMA and activities occurring this zone are regulated under the County’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) in Chapter 18.25 JCC. The current CAO provides standards for protection of frequently flooded areas outside of shoreline jurisdiction in Chapter 15.15 JCC, which includes standards for identification, reporting, and protection of floodplains, and additionally references floodplain standards for new development and structures within the International Building Code (IBC) and International Residential Code (IRC). In addition, the County’s SMP includes flood hazard reduction regulations (Chapter 18.25 JCC) that were not in effect at the time of the last CAO update. 4.1 Updates to Scientific Literature In 2015, Ecology released Guidance to Local Governments on Frequently Flooded Areas Updates in CAOs that contains a useful summary of BAS sources for updating the designation and mapping of frequently flooded areas, new information that focuses on improving habitat in floodplains, and considerations for Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 4-2 December 2015 Frequently Flooded Areas FEMA Puget Sound Biological Opinion (BiOp) compliance (Ecology, 2015b). Topics addressed in this guidance document are described in detail here. 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. As noted in Ecology (2015b), Ecology and FEMA encourage local governments to go beyond the FEMA minimum requirements for floodplain management. Greater protection from floods may be a policy objective that should be incorporated into a local jurisdiction’s critical areas regulations. For example, some jurisdictions use the “flood of record” elevations to regulate the minimum elevation of structures, where the record flood is higher than the 100-year flood elevation used by FEMA (called the Base Flood Elevation [BFE]). Additionally, some jurisdictions require that structures be built two (or three) feet above the BFE or flood of record, rather than the minimum FEMA standards. Although limited in Jefferson County, riverine floodplains such as those associated with the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers and the Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers perform a variety of beneficial functions including providing for natural flood and erosion control, water quality maintenance, groundwater recharge, biological productivity, fish and wildlife habitat (Steiger et al., 2005), production and of wild and cultivated products, recreational opportunities, and areas for scientific study and outdoor recreation (Kusler, 2011). Floodplains typically contain several major types of habitats including aquatic, riparian, wetland, and upland habitat. Recent BAS and regional guidance for protection of ecological functions within a floodplain emphasizes the importance of other critical areas (including wetlands, streams, riparian areas, and FWHCAs) within floodplains, and emphasizes the importance of protection of these critical areas (PSP, 2010; NMFS, 2009). Due to the 2009 Biological Opinion (BiOp) by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding protection of some federally-listed species under the Endangered Species Act, there is a requirement by FEMA to assess the effects of floodplain development on habitat used by listed species. This new standard for protection is now required for National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) participating communities (NMFS 2009; FEMA 2013). Ecology guidelines encourage protection of channel migration zones in critical areas ordinances either through the flood hazard section of the code or through the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas section (Ecology, 2015a). In Jefferson County, channel migration zones are included in the geologically hazardous areas section of the CAO. 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. Recent BAS regarding CMZs is provided by the Ecology document, Channel Migration Processes and Patterns in Western Washington: A Synthesis for Floodplain Management and Restoration (Legg et al., 2014). The document provides guidance for understanding stream patterns and processes for planners, land-use managers and floodplain managers by describing the following: Landscape controls on channel migration processes Fundamental channel migration processes; and Channel patterns and the many channel migration process that support them (Legg et al., 2014) Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 4-3 Frequently Flooded Areas Mapping of some CMZs in Jefferson County was first completed in 2004 (Klawon) and updated in 2006 (Perkins) and subsequently incorporated into the County’s 2008 CAO update as well as the County’s updated SMP, which went into effect in February 2014. 4.1.1 Functions and Values of Frequently Flooded Areas Floodplains perform a variety of beneficial functions such as flood storage, sediment storage, groundwater recharge, water quality improvement, and provision of habitat. Some of the functions are unique to river floodplains but apply to both river and marine coastal frequently flooded areas. Kusler, (2001) in Assessing the Natural and Beneficial Functions of Floodplains: Issues and approaches; future directions outlines the beneficial functions of floodplains. The functions are summarized below. Flood Storage o Temporarily reduce flood heights and velocities and flood damages, protect health and safety, prevent nuisances, reduce the economic impacts of flooding. Groundwater Recharge o Provide recharge - Some floodplains provide groundwater recharge during wet periods, although most are discharge areas much of the year. Water Quality Maintenance and Improvement o Intercept/Treat pollution - Virtually all types of vegetated floodplains and the wetlands they contain intercept, trap and/or transform sediments, nutrients, debris, chemicals, and other pollutants from upland sources before they reach receiving waters. Habitat o Fish and other aquatic species - Floodplains adjacent to lakes and streams can provide food chain support, spawning areas, rearing areas, and shelter for fish and other aquatic animals. o Amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and insect species - Floodplains and floodplain wetlands provide habitat for a broad range of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and birds and corridors for migration or movement. o Rare, endangered and threatened species - Floodplains provide food chain support, feeding, nesting, and substrates for endangered and threatened animals and plants. Other Values o Recreational opportunities and scenic beauty - Floodplains provide hiking, wildlife viewing and other water and land-based recreational opportunities. Many floodplains have aesthetic value. Scenic beauty when viewed from a car, a path, a structure, or a boat may enhance real estate values, provide recreation, and provide the basis for tourism. o Historical, archaeological, heritage, cultural opportunities - Some floodplains have historical and/or archaeological value (e.g., shell middens, burial sites). o Educational and interpretive opportunities - Many floodplains and the wetlands they contain provide education and research opportunities for schools and universities and government agencies. o Scientific research opportunities - Schools, universities, resource agencies, and not-for- profit organizations carry out many types of scientific research in floodplains, wetlands and riparian areas. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 4-4 December 2015 Frequently Flooded Areas o Maintain carbon stores and sequester carbon - Many wetlands and floodplains store carbon in carbon-rich wetland soils and trees and vegetation. Some continue to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Many of the ecological issues associated with floodplain management are addressed in other chapters of this BAS report (e.g., Chapter 3 Wetlands). Making the appropriate connections between frequently flooded areas and these other critical areas will be an important outcome of the CAO update process. 4.1.2 Long-term Climate Trends and Frequently Flooded Areas A recent review of the effects of projected long-term climate trends (Dalton et al. 2013; ISAB, 2007) identified the following probable consequences of changing global climate conditions along the Pacific coast of North America, as relevant to Jefferson County: Sea level rise will shift coastal beaches inland and increase erosion of unstable bluffs (Huppert et al., 2009). Stronger and more severe storms with heavier precipitation and higher wave conditions will affect coastal shorelines (Dalton et al., 2013). Regional climate model simulations generally predict increases in extreme high precipitation over the next half-century will affect urban stormwater infrastructure; existing drainage infrastructure designed using mid-20th century rainfall records is anticipated to reach capacity and result in urban flooding more frequently (Rosenberg et al., 2009). These consequences suggest that hazards associated with both coastal and localized flooding could increase in the decades ahead. Management of frequently flooded areas provides an opportunity for the County to anticipate increased flood hazards related to changing global climate conditions and provide standards to further minimize future risks. 4.2 Assessment of Current Frequently Flooded Areas Provisions Jefferson County’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance in Chapter 15.15 JCC, has served the dual- purpose of satisfying the requirements of the GMA (RCW 36.70A) and the Floodplain Management statute (RCW 86.16) since it was adopted in 2006. The ordinance focuses on flood risk from a human health and safety standpoint. Based on our review of current BAS, agency guidelines, and best professional judgement, the following could be considered for updating the frequently flooded area provisions to more directly address the functions and values of floodplains and the probable impacts of changing global climate conditions: The regulations address human health and safety as well as standards for use and development within frequently flooded areas. Regulations could be expanded to ensure protection of the ecological functions associated with floodplains. However, many of these functions are addressed by other critical areas regulations. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 4-5 Frequently Flooded Areas The revised FIRM scheduled to be issued in 2017 by FEMA provides updated information for flood hazard areas in the County that should be considered in conjunction with local information. Language for BiOp implementation could be considered during code review to incorporate a broader approach, allowing the County to address floodplain impacts to habitat in a programmatic fashion. In anticipation of future climate conditions, language to address rising sea levels, tsunami, high tides with strong winds, and extreme weather events could also be considered. Many frequently flooded areas in the County are also regulated under the County’s Shoreline Master Program since they lie within shorelands. The language in the County’s critical areas chapter (Chapter 18.22 JCC, Article IV) could be expanded to ensure it is aligned with the SMP and clarify that the regulations do not apply to land uses and modifications within shoreline jurisdiction. In reviewing regulations to increase protection of development and of ecosystem functions in the floodplain, consider the revised Community Rating System Coordinator’s Manual (FEMA, 2013) and Ecology’s Guidance for Frequently Flooded Areas (Ecology, 2015). 4.3 Conclusions The County’s frequently flooded areas regulations address floodplains and the risks of flooding from a human health and public safety perspective. However, there is no consideration of the ecological functions of floodplains. Ecology’s Guidance to Local Governments on Frequently Flooded Areas Updates in CAOs (Ecology, 2015) states that the local governments need to consider the adequacy of the designation and the protection of frequently flooded areas in the critical area regulations. The County could consider measures recommended by FEMA and Ecology that are appropriate for riverine and coastal flooding areas, address ecological functions in addition to measures that are beneficial to human health and safety. Jefferson County could also consider options for incorporating potential impacts from long-term climate trends on frequently flooded areas. Channel migration zone protections could be included in either the frequently flooded areas or the FWHCA sections of the ordinance. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 5-1 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas CHAPTER 5. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are specifically identified for protection as a critical area by the Growth Management Act (WAC 365-190-030[4]). The current CAO provides standards for protection of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas in Chapter 18.22 JCC, Article VI. As summarized in the County’s previous BAS review (Christensen, 2004), a wildlife habitat assessment was conducted in 2004 and Core Wildlife Habitat Areas and Corridors were identified and mapped (Tomassi, 2004). This assessment provided the basis for recommendations made by Christensen (2004) to protect designated habitat areas and corridors. The CAO adopted by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners in 2008 was drafted to comply with WAC 365-190-030(2). This section summarizes new scientific literature concerning wildlife habitat protections and management and provides an assessment of current CAO provisions. 5.1 Updates to Scientific Literature The most recent materials pertaining to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas have been prepared predominantly by state, federal, and tribal agencies. Much of this science is related to protecting salmon and fisheries habitat. For example, in 2009, WDFW published Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout: A Land Use Planner’s Guide to Salmonid Habitat Protection and Recovery as part of an initiative to integrate local planning programs with salmon recovery efforts (Knight, 2009). Other documents are related to managing biodiversity and habitat quality with urban development. In 2009, WDFW also published Landscape Planning for Washington’s Wildlife: Managing for Biodiversity in Developing Areas, which provides guidance for wildlife issues related to rural and urban residential development. 5.1.1 Stream Typing The purpose of classifying streams at the local level is primarily to prioritize the protection and management of streams that provide habitat for fish, including salmonids, adjacent to development. Furthermore the protection of water quality is also an important consideration. In general, stream classification and typing systems are based on physical characteristics of the stream bed, bank, width, riparian cover, hydrologic regime (e.g., year-round flow, seasonal flow) and documented fish use. Field investigation is usually required to accurately classify a stream, although map analysis can help determine location and extent. Under state law (RCW 90.48.020), waters of the state include lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters and all other surface waters and watercourses. Streams also fall under the GMA definition of “fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas” and state law refers to the use of the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) stream typing system in Title 222 WAC, the forest practices regulations. Streams in Jefferson County are classified using the DNR Stream Typing System. The DNR classification system is a four-tier system (Type S, F, Np, and Ns) that categorizes streams based on Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 5-2 December 2015 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas whether or not streams/water bodies are within shoreline jurisdiction; whether or not those water bodies outside of shoreline jurisdiction are used by fish, and whether or not streams experience perennial or seasonal flow. The DNR water types are used by the DNR’s Forest Practices program to determine the amount and pattern of riparian buffer protection required during forest practices activities. A full description of the DNR criteria for each type and definitions is in WAC 222-16-030, but generally is as follows: Type S Water - all waters, within their bankfull width, as inventoried as "shorelines of the state" under chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW including periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands. Type F Water - segments of natural waters other than Type S Waters, which are within the bankfull widths of defined channels and periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands, or within lakes, ponds, or impoundments having a surface area of 0.5 acre or greater at seasonal low water and which in any case contain fish habitat. Type Np Water - all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of defined channels that are perennial nonfish habitat streams. Perennial streams are flowing waters that do not go dry at any time of a year of normal rainfall and include the intermittent dry portions of the perennial channel below the uppermost point of perennial flow. Type Ns Water - all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of the defined channels that are not Type S, F, or Np Waters. These are seasonal, nonfish habitat streams in which surface flow is not present for at least some portion of a year of normal rainfall and are not located downstream from any stream reach that is a Type Np Water. Ns Waters must be physically connected by an above-ground channel system to Type S, F, or Np Waters. It is important to point out three aspects of the above criteria. First, “fish” in the DNR typing system refers to all fish species and not just anadromous salmonids. Second, fish-bearing potential is determined by specific physical attributes of the stream habitat, including channel width and gradient. Thus in the absence of fish (observed or documented), a waterbody can still be designated as Type F if it has the “potential to support fish”. Thirdly, downstream man-made barriers to fish passage are not sufficient reason to classify upstream habitat as incapable of supporting fish, since upstream fish access may be regained in the future upon removal of the barrier. 5.1.2 Buffer Widths and Effectiveness When discussing BAS for buffers and buffer effectiveness for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, one must distinguish between stream/riparian buffers (those areas providing functions related to fish habitat and stream processes) and habitat buffers (areas including riparian buffers and the terrestrial areas adjacent to them which provide wildlife functions for a variety of species). WDFW documented the importance of riparian buffers for stream protection and protection of salmonid habitat in the Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Habitats: Riparian (Knutson and Naef, 1997) and the Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead, and Trout: A Land-use Planner’s Guide for Salmonid Habitat Protection and Recovery (Knight, 2009). Recommendations for stream buffers from the BAS literature review during the County’s last CAO update, recommended buffer widths varied between 50 and 150 feet (Christensen, 2004). Christensen also recommended that stream buffers include the presence of Channel Migration Zones (CMZs), areas where riverine processes can distribute Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 5-3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas sediment, collect large woody debris, and provide habitat for salmonids and other wildlife (2004). Other recommendations for stream buffer widths vary from 75 feet to well over 300 feet to help protect a suite of ecological functions (Brennan et al., 2009; May, 2003; Knutson and Naef, 1997). Ecology has published guidance on minimum riparian buffer widths for implementing riparian restoration or planting projects that use water quality-related state and federal pass-through grants or loans (Appendix L in Ecology, 2013). The buffer widths are recommended by the NMFS to help protect and recover Washington’s salmon populations. NMFS recommends a 100-foot minimum buffer for surface waters that are currently or historically have been accessed by anadromous or listed fish species and a 50-foot buffer for surfaces that do not have current or historic access. 5.1.3 Fish Passage and Stream Restoration Projects The WDFW has released multiple guidance documents provided technical assistance for those that want to protect and restore salmonid habitat. The Aquatic Habitat Guidelines (AHG) address issues relevant to fish passage such as water crossings, streambank protection, and habitat restoration. The Water Crossing Design Guidelines (Barnard et al. 2013) replaces the department’s previous guidance (Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage) and covers the design of culverts with new chapters on bridge design, tidally influenced crossings, temporary crossings, culvert abandonment, and project development. These guidelines provide scientific information related to water crossings and other proposed development near streams. The Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines (Cramer et al. 2012) is state-of-the-science guidance document that assembles a comprehensive list of factors and criteria to consider during the planning and designing stream restoration and rehabilitation work. Topics addressed in the SHRG include site, reach, and watershed assessment, problem identification, general approaches to restoring stream and riparian habitat, factors to consider in identifying and selecting an approach, approaches to solving common restoration objectives, and stream and riparian habitat restoration techniques. Watershed processes and conditions that shape stream channels, stream ecology, geomorphology, hydrology, hydraulics, planting considerations and erosion control, and construction considerations are also presented in the main text and appendices. 5.1.4 Wildlife Habitat and Corridors Research related to general wildlife habitat connectivity indicates that it is important for species to travel and carry out life processes. Small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles are generally more sensitive to changes and gaps in connectivity compared to larger mammals and birds (WDFW, 2009). Areas with less than 50 percent undisturbed land cover (i.e., developed urban environments) need assistance to ensure that habitat connectivity is maintained (WDFW, 2009). In addition to using local critical areas inventory information and Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) data, WDFW recommends protecting large undeveloped habitat patches and open space areas as part of planning and building habitat corridors (WDFW, 2009). Habitat corridor widths greater than 1,000 feet generally provide the most benefit for the most species (WDFW, 2009). Tomassi (2004) provides several recommendations for management strategies to protect Jefferson County habitat areas (forests, riparian areas, wetlands) and corridors. While the majority of recommendations relate to timber harvesting techniques and are not relevant to critical areas protection, the following management strategies for habitat corridors are applicable: Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 5-4 December 2015 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas “Corridors should not be broken by construction. Information on alternatives to road crossings is available from the WDFW. Corridors should remain free of human and animal disturbance. As recommended for all riparian corridors, they should exclude livestock and high-impact human recreation. This will reduce soil compact, sedimentation, litter, and noise disturbance. Riparian corridors should be enhanced where they are degraded. Cover is necessary for most wildlife species to use a corridor. Enhancement in riparian corridors consists primarily of planting appropriate native vegetation along the waterway. In addition to providing cover, this reduces sedimentation and pollution in the waterway. It has the added benefit of enhancing the stormwater control function of the waterway.” The mitigation measures outlined in Ecology’s model code under Table XX.2 (Bunten et al., 2012) can also be used to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; and includes maintaining connections to offsite areas that are undisturbed, and restoring corridors or connections to offsite habitats by replanting. Low Impact Development (LID) strategies, which are mainly geared towards improving water quality, can also have secondary benefits to wildlife (WDFW, 2009). 5.2 Assessment of Current Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Provisions The County’s regulations for FWHCAs are contained in JCC 18.22.195 through 18.22.280. These sections classify and designate FWHCAs per the state definition (WAC 365-190-130) and include those FWHCAs that are found only along shorelines or salt waters, such as: Commercial and recreational shellfish areas Kelp and eelgrass beds Surf smelt, Pacific herring, and Pacific sand lance spawning areas These FWHCAs are also protected and managed under the County’s SMP and could thus be removed from this section to improve clarity of County regulations. Information from the Tomassi (2004) wildlife habitat study does not appear to be integrated or codified in the FWHCA regulations. If the County is using the study or the habitat and corridor maps to condition development, this should be present in the regulations. The County uses the Washington Department of Natural Resources stream typing system for classifying streams as Type S, F, Np and Ns. Currently there is no description of the stream types and a reference to WAC 222-16-030 is found as a footnote to the stream buffer table. The FWHCA section could be revised to include a description of stream characteristics and typing to provide clarity to staff and applicants. The current stream and riparian buffers are consistent with BAS and range from 50 to 150 feet in width. Additional information on buffer widths could be considered as referenced above. The regulated activities could be improved through additional references to the WDFW guidance documents for fish passage and stream restoration. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 5-5 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 5.3 Conclusions The County’s FWHCA regulations address all types of habitats found in freshwater and saltwater environments. There is no reference to the County’s SMP and critical areas protection of habitats present within shoreline jurisdiction. Science relating to core habitat areas and corridors, both at the local level and state level, has been released since the County’s last BAS review. The County funded a habitat area and corridor study (Tomassi, 2004) that could be better integrated into the CAO and various WDFW publications should be incorporated as important guidance documents for staff and applicants. Lastly, we note that WDFW’s Landscape Planning for Washington’s Wildlife: Managing for Biodiversity in Developing Areas provides high level considerations for wildlife protection that could inform the County’s overall strategy for preserving wildlife habitat functions and values. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 6-1 Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas CHAPTER 6. AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN AND NEAR CRITICAL AREAS This chapter summarizes the scientific literature concerning critical areas located within and adjacent to land used for agricultural purposes and how they can affect or be affected by agricultural uses. The discussion focuses on multiple critical areas including wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a basis for reviewing agricultural activities provisions of County code to protect critical areas and agricultural uses. 6.1 Agriculture and Critical Areas in Jefferson County Most of the agricultural uses and farmland are located in eastern Jefferson County. Figure 6-1 represents the most recent agricultural census data for the County, which has nearly 221 farms totaling over 15,000 acres with the majority being small farms (70 acres on average) (USDA, 2012). From 2007 to 2012 the county has experienced a shifting trend in farm size, with 20% less farms 1 to 9 acres in size and more farms ranging between 10 and 500 acres in size (Figure 6-2). Only two farms in the County are over 500 acres and there are no farms over 1,000 acres (USDA, 2012). The number of cattle and calves sold between 2007 (549) and 2012 (1, 216), has increased approximately 50 percent. Farming remains a significant agricultural economic base and contributes to the rural character valued by County residents. Figure 6-1. Farms by size in Jefferson County using 2012 USDA Census of Agriculture data (USDA, 2012). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1-9 10-49 50-179 180-499 500-999 Nu m b e r o f f a r m s Size (acres) Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 6-2 December 2015 Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas Figure 6-2. Farms by size for 2007 and 2012 using USDA Census of Agriculture data (USDA 2007, 2012). The Jefferson County Farmer Survey 2012 Report (CLF, 2012) provides a summary of information and data collected from interviews with farmers in Jefferson County as part of a comprehensive farm survey. The interviews and survey report were completed by an ad-hoc committee of county citizens, called “Citizens for Local Food (CLF)”. The CLF was organized in response to the Jefferson County Planning Commission’s desire to make changes in the Jefferson County comprehensive plan to provide greater support for local farmers and farm land. To encourage the Planning Commission’s interest, the CLF took on four projects to achieve their goal, one of which was the farm survey. A total of 57 farms out of 87 identified by the CLF were interviewed as part of the survey. The majority of surveyed farms were located in the southern portion of eastern Jefferson County near the towns of Chimacum, Quilcene, Brinnon, Port Ludlow, and Coyle. The western portion of Jefferson County was not surveyed by the CLF as its focus was entirely in eastern Jefferson County since it is more densely populated. Farmers were asked a variety of questions, including whether critical areas were located on their property. The report found that a majority (56%) of farms surveyed had critical areas on their property, with many stating they had made improvements to protect critical areas (e.g. reforestation, fencing, bridges). The farmer survey report noted that there is a high level of voluntary stewardship exhibited by Jefferson County farmers that are protecting streams and riparian areas through installation of protective plant hedges along streams and pumping of water for livestock. In conclusion, the report provides recommendations regarding stream buffer widths and clarifying the permit process. In the Chimacum Creek watershed, the major impacts of agriculture on fish and wildlife habitat have been the channelization of Chimacum Creek, removal of riparian vegetation; draining of wetlands; bank erosion due to livestock access, and introduction of reed canarygrass to the watershed (Latham, 2004). Since the 1970’s, efforts by individual landowners, agencies and community groups have had positive impacts on fish and wildlife habitat within the watershed. As mentioned previously, the application of common agricultural BMPs is a long-standing practice on many farms in Jefferson County. In cooperation with the local conservation district, farmers in the county have worked to develop and 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1-9 10-49 50-179 180-499 500-999 Nu m b e r o f f a r m s Size (acres) 2007 2012 Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 6-3 Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas implement BMPs and farm plans. Most streams and ditches have been fenced to exclude livestock from the stream and stream banks; best management practices such as roof water management systems, pasture management, and livestock waste management have been implemented in a way that improved water quality in the County. 6.1.1 Regulations and Best Management Practices Agriculture is addressed in multiple sections of Jefferson County's critical areas regulations and specific provisions for agricultural activities and accessory uses occur in JCC 18.20.030. Existing and ongoing agricultural use is considered exempt and is not subject to land use permits or approvals provided the activities follow the requirements provided in JCC 18.20.030(2). However, new agriculture, defined as activities proposed or conducted after April 28, 2003 and that are not considered existing or ongoing agriculture is subject to critical areas regulations including standard stream and wetland buffers. Existing and ongoing agriculture is exempt from these provisions provided it is related to cultivating crops and grazing livestock and the land preparation associated with those agricultural activities, as stated in JCC 18.20.030(2)(b)(B). JCC 18.20.030(2)(b)(ii)(C) provides that “in exchange for this exemption from standard stream and wetland buffers, the agricultural communities in each Jefferson County watershed are expected to establish and implement appropriate agricultural best management practices (BMPs) in order to protect wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat areas from adverse impacts related to the practice of agriculture.” Agricultural BMPs are meant to protect the existing functions and values of critical areas (primarily fish and wildlife habitat, wetlands, and streams) from harm or degradation. In response to legal settlement agreement with the Washington Environmental Council in 2002, Jefferson County funded a watershed- level plan to provide protection of critical areas as required under the GMA and accommodate existing and ongoing agriculture that is conducted adjacent to streams. The plan was developed by the Jefferson County Conservation District (JCCD) who collaborated with agricultural stakeholders in the Chimacum Creek watershed and completed in 2004. The Chimacum Watershed Agriculture, Fish & Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan (Latham, 2004) lays out a framework for voluntary protection and improvements to fish and wildlife habitat on agricultural land that is compatible with maintaining agricultural capability. It establishes a “no harm or degradation” standard for landowners and operators to follow and describes agricultural protection standards for stream protection, or BMPs, for existing agricultural activities. The conservation district relies on NRCS Conservation Practice Standards as distributed in local Field Office Technical Guides (FOTGs). Conservation practice standards include information on why and where a practice is applied and sets forth the minimum quality criteria required during application of that practice for it to achieve its intended purpose. The state FOTGs are the primary scientific references for determining NRCS standard practices. They contain technical information about the conservation of soil, water, air, and related plant and animal resources. FOTGs are specific to the geographic area for which they are prepared. The BMPs described in detail in the Chimacum Watershed plan are the same as those in JCC 18.20.030(2)(b)(iii). According to the plan, BMPs should address five management areas: (I) Livestock and dairy management (II) Nutrient and farm chemical management Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 6-4 December 2015 Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas (III) Soil erosion and sediment control management (IV) Operation and maintenance of agricultural drainage infrastructure (V) Riparian management Landowners and operators are expected to use BMPs and meet the standards described through voluntary compliance. A plan for compliance and non-compliance is established in the plan that relies on the JCCD Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program to detect trends or conditions considered detrimental to fish and wildlife. Lastly, the plan includes descriptions and a set of habitat improvement recommendations for each stream reach of Chimacum Creek. The reach descriptions mention restoration efforts to date and potential sources of funding for the recommended improvements. 