HomeMy WebLinkAbout087O
Pt B6o-579-44so
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGAGENDA
Tri-Area Community Center
May 18, zo16
Ft g6o-979-445t
plancomm @co jefferson.wa.us
O
o CalltoOrder/Roll Call
. Approval ofAgenda
. Approval of Meeting Minutes - tll}4lz}ts, L2lO2l2O75,OL(O6(2OL6
o Staff Updates
o CommissionerAnnouncements
a
Topic
Status of Critical Areas Update to include
Agriculture
Speoker
o Donna Frostholm, Associate
Pla nner/Wetla nd Specia list
o Emma Bolin, Assistant Planner
o llon Logan, ESA (Consultant)
a Pleasant Harbor Development Regulations a David W. Johnson, Associate Planner
When the Chair recognizes you to speah please hegin by stating your name and address.
Pleose be awore thot the observer comment period is ...
i An optionol time period dedicoted to listening to the public, not o question ond onswer
session. The Plonning Commission is not required to provide response;
ii Olfered at the Choir's discretion when there is time;
iii Not o public heoring - comments mode during this time will not be port of ony heoring record;
iv May be structured with o three-minute per person time limit.
. Summary of today's meeting
o Follow-up action items
o Agenda ltems for June 1st meeting at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center
o Thank you for coming and participating in your government at work!
o
5:30 pm
6:45 pm
OPENING BUS!NESS
DtscussroN
OBSERVER COMMENT
8:00 pm
8:15 pm
CLOSING BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
8:30 pm
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
ROLL CALL
District 1
Coker: Present
Felder: Present
Koan; Present
District 2
Smith: Present
Sircely: Absent E
fochems; Present
District 3
Brotherton; Present
Giske: Absent E
Hull: Present
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
November 04,2oLs
Call to Order at 6:31 pm
Pi B6oi79-44so
F:96o379-445r
plancomm@ co jefferson.wa.us
Staff Present
David W fohnson, Associate Planner
foel Peterson, Associate Planner
Emma Bolin, Assistant Planner
Anna Bausher, Assistant Planner
O
o
Public in Attendance: Ten
ADproval ofAgenda: Approved.
Approval of Minutes: None to approve.
STAFF UPDATES
David Johnson:
Assoc. Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Cynthia Koan
Chair
The date for the Pleasant Harbor Master Plan Resort (MPR) Public Hearing is on fanuary 6,
20L6 atthe Brinnon School Gymnasium.
I had an interesting meeting with folks from Land Trust in Chimacum to discuss their
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.
PUBTIC HEARING
PRESENTATION:
Joel Peterson
.Assoc. Planner
Last meeting, DCD introduced an amendment to the sign code proposed by fefferson Transit. It was submitted on
9 129 /L5 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.
Page t of 4
o
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
November 04,2ots
Pi B6oi79-445o
Fi 860-579-4451
plancomm@co jefferson.wa.uso
o
o
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 3 00' 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. AIso Iooked 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
J effe rs on T ra nsit Authorigt
Explained they emailed county and were told they could change sign to a reader board. They got approval, modeled
the East f efferson 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 fefferson 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 ]efferson Transit and
has a reader board on it.
Page z of 4
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
November 04,2o:^s
Pt 960:379-4450
F: g6o:3Z9-q4'r
plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us
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,747 Mt. Constance Way, Port Ludlow: Concern with Ordinance, give people some leeway,
Kathleen Klare, Quilcene: Support a reader board sign.
fean Ball, Chimacum: I find reader board or flashing or glowing signs or bill boards annoying. Please consider the
Iocation (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. |efferson
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.
Afier mitigatton itwas 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 permiL
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 f ane and f udy Surber; City of Port Townsend Planning
Department,
We're Iooking 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 fefferson 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, transpoftation disruptions, expectation of immigration to this area.
Sensitivity analysis: Wild Salmon, shellfish, sea and shore bird populations are all sensitive to climate change.
o
o
Page 3 of4
o
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
November o,4,2ols
Pt 360-g79-4450
F:56o879-445r
plancomm@cojefferson.wa.uso
o
o
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 lBtt' 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 notifii DCD and David.
IWove that the Planning Commission bring to the attention to the Board of County Commissioners thot we are
facing a very tough challenge in meeting the deadlines olthe 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 tor Ll/L8/2015 at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center
Adjourned at 9:12 pm
These meeting minutes were approved this day of 2076.
Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary/DCD
Page 4 of 4
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98968
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
December e.2,2ors
Call to Order at 6:30 pm
Pi 96o379-44so
Ft B6oi79-445r
plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us
ROLL CALL
District 1
Coker: Present
Felder: Present
Koan: Present
District 2
Smith: Absent E
Sircely: Present
lochems; Present
District 3
Brotherton; Present
Giske: Present
Hull: Present
Staff Present
Joel Peterson, Associate Planner
o
o
Public in Attendance: One
ApprovalofAgenda: 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 f ohnson wanted to remind us that fanuary 6,20L6 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 9,2075.
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 LL,,20LS is a meet
and greet date.
C.K. After our LL/IB/ 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 Iine 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 fohnson will be helping us with the public process piece and mapping it out. I'm hoping he can come on
12/L6/L5 to help us with that.
|.P. It may not be until mid-|anuary 2016. It's a proposal (with outreach) that David W f ohnson 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. Clariff that you're not talking about a complete re-write.
Page r of7
o
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
6zr sheridan st. Tri-Area community center Pi36o179-44so
Ft 3603z9-4457
1 Port Townsend WA 98368 December O2r 2OL5 plancomm@cojefferson.wa.usI
- C.K. Yes. This is an important discussion I'd like to move to the December 76,2075 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:
foel Peterson, DCD:o October 7 ,2075 was the introductory meeting to the Planning Commission about the proposed sign code, then the
application DCD received was a board spbnsored 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 f efferson Transit. Then your documents of October 7tr
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. fefferson 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 fefferson 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 f efferson 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
the shops and nearly everyone is on a residence or nearogovernmental entities: the firehouses, the parks, the
Page z of 7
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
December o.2,2ots
Ptg6o.379-44so
Ft 3603Z9-445r
plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us
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 fefferson 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 Iasttime we talked aboutthis, 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 f efferson 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 1.t. 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
commercialdistrictbutwithin200'of aresidencesoitwasintendedtobeapartofbothofthesesowecouldusethe
Conditional Use Permit process to review these rather than having a200' 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 f efferson 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 f efferson 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.
o
o
Page 3 of7
o
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
December o.2,2ots
Ptg6o.979-445u^
F| 960379-4451
plancomm@ co jefferson.wa.uso
o
o
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 |efferson Count5r'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. 0r institutional buildings: Prisons,
other kinds of Institutional Health Centers, Hospitals those are the types of things that GMA fGrowth 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 fefferson
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.f. 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?
f .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,ltem C in December 1,2075 revised document called Preparation
of December 2,2075 Planning Commission Meeting Update Reader-Board for MLA15-00063 Proposed UDC
amendment ICC 18.30.150 sign code.
Page 4 of7
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
December c.2,2ots
Pt 360-329-4450
Ft g60-B79-445r
plancomm@ co jefferson.wa.us
ANSWERS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED
The Essential Public Facility approach is an eloquentway of limiting it but it prolongs the pain and if we go with Text
2,(proximitytoaLAMIRD)theycouldapplyforaConditionalUsePermitrightafterthisisapproved. Ifitisimportant
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:
tD Strike the last two sentences from staff findings.
(iD Strike first sentence from staff findings.
(iii) Residents of fefferson 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:
O
O
No Changes
No Changes
N/A
No Changes
Amendments aren't necessary so it does not apply.
This code change does not dictate a need for a change to the Comprehensive Plan.
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:
8.3.1Yes
8.3.2 Yes
8.3.3 Yes
8.3.4Yes
(i)
(iD
(iii)
Iiv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
Page S of T
o
6zr Sheridan St.
Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
December o.2,2oLS
P:g60-329-4450
F: g6o:3Z9-445r
plancomm@co jefferson.wa,us
o
Section 8.4 Takings Findings:
8.4.1No
8.4.2 No
8.4.3 No
B.4.4No
8.4.5 No
Section 8.5 Findings on the Record:
8.5.1The Sign Code process and deliberations
8.5.2 lt'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 L,2075 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: 7
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 identiff 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 fefferson Transit pursue rezoning to EPF.
Presentation on December 14, 2015 to the Board of County Commissioners.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
f ean 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.
o
Page 6 of 7
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
December 02,2015
Pt g60-879-4450
Fi g6oi79-445t
plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us o
FOLLOW UP ITEMS
Our next meeting is December 76,2015 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 12/76/2015 at 6:30 pm at the Tri-Area Community Center
Adjourned at B:44 pm o
These meeting minutes were approved this day of 2016
Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary/DCD
o
PageT ofz
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
January o,6,2o16o
o
ROIL CAIL
District 1
Coker: Present
Felder: Present
Koan: Present
District 2
Smith: Present
Sircely: Present
fochems; Present
Call to Order at 5:30 pm
District 3
Brotherton: Present
Giske: Present
Hull: Present
StaffPresent
Garth Mann, Statesman Group, Ltd.
David W. fohnson, Assoc. Planner
Haylie Clement, Planning clerk
Public in Attendance: Many
ApprovalofAgenda: Approved
Annroval of Minutes: None to aDDrove
STAFFUPDATES: NONE
COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:
ln 2076 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.
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 7,L62 and, in a thirty minute drive it's 2,591. fefferson 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 Vz of Lolo and the
State has increased by lo/o. The median household income in this area is the lowest in the State at roughly $39,000.00
in20l5whiletheaverageincomeinWashingtonStateis$53,320.00. Youcanseethatthere'ssomethingnotpositive
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 18: Our plan is to create roughly four hundred jobs in that period, with roughly fifqy
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 Sheriffs 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.
o
Page r of7
Pt360379-4450
Ft 960:379-4451
plancomm@ co jefferson.wa.us
Garth Mann from Statesman Group is the applicant and he will be telling you about his project:
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
January o,6,2ot6
Pt 360.979-4450.
Fi B6oi79-44sr
plancomm@ co jefferson.wa.us
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 fiffy-six acres out there and following the footprint. Our plan for the
environment is extremely sensitive. Our impervious footprint is less than 720/0. 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 wit}t 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 fanuary, 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 2014we 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 t 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.
PagezofT
o
o
o
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
January o,6,2oL6
Pt g60379-4450
Ft 960379-4451
plancomm@ cojefferson.wa.uso
o
The Staff Report I've already forwarded to the Planning Commission. This is the first time we've used this code in
fefferson County because we've never built a MPR in ]efferson 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 M0B0B-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 Sheriffs 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.
f oe of Brinnon, Last spring 95%o of our kids qualified for free or reduced lunch. It's all because we have no economy
here. fust from the retiree's, that's it. We have to create an economy here. This is an opportunity for fefferson 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.
lean 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.
o
Page 3 of7
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
January o,6,2oL6
Pi g6oi79-445o
Ft S6o-979-445t
plancomm@cojefferson.wa.us
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 t 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 poverry. 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?