6.1.2 Voluntary Stewardship Program In 2011, Washington state adopted the Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP) (RCW 36.70A.705 – 904). The purpose of the VSP is to protect natural resources, including critical areas, while maintaining and enhancing the state's agricultural uses. It encourages voluntary local stewardship efforts as an alternative to critical areas regulation under the GMA. Counties are not required to implement the VSP until adequate state funding is available. Jefferson County considered the VSP program over a series of meetings with County staff, County Commissioners, stakeholders (agricultural, environmental, and tribal entities), and the public in 2011 and 2012. The commissioners held a public hearing and various avenues of public comment were made available. In 2012, the BOCC ultimately decided not to participate in the program and published a letter explaining the rationale behind the decision (Jefferson County BOCC, 2012). The BOCC stated a concern for unknowns and risks with program implementation, but noted positive value in the goals offered by the VSP such as the balance between protection of critical areas and maintaining the long- term viability of agriculture in the County and a focus on voluntary incentive programs that encourage stewardship. They also recognized the use of best management practices and farm plans, coupled with watershed-wide restoration efforts to protect critical areas and sustain agricultural activities. They noted that the County uses many of these same tools and approaches at a local level and in partnership with local stakeholders. The BOCC stated a willingness to consider the program in the future after funding is made available and if another opt-in period was made available to Washington communities. 6.2 Potential Agricultural Impacts and Effectiveness of Existing BMPs Like other types of land uses, farming and agricultural uses can have impacts on critical areas. These potential impacts fall into three general categories: Impacts on water quality; Impacts on hydrology (movement of water); and Impacts on wildlife habitat. The following discussion first describes the types of impacts in each category (water quality, hydrology, and habitat) and the types of agricultural activities most likely to cause each type of impact (summarized in Table 6-1). It then describes the BMPs listed in JCC 18.20.030 that address each of these potential impacts and evaluates the consistency of these BMPs with the best available science for Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 6-5 Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas protection of wetlands, FWHCAs, and floodplains. BAS references for Table 6-1 include additional BAS reviews and guidance documents, including the Whatcom County Critical Areas Ordinance – Best Available Science Review and Recommendations for Code Update (Whatcom County, 2005), and Pierce Conservation District Tips on Land & Water Management for Puget Sound Rural Living (2013). Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 6-6 Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas Table 6-1. Types of Potential Impacts from Agricultural Activities Type of Impact1 Agricultural Activities Potentially Resulting in Impact Critical Areas Affected References Wetlands Floodplains FWHCAs Water Quality Increased sediment in surface runoff Tilling Grading X X Sheldon et al., 2005 GEI, 2005 Pesticides and herbicides in surface runoff, erosion, subsurface drains, groundwater leaching, or airborne spray drift Pesticide, herbicide application X X Cornell, 2012 GEI, 2005 Excess nutrients in surface water or groundwater; potential eutrophication of wetlands (excess algal blooms and reduced oxygen in the water) Fertilizers Runoff of animal waste X X USGS, 2013 Burkart and Stoner, 2007 Smolders et al., 2007 GEI, 2005 Reduced opportunity for floodplain to provide water quality improvement functions due to faster surface water flow Channelizing streams in floodplain areas X Whatcom County, 2005 Hydrology Changes in amount or timing of water within or feeding existing wetlands through modification of hydrologic regime or topography. Irrigation Tilling X Sheldon et al., 2005 Reduction in floodplain capacity to store water Filling for floodproofing X Whatcom County, 2005 PCD, 2013 Increased surface runoff and reduced infiltration Paving Soil compaction Expansion or new (additional) agricultural structures X Whatcom County, 2005 Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 6-7 Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas Type of Impact1 Agricultural Activities Potentially Resulting in Impact Critical Areas Affected References Wetlands Floodplains FWHCAs Restricted movement of water through floodplain areas Constructing barriers (levees, embankments, bridges, culverts, walls) X Whatcom County, 2005 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Removal or fragmentation of wildlife habitat Clearing of native vegetation X X Sheldon et al., 2005 Conversion of wetlands to fields or pasture Tilling Filling Draining Removal of wetland vegetation X X Sheldon et al., 2005 Changes to the vegetation structure of riparian wetlands Livestock grazing X X Sheldon et al., 2005 PCD, 2013 Harm to aquatic species (e.g., amphibians) due to degradation of water quality Pesticide, herbicide application Fertilizers Runoff of animal waste X X De Solla et al., 2009 Zedler, 2003 Spread of nonnative invasive plant species (e.g., reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife) that can outcompete native plants and degrade wildlife habitat Runoff from fields containing weeds Wheels from mechanized farm equipment transport weed seeds from infested areas to areas of native vegetation X X X Sheldon et al., 2005 Zedler, 2003 Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board (website) Degradation of fish and wildlife habitat in floodplains Channelizing streams X X Whatcom County, 2005 Restricted movement of fish and wildlife, Constructing barriers X X Whatcom County, 2005 Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 6-8 December 2015 Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas Type of Impact1 Agricultural Activities Potentially Resulting in Impact Critical Areas Affected References Wetlands Floodplains FWHCAs along with sediment and wood that help to form habitat features (levees, embankments, bridges, culverts, walls) 1 If BMPs are used these impacts would likely occur at reduced levels. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 6-9 Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas 6.2.1 Water Quality As shown in Table 6-1, the primary pollutants of concern for agricultural uses in Washington State reported in BAS documents are pesticides and herbicides, nutrients (e.g., nitrate), and sediment. Some of these can enter streams as well as wetlands. Water pollution can also have indirect negative effects on the functions of these critical areas. For example, excess sediment can accumulate in wetlands, reducing the ability of the wetland to store flood waters or filter surface runoff over time. The use of agricultural buffers and vegetated filter strips has been well tested in the scientific literature. Numerous studies have confirmed that wetland buffers perform an important water quality function by trapping pollutants before they reach a wetland. In general, the wider the buffer, the more effective it is at protecting water quality. However, the width of a buffer is not the only factor that determines its effectiveness for protecting water quality functions. As discussed in detail in Chapter 3 Wetlands, the following additional factors contribute to the effectiveness of buffers to address water quality: Slope gradient and length Vegetation type, spacing, and density Soil type, geochemical and physical properties, infiltration rates, and soil water content Type and concentration of pollutants Flow path through the buffer (both surface and subsurface flow paths Adjacent land use practices The agricultural BMPs provided in JCC 18.20.030 are focused on protecting water quality by controlling sources of pollution by covering nutrient storage areas and limiting livestock access to streams and avoiding excessive sediment contribution to streams through proper construction measures. In a recent comprehensive review of surface water monitoring since the implementation of BMP, as summarized in detail in the following section (Section 6.2), the JCCD concluded that many of the BMPs have been successful at improving water quality and salmonid habitat (Gately et al. 2015). 6.2.2 Hydrology The primary hydrologic impacts that can result from agricultural activities reported in BAS documents are changes in the hydrologic characteristics within wetlands and streams, reduction in floodplain storage capacity, and blockage of water movement through floodplains (as summarized in Whatcom County, 2005 and Sheldon et al. 2005). In the Chimacum watershed of Jefferson County, the major agricultural impacts on streams and floodplains historically began when Chimacum Creek and its tributaries were channelized to allow for farming. Other activities such as tilling, soil compaction, irrigation, maintenance of drainage systems, and new fill or structures in the floodplain can contribute to ongoing impacts to the movement of surface water. The BMPs specified in JCC 18.20.030 may help to protect the hydrology of wetlands, FWHCAs, or floodplains, but no specific scientific review has been conducted on this topic. In terms of buffers, some studies have concluded that buffers alone do little to protect the hydrologic functions of wetlands; the impacts of land uses in the surrounding drainage basin appear to be a greater influence on wetland hydrology (Sheldon et al., 2005; Hruby, 2013). Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 6-10 December 2015 Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas 6.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Fish and wildlife habitat can be directly impacted by agriculture through channelization of streams and removal of native vegetation. Indirect effects on habitat include, for example, blocking the natural movement of water through floodplain areas, which in turn prevents large wood (an important habitat structure) from reaching floodplain wetlands. As another example, infestation by nonnative invasive vegetation such as reed canarygrass can reduce the diversity of native plants that provide wildlife habitat. Conversely, a stream channel overgrown by reed canarygrass can impact agricultural activities by reducing field drainage capacity. Removal of native vegetation can lead to habitat fragmentation. Agricultural practices have had an on-going impact on salmonid habitat in the Chimacum watershed as noted in the watershed characterization appendix of Latham (2004). Salmonids utilizing the watershed include summer chum, fall chum, pink, and coho salmon; steelhead, and cutthroat trout. The majority of salmonid use where agricultural uses are concentrated is juvenile rearing (not spawning). Factors affecting salmonids include the lack of riparian vegetation and associated high water temperature in the summer; lack of large woody debris and channel complexity, periods of low levels of dissolved oxygen, reed canargygrass infestations and reduced juvenile rearing habitat (from historic levels) (Correa, 2002). Specific salmonid species are affected differently, however, and the report states that impacts on summer chum by agriculture are minimal. Although summer chum are affected by high water temperature, the main limiting factor for this species is the high level of fines in the spawning gravel and it is unlikely that agricultural practices are responsible for this substandard condition (Latham, 2004). The agricultural BMPs provided in JCC 18.20.030 directly benefit critical areas by protecting water quality in streams, in particular temperature. In Whatcom County, Benedict and Shaw (2012) evaluated whether buffer width of planted buffers on agricultural waterways influence water temperature. The study monitored air temperature and effective shade in five buffer areas with widths of 0, 5, 15, 35, and 180 feet at four different planted agricultural waterways. The results of the study indicated that narrow (5 foot and 15 foot), dense buffers were just as effective as wide (35 foot and 180 foot) buffers in lowering air temperature and generating effective shade. In terms of protecting and maintaining riparian habitat for fish and wildlife, research in the past decade supports previous conclusions that larger, vegetated buffers are needed compared to those recommended for water quality improvement functions (as summarized in Hruby, 2013). The research also shows that there is a large variability in the habitat needs of species and that habitat needs are complex. Thus, while larger buffers are generally more effective to protect the habitat functions of wetlands, Hruby (2013) recommends a landscape-based approach, which incorporated with other factors, would better protect wetland-dependent species and provide habitat corridors to other habitat types. See Chapters 3 and 5 for discussion of wetland buffers and wildlife habitat. 6.3 Additional Recent Scientific Literature The following sections describe recent scientific studies published since the County’s last BAS review in addition to those mentioned previously. These studies warrant a detailed description due to relevance to agricultural uses and critical areas in Jefferson County. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 6-11 Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas 6.3.1 Washington Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Monitoring Summary The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) aims to restore and protect stream and riparian habitat for fish on agricultural land through financial incentives for farmers. About one third of salmon-bearing streams on private lands in Washington State cross through land used for agriculture. As an entirely voluntary program, farmers can be under a CREP contract 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 (FSA) and the Washington State Conservation Commission (WSCC), the CREP has been in service for about 14 years. Jefferson County farmers have established CREP buffers along Chimacum Creek since 2002 (Gately et al. 2015). Under CREP, a landowner is paid rent for land put into riparian buffers. Buffers can vary in width from 35 feet to 180 feet. Streams that have an ordinary high water level less than 15 feet wide and that flow into a fish bearing stream qualify for a 15-foot wide hedgerow buffer. Based on soil productivity, a landowner receives about $300 per acre per year for land installed in CREP. As a result of CREP, riparian restoration in Jefferson County has accelerated substantially (Gately et al. 2015). Restoration and protection methods implemented on CREP sites include buffers along streamside wetlands, installation of fencing and livestock watering facilities, and planting of native trees and shrubs. To ensure these methods are followed and become successful, WSCC monitors CREP sites by annually collecting data on acres treated, stream miles restored, number of contracts, feet of fencing installed and number of plants installed. Stream and riparian functions and conditions are monitored as well and include: plant survival, buffer plant diversity, canopy cover, bank erosion, and non-native species cover. In 2012, the WSCC provided the report, 2012 Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Results for the Washington Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP): Plant and Buffer Performance (Smith, 2012). Results from the report found that over 1,000 total contracts had been implemented since the program began, with most using the riparian forest buffer practice (with an average buffer width of 143 feet) followed by wetland enhancement and riparian hedgerow practices. The percent canopy cover found in CREP sites with longer (5-10 year) contracts was greater (approx. 72%) than those sites with shorter (1-4 year) contracts. Invasive species cover was also found to be low in CREP sites, ranging from 1 to 3 percent. Based on these results and others included in the report, WSCC determined that the CREP is a successful and growing program in restoring and protecting riparian areas on agricultural lands. 6.3.2 Washington Agricultural Caucus Riparian Buffer Review In 2002 and 2005, the Washington Agricultural Caucus, Washington Hop Commission, and the Ag Fish Water Process funded research analyzing the implications of mandated fixed-width riparian buffer zones on existing agricultural lands in Washington State for the protection of listed anadromous salmonids. The research was documented in two stages, Efficacy and Economics of Riparian Buffers on Agricultural Lands – State of Washington, Phase I and II (GEI, 2002 and 2005). The Phase I report reviewed and summarized BAS literature on agricultural buffer recommendations and riparian buffer zones. Findings from the Phase I review determined that proposed widths of agricultural riparian buffer zones have been mostly based on a set of timber harvest models and regulations and are not applicable to agricultural lands. Riparian buffer zones used to mitigate for timber harvest impacts may be wider (300 feet or more) than required for agriculture lands as research indicates narrower buffers (5 to 30 Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 6-12 December 2015 Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas meters) were just as effective for water filtration, sediment reduction, animal exclusion, shade, nutrient removal, and bank stabilization of agricultural streams (GEI, 2002). Based on its findings, the Phase I report concluded that instead of a fixed-width buffer for all agricultural streams, widths for riparian buffers should be site-specific and based on BAS specific to existing agricultural lands and uses that focus mainly on water quality protection. The Phase II report is a continuation of Phase I with a BAS literature review of additional scientific literature on buffer effectiveness and other BMPs. The report provides recommendations for BMPs applications specific to Washington agriculture and Appendix III of the report includes suggestions for minimum riparian buffers ranging between 25 and 60-feet for three different conditions within an existing agricultural settings. These three conditions are: Farms demonstrating BMPs implementation on slopes less than 7 percent in drier areas (18 inches of average annual precipitation) of the state to have a minimum vegetated riparian buffer width of 25-feet; Farms demonstrating BMPs implementation on slopes 7 percent or greater in wetter areas (more than 18 inches of average annual precipitation) of the state to have a minimum vegetated riparian buffer width of 35-feet; Farms that do not implement BMPs to have a minimum vegetated riparian buffer width of 60- feet. Several of the suggested BMPs from the Phase II review support the findings of the Phase I report and reduce the need for a wide-set buffer width. Some of these BMPs include: slope management, contouring, avoiding use of steep slopes, and proper irrigation techniques to filter runoff and/or stabilize streambanks (GEI, 2005). The report determined that BMPs to improve livestock management and reduce impacts resulting from grazing were dependent upon site conditions and the kinds of grazing management practices in place. Several studies supported site specific grazing plans that: 1) Include sufficient timing for vegetation re-growth; 2) Retain sufficient vegetation during peak flows to protect stream banks; 3) Limit grazing time and intensity; and 4) Create appealing areas for food, water, and rest away from streams, stream banks, and riparian vegetation with or without fencing (GEI, 2005). Like the Phase I report, the Phase II report highlights Jefferson County as an example of successful narrow buffer zone application and agricultural livestock management BMPs implementation that has improved water quality (reduced fecal coliform levels) in Chimacum Creek. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Field Office Technical Guides (FOTGs) are described in the Phase II report as BMPs practiced in Washington and support the agricultural BMPs listed in JCC 18.20.030(2) .The reports highlights key methods and management options beyond those provided by FOTGs in a NRCS review completed in 1997 that are specific to Washington agriculture. The key management options cover primarily water quality goals such as: soil erosion and sedimentation control; keeping nitrogen and chemicals out of streams; animal waste management; pesticide field losses and residues; water diversion and distribution systems; water application systems Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 6-13 Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas and efficiencies; active water application research and development; water management and cultivation-horticulture practices; and water management – fish and wildlife programs. 6.3.3 Chimacum Watershed Water Quality and Fishes Report The JCCD recently completed a comprehensive review of surface water monitoring since the implementation of BMPs to improve water quality and salmonid habitat in agricultural areas of the Chimacum watershed (Gately et al. 2015). Several monitoring parameters were assessed as part of the review and included: fecal coliform, temperature, dissolved oxygen, nitrate, pH, phosphorous, turbidity, and conductivity, as well as salmon and beaver presence. The majority of monitoring was conducted at twenty-eight stations throughout the watershed by the JCCD while some monitoring was completed by local groups, such as Chimacum High School and the North Olympic Salmon Coalition. Monitoring stations were located downstream and upstream of agricultural lands near the main stem of Chimacum Creek as well as its eastern fork. Key findings from the review include improving trends in fecal coliform concentrations, stream temperatures, dissolved oxygen and salmon returns. Although concentrations of fecal coliform in the last year of monitoring (2012) failed the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology)’s “extraordinary contact” standard at 25 of 28 monitoring stations, concentrations have declined over time since monitoring first began in 1988. In addition, human fecal coliform was more commonly detected in samples from monitored stations than ruminant fecal coliform. Over half of the stations monitored for temperature failed the 7-day average of the daily maximum temperature (16o as designated by USEPA Region 10 (2003)) standard in 2013. However, there has been a decreasing trend in temperature since monitoring started in 1998. Stream temperatures have dropped 1 degree Celsius in the main stem of Chimacum Creek and 2 degrees in the east fork of the creek. Similarly, many of the monitoring stations failed the 1-day minimum 9.5 mg/L standard for dissolved oxygen. With regards to fecal coliform, the report concludes that meeting Ecology’s standard 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. These factors also make it difficult to demonstrate improvements resulting from BMPs as distinguished from other pathways. Despite not meeting many of the above water quality standards set by Ecology, according to the JCCD’s review, the Chimacum watershed experienced record returns of summer chum and coho salmon. 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). The watershed has also seen an increasing trend in juvenile coho abundance in restoration sites. Similarly, beaver activity has been increasingly witnessed by the JCCD in the watershed, especially in forested buffers. Based on the findings from the review, the JCCD concluded that many of the BMPs as well as CREP buffers created by farmers have been successful at improving water quality and salmonid habitat, but improvements could still be made. Suggested improvements include off-channel watering facilities for livestock, and more funding/incentives for landowners to adopt CREP buffers and BMPs. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 6-14 December 2015 Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas 6.3.4 Working Buffers on Agricultural Lands Paper In cooperation with the NOAA Restoration Center and the Puget Sound Partnership, the Snohomish Conservation District (SCD) issued the paper: The Working Buffer Opportunity: A Proposal for Ecologically Sound and Economically Viable Riparian Buffers on Agriculture Lands (Dittbrenner et al., 2015). The paper promotes a more site-specific, integrated design of riparian buffers to improve riparian management in agricultural lands. The authors conclude that efforts to improve riparian management in these areas have been unsuccessful largely because of the conventional, “one-size-fits- all” approach to riparian buffer design. Instead, they propose a design with an inner riparian buffer zone bordered by an outer working buffer zone in combination with on-farm runoff management. As part of the design, buffer widths would remain flexible and site-specific to accomplish certain water quality or habitat functions. The “inner riparian buffer” zone would be used primarily to enhance stream habitat but could also be used for some low impact harvest practices (e.g. small fruit, wild greens, boughs, mushrooms). The outer “working buffer” zone would protect stream functions and mitigate water quality from on-farm runoff, while also incorporating agroforestry practices as a source of revenue to landowners. Figure 6-1 is a conceptual model of an integrated design using a riparian buffer zone, a working buffer zone, and integrated runoff management. Figure 6-1. Figure 4: Conceptual model of integrated design using a Riparian Buffer Zone, Working Buffer Zones, and integrated runoff management (from Dittbrenner et al., 2015) Agroforestry in the working buffer zone that is well- designed and integrated with runoff management practices can increase buffering functions on Working Buffer Zone Agroforestry Practices Forest Farming. Cultivation of specialty crops (mushrooms, medical plants, nursery cuttings, and ornamental plants) under a forest canopy. Alley Cropping. Growing an annual or perennial agricultural crop simultaneously with a long-term woody crop, both in rows, typically on contour. Silvopasture. The canopy is managed for timber or fruit/nut production while the understory is managed for seasonal and rotational livestock forage. Short Rotation Biomass. Frequently harvest fast-growing trees or shrubs that stump-sprout (willow, cottonwood, or hybrid poplar) are harvested for biomass. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 6-15 Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas agricultural lands. Agroforestry is the incorporation of trees into crop or livestock farming to increase ecological functions, increase yield, and diversify farm income. Agroforestry systems can be designed to provide a mix of ecological services while allowing harvest. By implementing what we call “working buffers”, the functional width of buffers can be increased while continuing to allow farmers to control and derive income from their land. The suggested agroforestry practices are specific to floodplains and riparian corridors and include: forest farming, alley cropping, silvopasture, and/or short return biomass (see sidebar). To encourage implementation of the working buffer concept, the SCD has created four templates that describe the agroforestry practices. The templates detail the ecological benefits provided by each practice, guidance for their prescription, and information on the installation and management of appropriate plant species. Additional information about working buffers including the templates can be found at: https://salishsearestoration.org/wiki/Working_Buffer_Pilot_Project Agroforestry practices have also been found to help mitigate the effects of climate change by sequestering carbon, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, allowing species migration, and increasing the resiliency of agriculture. This is especially important as climate models for the Pacific Northwest predict the area will see more intense and frequent flooding events in the winter as well as increased temperatures and less precipitation in the summer (CIG, 2013). Table 6-2 highlights how agroforestry practices can mitigate climate change effects (Schoenberger et al. 2012). Table 6-2. Climate change mitigation benefits from agroforestry practices. Climate change activity* Major climate change functions Agroforestry functions that support climate change mitigation and adaptation Mitigation Activities that reduce GHGs in the atmosphere or enhance the storage of GHGs stored in ecosystems Sequester Carbon Accumulate C in woody biomass Accumulate C in soil Reduce GHG Emissions Reduce fossil fuel consumption: Reduce equipment runs in areas with trees Reduce farmstead heating and cooling Reduce CO2 emissions from farmstead structures Reduce N2O emissions: By greater nutrient uptake through plant diversity By reduced N fertilizer application in tree component Enhance forage quality, thereby reducing CH4 Adaptation Actions to reduce or eliminate the negative effects of climate change or take advantage of the positive effects Reduce threats and enhance resilience Alter microclimate to reduce impact of extreme weather events on crop production Alter microclimate to maintain quality and quantity of forage production Alter microclimate to reduce livestock stress Proved greater habitat diversity to support Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 6-16 December 2015 Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas organisms (e.g. native pollinators, beneficial insects) Provide greater structural and functional diversity to maintain and protect natural resource services Create diversified production opportunities to reduce risk under fluctuating climate Allow species to migrate to more favorable conditions Provide travel corridors for species migration The working buffers paper concludes that the concept is not appropriate for all situations nor that the proposed agroforestry techniques will restore all ecological functions and resolve all conflicts, but rather it suggests working buffers can be “a vital component of a watershed strategy that could foster partnership between farmers in the business of growing food and public agents working to restore aquatic ecosystems.” 6.4 Conclusions Existing and ongoing agricultural uses and activities can have impacts on water quality, the flow of water, and wildlife habitat. Much of the impact can be minimized through application of agricultural BMPs used commonly on farms in Jefferson County and CREP buffers. The County’s current agricultural BMPs provided in JCC 18.20.030 are generally focused on protecting water quality and maintaining riparian habitat for fish and wildlife. The level of protection afforded by BMPs will be evaluated in the watershed characterization phase of this project. Information from this report and the watershed characterization report will inform development of options and recommendations for improving critical areas protection in and near agricultural activities. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 7-1 References CHAPTER 7. REFERENCES General References CTED (Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development). 2002. Citations of Recommended Sources of Best Available Science for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas. March 2002. Available at: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS- BAS-Citations-Final.pdf. CTED (Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development). 2007. Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protection Critical Areas within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act. January 2007. Available at: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-Critical-Areas-Assist-Handbook.pdf. CTED (Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development). 2007. Small Communities Critical Areas Ordinance Implementation Guidebook. June 2007. Available at: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-Small-Communities-Critical-Area-Ordinance- Implementation.pdf. Washington Administrative Code [WAC]. 365-190-080[3]. Critical Areas. Wetlands Baker, M E., D E. Weller, et al. 2006. Improved methods for quantifying potential nutrient interception by riparian buffers. Landscape Ecology 21(8):1327-1345. Baldwin, R.F., J.K. Calhoun. 2006. Conservation Planning for Amphibian Species with Complex Habitat Requirements: A Case Study Using Movements and Habitat Selection of the Wood Frog Rana sylvatica. Journal of Herpetology 40:443-454. Bartelt, P., C.R. Peterson. 2004. Sexual differences in the post-breeding movements and habitats selected by western toad (Bufo boreas) in southeastern Idaho. Herpetologica 60(4):455-467. Bauer, D.M., P.W.C. Paton. 2010. Are wetland regulations cost effective for species protection? A case study of amphibian metapopulations. Ecological Applications 20:798-815. Bunten, D., A.McMillan, R. Mraz, and J. Sikes. 2012. Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities. Western Washington Version. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 10-06-002. October 2012 2nd Revision. Olympia, WA. Christensen, D. 2004. Review of Best Available Science for 2004 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Update. Jefferson County Natural Resources Division. September 22, 2004. Corps and EPA (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and US Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Compensatory Mitigation for losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule. Federal Register 73(70): 19594-1970. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 7-2 December 2015 References Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2002. Guidance on Compensatory Mitigation Projects for Aquatic Resource Impacts Under the Corps Regulatory Program Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899; Regulatory Guidance Letter. No. 02-2. December 24, 2002. Available at: http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/RGLS/RGL2-02.pdf. Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). Report No. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. May 2010. Available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046494.pdf. Crawford, J.A. and R. Semlitsch. 2007. Estimation of core terrestrial habitat for stream-breeding salamanders and delineation of riparian buffers for protection of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 21:152-158. DeLuca, W.V., C. Studds, L.L. Rockwood, and P.P. Marra. 2004. Influence of land use on the integrity of marsh bird communities of Chesapeake Bay, USA. Wetlands 24:837-847. Denissoff, C. and D. Urban. 2012. Evaluating the Success of Wetland Mitigation Banks. National Wetlands Newsletter 34(4):8. Dosskey, M.G., M.J. Helmers, D.E. Eisenhauer, and K.D. Hoagland. 2002. Assessment of concentrated flow through riparian buffers. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 57:336-343. Dosskey, M G., P. Vidon, N.P. Gurwick, C.J. Allan, T.P Duval, and R. Lowrance. 2010. The Role of Riparian Vegetation in Protecting and Improving Chemical Water Quality in Streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 46(2):261-277. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2002. Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation Study Phase 2: Evaluating Success. Publication No. 02-06-009. January 2002. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0206009.pdf. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2008. Making Mitigation Work: The Report of the Mitigation that Works Forum. Ecology Publication No. 08-06-018. December 2008. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0806018.pdf. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2012a. Guidance on In-Lieu Fee Mitigation. Ecology Publication No. 12-06-012. December 2012. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1206012.pdf. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2012b. Interagency Regulatory Guide: Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation. Ecology Publication No. 12-06-015. December 2012. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1206015.html. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2015. Wetland Mitigation Banking. How to become a wetland mitigation bank sponsor. Accessed November 2015. Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/mitigation/banking/sponsor.html Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 7-3 References Ecology, Corps, and EPA (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and US Environmental Protection Agency). 2006a. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State— Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance. Ecology Publication: No. 06-06-011a. March 2006. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0606011a.pdf. Ecology, Corps, and EPA (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and US Environmental Protection Agency). 2006b. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State— Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans. Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011b. March 2006. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0606011b.pdf. Ecology, Corps, and WDFW (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation. Ecology Publication No. 12-06-015. December 2012. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1206015.pdf. Eigenbrod, F., S. Hecnar. 2009. Quantifying the road-effect zone: threshold effects of a motorway on anuran populations in Ontario, Canada. Ecology and Society 14(1): 24 online. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Massachusetts. Available at: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/wlman87.pdf. Francl, K.E. and S.B. Castleberry (2004). Small mammal communities of high elevation central Appalachian wetlands. American Midland Naturalist 151:388-398 Goldberg, C.S. and L.P. Waits 2010. Comparative landscape genetics of two pond-breeding amphibian species in a highly modified agricultural landscape. Molecular Ecology 19(17):3650-3663. Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No. 05-06-008. April 2005. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0506008.pdf. Gumiero, B., B. Boz, P. Cornelio, and S. Casella. 2011. Shallow groundwater nitrogen and denitrification in a newly afforested, subirrigated riparian buffer. Journal of Applied Ecology 48(5):1135-1144. Hannon, S. J., C. A. Paszkowski, S. Boutin, J. DeGroot, S.E. Macdonald, M. Wheatley, and B.R. Eaton (2002). Abundance and species composition of amphibians, small mammals, and songbirds in riparian forest buffer strips of varying widths in the boreal mixedwood of Alberta. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32:1784-1800. Hanowski, J., N. Danz, and J. Lind. 2006. Response of breeding bird communities to forest harvest around seasonal ponds in northern forests, USA. Ecology and Management 229:63-72. Harper, E., T.A.G. Rittenhouse, and R. Semlitsch. 2008. Demographic consequences of terrestrial habitat loss for pool breeding amphibians: predicting extinction risks associated with inadequate size of buffer zones. Conservation Biology 22:1205-1215. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 7-4 December 2015 References Hayes, M.P., T. Quinn, K.O. Richter, J.P Schuett-Hames, and J.T. Shean (2008). Maintaining lentic breeding amphibians in urbanizing landscapes: the case study of the Northern Red-legged frog (Rana aurora). Urban Herpetology. eds. J. C. Mitchell and R. E. Brown, Society for the study of amphibians and reptiles. pp.139-155. Henning, B.M. and A. J. Remsberg. 2009. Lakeshore vegetation effects on avian and anuran populations. American Naturalist 161:123-133. Hickey, M.B.C. and B. Doran. 2004. A review of the efficiency of buffer strips for the maintenance and enhancement of riparian ecosystems. Water Quality Research Journal Canada 39:311-317. Hoffman, C.C., C. Kjaergaard, J. Uusi-Kampa, H.C. Hansen and B. Kronvang. 2009. Phosphorus retention in riparian buffers: review of their efficiency. Journal Environmental Quality 38:1942- 1955. Homan, R.N., B.S. Windmiller, and M. Reed. 2004. Critical thresholds associated with habitat loss for two vernal pool-breeding amphibians. Ecological Applications 14(5):1547-1553. Houlahan, J E., P.A. Keddy, K. Makkay, and C.C. Findlay (2006). The effects of adjacent land use on wetland species richness and community composition. Wetlands 26(1):79-96. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. Washington Department of Ecology. Publication No. 04-06-025. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0406025.pdf. Hruby, T., K. Harper, and S. Stanley. 2009. Selecting Mitigation Sites using a Watershed Approach. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 09-06-032. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0906032.pdf Hruby, T. 2012. Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No. 10-06-011. March 2012. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1006011.pdf. Hruby, T. 2013. Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science, Final Report. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No. 13-06-011. October 2013. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1306011.pdf. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Washington Department of Ecology. Publication No. 14-06-029. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1406029.pdf. Kettlewell, C., V. Bouchard, D. Porej, M. Micacchion, J. Mack, D. White, and L. Fay. 2008. An Assessment of Wetland Impacts and Compensatory Mitigation in the Cuyahoga River Watershed, Ohio, USA. Wetlands. 28:57-67. Kihslinger, R. 2008. Success of Wetland Mitigation Projects, National Wetlands News. 30 (2): 14-16 (2008). Available at: Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 7-5 References http://www.tetonwyo.org/compplan/LDRUpdate/RuralAreas/Additional%20Resources/Kihsling er%202008.pdf. Mayer, P.M., S.K. Reynolds Jr., M.D. McCutchen, and T.J. Canfield. 2007. Meta-analysis of nitrogen removal in riparian buffers. Journal of Environmental Quality 36:1172- 1180. May, C.W. 2003. Stream-Riparian Ecosystems in the Puget Sound Lowland Eco-Region: A Review of Best Available Science. Watershed Ecology LLC. 76 pp. Marton, J., I. Creed, D. Lewis, C. Lane, N. Basu, M.Cohen, and C. Craft 2015. Geographically Isolated Wetlands are Important Biogeochemical Reactors on the Landscape. BioScience 65: 408–418. Martin, T.G., S. McIntyre, C.P. Catterall, and H.P. Possingham. 2006. Is landscape context important for riparian conservation? Birds in grassy woodland. Biological Conservation 127:201-214. McIntyre, C. 2011. Predicting amphibian occurrence based on wetland and landscape level factors in Montana. M.S. Thesis, University of Montana. McKinney, R A., K.B. Raposa,and R.M. Cournoyer. 2011. Wetlands as habitat in urbanizing landscapes: Patterns of bird abundance and occupancy. Landscape and Urban Planning 100(1-2):144-152. NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. The National Academies Press. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309074320. Owens, P.N., J.H. Duzant, L.K. Deeks, G.A. Wood, R.P.C. Morgan, and A.J. Collins. 2007. Evaluation of contrasting buffer features within an agricultural landscape for reducing sediment and sediment-associated phosphorus delivery to surface waters. Soil Use and Management 23(Suppl. 1):165-175. Pearson, S.F. and D A. Manuwal. 2001. Breeding Bird response to riparian buffer width in managed Pacific Northwest Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications 11:840-853. Polyakov, V., A. Fares, and M.C. Ryder. 2005. Precision riparian buffers for the control of nonpoint source pollutant loading into surface water: a review. Environmental Review 13:129-144. Ranalli, A. J. and D.L. Macalady. 2010. The importance of the riparian zone and instream processes in nitrite attenuation in undisturbed and agricultural watersheds – a review of the scientific literature. Journal of Hydrology 389:406-415. Ribeiro, R., M A. Carretero, N. Sillero, G. Alarcos, M. Ortiz-Santaliestra, M. Lizana, and G.A. Llorente. 2011. The pond network: can structural connectivity reflect on (amphibian) biodiversity patterns? Landscape Ecology 26(5):673-682. Richter, K.O. and A.L. Azous. 2001. Terrestrial small mammal distribution, abundance, and habitat use. Chapter 7, pages 201-220 in A.L. Azous and R.R. Horner (eds.), Wetlands and Urbanization: Implications for the Future. New York: Lewis Publishers. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 7-6 December 2015 References Richter, K.O., D.W. Kerr, and B.J. Earle (2008). Buffer-only wetland protection: implications for pond- breeding amphibians. Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell and R. E. J. Brown, Society for the Study of Amphibians & Reptiles. pp. 489-504. Rittenhouse, T. and R. Semlitsch. 2006. Grasslands as movement barriers for a forest associated salamander: migration behavior of and juvenile salamanders at a distinct habitat edge. Biological Conservation 131:14-22. Sahu, M. and R. R. Gu. 2009. Modeling the effects of riparian buffer zone and contour strips on stream water quality. Ecological Engineering 35(8):1167-1177. Semlitsch, R. 2007. Differentiating migration and dispersal processes for pond-breeding amphibians. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:260-267. Semlitsch, R. and J. R. Bodie. 2003. Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology 17(5):1219-1228. Semlitsch, R. and J. B. Jensen. 2001. Core habitat, not buffer zone. National Wetlands Newsletter July-August 2001:5-11. Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No. 05-06-006. March 2005. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0506006.pdf. Slawski, T. 2010. Managing the water's edge: Making natural connections. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Booklet 24pp. Smith, L. A. and P. ChowFraser. 2010. Impacts of adjacent land use and isolation on marsh bird communities. Environmental Management 45: 1040-1051. Smith, T.A., D.L. Osmond, C.E. Moorman, J.M. Stucky, and J.W. Gilliam (2008). Effect of vegetation management on bird habitat in riparian buffer zones. Southeastern Naturalist 7:277-288. Trenham, P.C. and H.B. Shaffer. 2005. Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for population viability. Ecological Applications 15:1158-1168. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Uusi-Kamppa, J. 2005. Phosphorus purification in buffer zones in cold climates. Ecological Engineering 24:491-502. Van Meter, K. and N. Basu. 2015. Signatures of human impact: size distributions and spatial organization of wetlands in the Prairie Pothole landscape. Ecological Applications, 25(2):451– 465 Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 7-7 References Washington Administrative Code [WAC]. 173-22-035. Wetland Identification and Delineation. Washington Administrative Code [WAC]. 365-190-080[3]. Critical Areas. Yuan, Y.P., R.L. Bingner, and M.A. Locke. 2009. A Review of effectiveness of vegetative buffers on sediment trapping in agricultural areas. Ecohydrology 2(3):321-336. Zhang, X., X. Liu, M. Zhang, and R.A. Dahlgren. 2010. A review of vegetated buffers and a meta- analysis of their mitigation efficacy in reducing nonpoint source pollution. Journal of Environmental Quality 39:76-84. Frequently Flooded Areas Bolton, S. and J. Shellberg. 2001. Ecological issues in floodplains and riparian corridors. White paper prepared for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology and Washington Department of Transportation. University of Washington, Center for Streamside Studies. Dalton, M.M., P.W. Mote, and A.K. Snover [Eds.]. 2013. Climate Change in the Northwest: Implications for Our Landscapes, Waters, and Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2012. Preparing for a Changing Climate Washington State’s Integrated Climate Response Strategy. Publication No. 12-01-004. April 2012. Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/ipa_responsestrategy.htm#REPORT. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2014. A Methodology for Delineating Planning- Level Channel Migration Zones. Publication No. 14-06-025. July 2014. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1406025.pdf. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2015a. Channel migration zones (CMZs) information. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st_guide/jurisdiction/CMZ.html. Accessed November, 2015. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2015b. Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Guidance for Frequently Flooded Areas. Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/floods/FloodedAreaGuidance.html. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2009. National Flood Insurance Program - Floodplain Management Guidebook. FEMA - Region 10. Bothell, WA. March 2009. Available at: http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1647-20490- 1041/nfipguidebook_5edition_web.pdf. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2013. Community Rating System Coordinator’s Manual. OMB No. 1660-0022. Available at: http://www.fema.gov/media-library- data/1406897194816-fc66ac50a3af94634751342cb35666cd/FIA-15_NFIP-Coordinators- Manual_2014.pdf Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 7-8 December 2015 References FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2013. Model Ordinance for Floodplain Management under the National Flood Insurance Program and the Endangered Species Act. FEMA - Region 10. November 2013. Available at: http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1383597893424- 4747f702310a2bbc7e04ea83d66f73f5/NFIP_ESA_Model_Ordinance.pdf. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2013. Regional Guidance For Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation in the Puget Sound Basin. August 2013. Available at: http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1383598118060- e34756afe271d52a0498b3a00105c87b/Puget_Sound_R10_Habitat_Assess_guide.pdf. Huppert, D.D., A. Moore and K. Dyson. 2009. Impacts of Climate Change on the Coasts of Washington State. Chapter 8 in The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment. Available at: http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciach8coasts651.pdf. ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2007. Climate change impacts on Columbia River basin fish and wildlife. ISAB, Report 2007-2, Portland, Oregon. Available at: http://www.nwcouncil.org/media/31247/isab2007_2.pdf. Klawon. J.E. 2004. Channel Migration Zone Study for the Duckabush, Dosewalips, Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene Rivers, Jefferson County, Washington. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation. September 2004. Kusler, J.A. 2011. Assessing the Natural and Beneficial Functions of floodplains: Issues and approaches; future directions. Prepared for the Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc. Berne, NY. October 18, 2011. Available at: http://www.aswm.org/pdf_lib/nbf.pdf Legg. N.T., P.L. Olson. 2014. Channel Migration Processes and Patterns in Western Washington: A Synthesis for Floodplain Management and Restoration. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication no. 14-06-028. August 2014. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1406028.pdf. Mantua, N.J., I.Tohver, and A. Hamlet. 2009. Impacts of Climate Change on Key Aspects of Freshwater Salmon Habitat in Washington State. Climate Impact Group, 2009, Ch. 6, pp. 217- 253; The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment. M. McGuire Elsner, J. Little and L. Whitely Binder (eds). Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. MRSC (Municipal Research and Services Center). 2015. The National Flood Insurance Program and the Impacts of the Biological Opinion. Available at: http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Public- Safety/Emergency-Services/Flood-Hazard-Management-Planning-(1)/The-National-Flood- Insurance-Program-and-the-Impac.aspx. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 7-9 References NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation Final Biological Opinion And Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation, Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington Phase One Document – Puget Sound Region. September 2008. Available at: http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1900-25045- 9907/nfip_biological_opinion_puget_sound.pdf Perkins, S. 2006. Channel Migration Hazard Maps for the Dosewalips, Duckabush, Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene Rivers Jefferson County, Washington Final Report. Prepared for Jefferson County Natural Resources Division and Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development. February 2006. PSP (Puget Sound Partnership). 2010. Floodplain Management: A Synthesis of Issues Affecting Recovery of Puget Sound. Prepared by Millie Judge (Lighthouse Natural Resource Consulting, Inc.); David St. John (PSP) and Caitlin Imaki (PSP). Available at: http://www.psp.wa.gov/vitalsigns/documents/Floodplain_Management_Report%20Judge%20 Final-July%202010.pdf. Rosenburg, E.A., P. Keys, D. Booth, D. Hartley, J. Burkey, A. Steinemann, D. Lettenmaier. 2009. Precipitation Extremes and the Impacts of Climate Change on Stormwater Infrastructure in Washington State. Chapter 9 in The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment. Available at: http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciach9storminfra652.pdf. Steiger J., E. Tabacchi, S. Dufour, D. Corenblit, and J.L. Peiry. 2005. Hydrogeomorphic processes affecting riparian habitat within alluvial channel-floodplain river systems: A review for the temperate zone. River Research and Applications 21(7): 719–737. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Barnard, R. J., J. Johnson, P. Brooks, K. M. Bates, B. Heiner, J. P. Klavas, D.C. Ponder, P.D. Smith, and P. D. Powers (2013), Water Crossings Design Guidelines, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Battin, J., M.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. Korb, K.K. Bartz, and H. Imaki. 2007. Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 10.1073/pnas.0701685104. Correa, G. 2002. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors – Water Resource Inventory Area 17 Quilcene-Snow Basin. Washington State Conservation Commission Final Report. Cramer, Michelle L. (managing editor). 2012. Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines. Co-published by the Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, Transportation and Ecology, Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, Puget Sound Partnership, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Olympia, Washington. Gately, G., J. Clarke, D. Ecelberger, C. Schrader. 2015. Chimacum Watershed Water Quality and Fishes: A Comprehensive Review. Prepared by Jefferson County Conservation District. Port Hadlock, WA. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 7-10 December 2015 References Knight, K. 2009. Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. Knutson, K. L., and Naef, V. L. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority habitats: Riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 181 pp. Larsen, E., J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. 2004. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Martin, T.G., S. McIntyre, C.P. Catterall, and H.P. Possingham. 2006. Is landscape context important for riparian conservation? Birds in grassy woodland. Biological Conservation 127:201-214. Mayer, P.M., S.K. Reynolds Jr., M.D. McCutchen, and T.J. Canfield. 2007. Meta-analysis of nitrogen removal in riparian buffers. Journal of Environmental Quality 36:1172- 1180. McIntyre, C. 2011. Predicting amphibian occurrence based on wetland and landscape level factors in Montana. M.S. Thesis, University of Montana. May, C.W. 2003. Stream-riparian ecosystems in Puget Sound lowland eco-region: A review of best available science. Watershed Ecology LLC. Ousley, N.K., L. Bauer, C. Parsons, R.R. Robinson, and J. Unwin. 2003, Updated 2007. Critical areas assistance handbook. Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development, Olympia, Washington. Available at: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-Critical-Areas-Assist-Handbook.pdf. Pearson, S.F. and D A. Manuwal. 2001. Breeding Bird response to riparian buffer width in managed Pacific Northwest Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications 11:840-853. Polyakov, V., A. Fares, and M.C. Ryder. 2005. Precision riparian buffers for the control of nonpoint source pollutant loading into surface water: a review. Environmental Review 13:129-144. Ranalli, A. J. and D.L. Macalady. 2010. The importance of the riparian zone and instream processes in nitrite attenuation in undisturbed and agricultural watersheds – a review of the scientific literature. Journal of Hydrology 389:406-415. Ribeiro, R., M A. Carretero, N. Sillero, G. Alarcos, M. Ortiz-Santaliestra, M. Lizana, and G.A. Llorente. 2011. The pond network: can structural connectivity reflect on(amphibian) biodiversity patterns? Landscape Ecology 26(5):673-682. Richter, K.O., D.W. Kerr, and B.J. Earle (2008). Buffer-only wetland protection: implications for pond- breeding amphibians. Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell and R. E. J. Brown, Society for the Study of Amphibians & Reptiles. pp. 489-504. Rittenhouse, T. and R. Semlitsch. 2006. Grasslands as movement barriers for a forest associated salamander: migration behavior of and juvenile salamanders at a distinct habitat edge. Biological Conservation 131:14-22. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 7-11 References Roberts, W.M., M.I. Stutter, and P.M. Haygarth. 2012. Phosphorous retention and remobilization in vegetated buffer strips: a review. Journal of Environmental Quality 41:389-399. Sahu, M. and R. R. Gu. 2009. Modeling the effects of riparian buffer zone and contour strips on stream water quality. Ecological Engineering 35(8):1167-1177.Semlitsch, R. and J. R. Bodie. 2003. Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology 17(5):1219-1228. Semlitsch and Jensen. 2001. Core Habitat, Not Buffer Zone. National Wetlands Newsletter: 23(4). Accessible at: http://www.northinlet.sc.edu/training/media/2011/06142011IsolatedWetlands/RESOURCES/CO RE_HABITAT.pdf Stanley, S., S. Grigsby, D. B. Booth, D. Hartley, R. Horner, T. Hruby, J. Thomas, P. Bissonnette, R. Fuerstenberg, J. Lee, P. Olson, George Wilhere. 2011. Puget Sound Characterization. Volume 1: The Water Resources Assessments (Water Flow and Water Quality). Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No. 11-06-016. Olympia, WA. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1106016.pdf. Stutter, M.I. and S. Richards. 2012. Relationships between soil physiochemical, microbiological properties, and nutrient release in buffer soils compared to field soils. Journal of Environmental Quality 41:400-409. Stutter, M.I., W.J. Chardon, and B. Kronvang. 2012. Riparian buffer strips as a multifunctional management tool in agricultural landscapes: Introduction. Journal of Environmental Quality 41:297-303. Syverson, N., and M. Bechmann. 2004. Vegetative buffer zones as pesticide filters for simulated surface runoff. Ecological Engineering 22: 175-184. Smith, L. A. and P. ChowFraser. 2010. Impacts of adjacent land use and isolation on marsh bird communities. Environmental Management 45: 1040-1051. Smith, T.A., D.L. Osmond, C.E. Moorman, J.M. Stucky, and J.W. Gilliam (2008). Effect of vegetation management on bird habitat in riparian buffer zones. Southeastern Naturalist 7:277-288. Tomassi, S. 2004. Management Strategies for Core Wildlife Habitat Areas in Eastern Jefferson County. Prepared for Jefferson County Natural Resources Division. March 2014. Trenham, P.C. and H.B. Shaffer. 2005. Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for population viability. Ecological Applications 15:1158-1168. Washington Administrative Code [WAC]. 232-12-292. Bald Eagle Protection Rules. Washington Administrative Code [WAC]. 365-190-080[3]. Critical Areas. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Landscape Planning for Washington’s Wildlife: Managing for Biodiversity in Developing Areas. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 7-12 December 2015 References WDFW (Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2009. Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead, and Trout: A Land Use Planner's Guide to Salmon Habitat Protection and Recovery. October 2009. Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Program. Wilhere, G.F., T. Quinn, D. Gombert, J. Jacobson, and A. Weiss. 2013. A Coarse-scale Assessment of the Relative Value of Small Drainage Areas and Marine Shorelines for the Conservation of Fish and Wildlife Habitats in Puget Sound Basin. Washington Department Fish and Wildlife, Habitat Program, Olympia, Washington. Available at: ftp://www.ecy.wa.gov/gis_a/inlandWaters/ps_project/Docs/Watershed_Characterization_WDF W_Report_Final_Dec2013.pdf. Agricultural Activities Benedict, C. and J. Shaw. 2012. Agricultural Waterway Buffer Study – Whatcom County, Washington. Prepared by Washington State University Whatcom County Extension. Bellingham, WA. Buffler, S., C. Johnson, J. Nicholson, and N. Mesner. 2005. Synthesis of design guidelines and experimental data for water quality function in agricultural landscapes in the Intermountain West. USDA Forest Service/UNL Faculty Publications. Paper 13. Burkhart, M.R. and J.D. Stoner. 2007. Nitrate in aquifers beneath agricultural systems. Water Science Technology 56(1): 56-69. CIG (Climate Impacts Group). 2013. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in Washington State: Technical Summaries for Decision Makers. University of Washington. CLF (Citizens for Local Food). 2012. Jefferson County Farmer Survey 2012 Report. Port Townsend, WA. Cornell University Cooperative Extension. 2012. Pesticides and Groundwater: A Guide for the Pesticide User. Available at: http://psep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/pest-gr-gud-grw89.aspx. Correa, G. 2002. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors – Water Resource Inventory Area 17 Quilcene-Snow Basin. Washington State Conservation Commission Final Report. De Solla, S.R., K.E. Pettit, C.A. Bishop, K.M. Cheng, and J.E. Elliott. 2002. Effects of agricultural runoff on native amphibians in the Lower Fraser River Valley, British Columbia, Canada. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21(2): 353-360. Dittbrenner, C., P. Cereghino, E. Hagan. 2015. The Working Buffer Opportunity: A proposal for ecologically sound and economical viable riparian buffers on agricultural lands. Snohomish Conservation District. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Section 404 and Swampbuster: Wetlands on Agricultural Lands. Available: http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/wetlands/facts/fact19.cfm. GEI Consultants, Inc. 2002. Efficacy and Economics of Riparian Buffers on Agricultural Lands – State of Washington Phase I. Prepared for Washington Agricultural Caucus. October 2002. Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final December 2015 Page 7-13 References GEI Consultants, Inc. 2005. Efficacy and Economics of Riparian Buffers on Agricultural Lands – State of Washington Phase II. Prepared for Washington Agricultural Caucus. July 2005. Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). 2012. Letter to interested parties and stakeholders re: ESHB 1886 Voluntary Stewardship Program and Jefferson County dated February 6, 2012. BOCC members Phil Johnson, David W. Sullivan, and John Austin. Port Townsend, WA. Latham, A. 2004. Chimacum Watershed Agriculture, Fish & Wildlife Protection Plan. Prepared by Jefferson County Conservation District. Port Hadlock, WA. Owens, P.N., J.H. Duzant, L.K. Deeks, G.A. Wood, R.P.C. Morgan, and A.J. Collins. 2007. Evaluation of contrasting buffer features within an agricultural landscape for reducing sediment and sediment-associated phosphorus. PCD (Pierce Conservation District). 2013. Tips on Land & Water Management for Puget Sound Rural Living. Schoeneberger, M., G. Bentrup, H. de Gooijer, R. Soolanayakanahally, T. Sauer, J. Brandle, X. Zhou, and D. Current. 2012. Branching out: agroforestry as a climate change mitigation and adaptation tool for agriculture. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Vol 67, No. 5. Smalling, K.L, R. Reeves, E.L. Muths, M. Vandever, W.A. Battaglin, M.L. Hladik, and C.L. Pierce. 2015. Pesticide concentrations in frog tissue and wetland habitats in a landscape dominated by agriculture. Science of the Total Environment Volume 502: 80-90. Smith, C. 2012. 2012 Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Results for the Washington Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP): Plant and Buffer Performance. Washington State Conservation Commission. December 2012. Smolders, A.J.P., E. Lucassen, R. Bobbink, J.G.M. Roelofs, and L.P.M. Lamers. 2009. How nitrate leaching from agricultural lands provokes phosphate eutrophication in groundwater fed wetlands: The sulphur bridge. Biogeochemistry. Published online November 5, 2009. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture. US Summary and State Data. Available at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/ USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2007. Census of Agriculture. Table 1: County Summary Highlights 2012. Available at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_ Level/Washington/st53_2_001_001.pdf USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2012. Census of Agriculture. Table 1: County Summary Highlights 2012. Available at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_ Level/Washington/st53_2_001_001.pdf Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report Final Page 7-14 December 2015 References USDA NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resource Conservation Service). 2015. National Conservation Practice Standards. Available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/cp/ncps/# USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2013. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008–3063. Distribution of Elevated Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water in Washington State. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3063/ Whatcom County. 2005. Whatcom County Critical Areas Ordinance – Best Available Science Review and Recommendations for Code Update. Whatcom County Planning and Development Services. May 2005. Yuan, Y.P., R.L. Bingner, and M.A. Locke. 2009. A review of effectiveness of vegetative buffers on sediment trapping in agricultural areas. Ecohydrology 2(3):321-336. Zedler, J.B. 2003. Wetlands at your service: Reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Front Ecol Environ 2003, 1(2): 65-72. Zhang, X., X. Liu, M. Zhang, and R.A. Dahlgren. 2010. A review of vegetated buffers and a meta- analysis of their mitigation efficacy in reducing nonpoint source pollution. Journal of Environmental Quality 39:76-84. 