Page 4 of7
o
o
o
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
January o,6, zot6
Pt Z6oi79-445o
Ft g60-979-4451
plancomm@co jefferson.wa.uso
o
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 600/o 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 from797 people to
close to 3,000 people. That's a250o/o 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. AIso 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 2005 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 tranquilitybefore 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.
f oanie 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.o
Page 5 of7
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98368
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
January o,6,2o16
Ptg60:379-4450.
F: g6o:379-445t
plancomm@co jefferson.wa.us
I'm a Iarva 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 iust 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.
Page 6 of 7
o
o
o
6zr Sheridan St.
Port Townsend WA 98968
Jefferson County Planning Commission
MEETINGMINUTES
Tri-Area Community Center
January o,6,2oL6
Pt 960-879-4450
Fi 960379-445r
plancomm@co jefferson.wa.uso
o
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 3,2076 meeting of the f efferson County Planning Commission. You can submit them to the DCD or you can
bring them on February 3.d. At that point we will stop taking them. The public testimony is now closed.
Defiberations 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
o Cynthia Koan, Chair Teresa A Smith, PC Secretary/DCD
20t6
PageT of7
o Final
JEFFERSON COUNTY
CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE UPDATE
Best Available Science Report
Prepared for
Jefferson County
December 15, 2015
r trSA
I
o
'r il
"ifr
t
',|
II
"l,i[ .l',
iI
ico<
I I
r/tt'l
ltJ
I
..:i
o
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
o Table of Contents
CHAPTERl. INTRODUCTION...........
1.1 Report Background and Purpose
1.2 Current CAO Update Process.....
CHAPTER2. METHODS
CHAPTER3. WET1ANDS..................,
3.1 Updates to Scientific Literature...
3.1.1 Ecology Synthesis & Guidance
3.1.2 Wetland Delineation and Rating..
3.1.3 Buffer Effectiveness .........
3.1.4 Mitigation
3.2 Assessment of Current Wetlands Provisions........
3.3 Conclusions...............
CHAPTER4. FREQUENTLYFLOODEDAREAS
4.1 Updates to Scientific Literature...
4.1.1 Functions and Values of Frequently Flooded Areas..........
4.1.2 Long-term Climate Trends and Frequently Flooded Areas....................
4.2 Assessment of Current Frequently Flooded Areas Provisions
4.3 Conclusions...............
CHAPTER 5. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS
5.1 Updates to Scientific Literature...
5.1.1 Stream Typing
5.1.2 Buffer Widths and Effectiveness ..............
5.1.3 Fish Passage and Stream Restoration Projects
5.1.4 Wildlife Habitat and Corridors
5.2 Assessment of Current Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Provisions....
5.3 Conclusions...............
CHAPTER 6. AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN AND NEAR CRITICAL AREAS
6.1 Agriculture and CriticalAreas in Jefferson County.......
6.1.1 Regulations and Best Management Practices
6.1.2 Voluntary Stewardship Program......
6.2 PotentialAgricultural lmpacts and Effectiveness of Existing BMPs........
6.2.1 Water Quality
6.2.2 Hydrology
6.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat.
6.3 Additional Recent Scientific Literature.....
6.3.1 Washington Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Monitoring Summary
6.3.2 Washington Agricultural Caucus Riparian Buffer Review
6.3.3 Chimacum Watershed Water Quality and Fishes Report
6.3.4 Working Buffers on Agricultural Lands Paper......
6.4 Conclusions...............
CHAPTERT. REFERENCES............
.3-9
13-
.4-
.4-
1
I
1
o
o
December 2015 Page i
Table of Contents
1-1
'l-1
1-2
3-1
3-3
3-3
3-5
6-9
...4-4
...4-5
...5-1
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-3
.5-4
.5-5
.6-1
.6-1
6-1 1
6-13
6-14
.............7-1
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
List of Tables o
Table 3-1. Types of Alternative Mitigation . 3-8
.6-6
6-1 5
Table 6-1. Types of Potential lmpacts from Agricultural Activities..............
Table 6-2. Climate change mitigation benefits from agroforestry practices
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
o
o
Page ii
Table of Contents
December 2015
a
Jeffenson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUGTION
ln r99o, the Washington state legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GMA), which requires
cities and counties to designate and protect critical areas. ln r995, 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 anadromousfisheries (Revised Code of Washington tRCWI 36.7oA.t72). 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] 365-195-9o5). 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 35.7oA.o5o, this document addresses BAS for the
following critical areas:
o Wetlands (Chapter 3);
o Frequently flooded areas (Chapter 4); and
o Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs) (Chapter 5).
ln 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 r8.zz CriticalAreas (Chapter r8.zz iCC). 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 peftinent 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. ln many cases, the information
presented for one type of criticalareas overlaps, complements, or is applicable to anothertype 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 36.7oA.r72 (r)).
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
"nonetloss"ofcriticalareafunctionsandvaluesacrossthejurisdictionallandscape. 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/orto reduce associated risks.
o
o
December 201 5 Page 1-1
lntroduction
Jefferson Gounty CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
ln 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 r8.zo.o3o. 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, 2oo3." Existing and ongoing agriculture is exempt from the critical areas
regulations in Chapter :.8.zz JCC, but is subject to the objectives and standards of JCC :.8.2o.o3o
through voluntary compliance. JCC r8.zo.o3o is primarily based on a set of best management practices
(BMPs)thatprotectsthefunctionsandvaluesofcriticalareasfromharmordegradation. New
agriculture is defined as "activities proposed or conducted after April 28, zoo3, and that do not meet
the definition of 'existing and ongoing agriculture"'and is subject to the critical areas regulations in
Chapter r8.zz 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 35.7oA). 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 Eest Ava ilable 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 ecologicalfunctions 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 identifu 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.
o
a
December 2015
o
Page 1-2
lntroduction
Jeffercon County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
o 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 :.8.zz JCCfor
consistency with this information forthe following critical 0r€os:
o Wetlands
o Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
o Frequently Flooded Areas
ESA also reviewed regulations for agricultural activities and accessory uses in JCC r8.zo.o3o 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 ManagementAct (CTED, zooT). 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:
O
a
a
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 lnformation 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 lnventory
o Survey,
o Modeling,
o Assessment,
o Synthesis, or
o Expert opinion.
ln 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.
o
December 2015 Page 2-1
Methods
O
a
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
o 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.zz).
Wetlands are defined by state law (RCW 36.7oA.o3o) 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, orthose wetlands created after July 7.,7.ggot
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 zoo4 (Christensen, zoo4). The Department of Community
Development (DCD) continued to review and consider BAS documents between 2oo4 and adoption of
the current CAO in zoo8. 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 CriticalAreas Assistance Handbook
(CTED, zooT) was updated in zorz to address smallcities. The updated model code in Wetlands and
CAO Updates: Guidancefor Small Cities, Western Washington Version (Bunten et al., zorz) and is
considered Ecology's BAS for wetland regulations.
3.1.1 Ecology Synthesis & Guidance
ln zoo5, 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 forwetland management Wetlands in Washington State -Vol. t A Synthesis of the Science
(Sheldon et al. zoo5) and Vol. z Guidancefor Protecting and Managing Wetlands (Granger et al. zoo5).
Volume r contains a summary and synthesis of the recent literature relevant to the science and
management of wetlands in the state of Washington. lt describes what the scientific literature says
directly about the following topics:
Page 3-1
Wetlands
o
O
December 2015
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
"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 z translates the scientific findings from Volume r 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 z 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 environmentalfactors 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:
o Policies and plans such as landscape-based plans (such as Green lnfrastructure),
comprehensive plans, subarea plans, etc.
o Regulations such as critical areas ordinances, clearing and grading ordinances, etc.
o Non-regulatory activities such as incentives that encourage conservation, restoration, and
preservation through voluntary efforts"
Both Volumes r 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.
a
a
a
a
a
o
O
o
Page 3-2
Wetlands
December 2015
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
It should be noted that during the County's last BAS review a draft version of Volume :. was available
and incorporated into the update process. However, the final version of Volume r and Volume 2 were
not available until after the County's BAS review. ln zoo8, 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
ln zoro, the Corps released the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps, zoro). 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 lhe Washington State
Wetlands ldentification and Delineation Manual(Ecology, 1997) was repealed in zorr, and the state
manual is no longer required. The Regional Supplement is now identified by state rules (WAC L73-22-
o35).
Ecology released an update to the state wetland rating system, the Washington State Wetland Rating
SystemforWesternWashington:zot4Update(Hruby, zot4),thatwentintoeffectJanuaryzor5. The
rating system is still a four-tier system and most of the material in the zor4 updated manual remains
the same as that in the zoo4 manual. The updated wetland rating system includes a new scoring range
(i.e., between 9 and z7 under the updated system versus 1to 1oo in the zoo4 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 zoo4 rating
system (Hruby, zot4). The zor4 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. t A Synthesis of the
Science (Sheldon et al., zoo5), synthesized literature related to wetland buffers and buffer effectiveness
among other wetland-related topics. ln zor3, Ecology published Update on Wetland Buffers: The State
of theScience, FinalReporf which updatedthe zoo5synthesiswith a literature reviewof scientific
documents published between zoo3 and zorz (Hruby, zor3). The review addressed each of the
conclusions in the Sheldon et al. (zoo5) report and consulted r44 articles.
Water Quality
The updated buffer synthesis confirmed that buffers perform an important water quality function by
trapping pollutants before they reach a wetland. lt 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.,
2o1o; Owens et al., 2oo7; Sahu and Gu, 2oo9; Yuan et al., zoog; Polyakov et al., zoo5). Many factors
besides width affect the effectiveness of buffers to address water quality, including:
. Slope gradient and length (Yuan et al., zoo9, Zhang et al., zoro).
o Vegetation type, spacing, and density (Buffler et al., zoo5; Polyakov et al., zoo5; Yuan et al.,
2oog; Zhang et al., zoro).
Page 3-3
Wetlands
o
o
December 2015
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Soil type, geochemical and physical properties, infiltration rates, and soil water content (Mayer
et al., zooT; Polyakov et al., zoo5).
Type and concentration of pollutants (Gumiero et al., zorr; Hoffman et al., zoog; Mayer et al.,
zooT; Ranal li and Macala dy, zoto; Uusi-Kamppa, zoo5).
Flow path through the buffer - surface and subsurface flow paths are important (Mayer et al.,
zooT; Polyakov et al., 2oo5; Yuan et al., zoog).
Adjacent land use practices (Hoffman et al., zoog)
The zor3 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., zoo5; Hickey and Doran, zoo4; Hoffman et al.,
2oog; Owens et al., zooT). Buffers release phosphorus under certain conditions (Buffler et al.,
2oo5i Homan et al., zoo4, Uusi-Kamppa, zoo5).
r 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., zoo6; Dosskey et al., zooz; Ranalli and
Macalady, 2o1o; Mayer et al., zooT).