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. Port Townsend DabobBay Squamish Harbor Discovery Bay Port Townsend Bay PUGET SOUND Admiralty Inlet HOOD CANAL K i l i s u t H a r b o r Leland Lake CrockerLake LordsLake AndersonLake STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA OakBay Brinnon Marrowstone PortHadlock-Irondale Quilcene NE Jefferson DiscoveryBay NorthHoodCanalChimacumCreek LudlowCreek DabobBay SE HoodCanalQuilcene Bay SW HoodCanal S a l m o n C r e e k Thor n d y k e C r e e k DuckabushRiver Tunnel Creek P e n n y Creek S p e n c e rCreek M c d o n aldCreek Marple Creek RockyBrook Creek E a s t F o r k C him a c u m C r e e k Chimacum C r e e k S n ow Creek Fulton Cre e k B i g Q u i l c e n e R i v e r L u d l o w C r e e k Littl e Q uilceneRiv e r L e l a n d C r e e k Tarboo C r e e k E a g l e C r e e k D o n o v a n C r e e k T o w n s e n d C re e k R i x o n C r e e k CedarCreek Do sewallips River Copyright:© 2014 Esri Jefferson County CAO. 150524Figure 1Watershed Analysis Units SOURCE:ESA 2015; Ecology 2014; Jefferson County 2015; OSM 2014 County Boundary National Forest Major Stream WRIA Watershed Analysis Unit 0 4 Miles W R I A 17:Q u i l c ene -Snow W R I A 1 7 : Q u i l c e n e - S n o w W R I A 1 7 :Q u i l c e n e -S n o w W R I A 1 5 :K i t s a p W R I A 1 6 :S k o k o m i s h -Dosewallips W R I A 1 7 :Q u i l c e n e -S n o w W R I A 1 8 :E l w h a -D u n g e n e s s W R I A 6 : I s l a n d Discovery Bay Port Townsend Bay Por t Towns end Ci t y Li m its Oak Bay LudlowBay Strait of Juan de Fuca Kala Point AdmiraltyInlet GlenCove Port TownsendPaper Corporation Port HudsonMarina Fort TownsendState Park PortHadlock-Irondale Chimacum B e a v e r V a ll e y C e n t e r V a l l e y Mats Mats Bay ScowBay MysteryBay Marrowstone PortageCanal Fort FlaglerState Park CranePoint KillisutHarbor NodulePoint PortLudlow DiscoveryBay AdelmaBeach BeckettPoint E a s t F o r k C hi m a c u m C r e e k S h i n e C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k W a t e r S t Mill Rd WSi m s W a y A n d e r s o n R d F l a g l e r R d S t a t e R o u t e 2 0 Airp ort C utoff R d Flagler Campgrou n d R d K n a p p C i r c l e E R d 53rdSt W L o o p R d W a s h i n g t o n S t N O t t o S t F St N R d W alk er St W St Freeman St FredericksSt 12th St C r a v e n R d 19th St S t a t e H w y 1 0 4 L a w r e n c e S t 49th St S n o w C r e e k R d ParadiseBayRd P r o s p e c t Ave Andy C o oper R d S h e r i d a n S t R h o d y D r i v e FourCornersRd D i s c o v e r y R d Hastings Ave Anderson Lake Rd Eaglemount Rd StateRoute104 Hastings Ave W W a h l L a k e R d O ak B ay R d CapeGeorge R d S D i s c o v e r y R d O t t o S t Robbins Rd W R d C h i m a c u m R d B e a v e r V a l l e y R d W UncasRd E M a r r o w s t o n e R d D a b o b R d W V a l l e y R d C e n t e r R d Leland Creek C h i m a c u m C r e e k A n d r e w s C r e e k LudlowCreek S n o w C r e e k Tarboo Cre e k StrangersLake BuckmansLake MorganHillReservoir TibbalsLake AndersonLake SunsetLake BeausiteLakeGibbsLake DelantyLake BrownsLake CrockerLake PetersonLake LudlowLake LarsonLakeTarbooLake LelandLake TealLake SandyShoreLake HorseshoeLake N E J E F F E R S O N N O R T HHOODCANALCHIMACUMCREEK L U D L O WCREEK Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 2aHydrography - Chimacum Creek, Ludlow Creek, NE Jefferson, N Hood Canal Watersheds U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 2 _N o r t h _E n d \F i g 2 a _H y d r o g r a p h y .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; USFWS, 2015 0 2 Miles Critical Aquifer Recharge AreaWetlandStreamWaterbodyWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend Discovery Bay Port Townsend Bay Por t Towns end Ci t y Li m its Oak Bay LudlowBay Strait of Juan de Fuca Kala Point AdmiraltyInlet GlenCove Port TownsendPaper Corporation Port HudsonMarina Fort TownsendState Park PortHadlock-Irondale Chimacum B e a v e r V a ll e y C e n t e r V a l l e y Mats Mats Bay ScowBay MysteryBay Marrowstone PortageCanal Fort FlaglerState Park CranePoint KillisutHarbor NodulePoint PortLudlow DiscoveryBay AdelmaBeach BeckettPoint E a s t F o r k C hi m a c u m C r e e k S h i n e C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k W a t e r S t Mill Rd WSi m s W a y A n d e r s o n R d F l a g l e r R d S t a t e R o u t e 2 0 Airp ort C utoff R d Flagler Campgrou n d R d K n a p p C i r c l e E R d 53rdSt W L o o p R d W a s h i n g t o n S t N O t t o S t F St N R d W alk er St W St Freeman St FredericksSt 12th St C r a v e n R d 19th St S t a t e H w y 1 0 4 L a w r e n c e S t 49th St S n o w C r e e k R d ParadiseBayRd P r o s p e c t Ave Andy C o oper R d S h e r i d a n S t R h o d y D r i v e FourCornersRd D i s c o v e r y R d Hastings Ave Anderson Lake Rd Eaglemount Rd StateRoute104 Hastings Ave W W a h l L a k e R d O ak B ay R d CapeGeorge R d S D i s c o v e r y R d O t t o S t Robbins Rd W R d C h i m a c u m R d B e a v e r V a l l e y R d W UncasRd E M a r r o w s t o n e R d D a b o b R d W V a l l e y R d C e n t e r R d Leland Creek C h i m a c u m C r e e k A n d r e w s C r e e k LudlowCreek S n o w C r e e k Tarboo Cre e k StrangersLake BuckmansLake MorganHillReservoir TibbalsLake AndersonLake SunsetLake BeausiteLakeGibbsLake DelantyLake BrownsLake CrockerLake PetersonLake LudlowLake LarsonLakeTarbooLake LelandLake TealLake SandyShoreLake HorseshoeLake N E J E F F E R S O N N O R T HHOODCANALCHIMACUMCREEK L U D L O WCREEK Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 2b Geologic Hazards - Chimacum Creek, Ludlow Creek, NE Jefferson, N Hood Canal Watersheds U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 2 _N o r t h _E n d \F i g 2 b _G e o l o g i c _H a z a r d s .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015 0 2 Miles Landslide Hazard AreaSeismic Hazard AreaErosion Hazard AreaStream (Major)WaterbodyWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend Discovery Bay Port Townsend Bay Por t Towns end Ci t y Li m its Oak Bay LudlowBay Strait of Juan de Fuca Kala Point AdmiraltyInlet GlenCove Port TownsendPaper Corporation Port HudsonMarina Fort TownsendState Park PortHadlock-Irondale Chimacum B e a v e r V a ll e y C e n t e r V a l l e y Mats Mats Bay ScowBay MysteryBay Marrowstone PortageCanal Fort FlaglerState Park CranePoint KillisutHarbor NodulePoint PortLudlow DiscoveryBay AdelmaBeach BeckettPoint E a s t F o r k C hi m a c u m C r e e k S h i n e C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k W a t e r S t Mill Rd WSi m s W a y A n d e r s o n R d F l a g l e r R d S t a t e R o u t e 2 0 Airp ort C utoff R d Flagler Campgrou n d R d K n a p p C i r c l e E R d 53rdSt W L o o p R d W a s h i n g t o n S t N O t t o S t F St N R d W alk er St W St Freeman St FredericksSt 12th St C r a v e n R d 19th St S t a t e H w y 1 0 4 L a w r e n c e S t 49th St S n o w C r e e k R d ParadiseBayRd P r o s p e c t Ave Andy C o oper R d S h e r i d a n S t R h o d y D r i v e FourCornersRd D i s c o v e r y R d Hastings Ave Anderson Lake Rd Eaglemount Rd StateRoute104 Hastings Ave W W a h l L a k e R d O ak B ay R d CapeGeorge R d S D i s c o v e r y R d O t t o S t Robbins Rd W R d C h i m a c u m R d B e a v e r V a l l e y R d W UncasRd E M a r r o w s t o n e R d D a b o b R d W V a l l e y R d C e n t e r R d Leland Creek C h i m a c u m C r e e k A n d r e w s C r e e k LudlowCreek S n o w C r e e k Tarboo Cre e k StrangersLake BuckmansLake MorganHillReservoir TibbalsLake AndersonLake SunsetLake BeausiteLakeGibbsLake DelantyLake BrownsLake CrockerLake PetersonLake LudlowLake LarsonLakeTarbooLake LelandLake TealLake SandyShoreLake HorseshoeLake N E J E F F E R S O N N O R T HHOODCANALCHIMACUMCREEK L U D L O WCREEK Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 2cFEMA Floodplain - Chimacum Creek, Ludlow Creek, NE Jefferson, N Hood Canal Watersheds U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 2 _N o r t h _E n d \F i g 2 c _F E M A _F l o o d _P l a i n .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; FEMA, 1996 0 2 Miles FEMA 100-Year FloodplainStream (Major)WaterbodyWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend Discovery Bay Port Townsend Bay Po rt To wn send C ity L imi ts Oak Bay LudlowBay Strait of Juan de Fuca Kala Point AdmiraltyInlet GlenCove Port TownsendPaper Corporation Port HudsonMarina Fort TownsendState Park PortHadlock-Irondale Chimacum B e a v e r V a ll e y C e n t e r V a l l e y Mats Mats Bay ScowBay MysteryBay Marrowstone PortageCanal Fort FlaglerState Park CranePoint KillisutHarbor NodulePoint PortLudlow Squamish Harbor Gardiner DiscoveryBay AdelmaBeach BeckettPoint BywaterBay N E J E F F E R S O N N O R T H H O O DCANAL C H I M A C U MCREEK L U D L O WCREEK Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 2dZoning - Chimacum Creek, Ludlow Creek, NE Jefferson, N Hood Canal Watersheds U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 2 _N o r t h _E n d \F i g 2 d _Z o n i n g .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; USGS, 2015 0 2 Miles ZoningComm. Ag 20Comm. Forest-80Comm. Forest/Min. 80Convenience X-roadGen. X-road Heavy Ind.Inholding Forest 20Light Ind.Light Ind./Comm.Light Ind./Manu.Local Ag 20 Neighborhood X-roadParksPublic Facility-AirportPublic Facility-WasteResort-FacilitiesResort-Multi Family Resort-Open SpaceResort-RecreationResort-SF Tracts 1:2.5Resort-Single FamilyRur. Forest-40Rur. Residential-10 Rur. Residential-20Rur. Residential-5UGA- Mod Den. Res. 7-12UGA-High Den. Res. 13-18UGA-High Den. Res. 4-6UGA-Public UGA-Urban Comm.UGA-Urban Light Ind.UGA-Visitor Comm.Village Comm.Watershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend Discovery Bay Port Townsend Bay Port Towns end Ci t y Li m its Oak Bay LudlowBay Strait of Juan de Fuca Kala Point AdmiraltyInlet GlenCove Port TownsendPaper Corporation Port HudsonMarina Fort TownsendState Park PortHadlock-Irondale Chimacum B e a v e r V a ll e y C e n t e r V a l l e y Mats Mats Bay ScowBay MysteryBay Marrowstone PortageCanal Fort FlaglerState Park CranePoint KillisutHarbor NodulePoint PortLudlow Squamish Harbor Gardiner DiscoveryBay AdelmaBeach BeckettPoint BywaterBay N E J E F F E R S O N N O R T H H O O DCANAL C H I M A C U MCREEK L U D L O WCREEK Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 2eLand Cover - Chimacum Creek, Ludlow Creek, NE Jefferson, N Hood Canal Watersheds U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 2 _N o r t h _E n d \F i g 2 e _L a n d _C o v e r .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; NLCD, 2011 0 2 Miles Open WaterDeveloped, Open SpaceDeveloped, Low IntensityDeveloped, Medium Intensity Developed, High IntensityBarren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)Deciduous ForestEvergreen Forest Mixed ForestShrub/ScrubGrassland/HerbaceousPasture/Hay Woody WetlandsEmergent Herbaceous WoodlandsWatershed Boundary Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend Discovery Bay Port Townsend Bay Po r t Tow n se n d City Lim its Oak Bay LudlowBay Strait of Juan de Fuca Kala Point AdmiraltyInlet GlenCove Port TownsendPaper Corporation Port HudsonMarina Fort TownsendState Park PortHadlock-Irondale Chimacum B e a v e r V a ll e y C e n t e r V a l l e y Mats Mats Bay ScowBay MysteryBay Marrowstone PortageCanal Fort FlaglerState Park CranePoint KillisutHarbor NodulePoint PortLudlow Gardiner DiscoveryBay AdelmaBeach BeckettPoint E a s t F o r k C hi m a c u m C r e e k E a s t F o r k T a r b o o C r e e k S h i n e C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k W a t e r S t Mill Rd WSi m s W a y A n d e r s o n R d ParadiseBay R d F l a g l e r R d S t a t e R o u t e 2 0 Airp ort C utoff R d E S i msWay K n a p p C i r c l e E R d W a h l L a k e R d 53rdSt N O t t o S t F St N R d W alker St W St M o nro e St Freeman St FredericksSt 12th St C r a v e n R d 19th St S t a t e H w y 1 0 4 D a b o b P ost O ffice R d L a w r e n c e S t D i a m o n d P o i n t R d 49th St Snow Cree kRd P r o s p e c t Ave Andy C o oper R d S h e r i d a n S t R h o d y D ri v e FourCornersRd D i s c o v e r y R d C o y l e Rd Anderson Lake Rd Eaglemount Rd C e n t e r R d OlympicHwy StateRoute104 Hastings Ave W ShineRd O ak B ay R d S P o i n t R d CapeGeorge Rd S D i s c o v e r y R d O t t o S t Robbins Rd W R d C h i m a c u m R d B e a v e r V a l l e y R d W UncasRd E M a r r o w s t o n e R d D a b o b R d W V a l l e y R d H o w e C r e e k L e l a n d C r e e k Sal mon Creek Riple y C reek C h i m a c u m C r e e k A n d r e w s C r e e k LudlowCreek S n o w C r e e k Tarboo C r e e k StrangersLake BuckmansLake Morgan HillReservoir TibbalsLake AndersonLake SunsetLake BeausiteLakeGibbsLake DelantyLake BrownsLake CrockerLake PetersonLake LudlowLake LarsonLakeTarbooLake LelandLake TealLakeSandyShoreLake TwinLakes HorseshoeLake TwinLakes TuleLakeWahl Lake N E J E F F E R S O N N O R T H H O O DCANAL C H I M A C U MCREEK L U D L O WCREEK Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 2fHabitat and Fish Distribution - Chimacum Creek, Ludlow Creek, NE Jefferson, N Hood Canal Watersheds U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 2 _N o r t h _E n d \F i g 2 f _H a b i t a t .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; WDFW, 2010 0 2 Miles Fish DistributionBull TroutResident Cutthroat TroutChum SalmonChinook SalmonCoho SalmonPink SalmonSteelhead TroutCore Habitats and CorridorsCore 1Core 2Core 3CorridorWaterbodyWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend DabobBay QuilceneBay TarbooBay ZelatchedPoint BroadSpit BoltonPeninsula ToandosPeninsula LongSpit CampHarmony CampDiscovery Quilcene TabookPoint ThorndykeBay FishermanHarbor Brinnon JacksonCove WhitneyPoint Quilcene NationalFish Hatchery Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint E a s t F o r k T a r b o o C r e e k S h i n e C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k C e n t e r R d C l e a r C r e e k R d N W NWLuotoRd W a h l L a k e R d A m berjac kAv e S c o r p i o n A v e 28 T h o r n d y k e D r i v e T h o r n d y k e R d W V a l l e y R d 2 7 DarterRd O a k Bay Rd D a b o b PostOffic e R d Dosewallips Rd StateRoute104 O l y m p i c H w y T a n g R d O ly m pic V i e w R d N W 2 8 5 0 P aradiseBayRd P o g y R d Delta Pier P o in t W h i t n e y R d S P o i n t R d 2 8 5 2 A r c h e r f i s h R d B e a v e r V a l l e y R d T r i g g e r A v e 2 7 3 0 D a b o b R d C o y l e R d R i x o n C r e e k H o w e C r e e k S n o w C r e e k Marple Creek P e n n y C r e e k D o n o v a n C r e e k L e l a n d C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k Riple y C reek A n d r e w s C r e e k L ittl e Q u il c e n e R iv e r Trapper Creek CedarCreek LudlowCreek Spencer Creek Thorndyke Creek Dosewallips River Tarboo C r e e k BrownsLake CrockerLake PetersonLake LudlowLake LarsonLakeTarbooLake LelandLake SandyShoreLake TwinLakes LordsLake HorseshoeLake TwinLakes TuleLake WahlLake PheasantLake Mud Lake BigQuilceneRiver RiceLake LostLake ThorndykeLake SilentLake DevilsLake CattailLake BangorLake TemporarySewageLagoon DosewallipsRiver D A B O BBAY Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 3aHydrography - Dabob Bay U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 3 _D a b o b _B a y \F i g 3 a _H y d r o g r a p h y .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; USFWS, 2015 0 2 Miles Critical Aquifer Recharge AreaWetlandStreamWaterbodyNational ForestCounty BoundaryWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend DabobBay QuilceneBay TarbooBay ZelatchedPoint BroadSpit BoltonPeninsula ToandosPeninsula LongSpit CampHarmony CampDiscovery Quilcene TabookPoint ThorndykeBay FishermanHarbor Brinnon JacksonCove WhitneyPoint Quilcene NationalFish Hatchery Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint E a s t F o r k T a r b o o C r e e k S h i n e C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k C e n t e r R d C l e a r C r e e k R d N W NWLuotoRd W a h l L a k e R d A m berjac kAv e S c o r p i o n A v e 28 T h o r n d y k e D r i v e T h o r n d y k e R d W V a l l e y R d 2 7 DarterRd O a k Bay Rd D a b o b PostOffic e R d Dosewallips Rd StateRoute104 O l y m p i c H w y T a n g R d O ly m pic V i e w R d N W 2 8 5 0 P aradiseBayRd P o g y R d Delta Pier P o in t W h i t n e y R d S P o i n t R d 2 8 5 2 A r c h e r f i s h R d B e a v e r V a l l e y R d T r i g g e r A v e 2 7 3 0 D a b o b R d C o y l e R d R i x o n C r e e k H o w e C r e e k S n o w C r e e k Marple Creek P e n n y C r e e k D o n o v a n C r e e k L e l a n d C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k Riple y C reek A n d r e w s C r e e k L ittl e Q u il c e n e R iv e r Trapper Creek CedarCreek LudlowCreek Spencer Creek Thorndyke Creek Dosewallips River Tarboo C r e e k BrownsLake CrockerLake PetersonLake LudlowLake LarsonLakeTarbooLake LelandLake SandyShoreLake TwinLakes LordsLake HorseshoeLake TwinLakes TuleLake WahlLake PheasantLake Mud Lake BigQuilceneRiver RiceLake LostLake ThorndykeLake SilentLake DevilsLake CattailLake BangorLake TemporarySewageLagoon DosewallipsRiver D A B O BBAY Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 3b Geologic Hazards - Dabob Bay Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 3 _D a b o b _B a y \F i g 3 b _G e o l o g i c _H a z a r d s .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; Reclamation, 2004 0 2 Miles Landslide Hazard AreaSeismic Hazard AreaErosion Hazard AreaChannel Migration ZoneStream (Major)WaterbodyNational ForestCounty BoundaryWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend DabobBay QuilceneBay TarbooBay ZelatchedPoint BroadSpit BoltonPeninsula ToandosPeninsula LongSpit CampHarmony CampDiscovery Quilcene TabookPoint ThorndykeBay FishermanHarbor Brinnon JacksonCove WhitneyPoint Quilcene NationalFish Hatchery Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint E a s t F o r k T a r b o o C r e e k S h i n e C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k C e n t e r R d C l e a r C r e e k R d N W NWLuotoRd W a h l L a k e R d A m berjac kAv e S c o r p i o n A v e 28 T h o r n d y k e D r i v e T h o r n d y k e R d W V a l l e y R d 2 7 DarterRd O a k Bay Rd D a b o b PostOffic e R d Dosewallips Rd StateRoute104 O l y m p i c H w y T a n g R d O ly m pic V i e w R d N W 2 8 5 0 P aradiseBayRd P o g y R d Delta Pier P o in t W h i t n e y R d S P o i n t R d 2 8 5 2 A r c h e r f i s h R d B e a v e r V a l l e y R d T r i g g e r A v e 2 7 3 0 D a b o b R d C o y l e R d R i x o n C r e e k H o w e C r e e k S n o w C r e e k Marple Creek P e n n y C r e e k D o n o v a n C r e e k L e l a n d C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k Riple y C reek A n d r e w s C r e e k L ittl e Q u il c e n e R iv e r Trapper Creek CedarCreek LudlowCreek Spencer Creek Thorndyke Creek Dosewallips River Tarboo C r e e k BrownsLake CrockerLake PetersonLake LudlowLake LarsonLakeTarbooLake LelandLake SandyShoreLake TwinLakes LordsLake HorseshoeLake TwinLakes TuleLake WahlLake PheasantLake Mud Lake BigQuilceneRiver RiceLake LostLake ThorndykeLake SilentLake DevilsLake CattailLake BangorLake TemporarySewageLagoon DosewallipsRiver D A B O BBAY Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 3cFEMA Floodplain - Dabob Bay Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 3 _D a b o b _B a y \F i g 3 c _F E M A _F l o o d _P l a i n .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; FEMA, 1996 0 2 Miles FEMA 100-Year FloodplainStream (Major)WaterbodyNational ForestCounty BoundaryWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend DabobBay QuilceneBay TarbooBay ZelatchedPoint BroadSpit BoltonPeninsula ToandosPeninsula LongSpit CampHarmony CampDiscovery Quilcene TabookPoint PortLudlow ThorndykeBay FishermanHarbor Brinnon PleasantHarbor JacksonCove WhitneyPoint Quilcene NationalFish Hatchery Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint D A B O BBAY Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 3dZoning - Dabob Bay Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 3 _D a b o b _B a y \F i g 3 d _Z o n i n g .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; USGS, 2015 0 2 Miles ZoningComm. Ag 20Comm. Forest-80Convenience X-road Inholding Forest 20Light Ind.Light Ind./Manu.Local Ag 20 ParksResort-BrinnonResort-Multi FamilyResort-Open Space Resort-RecreationResort-SF Tracts 1:2.5Resort-Single FamilyRur. Forest-40 Rur. Residential-10Rur. Residential-20Rur. Residential-5Rur. Village Center Village Comm.County BoundaryWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend DabobBay QuilceneBay TarbooBay ZelatchedPoint BroadSpit BoltonPeninsula ToandosPeninsula LongSpit CampHarmony CampDiscovery Quilcene TabookPoint PortLudlow Squamish Harbor ThorndykeBay FishermanHarbor Brinnon PleasantHarbor JacksonCove WhitneyPoint Quilcene NationalFish Hatchery Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint SouthPoint D A B O BBAY Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 3eLand Cover - Dabob Bay Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 3 _D a b o b _B a y \F i g 3 e _L a n d _C o v e r .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; NLCD, 2011 0 2 Miles Open WaterDeveloped, Open SpaceDeveloped, Low IntensityDeveloped, Medium Intensity Developed, High IntensityBarren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)Deciduous ForestEvergreen Forest Mixed ForestShrub/ScrubGrassland/HerbaceousPasture/Hay Cultivated CropsWoody WetlandsEmergent Herbaceous WoodlandsWatershed Boundary Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend DabobBay QuilceneBay TarbooBay ZelatchedPoint BroadSpit BoltonPeninsula ToandosPeninsula LongSpit CampHarmony CampDiscovery Quilcene TabookPoint ThorndykeBay FishermanHarbor Brinnon JacksonCove WhitneyPoint Quilcene NationalFish Hatchery Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint E a s t F o r k T a r b o o C r e e k S h i n e C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k C e n t e r R d C l e a r C r e e k R d N W NWLuotoRd W a h l L a k e R d A m berjac kAv e S c o r p i o n A v e 28 T h o r n d y k e D r i v e T h o r n d y k e R d W V a l l e y R d 2 7 DarterRd O a k Bay Rd D a b o b PostOffic e R d Dosewallips Rd StateRoute104 O l y m p i c H w y T a n g R d O ly m pic V i e w R d N W 2 8 5 0 P aradiseBayRd P o g y R d Delta Pier P o in t W h i t n e y R d S P o i n t R d 2 8 5 2 A r c h e r f i s h R d B e a v e r V a l l e y R d T r i g g e r A v e 2 7 3 0 D a b o b R d C o y l e R d R i x o n C r e e k H o w e C r e e k S n o w C r e e k Marple Creek P e n n y C r e e k D o n o v a n C r e e k L e l a n d C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k Riple y C reek A n d r e w s C r e e k L ittl e Q u il c e n e R iv e r Trapper Creek CedarCreek LudlowCreek Spencer Creek Thorndyke Creek Dosewallips River Tarboo C r e e k BrownsLake CrockerLake PetersonLake LudlowLake LarsonLakeTarbooLake LelandLake SandyShoreLake TwinLakes LordsLake HorseshoeLake TwinLakes TuleLake WahlLake PheasantLake Mud Lake BigQuilceneRiver RiceLake LostLake ThorndykeLake SilentLake DevilsLake CattailLake BangorLake TemporarySewageLagoon DosewallipsRiver D A B O BBAY Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 3fHabitat and Fish Distribution - Dabob Bay Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 3 _D a b o b _B a y \F i g 3 f _H a b i t a t .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; WDFW, 2010 0 2 Miles Fish DistributionBull TroutResident Cutthroat TroutChum SalmonChinook SalmonCoho SalmonPink SalmonSteelhead TroutCore Habitats and CorridorsCore 1Core 2Core 3CorridorWaterbodyWatershed BoundaryCounty BoundaryNational Forest AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend Discovery Bay Port Townsend Bay P o rt Tow n se n d City Lim it s Strait of Juan de Fuca Kala Point GlenCove Port TownsendPaper Corporation Port HudsonMarina Fort TownsendState Park PortHadlock-Irondale Chimacum B e a v e r V a ll e y C e n t e r V a l l e y CranePoint Gardiner DiscoveryBay AdelmaBeach BeckettPoint E a s t F o r k C hi m a c u m C r e e k E a s t F o r k T a r b o o C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k W a t e r S t Mill Rd WSim s W a y S t a t e R o u t e 2 0 S u nshineAve Airp ort C utoff R d 2850 W a h l L a k e R d O akBayRd W a s h i n g t o n S t N O t t o S t F St 2 8 F l a g l e r R d W alker St F l e m m i n g D ri v e 12th St 19th St S t a t e H w y 1 0 4 27 L a w r e n c e S t D i a m o n d P o i n t Rd P r o s p e c t Ave S h e r i d a n S t R h o d y D r i v e FourCornersRd D a bo b P ost O f f i c e Rd D i s c o v e r y R d Hastings Ave Na ti on a l F o r e s t D e v e l o p m e n t R d 2 9 0 6 2840 S J a c o b M i l l e r R d C h i c k e n C o o p R d Anderson Lake Rd 2 8 4 5 B e a v e r V a l l e y R d Eagle mount Rd C e n t e r R d Olympic Hwy StateRoute104 Hastings Ave W T u c k e r R a nch CapeGeorge R d S D i s c o v e r y R d O t t o S t F i r e w e e d R d P i e r c e R d C h i m a c u m R d W UncasRd C o y l e Rd 2 8 5 2 D a b o b R d W V a l l e y R d E a g l e C r e e k R i x o n C r e e k H o w e C re e k L e l a n d C r e e k Salmo n Cr e ek Ripley Cre ek C h i m a c u m C r e e k A n d r e w s C r e e k Trapper Creek CedarCreek LudlowCreek S n o w C r e e k Thorndyke Creek Tarboo Cre e k BuckmansLake MorganHillReservoir TibbalsLake Cat Lake AndersonLake SunsetLake BeausiteLakeGibbsLake DelantyLake BrownsLake CrockerLake PetersonLake LudlowLake LarsonLakeTarbooLake LelandLake SandyShoreLake TwinLakes LordsLake HorseshoeLake TuleLake WahlLake D I S C O V E R YBAY Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 4aHydrography - Discovery Bay Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 4 _D i s c o v e r y _B a y \F i g 4 a _H y d r o g r a p h y .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; USFWS, 2015 0 2 Miles Critical Aquifer Recharge AreaWetlandStreamWaterbodyNational ForestCounty BoundaryWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend Discovery Bay Port Townsend Bay P o rt Tow n se n d City Lim it s Strait of Juan de Fuca Kala Point GlenCove Port TownsendPaper Corporation Port HudsonMarina Fort TownsendState Park PortHadlock-Irondale Chimacum B e a v e r V a ll e y C e n t e r V a l l e y CranePoint Gardiner DiscoveryBay AdelmaBeach BeckettPoint E a s t F o r k C hi m a c u m C r e e k E a s t F o r k T a r b o o C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k W a t e r S t Mill Rd WSim s W a y S t a t e R o u t e 2 0 S u nshineAve Airp ort C utoff R d 2850 W a h l L a k e R d O akBayRd W a s h i n g t o n S t N O t t o S t F St 2 8 F l a g l e r R d W alker St F l e m m i n g D ri v e 12th St 19th St S t a t e H w y 1 0 4 27 L a w r e n c e S t D i a m o n d P o i n t Rd P r o s p e c t Ave S h e r i d a n S t R h o d y D r i v e FourCornersRd D a bo b P ost O f f i c e Rd D i s c o v e r y R d Hastings Ave Na ti on a l F o r e s t D e v e l o p m e n t R d 2 9 0 6 2840 S J a c o b M i l l e r R d C h i c k e n C o o p R d Anderson Lake Rd 2 8 4 5 B e a v e r V a l l e y R d Eagle mount Rd C e n t e r R d Olympic Hwy StateRoute104 Hastings Ave W T u c k e r R a nch CapeGeorge R d S D i s c o v e r y R d O t t o S t F i r e w e e d R d P i e r c e R d C h i m a c u m R d W UncasRd C o y l e Rd 2 8 5 2 D a b o b R d W V a l l e y R d E a g l e C r e e k R i x o n C r e e k H o w e C re e k L e l a n d C r e e k Salmo n Cr e ek Ripley Cre ek C h i m a c u m C r e e k A n d r e w s C r e e k Trapper Creek CedarCreek LudlowCreek S n o w C r e e k Thorndyke Creek Tarboo Cre e k BuckmansLake MorganHillReservoir TibbalsLake Cat Lake AndersonLake SunsetLake BeausiteLakeGibbsLake DelantyLake BrownsLake CrockerLake PetersonLake LudlowLake LarsonLakeTarbooLake LelandLake SandyShoreLake TwinLakes LordsLake HorseshoeLake TuleLake WahlLake D I S C O V E R YBAY Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 4b Geologic Hazards - Discovery Bay Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 4 _D i s c o v e r y _B a y \F i g 4 b _G e o l o g i c _H a z a r d s .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015 0 2 Miles Landslide Hazard AreaSeismic Hazard AreaErosion Hazard AreaStream (Major)WaterbodyNational ForestCounty BoundaryWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend Discovery Bay Port Townsend Bay P o rt Tow n se n d City Lim it s Strait of Juan de Fuca Kala Point GlenCove Port TownsendPaper Corporation Port HudsonMarina Fort TownsendState Park PortHadlock-Irondale Chimacum B e a v e r V a ll e y C e n t e r V a l l e y CranePoint Gardiner DiscoveryBay AdelmaBeach BeckettPoint E a s t F o r k C hi m a c u m C r e e k E a s t F o r k T a r b o o C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k W a t e r S t Mill Rd WSim s W a y S t a t e R o u t e 2 0 S u nshineAve Airp ort C utoff R d 2850 W a h l L a k e R d O akBayRd W a s h i n g t o n S t N O t t o S t F St 2 8 F l a g l e r R d W alker St F l e m m i n g D ri v e 12th St 19th St S t a t e H w y 1 0 4 27 L a w r e n c e S t D i a m o n d P o i n t Rd P r o s p e c t Ave S h e r i d a n S t R h o d y D r i v e FourCornersRd D a bo b P ost O f f i c e Rd D i s c o v e r y R d Hastings Ave Na ti on a l F o r e s t D e v e l o p m e n t R d 2 9 0 6 2840 S J a c o b M i l l e r R d C h i c k e n C o o p R d Anderson Lake Rd 2 8 4 5 B e a v e r V a l l e y R d Eagle mount Rd C e n t e r R d Olympic Hwy StateRoute104 Hastings Ave W T u c k e r R a nch CapeGeorge R d S D i s c o v e r y R d O t t o S t F i r e w e e d R d P i e r c e R d C h i m a c u m R d W UncasRd C o y l e Rd 2 8 5 2 D a b o b R d W V a l l e y R d E a g l e C r e e k R i x o n C r e e k H o w e C re e k L e l a n d C r e e k Salmo n Cr e ek Ripley Cre ek C h i m a c u m C r e e k A n d r e w s C r e e k Trapper Creek CedarCreek LudlowCreek S n o w C r e e k Thorndyke Creek Tarboo Cre e k BuckmansLake MorganHillReservoir TibbalsLake Cat Lake AndersonLake SunsetLake BeausiteLakeGibbsLake DelantyLake BrownsLake CrockerLake PetersonLake LudlowLake LarsonLakeTarbooLake LelandLake SandyShoreLake TwinLakes LordsLake HorseshoeLake TuleLake WahlLake D I S C O V E R YBAY Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 4cFEMA Floodplain - Discovery Bay Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 4 _D i s c o v e r y _B a y \F i g 4 c _F E M A _F l o o d _P l a i n .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; FEMA, 1996 0 2 Miles FEMA 100-Year FloodplainStream (Major)WaterbodyNational ForestCounty BoundaryWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend Discovery Bay Port Townsend Bay P o rt Tow n se n d City Lim it s Strait of Juan de Fuca Kala Point GlenCove Port TownsendPaper Corporation Port HudsonMarina Fort TownsendState Park PortHadlock-Irondale Chimacum B e a v e r V a ll e y C e n t e r V a l l e y CranePoint Gardiner DiscoveryBay AdelmaBeach BeckettPoint D I S C O V E R YBAY Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 4dZoning - Discovery Bay Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 2 _N o r t h _E n d \F i g 2 d _Z o n i n g .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; USGS, 2015 0 2 Miles ZoningComm. Ag 20Comm. Forest-80Comm. Forest/Min. 80Forest Resource-Ind. Gen. X-roadHeavy Ind.Inholding Forest 20Light Ind.Light Ind./Comm. Light Ind./Manu.Local Ag 20Neighborhood X-roadParksPublic Facility-Airport Public Facility-WasteRur. Forest-40Rur. Residential-10Rur. Residential-20Rur. Residential-5 UGA- Mod Den. Res. 7-12UGA-High Den. Res. 13-18UGA-High Den. Res. 4-6UGA-PublicUGA-Urban Comm. UGA-Urban Light Ind.UGA-Visitor Comm.County BoundaryWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend Discovery Bay Port Townsend Bay P o rt To w n se n d City Limi t s Strait of Juan de Fuca Kala Point GlenCove Port TownsendPaper Corporation Port HudsonMarina Fort TownsendState Park PortHadlock-Irondale Chimacum B e a v e r V a ll e y C e n t e r V a l l e y CranePoint Gardiner DiscoveryBay AdelmaBeach BeckettPoint D I S C O V E R YBAY Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 4eLand Cover - Discovery Bay Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 4 _D i s c o v e r y _B a y \F i g 5 e _L a n d _C o v e r .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; NLCD, 2011 0 2 Miles Open WaterDeveloped, Open SpaceDeveloped, Low IntensityDeveloped, Medium Intensity Developed, High IntensityBarren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)Deciduous ForestEvergreen Forest Mixed ForestShrub/ScrubGrassland/HerbaceousPasture/Hay Woody WetlandsEmergent Herbaceous WoodlandsWatershed Boundary Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend Discovery Bay Port Townsend Bay Po rt Tow n se n d City Lim its Strait of Juan de Fuca GlenCove Port TownsendPaper Corporation Fort TownsendState Park Chimacum C e n t e r V a l l e y Gardiner DiscoveryBay AdelmaBeach BeckettPoint C h i m a c u m C r e e k Mill Rd S t a t e R o u t e 2 0 W S i m sWay S u nshineAve Airport C utoff R d N O t t o S t S 8 t h S t F l e m m i n g D ri v e FredericksSt 12th St 2820 19th St S t a t e H w y 1 0 4 D i a m o n d Point R d S n o w C r e e k R d P r o s p e c t Ave S h e r i d a n S t R h o d y D r i v e FourCornersRd D i s c o v e r y R d Hastings Ave Nation a l F o r e s t D e v e l o p m e n t R d 2 9 0 6 C h i c k e n C o o p R d 2 8 Anderson Lake Rd 2840 2 8 4 5 Eaglemount Rd O l y m p ic Hwy Hastings Ave W 2850 T u c k e r R a nch CapeGeorge R d S D i s c o v e r y R d O t t o S t C o r r i e a R d F i r e w e e d R d P i e r c e R d W U n c a sRd 27 2852 D a b o b R d W V a l l e y R d C e n t e r R d R i p l e y C r e e k E a g l e C r e e k R i x o n C r e e k H o w e C r e e k L e l a n d C r e e k S almo n Cr eek C h i m a c u m C r e e k A n d r e w s C r e e k Trapper Creek CedarCreek S n o w C r e e k Tarboo C re e k StrangersLake BuckmansLake TibbalsLake Cat Lake AndersonLake SunsetLake BeausiteLakeGibbsLake DelantyLake BrownsLake CrockerLake PetersonLake LudlowLake TarbooLake LelandLake SandyShoreLake LordsLake D I S C O V E R YBAY Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 4fHabitat and Fish Distribution - Discovery Bay Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 4 _D i s c o v e r y _B a y \F i g 4 f _H a b i t a t .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; WDFW, 2010 0 1.8 Miles Fish DistributionBull TroutResident Cutthroat TroutChum SalmonChinook SalmonCoho SalmonPink SalmonSteelhead TroutCore Habitats and CorridorsCore 1Core 2Core 3CorridorWaterbodyWatershed BoundaryCounty BoundaryNational Forest AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend DabobBay QuilceneBay TarbooBay ZelatchedPoint BroadSpit BoltonPeninsula ToandosPeninsula LongSpit CampHarmony CampDiscovery Quilcene TabookPoint JacksonCove WhitneyPoint Quilcene NationalFish Hatchery Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint Tunnel Creek E a s t F o r k T a r b o o C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k C e n t e r R d 2 8 5 0 S t a t e H w y 1 0 4 Thornd y k e R d 2820 B i g Q u i l c e n e R i v e r R d 2 6 1 0 D a b o b Post Offic e R d 28 2840 Eaglemount Rd 2750 2 7 4 0 DosewallipsRd 2 8 4 5 27 O l y m p i c H w y P o i n t W h i t n e y R d W V a l l e y R d 2 8 5 2 2 7 3 0 D a b o b R d 2 7 6 0 C o y l e R d R i x o n C r e e k H o w e C re e k S n o w C r e e k Townsend Creek Marple Creek P e n n y C r e e k D o n o v a n C r e e k L e l a n d C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k Ripley Cre ek A n d r e w s C r e e k L ittl e Q u il c e n e R i v e r Trapper Creek Rocky Brook Creek CedarCreek Spencer Creek Dosewallips River Tarboo Cre e k GibbsLakeDelantyLake BrownsLake CrockerLake PetersonLake LudlowLake TarbooLake LelandLake SandyShoreLakeLordsLake SinkLake BigQuilceneRiver RiceLake SilentLake DevilsLake DosewallipsRiver Q U I L C E N EBAY Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 5aHydrography - Quilcene Bay Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 5 _Q u i l c e n e _B a y \F i g 5 a _H y d r o g r a p h y .