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 (zor3). 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 (zor3).
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 (zoo5). 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, zor3). 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., zoo6; Bauer et al., zoro; Crawford et
al., zooT; Ribeiro et al., zorr; Rittenhouse and Semlitsch, zoo6; Semlitsch, zooT; Semlitsch and Bodie,
2oo3; Semlitsch and Jensen, zoor; Slawski, zoro).
a o
o
a
a
a
o
Page 3-4
Wetlands
December 2015
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Birds
Several studies have been conducted on the value of buffers or core habitats to bird species (Deluca et
al., zoo4; Hannon et al., zooz; Hanowski et al., zoo6; Hays et al., 1999; Mayer etal., zooT; McKinney et
al., zou; Pickett et al., zooT; Pearson and Manuwal, zoot; Smith and ChowFraser, zoro; Smith et al.,
zoo8). Habitat protection provided forwetland-dependent birds depends on the specific species, the
type of vegetation in the buffer, land uses within 5oom or r 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.
zoo4).
Mammals
Literature of effective buffer widths for mammals indicates that dimensions are specific to a species'
life-history needs (e.9., nesting sites, foraging ranges, etc.) and can range from 3om (Foster et al. 1984,
Castelle et al. r99z) to 1,ooom (Richter 1997). New literature indicates that mammal diversity and
abundance showed a positive trend with 5oom and looom buffers, but not z5om buffers (Franclet al.
zoo4). Supporting research found that the highest richness of small mammals was in wetlands with at
least the first 5oom of buffer in forest cover with large woody debris (Richter zoor).
Amphibians
Two amphibians, the northern red-legged frog and the western toad, have been found to commonly
move 1,ooo feet or more away from wetland areas (Hayes et al. zoo8, Richter et al. zoo8; 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 soom or r 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., zoro; Eigenbrod et al., zoog; Harper et al., zooS; Trenham and Shaffer, zoo5). Further, new
literature confirms that ceftain species prefer certain types of vegetation in the wetland buffer as some
species prefer grasslands while other prefer shrubs and forests (Goldberg and Waits, 2o1o; Mclntyre,
2011; Rittenhouse and Semlitsch, zooS). For example, the western toad prefers uplands that are
forested (Bartlet and Peterson,2oo4; Mclntyre, zorr) while the Woodhouse toad and northern leopard
frog prefer non-forested landscapes dominated by natural or unmaintained grasses (Mclntyre, zorr).
3.1.4 Mitigation
Mitigation means avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for adverse critical areas impacts. lmpacts to
wetlands must be mitigated in step-wise fashion in accordance with the "mitigation sequence" of
actions, which is mandated by WAC :97-r:-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.o
December 2015 Page 3-5
Wetlands
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
5. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments.
5. 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.
Com pensatory Mitigation
o
ln 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,
2oo2; Ecology et al., zooSa). 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, zoor). 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. zoo8). ln
Washington State, Ecology also studied the
effectiveness of compensatory mitigation within
Washington and came to similar conclusions and the
NRC report (Ecology, zooo, zoor).
Compensatory Mitigation and Order of
Preference
Restorati on ( re - establi sh m e nt o r
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 awetland did
not previously exist.
Enhancement. The manipulation of the
phy si cal c h e m i cal, o r bi olog i cal c h a racte ri sti cs
of awetlandto heighten, intensify or improve
specific function(s) or to change the growth
stage or composition olthe vegetation
present.
P reservation (p rotecti o n/m ai nte n an ce).
Removing a threat to, or preventing the
decline of, wetland conditions by an action in
or near a wetland. Preseruation is an
ap p roved m eth od for com pe ns atory m iti gati o n
only in limited circumstances.
o
ln zoo5, the Corps, EPA, and Ecology cooperatively
published a two-part guidance documented called Wetla nd Mitigation in Washington State. Part r -
Agency Policies and Guidance (Ecology, Corps, and EPA, zoo5a) 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. lt
outlines the information the agencies use to determine whether specific mitigation plans are
appropriate and adequate. Part z, Developing Mitigation P/ans (Ecology, Corps, and EPA, zooSb)
provides technical information on preparing plans for compensatory mitigation. Some of the o
Page 3€
Wetlands
December 2015
/
o
Jeffenson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
information provided Part r 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 zooS 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
(lLF) 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 zooS
Federal Rule, formally known as the Compensatory Mitigationfor 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, zooS). The new order of preference for compensatory mitigation
mechanisms at the federal level is now:
1. Formally approved mitigation bank credits
2. ln 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 paft 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 Miti gation
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-r.
Page 3-7
Wetlands
o
a
December 2015
Jefferson County GAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Table 3-r. Types of Alternative Mitigation
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 Bankin g websile (Ecology,
zor5)
In-Lieu Fee (lLF)
Programs
Governmental or non-
profit natural resources
management entity
ln-lieu fee programs accept
mitigation fees before
securing and implementing
projects
Mitigation is
implemented at multiple
sites
Ecology provides direction in Guidance on
ln-Lieu Fee Mitigation (Ecology, zorza)
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 locatlon
Guidance for mitigation found Wetland
Mitigation in Washington Stofe: Part r -
Agency Policies and Guidance and Part z -
Developing Mitigation P/ans (Ecology,
Corps, and EPA, zoooa 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 lnteragency Regulatory Guide -
Advan ce P e rm ittee - R es ponsi b le M itigati on
(Ecology, zorzb)
Page 3-8
Wetlands
December 2015
ooo
Mitigation Type Responsible Pafi lmplementation
Schedule Mitigation Location Additional lnformation
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Alternative forms of mitigation do not change the requirements for permit applicants to adhere to
"mitigation sequencing" required by regulatory agencies.
ln 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 zooS Corps Mitigation Rule points to mitigation ratios that are
determined on a case-by-case basis but generally at least 1:1when replacing lost wetland area and
higher depending upon the type of mitigation used and the functions to be replaced.
Ecology's Guidancefor Protecting and Managing Wetlands (Granger et al. zoo5) provides guidance on
ratios for compensatory mitigation which are used by most localjurisdictions 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 lV wetland are to be mitigated by creating a
Category ll 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, zotz)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 Gurrent Wetlands Provisions
Jefferson County updated its wetlands ordinance in zooS based on the BAS review conducted in zoo4
(Christensen, zoo4) as well as BAS documents that had been prepared while CAO language was being
drafted for the zoo8 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 professionaljudgment, 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-zz-o35). The
o
o
December 2015 Page 3-9
Wetlands
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
current language in JCC r8.zz refers to an outdated manual for wetland delineation and should be
revised for clarification.
Wetland rating system
As discussed in Section 3.r.3, the Ecology rating system was updated in zor4. JCC 18.zz refers to the
previous zoo4 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 zoo8. The County uses Ecology's
"Buffer Alternative 3" in Granger et al. (zoo5). 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,butthescaleofscoresforbufferfunctionshasbeenchanged. MinorchangestoTables
r8.zz.33o(r, z, and :) in JCC r8.zz 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 e8.zz.35o of JCC
18.zz mirrorthe Ecology recommendations in Granger et al. (zoo5) 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 r8.zz.35o 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.r.5) to assess wetland impacts associated with development.
However, use of the zor4 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. lf 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. lf 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 lll 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 lV
o
o
o
Page 3-10
Wetlands
December 201 5
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
wetlands must be provided for within the development project design (e.9., 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, aggl) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps, zoro) 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, zooS), Making Mitigation Works: The Report of the Mitigation thatWorks Forum
(Ecology, zooS), and Calculating Credits and Debitsfor Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western
Washington (Hruby, zorz) include current guidance.
o
o
December 201 5 Page 3-1 1
Wetlands
o
o
o
Jefferson Gounty CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
o CHAPTER 4. FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Frequently flooded areas are specifically identified for protection as a critical area by GMA (WAC 365-
r9o-rro). Frequently flooded areas are defined as "lands in the floodplain subject to a one percent (r%)
or greater chance of flooding in any given year, or within areas subject to flooding due to high
groundwater" (WAC 365-19o-o3o). At a minimum, frequently flooded areas include the roo-year
floodplain designations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Flood
lnsurance Program.
Washington Administrative Code 355-r9o-rro(z) states that counties and cities should consider the
following when designating and classifying frequently flooded areas:
o Effects of flooding on human health and safety, and to public facilities and services;
o 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 36.7o4.rro;
o 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;
o 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;
o 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 Ouilcene, and Little Ouilcene 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 Ouilcene Bay. Chimacum, Snow, and Salmon creeks flow through wetlands
prior to discharging into the marine environment. ln addition to streams and rivers, frequently flooded
areas include the marine environment. The majority of marine shorelines in the County are within roo-
yearfloodplain designated by FEMA and activities occurring this zone are regulated underthe County's
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) in Chapter r8.25 JCC.
The current CAO provides standards for protection of frequently flooded areas outside of shoreline
jurisdiction in Chapter r5.r5 JCC, which includes standards for identification, reporting, and protection
of floodplains, and additionally references floodplain standards for new development and structures
within the lnternational Building Code (lBC) and lnternational Residential Code (lRC). ln addition, the
County's SMP includes flood hazard reduction regulations (Chapter r8.25 JCC) that were not in effect at
the time of the last CAO update.
4.1 Updates to Scientific Literature
ln zor5, 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
o
o
December 2015 Page 4-1
Frequently Flooded Areas
Jefferson County GAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
FEMA Puget Sound Biological Opinion (BiOp) compliance (Ecology, zor5b). Topics addressed in this
guidance document are described in detail here.
Although limited in Jefferson County, riverine floodplains such as those associated with the Big and
Little Ouilcene 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., zoo5), production
and of wild and cultivated products, recreational opportunities, and areas for scientific study and
outdoor recreation (Kusler, zorr). 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, zoro; NMFS,
zoog). Due to the zoog 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 lnsurance Program (NFIP)
participating communities (NMFS zoog; FEMA zor3).
Ecology guidelines encourage protection of channel migration zones in critical areas ordinances either
through the flood hazard section of the code orthrough the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas section (Ecology, zor5a). ln Jefferson County, channel migration zones are included in the
geologically hazardous areas section of the CAO. Channelmigration zones (CMZs) occur in Jefferson
County within the floodplains of the Big and Little Ouilcene 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 Synthesisfor
Floodplain Management and Restoration (Legg et al., zor4). The document provides guidance for
understanding stream patterns and processes for planners, land-use managers and floodplain
managers by describing the following:
o Landscape controls on channel migration processes
o Fundamental channel migration processes; and
o Channel patterns and the many channel migration process that support them (Legg et al., zoe4)
o
o
o
Page 4-2
Frequently Flooded Areas
December 2015
The current Flood lnsurance Rate Map (FIRM) forthe County has an effective date of July r9, 1982. A
revised FIRM is scheduled to become effective in February zo:r7. As noted in Ecology (zor5b), 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 localjurisdiction'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 roo-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.
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Mapping of some CMZs in Jefferson County was first completed in zoo4 (Klawon) and updated in zoo6
(Perkins) and subsequently incorporated into the County's zooS CAO update as well as the County's
updated SMP, which went into effect in February zor4.