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; USFWS, 2015 0 2 Miles Critical Aquifer Recharge AreaWetlandStreamWaterbodyNational ForestCounty BoundaryWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend DabobBay QuilceneBay TarbooBay ZelatchedPoint BroadSpit BoltonPeninsula ToandosPeninsula LongSpit CampHarmony CampDiscovery Quilcene TabookPoint JacksonCove WhitneyPoint Quilcene NationalFish Hatchery Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint Tunnel Creek E a s t F o r k T a r b o o C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k C e n t e r R d 2 8 5 0 S t a t e H w y 1 0 4 Thornd y k e R d 2820 B i g Q u i l c e n e R i v e r R d 2 6 1 0 D a b o b Post Offic e R d 28 2840 Eaglemount Rd 2750 2 7 4 0 DosewallipsRd 2 8 4 5 27 O l y m p i c H w y P o i n t W h i t n e y R d W V a l l e y R d 2 8 5 2 2 7 3 0 D a b o b R d 2 7 6 0 C o y l e R d R i x o n C r e e k H o w e C re e k S n o w C r e e k Townsend Creek Marple Creek P e n n y C r e e k D o n o v a n C r e e k L e l a n d C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k Ripley Cre ek A n d r e w s C r e e k L ittl e Q u il c e n e R i v e r Trapper Creek Rocky Brook Creek CedarCreek Spencer Creek Dosewallips River Tarboo Cre e k GibbsLakeDelantyLake BrownsLake CrockerLake PetersonLake LudlowLake TarbooLake LelandLake SandyShoreLakeLordsLake SinkLake BigQuilceneRiver RiceLake SilentLake DevilsLake DosewallipsRiver Q U I L C E N EBAY Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 5b Geologic Hazards - Quilcene Bay Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 5 _Q u i l c e n e _B a y \F i g 5 b _G e o l o g i c _H a z a r d s .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; Reclamation, 2004 0 2 Miles Landslide Hazard AreaSeismic Hazard AreaErosion Hazard AreaChannel Migration ZoneStream (Major)Water BodyNational ForestCounty BoundaryWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend DabobBay QuilceneBay TarbooBay ZelatchedPoint BroadSpit BoltonPeninsula ToandosPeninsula LongSpit CampHarmony CampDiscovery Quilcene TabookPoint JacksonCove WhitneyPoint Quilcene NationalFish Hatchery Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint Tunnel Creek E a s t F o r k T a r b o o C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k C e n t e r R d 2 8 5 0 S t a t e H w y 1 0 4 Thornd y k e R d 2820 B i g Q u i l c e n e R i v e r R d 2 6 1 0 D a b o b Post Offic e R d 28 2840 Eaglemount Rd 2750 2 7 4 0 DosewallipsRd 2 8 4 5 27 O l y m p i c H w y P o i n t W h i t n e y R d W V a l l e y R d 2 8 5 2 2 7 3 0 D a b o b R d 2 7 6 0 C o y l e R d R i x o n C r e e k H o w e C re e k S n o w C r e e k Townsend Creek Marple Creek P e n n y C r e e k D o n o v a n C r e e k L e l a n d C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k Ripley Cre ek A n d r e w s C r e e k L ittl e Q u il c e n e R i v e r Trapper Creek Rocky Brook Creek CedarCreek Spencer Creek Dosewallips River Tarboo Cre e k GibbsLakeDelantyLake BrownsLake CrockerLake PetersonLake LudlowLake TarbooLake LelandLake SandyShoreLakeLordsLake SinkLake BigQuilceneRiver RiceLake SilentLake DevilsLake DosewallipsRiver Q U I L C E N EBAY Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 5cFEMA Floodplain - Quilcene Bay Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 5 _Q u i l c e n e _B a y \F i g 5 c _F E M A _F l o o d _P l a i n .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; FEMA, 1996 0 2 Miles FEMA 100-Year FloodplainStream (Major)WaterbodyNational ForestCounty BoundaryWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend DabobBay QuilceneBay TarbooBay ZelatchedPoint BroadSpit BoltonPeninsula ToandosPeninsula LongSpit CampHarmony CampDiscovery Quilcene TabookPoint JacksonCove WhitneyPoint Quilcene NationalFish Hatchery Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint Tunnel Creek Q U I L C E N EBAY Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 5dZoning - Quilcene Bay Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 5 _Q u i l c e n e _B a y \F i g 5 d _Z o n i n g .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; USGS, 2015 0 2 Miles ZoningComm. Ag 20 Comm. Forest-80Convenience X-roadInholding Forest 20 Light Ind.Light Ind./Manu.Local Ag 20 ParksRur. Forest-40Rur. Residential-10 Rur. Residential-20Rur. Residential-5Rur. Village Center County BoundaryWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend DabobBay QuilceneBay TarbooBay ZelatchedPoint BroadSpit BoltonPeninsula ToandosPeninsula LongSpit CampHarmony CampDiscovery Quilcene TabookPoint JacksonCove WhitneyPoint Quilcene NationalFish Hatchery Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint Q U I L C E N EBAY Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 5eLand Cover - Quilcene Bay Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 5 _Q u i l c e n e _B a y \F i g 5 e _L a n d _C o v e r .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; NLCD, 2011 0 2 Miles Open WaterDeveloped, Open SpaceDeveloped, Low IntensityDeveloped, Medium Intensity Developed, High IntensityBarren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)Deciduous ForestEvergreen Forest Mixed ForestShrub/ScrubGrassland/HerbaceousPasture/Hay Woody WetlandsEmergent Herbaceous WoodlandsWatershed Boundary Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend DabobBay QuilceneBay TarbooBay ZelatchedPoint BroadSpit BoltonPeninsula LongSpit CampHarmony CampDiscovery Quilcene TabookPoint JacksonCove WhitneyPoint Quilcene NationalFish Hatchery Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint Tunnel Creek C h i m a c u m C r e e k C e n t e r R d S t a t e H w y 1 0 4 W UncasR d W V a l l e y R d D a b o b P o stOffice R d 2 8 2820 2610 Eaglem ount Rd 2750 2840 2 8 4 5 2 7 4 0 2 7 O l y m p i c H w y 2850 P o in t W h i t n e y R d 2 8 5 2 C o y l e R d 2 7 3 0 D a b o b R d 2 7 6 0 R i x o n C r e e k H o w e C re e k To wnsend Creek Marple Creek P e n n y C r e e k D o n o v a n C r e e k L e l a n d C r e e k S a l m o n C r e e k C h i m a c u m C r e e k Ripley Cre ek A n d r e w s C r e e k Dosewallips River L ittl e Q u ilc e n e R i v e r Trapper Creek Rocky Brook Creek CedarCreek S n o w C r e e k Spencer Creek Tarboo C r e e k BeausiteLakeGibbsLake DelantyLake BrownsLake CrockerLake PetersonLake TarbooLake LelandLake LordsLake SinkLake BigQuilceneRiver RiceLake DevilsLake JupiterLakes DosewallipsRiver Q U I L C E N EBAY Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 5fHabitat and Fish Distribution - Quilcene Bay Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 5 _Q u i l c e n e _B a y \F i g 5 f _H a b i t a t .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; WDFW, 2010 0 2 Miles Fish DistributionBull TroutResident Cutthroat TroutChum SalmonChinook SalmonCoho SalmonPink SalmonSteelhead TroutCore Habitats and CorridorsCore 1Core 2Core 3CorridorWaterbodyWatershed BoundaryCounty BoundaryNational Forest AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend LudlowBay DabobBay QuilceneBay TarbooBay ZelatchedPoint BroadSpit BoltonPeninsula ToandosPeninsula LongSpit CampHarmony CampDiscovery TabookPoint PortLudlow Squamish Harbor ThorndykeBay FishermanHarbor WhitneyPoint Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint E a s t F o r k T a r b o o C r e e k SouthPoint S h i n e C r e e k BywaterBay StateHwy305NE S t a t e H w y 3 N W State Route 104 N E TwinSpitsRd B o n d R d N E N E StateHwy308 S i l v e r d a l e W a y N W V i k i n g A v e N W P i o n e e r W a y N W NW Luoto Rd D a u n t l e s s D r i v e N W NE Lincoln Rd NEGundersonRd S t a t e Hwy 104 N W FinnHillRd NWReliance St StateH wy305 ArcheryRd S t a t e H w y 3 N E NW Mountain View Rd L e m oloShoreDrive N E Jen s e n W a y N E C e n t r a l V a l l e y R d N E N W O l h a v a W a y Hood Canal Floating Bridge W a h l L a k e R d 4 t h A v e N E A m berjac kAv e S c o r p i o n A v e T h o r n d y k e R d And y C o oper R d N E T o t t e n R d NW Pioneer Hill Rd DarterRd T h o r n d y k e D r i v e B e a v e r V a lle y R d D a b o b PostOffic e R d N E Sawdust H i l l R d C e n t e r R d N W L o f a l l R d V i k i n g W a y N W C l e a r C r e e k R d N W C e n t r a l V a l l e y R d N W C a l d a r t A v e N E T a n g R d 6 t h A v e N E T r i g g e r A v e N o l l R d NE Oak Bay R d O ly m pic V i e w R d N W P o g y R d Shine Rd Delta Pier A S t NW WestgateRd ParadiseBayRd A r c h e r f i s h R d E a glemount Rd S t o t t l e m e y e r R d N E B r o w n s v i l l e H w y N E S P oin t R d B i g V a l l e y R d N E D a b o b R d C o y l e R d LudlowCreek Thorndyke Creek Tarboo Cre e k BrownsLake PetersonLake LudlowLake LarsonLakeTarbooLake TealLake SandyShoreLake TwinLakes HorseshoeLake TwinLakes TuleLake WahlLake PheasantLake Mud Lake LostLake ThorndykeLake SilentLake CattailLake BangorLake TemporarySewageLagoon IslandLake S E H O O DCANAL Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 6aHydrography - SE Hood Canal Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 6 _S E _H o o d _C a n a l \F i g 6 a _H y d r o g r a p h y .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; USFWS, 2015 0 2 Miles Critical Aquifer Recharge AreaWetlandStreamWaterbodyCounty BoundaryWatershed Boundary Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend LudlowBay DabobBay QuilceneBay TarbooBay ZelatchedPoint BroadSpit BoltonPeninsula ToandosPeninsula LongSpit CampHarmony CampDiscovery TabookPoint PortLudlow Squamish Harbor ThorndykeBay FishermanHarbor WhitneyPoint Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint E a s t F o r k T a r b o o C r e e k SouthPoint S h i n e C r e e k BywaterBay StateHwy305NE S t a t e H w y 3 N W State Route 104 N E TwinSpitsRd B o n d R d N E N E StateHwy308 S i l v e r d a l e W a y N W V i k i n g A v e N W P i o n e e r W a y N W NW Luoto Rd D a u n t l e s s D r i v e N W NE Lincoln Rd NEGundersonRd S t a t e Hwy 104 N W FinnHillRd NWReliance St StateH wy305 ArcheryRd S t a t e H w y 3 N E NW Mountain View Rd L e m oloShoreDrive N E Jen s e n W a y N E C e n t r a l V a l l e y R d N E N W O l h a v a W a y Hood Canal Floating Bridge W a h l L a k e R d 4 t h A v e N E A m berjac kAv e S c o r p i o n A v e T h o r n d y k e R d And y C o oper R d N E T o t t e n R d NW Pioneer Hill Rd DarterRd T h o r n d y k e D r i v e B e a v e r V a lle y R d D a b o b PostOffic e R d N E Sawdust H i l l R d C e n t e r R d N W L o f a l l R d V i k i n g W a y N W C l e a r C r e e k R d N W C e n t r a l V a l l e y R d N W C a l d a r t A v e N E T a n g R d 6 t h A v e N E T r i g g e r A v e N o l l R d NE Oak Bay R d O ly m pic V i e w R d N W P o g y R d Shine Rd Delta Pier A S t NW WestgateRd ParadiseBayRd A r c h e r f i s h R d E a glemount Rd S t o t t l e m e y e r R d N E B r o w n s v i l l e H w y N E S P oin t R d B i g V a l l e y R d N E D a b o b R d C o y l e R d LudlowCreek Thorndyke Creek Tarboo Cre e k BrownsLake PetersonLake LudlowLake LarsonLakeTarbooLake TealLake SandyShoreLake TwinLakes HorseshoeLake TwinLakes TuleLake WahlLake PheasantLake Mud Lake LostLake ThorndykeLake SilentLake CattailLake BangorLake TemporarySewageLagoon IslandLake S E H O O DCANAL Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 6bGeologic Hazards - SE Hood Canal Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 6 _S E _H o o d _C a n a l \F i g 6 b _G e o l o g i c _H a z a r d s .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015 0 2 Miles Landslide Hazard AreaSeismic Hazard AreaErosion Hazard AreaStream (Major)WaterbodyWatershed Boundary Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend LudlowBay DabobBay QuilceneBay TarbooBay ZelatchedPoint BroadSpit BoltonPeninsula ToandosPeninsula LongSpit CampHarmony CampDiscovery TabookPoint PortLudlow Squamish Harbor ThorndykeBay FishermanHarbor WhitneyPoint Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint E a s t F o r k T a r b o o C r e e k SouthPoint S h i n e C r e e k BywaterBay StateHwy305NE S t a t e H w y 3 N W State Route 104 N E TwinSpitsRd B o n d R d N E N E StateHwy308 S i l v e r d a l e W a y N W V i k i n g A v e N W P i o n e e r W a y N W NW Luoto Rd D a u n t l e s s D r i v e N W NE Lincoln Rd NEGundersonRd S t a t e Hwy 104 N W FinnHillRd NWReliance St StateH wy305 ArcheryRd S t a t e H w y 3 N E NW Mountain View Rd L e m oloShoreDrive N E Jen s e n W a y N E C e n t r a l V a l l e y R d N E N W O l h a v a W a y Hood Canal Floating Bridge W a h l L a k e R d 4 t h A v e N E A m berjac kAv e S c o r p i o n A v e T h o r n d y k e R d And y C o oper R d N E T o t t e n R d NW Pioneer Hill Rd DarterRd T h o r n d y k e D r i v e B e a v e r V a lle y R d D a b o b PostOffic e R d N E Sawdust H i l l R d C e n t e r R d N W L o f a l l R d V i k i n g W a y N W C l e a r C r e e k R d N W C e n t r a l V a l l e y R d N W C a l d a r t A v e N E T a n g R d 6 t h A v e N E T r i g g e r A v e N o l l R d NE Oak Bay R d O ly m pic V i e w R d N W P o g y R d Shine Rd Delta Pier A S t NW WestgateRd ParadiseBayRd A r c h e r f i s h R d E a glemount Rd S t o t t l e m e y e r R d N E B r o w n s v i l l e H w y N E S P oin t R d B i g V a l l e y R d N E D a b o b R d C o y l e R d LudlowCreek Thorndyke Creek Tarboo Cre e k BrownsLake PetersonLake LudlowLake LarsonLakeTarbooLake TealLake SandyShoreLake TwinLakes HorseshoeLake TwinLakes TuleLake WahlLake PheasantLake Mud Lake LostLake ThorndykeLake SilentLake CattailLake BangorLake TemporarySewageLagoon IslandLake S E H O O DCANAL Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 6cFEMA Floodplain - SE Hood Canal Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 6 _S E _H o o d _C a n a l \F i g 6 c _F E M A _F l o o d _P l a i n .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; FEMA, 1996 0 2 Miles FEMA 100-Year FloodplainStream (Major)Water BodyWatershed Boundary Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend LudlowBay DabobBay QuilceneBay TarbooBay ZelatchedPoint BroadSpit BoltonPeninsula ToandosPeninsula LongSpit CampHarmony CampDiscovery Quilcene TabookPoint PortLudlow Squamish Harbor ThorndykeBay FishermanHarbor JacksonCove WhitneyPoint Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint SouthPoint BywaterBay S E H O O DCANAL Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 6dZoning - SE Hood Canal Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 6 _S E _H o o d _C a n a l \F i g 6 d _Z o n i n g .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; USGS, 2015 0 2 Miles ZoningComm. Ag 20Comm. Forest-80 Convenience X-roadInholding Forest 20Local Ag 20 ParksResort-FacilitiesResort-Multi Family Resort-Open SpaceResort-RecreationResort-SF Tracts 1:2.5 Resort-Single FamilyRur. Forest-40Rur. Residential-10 Rur. Residential-20Rur. Residential-5Village Comm.Watershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend LudlowBay DabobBay QuilceneBay TarbooBay ZelatchedPoint BroadSpit BoltonPeninsula ToandosPeninsula LongSpit CampHarmony CampDiscovery TabookPoint PortLudlow Squamish Harbor ThorndykeBay FishermanHarbor JacksonCove WhitneyPoint Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint SouthPoint BywaterBay S E H O O DCANAL Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 6eLand Cover - SE Hood Canal Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 6 _S E _H o o d _C a n a l \F i g 6 e _L a n d _C o v e r .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; NLCD, 2011 0 2 Miles Open WaterDeveloped, Open SpaceDeveloped, Low IntensityDeveloped, Medium Intensity Developed, High IntensityBarren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)Deciduous ForestEvergreen Forest Mixed ForestShrub/ScrubGrassland/HerbaceousPasture/Hay Cultivated CropsWoody WetlandsEmergent Herbaceous WoodlandsWatershed Boundary Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend LudlowBay DabobBay QuilceneBay TarbooBay ZelatchedPoint BroadSpit BoltonPeninsula ToandosPeninsula LongSpit CampHarmony CampDiscovery Quilcene TabookPoint PortLudlow Squamish Harbor ThorndykeBay FishermanHarbor JacksonCove WhitneyPoint Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint E a s t F o r k T a r b o o C r e e k SouthPoint S h i n e C r e e k BywaterBay S t a t e H w y 3 0 5 N E S t a t e H w y 3 N W State Route 104 B o n d R d N E C e n t e r R d N E StateHwy308 S i l v e r d a l e W a y N W V i k i n g A v e N W P i o n e e r W a y N W S t a t e H w y 3 N E NW Luoto Rd D a u n t l e s s D r i v e N W C l e a r C r e e k R d N W R i d g etop B l v d N W N W FinnHillRd NWReliance St StateHwy305 ArcheryRd NW Mountain View Rd LemoloSho r e DriveNE Hood Canal Floating Bridge Jen s e n W a y N E C e n t r a l V a l l e y R d N E N W O l h a v a W a y W a h l L a k e R d S c h o l d R d N W 4 t h A v e N E A m berjac kAve S c o r p i o n A v e N W AndersonHillRd T h o r n d y k e R d O l d F r o n t i e r R d N W And y C o oper R d NW Pioneer Hill Rd DarterRd T h o r n d y k e D r i v e N E Sawdus t H i l l R d D a b o b PostOffic e R d Oly m pic H w y N W L o f a l l R d V i k i n g W a y N W C e n t r a l V a l l e y R d N W C a l d a r t A v e N E T a n g R d 6 t h A v e N E T r i g g e r A v e N o l l R d N E O ly m pic V i e w R d N W P o g y R d Shine Rd Delta Pier A S t S n o w C r e e k R d P o in t W h i t n e y R d ParadiseBayRd A r c h e r f i s h R d B e a v e r V a l l e y R d B r o w n s v i l l e H w y N E S P o i n t R d O a k Bay Rd B i g V a l l e y R d N E D a b o b R d C o y l e R d D o n o v a n C r e e k L e l a n d C r e e k LudlowCreek Thorndyke Creek Tarboo Cre e k BrownsLake CrockerLake LudlowLake LarsonLakeTarbooLake TealLake SandyShoreLake TwinLakes HorseshoeLake TwinLakes TuleLake WahlLake PheasantLake Mud Lake BigQuilceneRiver RiceLake LostLake ThorndykeLake SilentLakeDevilsLake CattailLake BangorLake TemporarySewageLagoon IslandLake S E H O O DCANAL Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 6fHabitat and Fish Distribution - SE Hood Canal Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 6 _S E _H o o d _C a n a l \F i g 6 f _H a b i t a t .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; WDFW, 2010 0 2 Miles Fish DistributionBull TroutResident Cutthroat TroutChum SalmonChinook SalmonCoho SalmonPink SalmonSteelhead TroutCore Habitats and CorridorsCore 1Core 2Core 3CorridorWaterbodyWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend QuilceneBay Quilcene Brinnon TritonCove BlackPoint PleasantHarbor JacksonCove McDonaldCove Quilcene NationalFish Hatchery Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint Tunnel Creek C e n t e r R d NWNellitaRd Be e Mill Rd 2401 S e a b e c k H o l l y R d N W DuckabushRd 25 2 5 03 2610 2750 DosewallipsRd 2 7 4 0 2 7 2 5 1 0 O l y m p i c H w y Sq u i rr e l N W P l a c e 242 1 2 5 0 2 N e l lita R d N W M i n n i g L a n e N W 2760 2 7 3 0 2 5 7 2 2 5 3 0 Fulton Creek To wnsend Creek Marple Creek P e n n y C r e e k M c d o n a l d C r e e k L ittl e Q u ilc e n e R i v e r Rocky Brook Creek Spencer Creek Dosewallips River SilverLake BigQuilceneRiver RiceLakeBuckhornLake CharliaLakes DevilsLake HarrisonLake JupiterLakes DosewallipsRiver DuckabushRiver LakeArmstrongHammaHammaRiver S W H O O DCANAL Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 7aHydrography - SW Hood Canal Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 7 _S W _H o o d _C a n a l \F i g 7 a _H y d r o g r a p h y .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; USFWS, 2015 0 2 Miles Critical Aquifer Recharge AreaWetlandStreamWaterbodyNational ForestCounty BoundaryWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend QuilceneBay Quilcene Brinnon TritonCove BlackPoint PleasantHarbor JacksonCove McDonaldCove Quilcene NationalFish Hatchery Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint Tunnel Creek C e n t e r R d NWNellitaRd Be e Mill Rd 2401 S e a b e c k H o l l y R d N W DuckabushRd 25 2 5 03 2610 2750 DosewallipsRd 2 7 4 0 2 7 2 5 1 0 O l y m p i c H w y Sq u i rr e l N W P l a c e 242 1 2 5 0 2 N e l lita R d N W M i n n i g L a n e N W 2760 2 7 3 0 2 5 7 2 2 5 3 0 Fulton Creek To wnsend Creek Marple Creek P e n n y C r e e k M c d o n a l d C r e e k L ittl e Q u ilc e n e R i v e r Rocky Brook Creek Spencer Creek Dosewallips River SilverLake BigQuilceneRiver RiceLakeBuckhornLake CharliaLakes DevilsLake HarrisonLake JupiterLakes DosewallipsRiver DuckabushRiver LakeArmstrongHammaHammaRiver S W H O O DCANAL Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 7b Geologic Hazards - SW Hood Canal Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 7 _S W _H o o d _C a n a l \F i g 7 b _G e o l o g i c _H a z a r d s .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; Reclamation, 2004 0 2 Miles Landslide Hazard AreaSeismic Hazard AreaErosion Hazard AreaChannel Migration ZoneStream (Major)WaterbodyNational ForestCounty BoundaryWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend QuilceneBay Quilcene Brinnon TritonCove BlackPoint PleasantHarbor JacksonCove McDonaldCove Quilcene NationalFish Hatchery Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint Tunnel Creek C e n t e r R d NWNellitaRd Be e Mill Rd 2401 S e a b e c k H o l l y R d N W DuckabushRd 25 2 5 03 2610 2750 DosewallipsRd 2 7 4 0 2 7 2 5 1 0 O l y m p i c H w y Sq u i rr e l N W P l a c e 242 1 2 5 0 2 N e l lita R d N W M i n n i g L a n e N W 2760 2 7 3 0 2 5 7 2 2 5 3 0 Fulton Creek To wnsend Creek Marple Creek P e n n y C r e e k M c d o n a l d C r e e k L ittl e Q u ilc e n e R i v e r Rocky Brook Creek Spencer Creek Dosewallips River SilverLake BigQuilceneRiver RiceLakeBuckhornLake CharliaLakes DevilsLake HarrisonLake JupiterLakes DosewallipsRiver DuckabushRiver LakeArmstrongHammaHammaRiver S W H O O DCANAL Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 7cFEMA Floodplain - SW Hood Canal Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 7 _S W _H o o d _C a n a l \F i g 7 c _F E M A _F l o o d _P l a i n .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; FEMA, 1996 0 2 Miles FEMA 100-Year FloodplainStream (Major)WaterbodyNational ForestCounty BoundaryWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend QuilceneBay Quilcene Brinnon TritonCove BlackPoint PleasantHarbor JacksonCove McDonaldCove Quilcene NationalFish Hatchery Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint Tunnel Creek S W H O O DCANAL Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 7dZoning - SW Hood Canal Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 7 _S W _H o o d _C a n a l \F i g 7 d _Z o n i n g .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; USGS, 2015 0 2 Miles ZoningComm. Ag 20 Comm. Forest-80Convenience X-roadInholding Forest 20 Light Ind./Manu.Local Ag 20Parks Resort-BrinnonRur. Forest-40Rur. Residential-10 Rur. Residential-20Rur. Residential-5Rur. Village Center County BoundaryWatershed Boundary AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend QuilceneBay Quilcene Brinnon TritonCove BlackPoint PleasantHarbor JacksonCove McDonaldCove Quilcene NationalFish Hatchery Frenchman'sPoint PulaliPoint S W H O O DCANAL Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 7eLand Cover - SW Hood Canal Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 7 _S W _H o o d _C a n a l \F i g 7 e _L a n d _C o v e r .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; NLCD, 2011 0 2 Miles Open WaterPerennial Ice/SnowDeveloped, Open SpaceDeveloped, Low Intensity Developed, Medium IntensityDeveloped, High IntensityBarren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)Deciduous Forest Evergreen ForestMixed ForestShrub/ScrubGrassland/Herbaceous Pasture/HayWoody WetlandsEmergent Herbaceous WoodlandsWatershed Boundary Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend QuilceneBay Quilcene Brinnon TritonCove BlackPoint PleasantHarbor JacksonCove McDonaldCove Quilcene NationalFish Hatchery Frenchman'sPoint Tunnel Creek S t a v i s Ba y R d N W NWNellitaRd S e a b e c k H o l l y R d NW W OneMile Rd H i n tzvil l eRd N W B e e Mi l l Rd DuckabushRd 2401 25 25 03 2610 2750 DosewallipsRd 2 7 4 0 2 7 2 5 1 0 O l y m p i c H w y Sq u irr el N W P l a c e P e t e r H a g e n R d N W D e w a t t o R d W 27 6 0 M i n n i g L a n e N W 2 4 6 9 2502 2 421 2 7 3 0 2 5 7 2 2 5 3 0 Fulton Creek Townsend Creek Marple Creek M c d o n a l d C r e e k Rocky Brook Creek Spencer Creek Dosewallips River BigQuilceneRiver CharliaLakes DevilsLake HarrisonLakeLakeConstance JupiterLakes DosewallipsRiver DuckabushRiver LakeArmstrongHammaHammaRiver Elk Lake LewisDam Hamma HammaRiver HintzvilleBeaverPonds HammaHammaRiver MorganMarsh S W H O O DCANAL Jefferson County CAO . 150524Figure 7fHabitat and Fish Distribution - SW Hood Canal Watershed U :\G I S \G I S \P r o j e c t s \1 5 x x x x \D 1 5 0 5 2 4 _J e f f e r s o n C o C E O \m x d \L E \W a t e r s h e d C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n \F i g u r e 7 _S W _H o o d _C a n a l \F i g 7 f _H a b i t a t .m x d (l x e , 3 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 ) SOURCE: ESRI, 2014; Jefferson County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; WDFW, 2010 0 2 Miles Fish DistributionBull TroutResident Cutthroat TroutChum SalmonChinook SalmonCoho SalmonPink SalmonSteelhead TroutCore Habitats and CorridorsCore 1Core 2Core 3CorridorWaterbodyWatershed BoundaryCounty BoundaryNational Forest AdmiraltyInlet Strait of Juan de Fuca Port Townsend Draft JEFFERSON COUNTY CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE UPDATE Recommendations Report Prepared for April 25, 2016 Jefferson County Chimacum Creek, upstream of Port Townsend Bay (Credit: WA Department of Ecology Coastal Atlas) Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report Draft April 2016 Page i Table of Contents CHAPTER 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2. Methods .......................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 3. General Structure and Content ........................................................................ 2 CHAPTER 4. Wetlands ......................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 5. Frequently Flooded Areas ................................................................................ 4 CHAPTER 6. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas .................................................. 5 CHAPTER 7. Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas .............................................. 6 7.1 Definition of Agricultural Activities ............................................................................. 67 7.2 Exemption for Existing and Ongoing Activities ............................................................. 7 7.3 Options for Current Comprehensive Plan and CAO Update ........................................ 78 7.3.1 Productive Use of Agricultural Lands ...................................................................... 8 7.3.2 Protection of Critical Areas ...................................................................................... 9 7.3.3 Protection and Enhancement Monitoring Plan ..................................................... 10 7.4 Regulatory Recommendations ................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 8. References ................................................................................................. 1213 List of Appendices Appendix A – Best Available Science Review and Gap Analysis Matrix Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report Draft April 2016 Page 1 CHAPTER 1. Introduction Jefferson County is updating its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in accordance with the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). Per the GMA requirements, the County has performed a review of current best available science (BAS) for informing policies and regulations that protect and manage activities in and near critical areas (ESA, 2015). The Best Available Science Report incorporates the findings of previous review efforts conducted by the County and assesses current regulations for consistency with current BAS. The County also developed the comprehensive Watershed Characterization Report that synthesized existing biological and physical data and watershed-based information relating to critical areas within the eastern portion of the County, with a focus on stream conditions and agricultural areas (ESA, 2016). Using fine-scale land cover, topography, streamflow, and other available data, the report assesses trends in environmental quality and ecological functions of streams, wetlands, floodplains, and fish and wildlife habitat in eastern Jefferson County. This recommendations report uses the assessment of regulations in the BAS report along with the watershed analysis to identify specific adjustments to regulations that could improve protection and management of critical areas in the County. The report provides a set of options (where applicable) and draft recommendations for revising regulations that pertain to the following topic areas: Wetlands; Frequently flooded areas; and Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs). ESA also reviewed regulations for agricultural activities and accessory uses in JCC 18.20.030 against current scientific information, case law, and state law. CHAPTER 2. Methods To organize our assessment of the County’s CAO, we developed a gap analysis matrix (Appendix A) to identify gaps and document consistency between CAO provisions and GMA regulations, relevant agency guidance, and BAS published since 2005. Since that time new scientific findings have been published describing methods for improving the success of compensatory wetland mitigation, buffer effectiveness, and ecological functions of floodplains, among other topics. The gap analysis matrix provides an assessment of general consistency and the corresponding rationale and source for each gap identified. In addition to identifying provisions inconsistent with state law or recent science, our review identified several areas where the protection of critical areas could be improved by adding, removing, clarifying, and rearranging sections and subsections of the code to make them clearer and easier to implement. We categorized our assessment as follows: Gap or Missing protection. New code provision should be added to ensure compliance with GMA and BAS. Consistency with BAS and/or GMA. Code provision either does or does not, in our opinion, meet best available science or state guidance. Existing provision would result in detrimental impacts to critical areas and their functions and values. Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report Draft Page 2 April 2016 Clarity/ User friendliness. Code provision is difficult to administer due to clarity, readability, and understandability. Internal consistency. Code provision is redundant (included in multiple sections) or is located in an inappropriate section. Item identified by County staff. Code provision has been identified by County staff as needing adjustment to improve implementation. Update to reflect current County procedures. Code provision may not accurately reflect the current administrative procedures used by County staff in implementing the CAO. The following chapters provide a summary of major gaps and recommendations for revising the actual code language to achieve compliance or improve consistency. Please see Appendix A for the complete list of gaps and recommendations. CHAPTER 3. General Structure and Content In general, the Jefferson County CAO is reasonably clear and contains the majority of required or recommended content issued in state guidelines from the Department of Commerce (Commerce, formerly the Community Trade and Economic Development), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). However, the code should be updated in a few key areas to improve its consistency with the GMA and its implementing regulations, best available science, and current agency guidelines as suggested here and in the following chapters. As documented in the gap analysis matrix (Appendix A), there are several gaps or missing programmatic standards that should apply to CAO administration under Article II – Administrative Provisions. Adding or improving existing code language to address the following items would improve overall consistency with recommended CAO structure guidelines and protection of critical areas: Provisions that describe the critical area project review process followed by the County for review of permit applications. Provisions requiring a “best available science” standard for critical area or special reports and administrator decisions. Establish a general mitigation sequencing requirement for all critical areas (the mitigation sequence is currently only applied to wetlands in JCC 18.22.350). Provision requiring all exempted activities to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas. Provisions for County response to unauthorized alterations in critical areas and enforcement of violations. List of specific “regulated activities” that apply to all critical areas generally (each individual critical area section currently includes a list). For many of the above recommendations, the gap analysis matrix includes suggested language for revising or adding new provisions. The suggested language is derived from multiple sources including: the example code provisions in Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act (CTED, 2007); example code provisions for Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report Draft April 2016 Page 3 wetlands in Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities, Western Washington Version (Bunten et al., 2012); WAC standards; and, best professional judgment. CHAPTER 4. Wetlands The County amended its wetlands ordinance in 2014 in response to Ecology’s recent update to the Wetland Rating System (Hruby, 2014). The amendment addressed wetland buffer provisions and revised various protection standards to be consistent with the updated Ecology guidance. Prior to this amendment, the wetland provisions were last updated in 2008 when the City adopted a revised CAO. Based on our review of current scientific literature and agency guidance, the majority of wetland regulations are still largely consistent with BAS (ESA, 2015). The following list summarizes the major regulations and definitions that should be updated to reflect current state law, scientific literature, and guidance provided by regulatory agencies for wetland protection and includes: Definition of wetlands (current definition is not entirely consistent with the state definition). References to the current version of the federal wetland delineation manual (current ordinance references the incorrect manual in several locations). Wetland buffer tables (JCC 18.22.330) (minor changes are needed to reflect Ecology’s modified version of its guidance for “Buffer Alternative 3”; does not include changes to buffer widths). Provisions for when buffer reduction and/or averaging is or is not allowed could be improved (current code provides limited standards). Provision to allow the administrator to increase a wetland buffer, if and when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values (may occur in implementation, but is not explicit in current code). Preference of mitigation actions for permittee-responsible mitigation (code does not specify compensatory mitigation types). Allowance for the use of alternative mitigation strategies including mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs. Preference for watershed-based mitigation rather than in-kind and on-site and if an alternative mitigation approach is used. Additional suggested changes to the code that could improve the consistency with BAS and guidance, clarity, and internal consistency include the following topics: Statute of limitation on wetland determinations (current code does not explicitly require the five-year standard set by the Corps of Engineers). Explicit focus on wetland functions and values with regards to wetland impacts, buffer averaging or reduction proposals, and mitigation proposals. The three buffer options for development proposals include an “apparent boundary option”, which is atypical of wetland ordinances and contains vague language that could be clarified. Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report Draft Page 4 April 2016 Explicit focus on wetland impact minimization measures (code does not include list of measures as provided by Ecology guidance). Based on the previous watershed characterization analysis (ESA, 2016), the wetland protections are generally valid for current conditions though some watersheds have impaired water quality and lack wetland buffer vegetation due to past and ongoing land use practices. In these watersheds, non- regulatory actions to improve watershed health and habitat conditions should be considered. General management opportunities for each of the nine watershed analysis units are suggested and described in the Watershed Characterization Report (ESA, 2016). The suggested management opportunities address known impairments in the watershed analysis units and include wetland-related actions such as: protecting existing, high-quality wetlands; incentive programs to engage landowners in conservation efforts; and, continued efforts to improve water quality through repairing known failing septic systems and livestock exclusion fencing. CHAPTER 5. Frequently Flooded Areas The current CAO provides standards for the protection of frequently flooded areas outside of shoreline jurisdiction through reference to Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (JCC 15.15). JCC 15.15 includes standards for identification, reporting, and protection of floodplains, and references floodplain standards for new development and structures. JCC 15.15 has served the dual-purpose of satisfying the requirements of the GMA (RCW 36.70A) and the Floodplain Management statute (RCW 86.16) since it was adopted in 2006. The Best Available Science Report (ESA, 2015) concluded that the regulations address floodplains and the risks of flooding from a human health and public safety perspective, but there is no consideration of the ecological functions of floodplains. Ecology’s Guidance to Local Governments on Frequently Flooded Areas Updates in CAOs (Ecology, 2015a) states that the local governments need to consider the adequacy of the designation and the protection of frequently flooded areas in the critical area regulations. Potential measures recommended by FEMA and Ecology that are appropriate for riverine and coastal flooding areas in the County to address ecological functions include: Requiring compensatory storage for all permitted floodplain fill within the Dosewallips, Duckabush, Big Quilcene, and Little Quilcene Rivers, and Chimacum, Snow, and Salmon Creek floodplains (current flood damage code does not include compensatory storage provision). Protecting high risk channel migration zones (CMZs) from development impacts beyond the minimal requirements for vegetation retention in JCC 18.22.170 (CMZs are currently included in the code as a geologically hazardous area). Considering the revised FIRM scheduled for issue in 2017 by FEMA, which provides updated information for flood hazard areas in the County that should be considered in conjunction with local information. Considering adding requirements to incorporate information about potential impacts from long-term climate trends on frequently flooded areas, such as addressing rising sea levels, tsunami, high tides with strong winds, and extreme weather events. Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report Draft April 2016 Page 5 Reviewing article to ensure it is aligned with the SMP and clarifying that the regulations do not apply to land uses and modifications within shoreline jurisdiction (many frequently flooded areas in the County are also regulated under the County’s SMP since they lie within shorelands). The above options are suggested as opportunities to strengthen consistency with FEMA Region X’s Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Guidance (FEMA, 2013) for achieving compliance with the National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion (NMFS BiOp) for floodplains. The changes are not required for GMA compliance. The County currently manages floodplain permit approvals through the Door 3 process (case-by-case) and does not expect to move to programmatic compliance. CHAPTER 6. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas The County’s FWHCA regulations appear to have been updated during a different time period than other sections of the CAO based on the consistency between sections and clarity. The initial designation of FWHCAs include some but not all of the types listed by the GMA and its implementing regulations (WAC 365-190-130). Further, the County uses the Washington Department of Natural Resources stream typing system for classifying streams as Type S, F, Np and Ns. This is consistent with state guidance; however there is no description of the stream types in the code and only a reference to WAC 222-16-030 is available. Without the description, the division between the two categories of Type Ns streams in terms of standard buffer requirements is unclear. These and other provisions should be updated to reflect current state law, scientific literature, and guidance provided by regulatory agencies as suggested below: Revise the classifications/designation section (JCC 18.22.200) to be consistent with the regulated fish and wildlife habitat conservation area types listed in WAC 365-190-130 and in the example code by CTED (2007) (current code lacks Naturally occurring ponds under twenty acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat and Waters of the state as defined in RCW 90.48.020 and classified in WAC 222-16-030). Add provisions requiring mitigation for impacts to FWHCAs and their buffers (current code lacks mitigation requirement). Add provisions allowing the administrator to increase the standard buffer or require buffers based on set of specific criteria for FWHCAs instead of a standard buffer. Revise stream and riparian buffers for clarity and potential consistency with BAS (current code is unclear). Provide summary descriptions of stream characteristics and typing according to WAC 222-16- 030. Additional changes to the code that could improve the consistency with BAS and guidance, clarity, and internal consistency include the following topics: Provide clarification in the classifications/designation section that Type S streams, lakes larger than 20 acres, and marine shorelines are regulated under the County Shoreline Master Program. Commented [IEL1]: Donna/Ilon to discuss Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report Draft Page 6 April 2016 Revise the regulated activities section to incorporate references to the WDFW guidance BAS documents for fish passage and stream restoration. Incorporate references to the County-sponsored study Management Strategies for Core Wildlife Habitat Areas in Eastern Jefferson County (Tomassi, 2004) where relevant (current code does appear to integrate or codify the wildlife habitat study, but should be incorporated if the County is using the study or the habitat and corridor maps during development proposal review or recommending/reviewing mitigation plans. The watershed characterization analysis incorporated the Tomassi study and summarized the results for each of the nine watershed analysis units (ESA, 2016). General management opportunities for fish and wildlife habitat protection and enhancement should refer to this resource and include actions such as protecting existing Core 1 designated habitats through acquisition or other methods. Additional actions could include incentive programs to engage landowners in conservation efforts, such as enhancement of Core 2 or 3 designated habitats or Corridors that connect core areas. CHAPTER 7. Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas The Best Available Science Report (ESA, 2015) provides an in-depth summary of the recent agricultural census data for Jefferson County, and the scientific literature concerning critical areas located within or adjacent to land used for agricultural purposes and how they can affect or be affected by agricultural uses. The report also summarizes the Chimacum Watershed Agriculture, Fish & Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan (Latham, 2004) and the Chimacum Watershed Water Quality and Fishes Report (Gately et al., 2015). The purpose of the BAS Report was to establish a basis for reviewing agricultural activities provisions of County code to protect critical areas and agricultural uses. The report concludes that agricultural uses and activities can have impacts on water quality, the flow of water, and wildlife habitat; however, many of the impacts can be minimized through application of agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) used commonly on farms in Jefferson County, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) buffers, and other incentive programs. For efficiency purposes, please refer to the BAS Report for supporting information on these conclusions. The following sections first establish the definition of agricultural activities and provide a history of agricultural exemptions to critical areas regulations. Subsequently, options for developing a set of regulations that both maintain agricultural production and viability while protecting critical areas in compliance GMA is provided followed by a set of recommended changes to the regulations. 7.1 Definition of Agricultural Activities Under the current JCC, agricultural activities are divided into two types: existing and ongoing and new. Existing and ongoing agriculture is defined as “activities conducted on an ongoing basis on lands enrolled in the open space tax program for agriculture or designated as agricultural lands (AP-20 and AL-20); provided, that agricultural activities were conducted on those lands at any time during the five- year period preceding April 28, 2003.” New agriculture is defined as “activities proposed or conducted after April 28, 2003, and that do not meet the definition of ‘existing and ongoing agriculture.’” New agricultural activities are subject to the critical areas regulations in JCC 18.22. Conversely, existing and Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report Draft April 2016 Page 7 ongoing agriculture is exempt from critical areas regulations, but is subject to the objectives and standards of JCC 18.20.030 “Agricultural Activities and Accessory Uses” through voluntary compliance. JCC 18.20.030 is primarily based on a set of BMPs that protect the functions and values of critical areas from harm or degradation related to agricultural activities. 7.2 Exemption for Existing and Ongoing Activities Existing and ongoing agriculture has historically been exempt from critical areas regulations promulgated under the GMA. In 2005, case law established that existing agriculture can generally no longer be exempted from critical area ordinances (Clallam County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 2005). An additional Supreme Court case in 2007 clarified multiple key terms with regards to critical areas protection and agricultural land uses (Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board; 2007). The Swinomish decision clarified that the GMA does not impose a duty on local governments to enhance critical areas, but rather, local governments must protect critical areas by maintaining existing conditions and preventing harm or degradation (the “no harm” standard). Between 2007 and 2011, a temporary allowance for agricultural exemptions was in place (RCW 70A.560) while the Ruckleshaus Center examined the conflict between protecting agricultural land and protecting critical areas under GMA. In 2011, Washington state adopted the Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP) (RCW 36.70A.705 – 904) and the temporary allowance ended. The purpose of the VSP is to protect natural resources, including critical areas, while maintaining and enhancing the state's agricultural uses. It encourages voluntary local stewardship efforts as an alternative to critical areas regulation under the GMA. Counties are not required to implement the VSP until adequate state funding is available. In 2011 and 2012, Jefferson County considered the VSP program over a series of meetings with County staff, County Commissioners, stakeholders (agricultural, environmental, and tribal entities), and the public. The commissioners held a public hearing and various avenues of public comment were made available. In 2012, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) ultimately decided not to participate in the program and published a letter explaining the rationale behind the decision (Jefferson County BOCC, 2012). In the letter, the BOCC stated a concern for unknowns and risks associated with program implementation, but noted positive value in the goals offered by the VSP, including: the balance between protection of critical areas and maintaining the long-term viability of agriculture in the County; and, a focus on voluntary incentive programs that encourage stewardship. They also recognized the use of BMPs and farm plans, coupled with watershed-wide restoration efforts, to protect critical areas and sustain agricultural activities. They noted that the County uses many of these same tools and approaches at a local level and in partnership with local stakeholders. The BOCC stated a willingness to consider the program in the future after funding is made available and if another opt-in period is made available to Washington communities. 7.3 Options for Current Comprehensive Plan and CAO Update The County anticipates developing and adopting a “VSP-like” framework for maintaining agricultural production and viability while protecting critical areas in compliance with the GMA. In 2014, the County, WSU Extension, and the County Planning Commission formed an “Ag/CAO Task Force.” The task force was comprised of these three entities as well as interested citizens with the purpose of Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report Draft Page 8 April 2016 crafting critical areas regulations that both protect critical areas (especially water quality for salmon habitat) while also allowing for the productive use of agricultural lands. The task force met four times in 2014 and held working sessions as well as a tour of local farms where conservation practices were occurring alongside agricultural activities. No formal report of the task force was ever compiled, but the following discussion incorporates potential solutions suggested by the task force as derived from meeting notes, email communication, and other materials. Based on a review of case law, the VSP statute (RCW 70A.560), and materials prepared by the counties opting-in to the program, a VSP-like plan or ordinance would need the following elements: Reliance upon voluntary stewardship practices as the primary method of protecting critical areas as opposed to requiring the cessation or regulation of agricultural activities. Focus on specific watershed(s) of concern (possibly). Protection of critical areas from harm or degradation by maintaining existing level of functions and values. Definition of existing conditions and existing level of functions of values. Creation of a long-term monitoring plan that includes measureable benchmarks designed to promote voluntary, incentive-based measures that: 1) provide long-term protection of critical areas and 2) encourage voluntary enhancements to improve critical areas. The ordinance must detail how Jefferson County will protect critical areas while maintaining and enhancing agricultural viability in specific watershed(s). 7.3.1 Productive Use of Agricultural Lands To maintain and enhance agricultural viability while also achieving the required protection of critical areas functions and values, the County should rely upon voluntary stewardship engagement and practices. An important element of the VSP is that it is voluntary, not regulatory. Agricultural operators that implement an individual stewardship plan consistent with the local VSP work plan are presumed to be working toward the protection and enhancement of critical areas. Further, VSP statutes prohibit county promulgation of new critical areas regulations related to agricultural land uses during the VSP process. Currently, individual stewardship planning is available to operators and encouraged per JCC 18.20.030(2)(b)(iii). The list of resources and best management practices (BMPs) in the code are supported by the Chimacum Watershed Agriculture, Fish & Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan (Latham, 2004), which also provides a framework for voluntary protection and improvements to fish and wildlife habitat on agricultural land compatible with maintaining agricultural viability. According to the plan, BMPs should address five management areas: (I) Livestock and dairy management (II) Nutrient and farm chemical management (III) Soil erosion and sediment control management (IV) Operation and maintenance of agricultural drainage infrastructure (V) Riparian management Commented [IEL2]: Donna to confirm. Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report Draft April 2016 Page 9 Landowners and operators are expected to use BMPs and meet the standards described through voluntary compliance. The conservation district provides technical assistance to landowners and relies on NRCS Conservation Practice Standards as distributed in local Field Office Technical Guides (FOTGs). Conservation practice standards include information on why and where a practice is applied and sets forth the minimum quality criteria required during application of that practice for it to achieve its intended purpose. The state FOTGs are the primary scientific references for determining NRCS standard practices. They contain technical information about the conservation of soil, water, air, and related plant and animal resources. FOTGs are specific to the geographic area for which they are prepared. 7.3.2 Protection of Critical Areas Previously mentioned, the standard established by case law (Swinomish decision) for the protection of critical areas is the “no harm” standard. The “no harm” standard protects critical areas by maintaining existing conditions. A key component of this standard is defining existing conditions, which will serve as the protection baseline. For the VSP, the definition of existing conditions for “no new harm/no further degradation” standard was effectively codified in 2011 by VSP statute. Therefore, July 22, 2011 became the protection baseline for counties participating in the program. The current Jefferson County regulations governing agricultural activities and accessory uses (JCC 18.20.030) already includes a “no harm or degradation” standard defined as: (I) Maintaining or improving documented water quality levels, if available. (II) Meeting, or working towards meeting, the requirements of any total maximum daily load (TMDL) requirements established by the Department of Ecology pursuant to Chapter 90.48 RCW. (III) Meeting all applicable requirements of Chapter 77.55 RCW and Chapter 220-110 WAC (Hydraulics Code). (IV) No evidence of degradation to the existing fish and wildlife habitat characteristics of the stream or wetland that can be reasonably attributed to adjacent agricultural activities. This definition may be sufficient although, the first and fourth items would benefit from additional information. The first item should provide a reference to documented water quality levels (agency and/or specific report). The fourth item is vague and seemingly impossible to measure or confirm. The item should be revised to be more specific about the “characteristics” that are being considered and/or evaluated. In addition, this code section defines “existing functions and values” in JCC 18.20.030(2)(F) as follows: (I) Water quality, as documented in a given watershed by the Jefferson County conservation district or other management agency. (II) The existence or absence of large woody debris within a stream, as documented in the “Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors” analyses completed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) between 2000 and 2003 for the Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) 16, 17, 20, and 21, or other relevant studies. Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report Draft Page 10 April 2016 (III) The existing riparian buffer characteristics and width, including, but not limited to, the existing amount of shade provided by the existing riparian buffer, as documented in the “Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors” analyses completed by WDFW between 2000 and 2003 for the Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) 16, 17, 20, and 21, or other relevant studies. (IV) The existing channel morphology as documented with year 2000 Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Aerial Photography. With some updates to the references listed, this section could serve as support for the establishment of a protection baseline for maintenance of existing conditions. Establishing a specific date may also be necessary for GMA compliance. As clarified in the Swinomish decision, restoration or enhancement of degraded critical areas is encouraged, but it is not required under the GMA. However, a key element of the decision is the support for the overall protection critical areas at the aggregate or watershed level from new harm or degradation. This allows harm or impact to critical areas in one area of a watershed to be offset by enhancement in another portion of the specified watershed. Previous planning in the Chimacum watershed (Latham, 2004) provides habitat improvement recommendations for each stream reach that would be relevant for determining the County’s approach to protecting critical areas at the watershed level (Chimacum watershed in this case). 7.3.3 Protection and Enhancement Monitoring Plan To document and confirm that agricultural lands are being preserved at the same time critical area functions and values are being protected from further harm or degradation, the County will likely need to establish a monitoring plan. The plan should include a set of goals and benchmarks for voluntary enhancements and other stewardship activities implemented since the established protection baseline date. The plan should assess actions at the watershed scale and not site-specific scale to keep the aggregate level of critical area protection from degrading below the protection baseline. The VSP program requires the use of goals and benchmarks. The benchmarks include metrics that serve as criteria for monitoring the impacts and progress made towards the goals from the implementation of the VSP. Benchmarks represent steps in the desired direction measured over time and metrics are the tools for measurement. To track progress, the County or conservation district could track the application of NRCS Conservation Practices to demonstrate progress of conservation and restoration actions. The draft Thurston County VSP Work Plan suggests that tracking the extent of the types of NRCS practices and number of conservation/stewardship plans can demonstrate protection and voluntary enhancement of critical areas as the maintenance and improvement of agriculture in Thurston County beyond the established baseline for the VSP (Thurston County, 2014). Example practices include: Prescribed Grazing, Nutrient Management, Cover Crop, Pasture and Hayland Planting, Fence, Tree/Shrub Establishment, and Upland Wildlife Habitat Management. The County could protect critical areas through land acquisition and conservation easements, and improve critical area functions and values through restoration and enhancement actions as documented in the Habitat Work Schedule or other databases. The following are examples of measureable stewardship actions that could be tracked and monitored to demonstrate protection of critical areas and farmland: Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report Draft April 2016 Page 11 Acres of farmland protected via easements Acres of habitat protected via easements Riparian feet protected via easements Miles of streambank protected Fish barriers removed/blockages corrected In-stream LWD structures installed Acres of riparian plantings Acres of riparian area treated for plant removal/control The County could also use trend information gathered through its Surface Water Monitoring Program to corroborate improvements in riparian conditions from restoration and enhancement actions. 7.4 Regulatory Recommendations We reviewed JCC 18.22 and 18.20.030 in light of current GMA requirements, case law, and the above suggested options for the County’s approach to maintain agricultural viability while protecting critical areas. The following bullets summarize our recommendations and suggestions: Remove agricultural activities exemption from JCC 18.22.070. Agricultural activities are no longer exempt from critical areas regulations though are regulated in JCC 18.20.030. Add provisions indicating allowances for farmed wetlands to Article VII Wetlands (of JCC 18.22) with a reference to JCC 18.20.030. Note that existing farms with actively farmed wetland areas need to complete a stewardship/conservation plan. Limit the application of JCC 18.20.030 to specific watersheds in the County where agriculture is a dominant land use. Apply critical areas protection in JCC 18.22 to other watersheds. Allow site-specific stewardship/conservation plans in all zoning categories (not just agriculturally zoned areas). Allow and encourage site-specific stewardship/conservation plans to include off-site mitigation that contributes to a comprehensive watershed-level restoration plan. Review and consider revising the definitions for “agriculture” and “agricultural activities” to be consistent with RCW 90.58. Throughout JCC 18.20.030, revise references to JCC 18.15 (repealed) to be JCC 18.22. Commented [IEL3]: Donna, let's discuss. Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report Draft Page 12 April 2016 CHAPTER 8. References Bunten, D., A.McMillan, R. Mraz, and J. Sikes. 2012. Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities. Western Washington Version. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 10-06-002. October 2012 2nd Revision. Olympia, WA. Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/gma/guidance.html Clallam County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2. No. 31283-2-II. October 25, 2005. Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2002. Guidance on Compensatory Mitigation Projects for Aquatic Resource Impacts Under the Corps Regulatory Program Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899; Regulatory Guidance Letter. No. 02-2. December 24, 2002. Available at: http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/RGLS/RGL2-02.pdf. Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). Report No. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. May 2010. Available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046494.pdf. Corps and EPA (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and US Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Compensatory Mitigation for losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule. Federal Register 73(70): 19594-1970. CTED (Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development). 2007. Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protection Critical Areas within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act. January 2007. Available at: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-Critical-Areas-Assist-Handbook.pdf. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2002. Washington State Wetland Mitigation Evaluation Study Phase 2: Evaluating Success. Publication No. 02-06-009. January 2002. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0206009.pdf. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2008. Making Mitigation Work: The Report of the Mitigation that Works Forum. Ecology Publication No. 08-06-018. December 2008. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0806018.pdf. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2012a. Guidance on In-Lieu Fee Mitigation. Ecology Publication No. 12-06-012. December 2012. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1206012.pdf. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2012b. Interagency Regulatory Guide: Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation. Ecology Publication No. 12-06-015. December 2012. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1206015.html. Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report Draft April 2016 Page 13 Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2015a. Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Guidance for Frequently Flooded Areas. Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/floods/FloodedAreaGuidance.html. Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2015b. Wetland Mitigation Banking. How to become a wetland mitigation bank sponsor. Accessed November 2015. Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/mitigation/banking/sponsor.html Ecology, Corps, and EPA (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and US Environmental Protection Agency). 2006a. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State— Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance. Ecology Publication: No. 06-06-011a. March 2006. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0606011a.pdf. Ecology, Corps, and EPA (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and US Environmental Protection Agency). 2006b. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State— Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans. Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011b. March 2006. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0606011b.pdf. Ecology, Corps, and WDFW (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation. Ecology Publication No. 12-06-015. December 2012. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1206015.pdf. ESA (Environmental Science Associates). 2015. Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance Update – Best Available Science Report. Prepared for Jefferson County, December 2015. ESA. 2016. Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance Update – Watershed Characterization Report. Prepared for Jefferson County, May 2016. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2013. Regional Guidance For Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation in the Puget Sound Basin. August 2013. Available at: http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1383598118060- e34756afe271d52a0498b3a00105c87b/Puget_Sound_R10_Habitat_Assess_guide.pdf. Gately, G., J. Clarke, D. Ecelberger, C. Schrader. 2015. Chimacum Watershed Water Quality and Fishes: A Comprehensive Review. Prepared by Jefferson County Conservation District. Port Hadlock, WA. Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No. 05-06-008. April 2005. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0506008.pdf. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. Washington Department of Ecology. Publication No. 04-06-025. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0406025.pdf. Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report Draft Page 14 April 2016 Hruby, T. 2012. Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No. 10-06-011. March 2012. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1006011.pdf. Hruby, T. 2013. Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science, Final Report. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No. 13-06-011. October 2013. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1306011.pdf. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Washington Department of Ecology. Publication No. 14-06-029. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1406029.pdf. Hruby, T., K. Harper, and S. Stanley. 2009. Selecting Mitigation Sites using a Watershed Approach. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 09-06-032. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0906032.pdf Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). 2012. Letter to interested parties and stakeholders re: ESHB 1886 Voluntary Stewardship Program and Jefferson County dated February 6, 2012. BOCC members Phil Johnson, David W. Sullivan, and John Austin. Port Townsend, WA. Knight, K. 2009. Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. Knutson, K. L., and Naef, V. L. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority habitats: Riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 181pp. Latham, A. 2004. Chimacum Watershed Agriculture, Fish & Wildlife Protection Plan. Prepared by Jefferson County Conservation District. Port Hadlock, WA. May, C.W. 2003. Stream-Riparian Ecosystems in the Puget Sound Lowland Eco-Region: A Review of Best Available Science. Watershed Ecology LLC. 76 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. Final Biological Opinion Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington, Phase One Document – Puget Sound Region. Bothell, WA. PSP (Puget Sound Partnership). 