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,
(zoor) in Assessrng the Natural and BeneJicial Functions of Floodplains.' /ssues and approaches; future
directions outlines the beneficial functions of floodplains. The functions are summarized below.
a
a
a
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 Ouality Maintenance and lmprovement
o lntercept/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 archaeologicalvalue (e.9., 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.
o a
a
O
December 2015 Page 4-3
Frequently Flooded Areas
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
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.9., 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. zor3; ISAB, zooT)
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., zoog).
Stronger and more severe storms with heavier precipitation and higher wave conditions will
affect coastal shorelines (Dalton et al., zor3).
Regionalclimate 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-zoth century rainfall records is anticipated to reach capacity
and result in urban flooding more frequently (Rosenberg et al., zoog).
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 r5.r5 JCC, has served the dual-
purpose of satisfying the requirements of the GMA (RCW :5.ZoA) and the Floodplain Management
statute (RCW 86.15) since it was adopted in zoo5. The ordinance focuses on flood risk from a human
health and safety standpoint. Based on our review of current BAS, agency guidelines, and best
professionaljudgement, 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.
o
a
a
a
a
a
o
o
Page 44
Frequently Flooded Areas
December 2015
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
The revised FIRM scheduled to be issued in zo:rT 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. ln 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 t8.zz JCC, Article lV) could be expanded to ensure it is aligned with the SMP
and clarilr that the regulations do not apply to land uses and modifications within shoreline
jurisdiction. ln reviewing regulations to increase protection of development and of ecosystem
functions in the floodplain, considerthe revised Community Rating System Coordinator's
Manual (FEMA, zor3) and Ecology's Guidance for Frequently Flooded Areas (Ecology, zor5).
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 lJpdates
in CAOs (Ecology, zor5) 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
coastalflooding areas, address ecologicalfunctions in addition to measures that are beneficialto
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.
Page 4-5
Frequently Flooded Areas
a
a
a
o
December 201 5
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
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 a65-r9o-o3otal). The current CAO provides standards for
protection of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas in Chapter :.8.zz JCC, Article Vl. As
summarized in the County's previous BAS review (Christensen , zoo4), a wildlife habitat assessment was
conducted in zoo4 and Core Wildlife Habitat Areas and Corridors were identified and mapped (Tomassi,
zoo4). This assessment provided the basis for recommendations made by Christensen (zoo4) to
protect designated habitat areas and corridors. The CAO adopted by the Jefferson County Board of
County Commissioners in zooS was drafted to comply with WAC 365-r9o-o3o(z).
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 zoo9, WDFW published Land Use Planning for Salmon,
Steelhead andTrout: 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, zoog). Other
documents are related to managing biodiversity and habitat quality with urban development. ln zoo9,
WDFW also publishe d 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. ln general, stream
classification and typing systems are based on physicalcharacteristics of the stream bed, bank, width,
riparian cover, hydrologic regime (e.9., year-round flow, seasonalflow) 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 go.+8.ozo), 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 zzzWAC,
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 ono
December 2015 Page 5-1
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
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 zzz-t6-o3o, but generally is
as follows:
o
o
a Type S Water - all waters, within their bankfull width, as inventoried as "shorelines of the state"
under chapter 9o.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to chapter 9o.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 o.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 naturalwaters 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 sufface 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.
a
a
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 (obserued 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 impoftance of riparian buffers for stream protection and protection of salmonid
habitat inthe Management RecommendationsforWashington's Priority Habitats: Riparian (Knutson and
Naef, 1997) and the Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead, and Trout: A Land-use Plannels Guide for
Salmonid Habitat Protection and Recovery (Knight, zoog). Recommendations for stream buffers from
the BAS literature review during the County's last CAO update, recommended buffer widths varied
between 5o and r5o feet (Christensen , zoo4). Christensen also recommended that stream buffers
include the presence of Channel Migration Zones (CMZs), areas where riverine processes can distribute o
Page 5-2
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
December 201 5
a
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
sediment, collect large woody debris, and provide habitat for salmonids and other wildlife (zoo4).
Other recommendations for stream buffer widths vary from 75 feet to well over 3oo feet to help protect
a suite of ecological functions (Brennan et al., zoog; May, zoo3; Knutson and Naef, aggT).
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, zor3). The bufferwidths are recommended bythe NMFS to help protect
and recover Washington's salmon populations. NMFS recommends a roo-foot minimum bufferfor
surface waters that are currently or historically have been accessed by anadromous or listed fish species
and a 5o-foot bufferfor 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 forthose 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. zor3) replaces the department's previous guidance
(Design of Road Culvefts for Fish Passage) and covers the design of culverts with new chapters on bridge
design, tidally influenced crossings, temporary crossings, culveft abandonment, and project
development. These guidelines provide scientific information related to water crossings and other
proposed development near streams.
The Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelrnes (Cramer et al. zorz) 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, zoog).
Areas with less than 50 percent undisturbed land cover (i.e., developed urban environments) need
assistance to ensure that habitat connectivity is maintained (WDFW, zoog). ln 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, zoog). Habitat corridor widths greater than r,ooo feet generally provide the
most benefit for the most species (WDFW, zoog). Tomassi (zoo4) 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:
Page 5-3
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
O
December 2015
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
o "Corridors should not be broken by construction. lnformation on alternatives to road crossings
is available from the WDFW.
o 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.
o 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. ln addition to providing cover, this
reduces sedimentation and pollution in the waterway. lt has the added benefit of enhancing the
stormwater control function of the watenvay."