2010. Floodplain Management: A Synthesis of Issues Affecting Recovery of Puget Sound. Prepared by Millie Judge (Lighthouse Natural Resource Consulting, Inc.); David St. John (PSP) and Caitlin Imaki (PSP). Available at: http://www.psp.wa.gov/vitalsigns/documents/Floodplain_Management_Report%20Judge%20 Final-July%202010.pdf. Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No. 05-06-006. March 2005. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0506006.pdf. Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Report Draft April 2016 Page 15 Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. Supreme Court of Washington. No.76339-9. September 13, 2007. Thurston County. 2014. Voluntary Stewardship Plan – Work Plan Draft. Dated June 30, 2015. Prepared by the Thurston County Long Range Planning Division. Olympia, WA. Tomassi, S. 2004. Management Strategies for Core Wildlife Habitat Areas in Eastern Jefferson County. Prepared for Jefferson County Natural Resources Division. March 2014. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Landscape Planning for Washington’s Wildlife: Managing for Biodiversity in Developing Areas. WDFW (Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2009. Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead, and Trout: A Land Use Planner's Guide to Salmon Habitat Protection and Recovery. October 2009. Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Program. APPENDIX A BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE REVIEW AND GAP ANALYSIS MATRIX Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update Best Available Science Review and Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 1 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change Article I. Purpose 18.22.010 Purpose – Generally Could be revised to be more consistent. Does not cite implementation of the GMA or the County’s Comprehensive Plan. (2) Does not specify that the CASP method is allowed only for single-family residential proposals. Revise to include reference to goals, policies, guidelines, and requirements of GMA and Comprehensive Plan. See example language in CTED 2007. Consider clarifying that CASP method is for residential developments. Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act (CTED, 2007) Article II. Administrative Provisions Standard for jurisdiction - None Inconsistent with GMA. Code does not include provisions for jurisdiction of critical areas. Consider adding a new section titled “Jurisdiction” that provides definitions and designations of critical areas. See Footnote 1 for example language. Adherence to federal and state standards; WAC 365- 190 Standard for critical areas review process and application requirements - None Inconsistent with guidance. Code does not include requirements for critical areas review and applications. Consider adding a new section titled “Critical Area Project Review Process” that provides direction for applicants and the critical area review process. See Footnote 2 for example language. Taylor language to ensure it is consistent with current County procedures. Improve clarity/user friendliness for applicants and consistency with guidance. CTED, 2007 Standard for best available science – None Inconsistent with GMA and guidance. Code does not include a best available science requirement or note special consideration of anadromous fisheries. Consider adding a section that states that critical area/special reports and decisions to alter critical areas shall rely on the best available science. See Footnote 3 for example language. CTED, 2007 Standard for mitigation Inconsistent with GMA. Code does not include a general mitigation sequencing Proposed impacts to all critical areas and their buffers must adhere to the mitigation Adherence to federal and state standards WAC 197- Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 2 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change sequencing – None requirement. The mitigation sequence is currently only applied to wetlands (18.22.350). sequencing steps. Consider adding a section that lists the steps; see example language in Footnote 4. 11-168; CTED, 2007 Standard for unauthorized alterations and enforcement - None Inconsistent with guidance. Code does not include standards for unauthorized alterations in critical areas and enforcement of violations. Consider adding a new article titled “Unauthorized Critical Area Alterations and Enforcement” and using example language shown in Footnote 6. CTED, 2007 18.22.020 Applicability Could be revised to be more consistent with state guidance and for clarity. Code contains general applicability language (18.22.020). Ecology has suggested that Applicability sections include statement about compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements. Consider expanding the Applicability section to provide a more specific list of “regulated activities” that apply to all critical areas generally. See Footnote 5 for example language. Consider adding another subsection that specifies that critical areas permit approval does not constitute compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements. See Footnote 7 for example language. Clarity/ User friendliness Ecology guidance (verbal) 18.22.050 Coverage Could be revised for clarity. The contents of this section overlap with ‘Applicability’ (18.22.020). Consider merging this section with 18.22.020 to improve clarity for applicants. Section (2) should be revised to state than any action taken in a critical area “or its buffer” designated under this chapter… Improve clarity ease-of- use. 18.22.070 General exemptions Gap or missing protection. Code does not include requirements for minimizing impacts to critical areas. Consider revising the introductory language to: “All exempted activities shall use reasonable methods to avoid or minimize impacts to critical areas, and that alteration of a critical area that is not a necessary outcome of the exempted activity shall be restored at the responsible party’s expense. Critical area impacts resulting from exempt activities should be minimized as much as possible. CTED, 2007 Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 3 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change The following developments, activities, and associated uses shall be exempt from the requirements of this chapter, provided that they are otherwise consistent with the provisions of other local, state, and federal laws and requirements:” 18.22.070 (1) General exemptions Inconsistent with GMA. Section exempts existing and ongoing agricultural activities. Remove provision. Agricultural activities are no longer exempt from critical areas regulations though are regulated in JCC 18.20.030. Provisions indicating allowances for farmed wetlands could be added to Article VII Wetlands with a reference to JCC 18.20.030. RCW 36.70A.700: GMA amendment establishing Voluntary Stewardship Program (July 22, 2011) and removal temporary allowance for agricultural exemptions (RCW 36.70A.560). Also case law (Clallam County v. WWGMHB, 2005), pre-existing agriculture can generally no longer be exempted from the CAO. 18.22.070 (4) General exemptions Could be revised to be more consistent with GMA. Code exempts maintenance of drainage ditches. Change “drainage ditches” to “drainage ditches that do not meet the criteria for being considered a fish and wildlife habitat area” to ensure consideration of anadromous salmonids. WAC 365-190 In some environments, existing drainage ditches may be completely manmade, or may be streams that were historically straightened and ditched, that may still provide fish habitat. 18.22.070 (5)(b), (6) General Inconsistent with guidance. State guidance does not support exemptions for construction activities or activities that would Consider removing subsection (b) and revising Sections 5 and 6 using example language provided in Footnote 8. CTED, 2007 Commented [IEL1]: Donna, let's discuss. Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 4 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change exemptions require construction permits. 18.22.070 (8) General exemptions Inconsistent with guidance. Code does not require mitigation for critical area impacts from emergency actions. Revise to include mitigation requirements. Consider using language provided in Footnote 9. CTED, 2007 18.22.070 (9) General exemptions Could be revised to be more consistent. Code exempts maintenance of artificial wetlands and artificial ponds. Consider changing “artificial wetlands and artificial ponds” to “artificial wetlands and artificial ponds that do not meet the criteria for being considered a fish and wildlife habitat area.” Or consider the following replacement language: “Development involving or near artificially created wetlands or streams intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including but not limited to grass-lined swales, irrigation and drainage ditches, detention facilities, and landscape features, except wetlands, streams, or swales created as mitigation or that provide habitat for salmonids.” In some environments, manmade wetlands or ponds may be ponds that were historically straightened and ditched, which may still provide fish habitat. 18.22.070 (11) General exemptions Could be revised to be more consistent. Code exempts maintenance of irrigation ditches, reservoirs, and ponds. Change “ditches, reservoirs, ponds” to “ditches, reservoirs, and ponds that do not meet the criteria for being considered a fish and wildlife habitat area” In some environments, existing ditches, reservoirs, or ponds may be completely manmade, or may be ponds and streams that were historically straightened and ditched, which may still provide fish habitat. 18.22.070 (12) General exemptions Could be revised to be more specific. BAS supports low-impact, passive recreational boating, such as canoeing or kayaking. Remove “boating” and replace with “canoeing” or “kayaking” CTED, 2007 18.22.070 (14) General Could be revised for clarity. Exemption appears to cover artificially created wetlands. Remove provision. Artificially created wetlands will be addressed in the definition of Internal consistency Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 5 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change exemptions wetland (see Suggested Change to 18.22.300). The relevant language in the definition is: “… Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non- wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds…” 18.22.070 (18) General exemptions Inconsistent with BAS. Code allows public trails through a wetland buffers (critical area). The allowance of trails (public or private) without mitigation is not supported by BAS. Trails in the outer portion of the buffer could be allowed. Remove provision or review “Allowed Buffer Uses” in Bunten et al. (2012). Also consider adding a mitigation requirement and moving the provision to Article VII. Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication #05- 06-008 (Granger et al. 2005); Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities, Western Washington Version (Bunten et al., 2012) 18.22.070 (20) General exemptions Inconsistent with BAS and guidance BAS does not support exempting any construction-type activities in critical areas. Remove “drilling or digging” from provision. CTED, 2007; Granger et al. 2005 18.22.080 (3)Nonconforming uses Inconsistent with guidance. Provision does not specifically limit activities to within the current footprint. Revise to state the limits on expansion of nonconforming uses and structures outside of the current footprint. Consider the following: “A legal nonconforming use or structure may be maintained or repaired without limitation by this chapter so long as the activities do not increase the previously approved building footprint or are approved under the County’s nonconformance chapter JCC 18.20.260.” CTED, 2007 Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 6 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change Article IV. Frequently Flooded Areas 18.22.140 Incorporation by reference Could be revised to be more consistent with BAS and GMA. This section and the floodplain management ordinance JCC 15.15 do not require compensatory floodplain storage for riverine floodplains. In Jefferson County, these floodplains are associated with: the Dosewallips, Duckabush, Big Quilcene, and Little Quilcene Rivers; and Chimacum, Snow, and Salmon Creeks. No requirement for considering potential impacts from changing climate conditions. No mention of channel migration zones (CMZs), which are currently housed under the Article V. Geologically Hazardous Areas Consider requiring compensatory storage for all permitted floodplain fill within the Dosewallips, Duckabush, Big Quilcene, and Little Quilcene Rivers, and Chimacum, Snow, and Salmon Creek floodplains. Consider adding requirements to incorporate information about future climate conditions into project proposals, such as addressing rising sea levels, tsunami, high tides with strong winds, and extreme weather events. Consider protecting high risk channel migration zones (CMZs) from development impacts beyond the minimal requirements for vegetation retention in JCC 18.22.170 (CMZs are currently included in the code as a geologically hazardous area). NMFS 2009; PSP 2010; FEMA 2013; Ecology 2015b. Opportunity to strengthen consistency with FEMA Region X’s Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Guidance. 18.22.140 (2) Incorporation by reference Inconsistent with GMA Section 2 reference to WAC 365- 190-080(3) applies to general critical areas. Revise reference to WAC 365-190-110(2) for minimum guidelines. Also add language to clarify that the section does not apply to land uses and modification within shoreline jurisdiction. Incorrect reference to WAC 365-190-110 Article VI. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs) 18.22.195 Could be revised for Redundant with 18.22.010. Consider removing 18.22.195. Internal consistency and Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 7 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change Compliance alternatives clarity. clarity 18.22.200 Classifications/ designation Could be revised for clarity. Title of Article, “Classifications/designation” is redundant. Sections 1 and 3 are redundant with each other. Consider revising Title to “Designation”. If the above revision is made, consider combining the two sections together and labeling as “Designation and Definition.” Improve clarity and ease- of-use. Improve clarity and ease- of-use. 18.22.200 (1) Classifications/ designation Could be revised for clarity. Section does not state that Type S streams, lake, and marine shorelines are regulated under the SMP. State that Shorelines of the State are regulated under the SMP. Improve clarity and ease- of-use. 18.22.200 (3) Classifications/ designation Inconsistent with GMA. Inconsistent with BAS. Section 3 includes some but not all of the fish and wildlife habitat conservation area types that are listed by the GMA and its implementing regulations. Missing: Naturally occurring ponds under twenty acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat and Waters of the state as defined in RCW 90.48.020 and classified in WAC 222-16-030. Section 3(h) references incorrect systems identified using the DNR Washington Natural Heritage Program Update this section with the regulated fish and wildlife habitat conservation area types that are listed in WAC 365-190-130 and in example code by CTED (2007). Revise Section 3(a)(i) to include species that are designated as federally endangered, as follows: “Federally designated endangered and threatened species are those fish and wildlife species identified by…” Consider noting Sections 3(d) through 3(f) that refer to resources managed under the County’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Replace “high-quality wetland ecosystems and high quality terrestrial ecosystems” to “rare plant species and high quality ecosystems”. Compliance with GMA (WAC 365-190-130). CTED, 2007 http://www.dnr.wa.gov/na tural-heritage-program Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 8 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change 18.22.220 Sources used for identification Could be revised to be more consistent with BAS. Article does not include additional sources: WDNR Natural Heritage Program database; WDFW and NWIFC State-wide Integrated Fish Distribution maps; and WDNR Natural Area Preserves and Conservation Area maps Add sources to list in Article: WDNR Natural Heritage Program database; WDFW and NWIFC State-wide Integrated Fish Distribution maps; and WDNR Natural Area Preserves and Conservation Area maps. Also consider explicitly stating that activities in Sections 4 through 6 are managed under the County’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Provide up-to-date resources for applicants and staff. 18.22.230 Fish and wildlife habitat conservation area (FWHCA) maps Could be revised for clarity. Section is redundant with 18.22.030 and 18.22.230 to some extent. Consider adding contents as a listed source under 18.22.220. BAS supports using county habitat maps as a mapping source. Eliminate redundancy and improve consistency between sections. CTED, 2007 18.22.250 Regulated activities Could be revised to be more consistent. Section may have redundancies with other chapters. If the above suggested changes are made to Article II and a new section for “Regulated Activities” is added then the content in this section should be reviewed for redundancy and placed in a new section or under JCC18.22.270 (Protection standards). Eliminate redundancy and improve consistency between sections. 18.22.265 Habitat management plans – When required Inconsistent with guidance and could be revised for clarity Code provision mentions bald eagles and is vague about what triggers an HMP (mentions but does not define “protected species”). Revise to state: “When a development proposal is located on lands that are classified as a FHWCA (defined in 18.22.200) or when the applicant proposes to…” Bald eagle is no longer listed at the state or federal levels. It is still classified as State Sensitive by WDFW. It is the discretion of cities and counties to continue to protect eagles under local regulations (pursuant to GMA). Improve clarity and update based on new bald eagle protection requirements. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conse rvation/bald_eagle/index.h tml 18.22.270 (N/A) Inconsistent with BAS Code does include a mitigation Revise to include a new section for mitigation, Knight, 2009. Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 9 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change Protection standards and guidance. requirement for FWHCAs. see Footnote 10 for example language. 18.22.270 (5)(b)(ii) Protection standards Some buffer widths are inconsistent with BAS. Should be revised for clarity and potentially consistency with BAS. Table 18.22.270(1) sets standard buffers that range from 50 feet to 150 feet. The standard width for Type S is lower than BAS recommended buffers (250 feet, minimum 200 feet). The division between the two categories of Type Ns streams is unclear. Table 18.22.270(1) only includes a reference to WAC 222-16-030 for stream type determination (Note b) Increase standard buffer width for Type S streams to be consistent with state-provided BAS recommendations. If the 20% grade refers to the stream channel itself, then the distinction should be removed and all Type Ns streams should have a 75 foot standard buffer. If the 20% grade refers to the buffer itself and its potential for mass wasting, then the buffer width for Type Ns streams with greater than or equal 20% grade should be higher to be consistent with state-provided BAS recommendations. Consider including a description for determining stream typing in the table or in a previous subsection (such as 18.22.200). May, 2003; and Knutson and Naef, 1997 Improves clarity and ease- of-use. Consistency with Knutson and Naef, 1997 18.22.270 (5) Protection standards Could be revised to be more consistent. Section includes some but not all BAS requirements for determining FWHCAs buffer widths. Does not include a provision to allow the administrator to increase standard buffer widths based on site-specific factors. Include a provision that allows the administrator to increase the standard buffer or require buffers for FWHCAs based on a set of factors such as: 1) type and intensity of human activity proposed land uses on the site and adjacent sites; 2) recommendations contained in the applicant’s habitat management plan; 3) species-specific management guidelines published by WDFW; and, 4) specific composition of land adjacent State guidelines refer to BAS requirement (WAC 365-190-030 (3)(a)(v)) include establishing buffer zones around these areas to separate incompatible uses from habitat areas and protect habitats of importance. Commented [IEL2]: Item needs discussion Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 10 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change to FWHCA (e.g., slope with potential for mass wasting). Article VII. Wetlands 18.22.290 Stewardship alternative Could be revised for clarity. Redundant with 18.22.010. Consider moving the final sentence in 18.22.290 to 18.22.010 and then removing the section. Internal consistency and clarity 18.22.300 Classification/ Designation Inconsistent with GMA. Definition for wetlands is not included in this Section and the wetland definition in Chapter 18.10 is not entirely consistent with the RCW/Ecology guidance definition. Include wetland definition in Section and update definition to be consistent with RCW/Ecology guidance. See Footnote 11 for example language. Bunten et al., 2012 18.22.300 (1) (2) Classification/ Designation Inconsistent with BAS. Could be more consistent with BAS. Could be revised to be more consistent. Section 1 and 2 reference outdated wetland delineation and rating manuals. Section 2 does not specify how long a wetland delineation is valid. Section (2) exempts small wetlands without requiring a special report. Revise Sections 1 and 2 to refer to the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements and the Washington State Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Section 2 could be improved for consistency with BAS by specifying that wetland delineations are valid for five years. BAS supports allowing small wetlands to be exempt by requiring a special report to verify wetland conditions meet criteria for exemption. Consider including a requirement for a special report in this section. Compliance with federal and state requirements (WAC 173-22-035, WAC 365-190-090) Corps of Engineers Regulatory Guidance Letters RGL 05-02 and 08- 02 set a five year standard on wetland determinations. Bunten et al., 2012 Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 11 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change 18.22.310 (N/A) Regulated activities Could be revised to be more consistent. Section 6 includes vague and broad language (e.g., (5) “obstructions” are not defined, (7) “that would alter the character of a regulated wetland” is not defined) If change is made to Article II to add a new section of general “Regulated Activities” then this section would not be necessary. Remove section if change is made. Improves clarity and ease- of-use. 18.22.310 (9) Regulated activities Could be revised to be more consistent with BAS. Section 9(a) allows public trails through wetland buffers, which is supported by BAS. However, trails should be allowed only in the outer portion of the buffer. In addition, mitigation should be required for buffer impacts resulting from trail placement. Consider the example code language in Bunten et al. (2012) XX.050.H “Allowed Buffer Uses” and revise Section 9 for consistency. Granger et al. 2005; Bunten et al. 2012 18.22.330 (2) Protection standards Inconsistent with BAS. Inconsistent with BAS. Section 2(a) references outdated delineation manual. Section 2(d)(i)(B) includes definition for “Qualified wetland evaluator” that seems out of place and references outdated rating manual. Revise Section 2(a) to refer to the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. Consider removing definition from this section. Definitions are in JCC 18.10; a recommendation for the definition for qualified professional is near the end of this table. Compliance with federal and state requirements (WAC 173-22-035) Compliance with state requirements (WAC 365-190-090) Improves clarity and ease- of-use. 18.22.330 (3) Protection standards Could be revised to be more consistent. Section 3(a) references an Ecology guidance document instead of the rating manual used to categorize and rate wetlands. Section 3(b) does not include a Revise Section 3(a) to refer to the approved wetland rating manual. Compliance with state requirements (WAC 365- 190-090) Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 12 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change Could be revised to be more consistent. Could be revised for clarity. description of the three land use impact types or reference the corresponding tables. Section 3(c) allows three buffer options for development proposals. The “apparent boundary option” is not found in other codes and contains vague language. Consider revising to include descriptions and/or referencing the corresponding tables. Provide a set of criteria for where and when this option is used (i.e., only used in agricultural lands during the early growing season) and how the determination is made. Or consider removing provision. Improve clarity and ease- of-use. Item identified by County staff. 18.22.330(7) and (8) Protection standards Could be revised to be more consistent. Could be revised to be more consistent. There are limited standards for when buffer reduction and/or averaging is or is not allowed. Section 7 and 8 do not state that any proposed buffer decrease should result in no net loss of wetland and buffer functions and values. Code does not list any specific Consider incorporating the following requirements into Sections 7 and 8: Buffer reduction should only be allowed under limited circumstances, where adherence to the standard buffer is not possible and there would be no increase from the current level impacts to wetland from proposed activities in the buffer. Proposals for buffer reduction should demonstrate, at a minimum: the existing buffer is highly degraded, the entire length of the buffer cannot be reduced, and the reduced buffer area is restored. Buffer averaging should only be allowed if it will provide equal or greater protection of current wetland functions and values. Revise section to include specific wetland Granger et al., 2005 Granger et al., 2005 Granger et al., 2005 Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 13 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change Could be revised to be more consistent. measures to minimize wetland impacts from adjacent land uses impact minimization measures, as shown in Table 8C-8 in Appendix 8-C e in Ecology’s wetlands guidance. Table 18.22.330(1- 3) Inconsistent with BAS. Could be revised for clarity. Could be revised for clarity. Could be revised to for clarity. The habitat function score ranges in the code are inconsistent with the latest version of the Ecology wetland rating system. No changes are recommended to the specified minimum buffer widths; in general, they are consistent with BAS. Each table begins with a bulleted list describing land use types. If Section 3(c)(iii) is removed than the last column in each table wouldn’t be necessary. Tables are generally consistent with BAS, but are confusing to read. The habitat score ranges need to be updated to reflect the new 2014 scoring system (see Consider moving land use type descriptions to Section 3(b). Remove last column in each table if change is made to 18.22.330.3(c)(iii). Consider using smaller text or minimizing size of table. Or consider revising structure to make Tables more clear as shown in Tables 8C-4 through 7 in Appendix 8-C: Guidance on Buffers and Ratios (Granger et al. 2005). These tables were updated in 2014 to be consistent with the revised wetland rating system. Hruby, 2014 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pr ograms/sea/wetlands/ratin gsystems/2014updates.ht ml) Clarity/User-friendliness Improve clarity and ease- of-use. Clarity and ease-of-use. Updated tables are on Ecology webpage http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pr ograms/sea/wetlands/ratin gsystems/2014updates.ht ml (Scroll down near bottom of webpage) Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 14 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change 18.22.330 (N/A) Protection standards Inconsistent with BAS. Article does not include provision to allow the administrator increase a wetland buffer, if and when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetland functions and values. The administrator should have authority to increase a wetland buffer width up to 50% if the wetland contains a threatened or endangered species or the surrounding land is susceptible to sever erosion and/or steep slopes. Consider example code language in Bunten et al. (2012) for this provision. Bunten et al., 2012 18.22.340 Noncompensatory enhancement Unnecessary under GMA. Section describes two types of noncompensatory enhancement with some detail but several vague requirements. County staff note this provision is not used. Remove entire section. Update to reflect current County procedures. 18.22.350 (N/A) Mitigation Inconsistent with BAS. Inconsistent with BAS. Code does not include a stated preference of mitigation actions for permittee responsible mitigation. Code lacks references to BAS sources for compensatory mitigation. Add a new subsection for preference of mitigation actions for permittee responsible mitigation, which should be, in this order: restoration, creation, and enhancement. Consider example code language in Bunten et al. (2012) for this provision. Revise to include the following required references: Wetland Mitigation in Washington state-Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans- Version 1 (Ecology Publication #06-06-011b) and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach, Western Washington (Ecology Publication #09-06-32). BAS indicates that wetland restoration has a better likelihood of replacing wetland functions as opposed to creation, etc. Bunten et al. 2012 Bunten et al., 2012; Ecology 2006a and 2006b Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 15 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change 18.22.350 (1) Mitigation Could be revised to be more consistent with BAS. Section 1 description for mitigation sequencing isn’t completely consistent with BAS guidance. Provisions will be redundant if general mitigation sequence is added to introductory section of CAO. Remove entire section if recommendation to add a general mitigation sequence section to Article II is implemented. Or Update section using example language in Footnote 4. WAC 197-11-168; CTED, 2007 18.22.350 (3) Mitigation Inconsistent with BAS. Recent Ecology/Corps guidance indicates that mitigation banks and ILF programs have a significantly greater likelihood of mitigation success, as opposed to permittee-responsible mitigation. If a bank or ILF program is available in a given area, the Corps has recently started requiring that the bank/ILF be utilized (as opposed to on-site mitigation). There is no allowance for the use of mitigation banks and ILF programs; federal and state agencies are now requiring the use of these mitigation programs, if and when they are available. Consider adding a new subsection that allows for mitigation banks and ILF programs, and consider specifying that mitigation using banks or ILF programs is preferred over permittee-responsible mitigation (regardless of location), if the wetland alteration falls within the service areas of an existing bank or ILF program. Consider using example language in Footnote 12. Inconsistent with current federal mitigation preference Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources. Final Rule. (Federal Register 73(70): 19594-1970) Article VIII. Special Reports 18.22.360 (N/A) General requirements Could be revised for clarity. Code does not include general provisions for special reports to be prepared by a qualified professional. Revise to include a new section that requires preparation by a qualified professional. CTED, 2007 Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 16 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change Code does not include incorporation of best available science. Code does not include set of general requirements for critical areas/special report content. Revise to include new section for incorporating best available science. Consider including a new section with a set of general minimum report requirements to improve consistency between individual critical area report requirements; see Footnote 13 for example language. CTED, 2007; GMA (RCW 36.70A) Improves clarity and ease- of-use. 18.22.370 Waivers Could be revised for clarity. Section 1 does not include code reference (JCC 18.22.010) to goals, purposes, and objectives. Include reference in section. Improve internal consistency and clarity. 18.22.440 (3) Habitat management plan Could be revised to be more consistent. Section does not include requirement for identifying any species of local importance, priority species, or endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate species that have a primary association with habitat on or adjacent to the project area. Include new subsection requiring identification of species of local importance, priority species, or endangered, threatened, sensitive, or candidate species that have a primary association with habitat on or adjacent to the project area, and assessment of potential project impacts to the use of the site by the species. CTED, 2007 18.22.450 (2) Wetland delineation report Could be revised to be more consistent. Section includes some, but not all BAS requirements for qualified professionals. Consider revising section to include certified professional wetland scientists or non- certified professional wetland scientists with a minimum of five years’ experience in the field of wetland science and with the experience preparing wetland reports. CTED, 2007 18.22.450 (3) Wetland delineation report Inconsistent with BAS. Section 3(c)(i)references outdated wetland delineation manual. Revise section to refer to the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements. Compliance with federal and state requirements (WAC 173-22-035) 18.22.450 (3) Wetland delineation report Inconsistent with BAS. Code requires some but not all minimum reporting requirements for wetlands. Revise to include minimum requirements. See Footnote 14 for example language. Bunten et al., 2012 Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 17 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change 18.22.450 (4) Wetland delineation report Could be more consistent with BAS. Code requires some but not all BAS reporting requirements for mitigation plans for wetlands and/or buffers. Revise section using example language provided in Footnote 15. Bunten et al., 2012 Article IX. Alternative Protection Standards – Critical Area Stewardship Plans (CASPs) Critical area stewardship plans (CASPs) – all sections Consistent with BAS and GMA. The CASP provisions appear to be sufficient to provide equal or greater protection of critical areas because: article applies to only a subset of critical areas; includes clear and stringent performance standards with a focus on functions on values; requires a thorough report documenting site conditions and proposed development including goals and objectives; requires an as-built plan; requires long-term maintenance and monitoring; includes plans for contingency; and has an enforcement provision. The CASP article appears to lack the requirement of performance bond (typically 120% of mitigation/restoration cost). Add provision requiring a performance bond. CTED, 2007; Granger et al. 2005 Article X. Implementation Strategies 18.22.570 through 630 NA NA Consider removing sections that are not used. Or Review and revise against current County implementation practices. Item identified by County staff. Update to reflect current County procedures. Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 18 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change Article XI. Watershed Monitoring 18.22.640 Watershed monitoring NA NA Review and revise against current monitoring practices. Update to reflect current County procedures. Article XII. Adaptive Management 18.22.650 Adaptive management NA NA Consider removing sections that are not used. Or Review and revise against current County implementation practices. Item identified by County staff. Chapter 18.10 Definitions 18.10.020 B Definitions Could be revised to be more consistent. Inconsistent with BAS and guidance. The definition for “best available science” references WAC 365- 195-900 but does not include other important criteria established in the WAC. The definition for “buffer” does not make reference to critical areas or legally established, functionally isolated areas (JCC 18.22.095). Revise definition to include “WAC 365-195-900 through WAC 365-195-925”. Revise definition to be more consistent with definition included in guidance (Bunten et al., 2012) and reference JCC 18.22.095. CTED, 2007 Bunten et al., 2012; also improves consistency between sections. 18.10.020 C Definitions Inconsistent with BAS and GMA. Code does not include a definition of “critical areas”. Consider including a definition for “critical areas” that is consistent with definition found in guidance (Bunten et al., 2012). WAC 365-490 Bunten et al., 2012 18.10.020 M Definitions Inconsistent with BAS. The definition of “mitigation” does not include the mitigation sequence. Revise definition to be more consistent with definition included in guidance (Bunten et al., 2012). Bunten et al., 2012 and adherence to federal and state standards. 18.10.020 O Definitions Inconsistent with BAS. Code does not include a definition for “ordinary high water mark”. Consider including a definition for “ordinary high water mark” that is consistent with definition found in guidance (Bunten et al., Bunten et al., 2012 Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 19 of 29 Existing CAO Provision JCC Chapter / Section Degree of Consistency with BAS & Guidance Reason For Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for Suggested Change 2012). 18.10.020 Q Definitions Could be revised to be more consistent. The definition of “qualified wetlands consultant” does not include all of the qualifications required by WAC 365-195-905. Consider revising definition to be more general so that it can apply to multiple critical areas (FWHCAs, geohazards, CARAs, etc.) and not just wetlands. See guidance (Bunten et al, 2012) for example language. WAC 365-195-905 Bunten et al., 2012 18.10.020 S Definitions Inconsistent with BAS. Code does not include a definition for “stream”. Consider including a definition for “stream” that is consistent with definition found in guidance (Bunten et al., 2012). Bunten et al., 2012 18.10.020 W Definitions Inconsistent with GMA (RCW 36.70A.030) The definition of “wetland” provided in JCC 18.10.020.W is not entirely consistent with RCW/Ecology guidance definition. Revise definition to be consistent with RCW/Ecology guidance. See Footnote 9 for example language. Bunten et al., 2012 18.10.020 Definitions After the suggested revisions are made to the CAO, consider re-visiting the definition section to make sure that the applicable terms are defined, and that the definitions are consistent with those in the GMA and guidance materials. Footnotes 1Possible language for NEW section “Jurisdiction” (From CTED Handbook 2007): A. The [city/county] shall regulate all uses, activities, and developments within, adjacent to, or likely to affect, one or more critical areas, consistent with the best available science and the provisions herein. B. Critical areas regulated by this Title include: a. Wetlands as designated in Wetlands [Chapter X.20]; b. Critical aquifer recharge areas as designated in Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas [Chapter X.30]; c. Frequently flooded areas as designated in Frequently Flooded Areas [Chapter X.40]; Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 20 of 29 d. Geologically hazardous areas as designated in Geologically Hazardous Areas [Chapter X.50]; and e. Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas as designated in Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas [Chapter X.60]. C. All areas within the [city/county] meeting the definition of one or more critical areas, regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this Title. 2Possible language for NEW section “Critical Area Project Review Process” (From CTED Handbook 2007): General Requirements A. As part of this review, the [city/county] shall: 1. Verify the information submitted by the applicant; 2. Evaluate the project area and vicinity for critical areas; 3. Determine whether the proposed project is likely to impact the functions or values of critical areas; and 4. Determine if the proposed project adequately addresses the impacts and avoids impacts to the critical area associated with the project. B. If the proposed project is within, adjacent to, or is likely to impact a critical area, the [city/county] shall: 1. Require a critical area report from the applicant that has been prepared by a qualified professional; 2. Review and evaluate the critical area report; 3. Determine whether the development proposal conforms to the purposes and performance standards of this Title; 4. Assess the potential impacts to the critical area and determine if they can be avoided or minimized; and 5. Determine if any mitigation proposed by the applicant is sufficient to protect the functions and values of the critical area and public health, safety, and welfare concerns consistent with the goals, purposes, objectives, and requirements of this Title. 3Possible language for NEW section “Best Available Science Standard” (From CTED Handbook 2007): A. Protect Functions and Values of Critical Areas With Special Consideration to Anadromous Fish. Critical area reports and decisions to alter critical areas shall rely on the best available science to protect the functions and values of critical areas and must give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fish, such as salmon and bull trout, and their habitat. B. Best Available Science to be Consistent with Criteria. The best available science is that scientific information applicable to the critical area prepared by local, state, or federal natural resource agencies, a qualified scientific professional, or team of qualified scientific professionals that is consistent with criteria established in WAC 365-195-900 through WAC 365-195-925. 4 Potential language for NEW section “Mitigation Sequencing” (From WAC 197-11-768 and CTED Handbook 2007): Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 21 of 29 (1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action (usually by either finding another site or changing the location on the site). (2) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts. (3) Rectifying adverse impacts to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project. (4) Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineered or other methods. (5) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impacts or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations over the life of the action. (6) Compensating for adverse impacts to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. (7) Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. 5Possible language for NEW section “Regulated Activities” (adapted from Bunten et al., 2012): The provisions of this chapter shall apply to any regulated activity that potentially affects a critical area or its buffer unless otherwise exempted by these regulations. Where a regulated activity would be partly within and partly outside a critical area or its buffer, the entire activity shall be reviewed pursuant to the requirements of this chapter. Applicable activities are as follows: 1. Removing, excavating, disturbing, or dredging soil, sand, gravel, minerals, organic matter or materials of any kind. 2. Dumping, discharging, or filling with any material. 3. Draining, flooding, or disturbing the water level or water table, or diverting or impeding water flow. 4. Driving pilings or placing obstructions. 5. Constructing, substantially reconstructing, demolishing, or altering the size of any structure or infrastructure. 6. Destroying or altering vegetation through clearing, grading, harvesting, shading, or planting vegetation that would negatively affect the character of a critical area. 7. Activities that result in significant changes in water temperature, physical or chemical characteristics of water sources, including quantity and pollutants. 8. Any other activity potentially affecting a critical area or buffer not otherwise exempt from the provisions of this chapter as determined by the department. 9. The construction of new recreation trails within the buffer, which shall be low intensity, designed, and constructed of permeable materials which protect water quality, allow adequate surface water and groundwater movements, do not contribute to erosion, and are located where they do not disturb nesting, breeding, and rearing areas, and designed to avoid or reduce the removal of trees. 6Possible language for NEW section “Unauthorized Alterations and Enforcement” (From CTED Handbook 2007): Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 22 of 29 A. When a critical area or its buffer has been altered in violation of this Title, all ongoing development work shall stop and the critical area shall be restored. The City shall have the authority to issue a stop work order to cease all ongoing development work, and order restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement measures at the owner's or other responsible party's expense to compensate for violation of provisions of this Title. B. Requirement for Restoration Plan. All development work shall remain stopped until a restoration plan is prepared and approved by City. Such a plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional using the best available science and shall describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements described in Subsection (C). The [director] shall, at the violator’s expense, seek expert advice in determining the adequacy of the plan. Inadequate plans shall be returned to the applicant or violator for revision and resubmittal. C. Minimum Performance Standards for Restoration 1. For alterations to critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, wetlands, and habitat conservation areas, the following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a critical area, provided that if the violator can demonstrate that greater functional and habitat values can be obtained, these standards may be modified: a. The historic structural and functional values shall be restored, including water quality and habitat functions; b. The historic soil types and configuration shall be replicated; c. The critical area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation that replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types, sizes, and densities. The historic functions and values should be replicated at the location of the alteration; and d. Information demonstrating compliance with the requirements in Section X.10.250 (Mitigation Plan Requirements) shall be submitted to the [director]. 2. For alterations to flood and geological hazards, the following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a critical area, provided that, if the violator can demonstrate that greater safety can be obtained, these standards may be modified: a. The hazard shall be reduced to a level equal to, or less than, the pre-development hazard; b. Any risk of personal injury resulting from the alteration shall be eliminated or minimized; and c. The hazard area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation sufficient to minimize the hazard. D. Site Investigations. The [director] is authorized to make site inspections and take such actions as are necessary to enforce this Title. The [director] shall present proper credentials and make a reasonable effort to contact any property owner before entering onto private property. E. Penalties. Any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity convicted of violating any of the provisions of this Title shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day or portion of a day during which a violation of this Title is committed or continued shall constitute a separate offense. Any development carried out contrary to the provisions of this Title shall constitute a public nuisance and may be enjoined as provided by the statutes of the state of Washington. The City may levy civil penalties against any person, party, firm, corporation, or other legal entity for Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 23 of 29 violation of any of the provisions of this Title. The civil penalty shall be assessed at a maximum rate of ________ dollars per day per violation. (The amount of the penalty needs to be decided locally and should be consistent with other adopted civil penalties. Commonly, the penalty is $1,000 per day per violation) 7Possible language for NEW section “Relationship to Other Agencies and Regulations”: a. These critical areas regulations shall be in addition to zoning and other regulations adopted by the City. Compliance with other regulations does not exempt the applicant from critical areas regulations. In the event of any conflict between these regulations and any other City regulations, those regulations which provide the greater protection to critical areas shall apply. b. Any individual critical area adjoined by another type of critical area shall have the buffer and meet the requirements that provide the most protection to the critical areas involved. When any provision of this chapter or any existing regulation, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflicts with this chapter, that which provides more protection to the critical areas shall apply. c. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter does not constitute compliance with other federal, State, and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required (for example, shoreline substantial development or conditional use permits, shoreline variances, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife hydraulic project approval (HPA), Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits, and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits). The applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in this chapter. 8Possible language for 18.22.070 (5) and renamed to “Operation, Maintenance, or Repair” (From CTED Handbook 2007): Operation, maintenance, or repair of existing structures, infrastructure improvements, utilities, public or private roads, dikes, levees, or drainage systems, that do not require construction permits, if the activity does not further alter or increase the impact to, or encroach further within, the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed operation, maintenance, or repair. Operation and maintenance includes vegetation management performed in accordance with best management practices that is part of ongoing maintenance of structures, infrastructure, or utilities, provided that such management actions are part of regular and ongoing maintenance, do not expand further into the critical area, are not the result of an expansion of the structure or utility, and do not directly impact an endangered or threatened species. 9Possible language for 18.22.070 (8) exempt emergency activities and subsequent restoration (From CTED Handbook 2007): Emergencies. Those activities necessary to prevent an immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare, or that pose an immediate risk of damage to private property and that require remedial or preventative action in a timeframe too short to allow for compliance with the requirements of this Title. Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 24 of 29 a. Emergency actions that create an impact to a critical area or its buffer shall use reasonable methods to address the emergency; in addition, they must have the least possible impact to the critical area or its buffer. The person or agency undertaking such action shall notify the City within one (1) working day following commencement of the emergency activity. Within thirty (30) days, the [director] shall determine if the action taken was within the scope of the emergency actions allowed in this Subsection. If the [director] determines that the action taken, or any part of the action taken, was beyond the scope of an allowed emergency action, then enforcement provisions of Unauthorized Alterations and Enforcement [Section 18.22. X] shall apply. After the emergency, the person or agency undertaking the action shall fully fund and conduct necessary restoration and/or mitigation for any impacts to the critical area and buffers resulting from the emergency action in accordance with an approved critical area report and mitigation plan. The person or agency undertaking the action shall apply for review, and the alteration, critical area report, and mitigation plan shall be reviewed by the City in accordance with the review procedures contained herein. Restoration and/or mitigation activities must be initiated within one (1) year of the date of the emergency, and completed in a timely manner 10Possible language for a NEW section under 18.22.270, “Mitigation” (From CTED Handbook 2007): E. Mitigation and Equivalent or Greater Biological Functions. Mitigation of alterations to habitat conservation areas shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic and hydrologic functions and shall include mitigation for adverse impacts upstream or downstream of the development proposal site. Mitigation shall address each function affected by the alteration to achieve functional equivalency or improvement on a per function basis. 11Definition from Ecology guidance (Bunten et al., 2012): “wetland” or “wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands. 12Example language for 18.22.350(3) – excerpt of Sample Wetlands Chapter (Bunten et al., 2012) E. Location of Compensatory Mitigation. Compensatory mitigation actions shall be conducted within the same sub-drainage basin and on the site of the alteration except when all of paragraphs 1-4 below apply. In that case, mitigation may be allowed off-site within the subwatershed of the impact site. When considering off-site mitigation, preference should be given to using alternative mitigation, such as a mitigation bank, an in-lieu fee program, or advanced mitigation. Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 25 of 29 1. There are no reasonable opportunities on site or within the sub-drainage basin (e.g., on-site options would require elimination of high-functioning upland habitat), or opportunities on site or within the sub-drainage basin do not have a high likelihood of success based on a determination of the capacity of the site to compensate for the impacts. Considerations should include: anticipated replacement ratios for wetland mitigation, buffer conditions and proposed widths, available water to maintain anticipated hydrogeomorphic classes of wetlands when restored, proposed flood storage capacity, and potential to mitigate riparian fish and wildlife impacts (such as connectivity); 2. On-site mitigation would require elimination of high-quality upland habitat. 3. Off-site mitigation has a greater likelihood of providing equal or improved wetland functions than the altered wetland. 4. Off-site locations shall be in the same sub-drainage basin unless: a. Established watershed goals for water quality, flood storage or conveyance, habitat, or other wetland functions have been established by the City and strongly justify location of mitigation at another site; or b. Credits from a state-certified wetland mitigation bank are used as compensation, and the use of credits is consistent with the terms of the certified bank instrument; c. Fees are paid to an approved in-lieu fee program to compensate for the impacts. The design for the compensatory mitigation project needs to be appropriate for its location (i.e., position in the landscape). Therefore, compensatory mitigation should not result in the creation, restoration, or enhancement of an atypical wetland. An atypical wetland refers to a compensation wetland (e.g., created or enhanced) that does not match the type of existing wetland that would be found in the geomorphic setting of the site (i.e., the water source(s) and hydroperiod proposed for the mitigation site are not typical for the geomorphic setting). Likewise, it should not provide exaggerated morphology or require a berm or other engineered structures to hold back water. For example, excavating a permanently inundated pond in an existing seasonally saturated or inundated wetland is one example of an enhancement project that could result in an atypical wetland. Another example would be excavating depressions in an existing wetland on a slope, which would require the construction of berms to hold the water. C. Timing of Compensatory Mitigation. It is preferred that compensatory mitigation projects be completed prior to activities that will disturb wetlands. At the least, compensatory mitigation shall be completed immediately following disturbance and prior to use or occupancy of the action or development. Construction of mitigation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing fisheries, wildlife, and flora. 13 Possible language for NEW section “Minimum report contents” (From CTED Handbook, 2007): At a minimum, the report shall contain the following: 1. The name and contact information of the applicant, a description of the proposal, and identification of the permit requested; 2. A copy of the site plan for the development proposal including: a. A map to scale depicting critical areas, buffers, the development proposal, and any areas to be cleared; and b. A description of the proposed stormwater management plan for the development and consideration of impacts to drainage alterations. Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 26 of 29 3. The dates, names, and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site; 4. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, wetlands, water bodies, and buffers adjacent to the proposed project area; 5. A statement specifying the accuracy of the report, and all assumptions made and relied upon; 6. An assessment of the probable cumulative impacts to critical areas resulting from development of the site and the proposed development; 7. An analysis of site development alternatives including a no development alternative; 8. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to Mitigation Sequencing [Section X.10.240] to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas; 9. Plans for adequate mitigation, as needed, to offset any impacts, in accordance with Mitigation Plan Requirements [Section X.10.250], including, but not limited to: a. The impacts of any proposed development within or adjacent to a critical area or buffer on the critical area; and b. The impacts of any proposed alteration of a critical area or buffer on the development proposal, other properties and the environment; 10. A discussion of the performance standards applicable to the critical area and proposed activity; 11. Financial guarantees to ensure compliance; and 12. Any additional information required for the critical area as specified in the corresponding chapter. 14 Example language for 18.22.450(3) – excerpt of Sample Wetlands Chapter (Bunten et al., 2012): B. Minimum Standards for Wetland Reports. The written report and the accompanying plan sheets shall contain the following information, at a minimum: 1. The written report shall include at a minimum: a. The name and contact information of the applicant; the name, qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s) of the wetland critical area report; a description of the proposal; identification of all the local, state, and/or federal wetland- related permit(s) required for the project; and a vicinity map for the project. b. A statement specifying the accuracy of the report and all assumptions made and relied upon. c. Documentation of any fieldwork performed on the site, including field data sheets for delineations, rating system forms, baseline hydrologic data, etc. d. A description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland delineations, rating system forms, or impact analyses including references. e. Identification and characterization of all critical areas, wetlands, water bodies, shorelines, floodplains, and buffers on or adjacent to the proposed project area. For areas off site of the project site, estimate conditions within 300 feet of the project boundaries using the best available information. f. For each wetland identified on site and within 300 feet of the project site provide: the wetland rating, including a description of and score for each function, per Wetland Ratings (Section XX.020.B) of this Chapter; required buffers; hydrogeomorphic Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 27 of 29 classification; wetland acreage based on a professional survey from the field delineation (acreages for on-site portion and entire wetland area including off-site portions); Cowardin classification of vegetation communities; habitat elements; soil conditions based on site assessment and/or soil survey information; and to the extent possible, hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlet/outlets (if they can be legally accessed), estimated water depths within the wetland, and estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g., algal mats, drift lines, flood debris, etc.). Provide acreage estimates, classifications, and ratings based on entire wetland complexes, not only the portion present on the proposed project site. g. A description of the proposed actions, including an estimation of acreages of impacts to wetlands and buffers based on the field delineation and survey and an analysis of site development alternatives, including a no-development alternative. h. An assessment of the probable cumulative impacts to the wetlands and buffers resulting from the proposed development. i. A description of reasonable efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to Mitigation Sequencing (Chapter XX.XX) to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas. j. A discussion of measures, including avoidance, minimization, and compensation, proposed to preserve existing wetlands and restore any wetlands that were degraded prior to the current proposed land-use activity. k. A conservation strategy for habitat and native vegetation that addresses methods to protect and enhance on-site habitat and wetland functions. l. An evaluation of the functions of the wetland and adjacent buffer. Include reference for the method used and data sheets. 2. A copy of the site plan sheet(s) for the project must be included with the written report and must include, at a minimum: a. Maps (to scale) depicting delineated and surveyed wetland and required buffers on site, including buffers for off-site critical areas that extend onto the project site; the development proposal; other critical areas; grading and clearing limits; areas of proposed impacts to wetlands and/or buffers (include square footage estimates). b. A depiction of the proposed stormwater management facilities and outlets (to scale) for the development, including estimated areas of intrusion into the buffers of any critical areas. The written report shall contain a discussion of the potential impacts to the wetland(s) associated with anticipated hydroperiod alterations from the project. 15Example language for JCC18.22.450(4) – excerpt from Wetlands chapter (Bunten et al., 2012): I. Compensatory Mitigation Plan. When a project involves wetland and/or buffer impacts, a compensatory mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional shall be required, meeting the following minimum standards: 1. Wetland Critical Area Report. A critical area report for wetlands must accompany or be included in the compensatory mitigation plan and include the minimum parameters described in Minimum Standards for Wetland Reports (Section XX.060.B) of this Chapter. 2. Compensatory Mitigation Report. The report must include a written report and plan sheets that must contain, at a minimum, the following elements. Full guidance can be found in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State– Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1) (Ecology Publication #06-06-011b, Olympia, WA, March 2006 or as revised). Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 28 of 29 a. The written report must contain, at a minimum: i. The name and contact information of the applicant; the name, qualifications, and contact information for the primary author(s) of the compensatory mitigation report; a description of the proposal; a summary of the impacts and proposed compensation concept; identification of all the local, state, and/or federal wetland-related permit(s) required for the project; and a vicinity map for the project. ii. Description of how the project design has been modified to avoid, minimize, or reduce adverse impacts to wetlands. iii. Description of the existing wetland and buffer areas proposed to be altered. Include acreage (or square footage), water regime, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding lands uses, and functions. Also describe impacts in terms of acreage by Cowardin classification, hydrogeomorphic classification, and wetland rating, based on Wetland Ratings (Section XX.XX) of this Chapter. iv. Description of the compensatory mitigation site, including location and rationale for selection. Include an assessment of existing conditions: acreage (or square footage) of wetlands and uplands, water regime, sources of water, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and functions. . Estimate future conditions in this location if the compensation actions are NOT undertaken (i.e., how would this site progress through natural succession?). v. A description of the proposed actions for compensation of wetland and upland areas affected by the project. Include overall goals of the proposed mitigation, including a description of the targeted functions, hydrogeomorphic classification, and categories of wetlands. vi. A description of the proposed mitigation construction activities and timing of activities. vii. A discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect wetlands after the project site has been developed, including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs (for remaining wetlands and compensatory mitigation wetlands). viii. A bond estimate for the entire compensatory mitigation project, including the following elements: site preparation, plant materials, construction materials, installation oversight, maintenance twice per year for up to five (5) years, annual monitoring field work and reporting, and contingency actions for a maximum of the total required number of years for monitoring. ix. Proof of establishment of Notice on Title for the wetlands and buffers on the project site, including the compensatory mitigation areas. b. The scaled plan sheets for the compensatory mitigation must contain, at a minimum: Jefferson County- CAO Update – Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT Page 29 of 29 i. Surveyed edges of the existing wetland and buffers, proposed areas of wetland and/or buffer impacts, location of proposed wetland and/or buffer compensation actions. ii. Existing topography, ground-proofed, at two-foot contour intervals in the zone of the proposed compensation actions if any grading activity is proposed to create the compensation area(s). Also existing cross-sections of on-site wetland areas that are proposed to be altered, and cross-section(s) (estimated one-foot intervals) for the proposed areas of wetland or buffer compensation. iii. Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, including an analysis of existing and proposed hydrologic regimes for enhanced, created, or restored compensatory mitigation areas. Also, illustrations of how data for existing hydrologic conditions were used to determine the estimates of future hydrologic conditions. iv. Conditions expected from the proposed actions on site, including future hydrogeomorphic types, vegetation community types by dominant species (wetland and upland), and future water regimes. v. Required wetland buffers for existing wetlands and proposed compensation areas. Also, identify any zones where buffers are proposed to be reduced or enlarged outside of the standards identified in this Chapter. vi. A plant schedule for the compensation area, including all species by proposed community type and water regime, size and type of plant material to be installed, spacing of plants, typical clustering patterns, total number of each species by community type, timing of installation. vii. Performance standards (measurable standards reflective of years post-installation) for upland and wetland communities, monitoring schedule, and maintenance schedule and actions by each biennium.