The mitigation measures outlined in Ecology's model code under Table XX.z (Bunten et al., zorz) can
also be used to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife habitat conseruation areas; and includes
maintaining connections to offsite areas that are undisturbed, and restoring corridors or connections to
offsite habitats by replanting. Low lmpact Development (LlD) strategies, which are mainly geared
towards improving water quality, can also have secondary benefits to wildlife (WDFW, zoog).
5.2 Assessment of Current Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas Provisions
The County's regulations for FWHCAs are contained in JCC :.8.zz.:95through :.8.zz.z8o. These
sections classify and designate FWHCAs per the state definition (WAC 355-r9o-r3o) and include those
FWHCAs that are found only along shorelines or salt waters, such as:
o Commercial and recreationalshellfish areas
. Kelp and eelgrass beds
o 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.
lnformation from the Tomassi (zoo4) wildlife habitat study does not appear to be integrated or codified
in the FWHCA regulations. lf 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 zzz-t6-o3o 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 5o to r5o 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.
o
a
o
Page 5-4
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
December 201 5
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
O s.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
presentwithinshorelinejurisdiction. Sciencerelatingtocorehabitatareasandcorridors,bothatthe
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, zoo4) 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.
o
o
December 2015 Page 5-5
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
o
o
o
O
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
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-r
represents the most recent agricultural census data for the County, which has nearly zzr farms totaling
over 15,ooo acres with the majority being smallfarms (7o acres on average) (USDA, zotz). From zooT to
zorz the county has experienced a shifting trend in farm size, with zo% less farms r to 9 acres in size
and more farms ranging between ro and 5oo acres in size (Figure 5-z). Only two farms in the County are
over 5oo acres and there are no farms over 1,ooo acres (USDA, zotz). The number of cattle and calves
sold between 2oo7 (S+g) and zo:-z (t, z16), has increased approximately 5o percent. Farming remains a
significant agricultural economic base and contributes to the rural character valued by County
residents.
Figure 6-r. Farms by size in Jefferson County using zorz USDA Census of Agriculture data (USDA,
zorz).
o
E
.E
o
o3
E
z
100
90
80
70
50
50
40
30
20
10
0
1-9 70-49 50-179
Size (acres)
180-499 s00-999
o
o
December 2015 Page 6-1
Agricultural Activities ln and Near Critical Areas
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Figure 6-2. Farms by size for zooT and zorz using USDA Census of Agriculture data (USDA zoo7,
zotz).
o
E
IU
o
ott
E
z
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2007
a20t2
1-9 10-49 50-179
Size (acres)
180-499 500-999
The Jefferson County Farmer Suruey zotz Report (CLF, zorz) 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, Ouilcene, 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 (5670) of farms surveyed had critical areas on their
property, with many stating they had made improvements to protect critical areas (e.9. 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. ln conclusion,
the report provides recommendations regarding stream buffer widths and clarifoing the permit
process.
ln 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, zoo4).
Since the 7.970'st 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. ln
cooperation with the local conservation district, farmers in the county have worked to develop and
o
o
December 2015
o
Page 6-2
Agricultural Activities ln and Near Critical Areas
o 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 criticalareas regulations and specific
provisions for agricultural activities and accessory uses occur in JCC r8.zo.o3o. 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 r8.zo.o3o(z). However, new agriculture, defined as
activities proposed or conducted after April 28, zoo3 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 r8.zo.o3o(z)(b)(B).
JCC r8.zo.o3o(z)(b)(iiXC) provides that "rn exchangeforthis exemptionfrom standard stream and
wetland buffers, the agricultural communities in each lefferson County watershed are expected to
establish and implement appropriate agricultural best management practices (BMPs) in orderto 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. ln response to legal settlement
agreement with the Washington Environmental Council in zooz, 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 zoo4.
The Chimacum Watershed Agriculture, Fish & Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan (Latham, zoo4) lays out a
framework for voluntary protection and improvements to fish and wildlife habitat on agricultural land
that is compatible with maintaining agricultural capability. lt 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
r8.zo.o3o(z)(b)(iii). According to the plan, BMPs should address five management areas:
(l) Livestock and dairy management
(ll) Nutrient and farm chemical management
o
o
December 2015
Agricultural Activities ln and Near Critical Areas
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
(lll) Soil erosion and sediment control management
(lV) 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 Ouality 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 effofts to date and potential sources of funding for the recommended improvements.
6.1.2 Voluntary Stewardship Program
ln zorr, Washington state adopted the Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP) (RCW 36.7oA.7o5- 9o4).
The purpose of the VSP is to protect natural resources, including critical areas, while maintaining and
enhancing the state's agricultural uses. lt encourages voluntary local stewardship efforts as an
alternative to critical areas regulation underthe 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 zorr
and zorz. The commissioners held a public hearing and various avenues of public comment were made
available. ln zorz, the BOCC ultimately decided not to participate in the program and published a letter
explaining the rationale behind the decision (Jefferson County BOCC, zorz). 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 lmpacts and Effectiveness
of Existing BMPs
Like othertypes of land uses, farming and agricultural uses can have impacts on critical areas. These
potential impacts fall into three general categories:
o lmpacts on water quality;
. lmpacts on hydrology (movement of water); and
. lmpacts 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-r). lt then describes the BMPs listed in JCC r8.zo.o3o that address each of
these potential impacts and evaluates the consistency of these BMPs with the best available science for
o
o
o
Page 64
Agricultural Activities ln and Near Critical Areas
December 2015
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
protection of wetlands, FWHCAs, and floodplains. BAS references for Table 5-r 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, zoo5), and Pierce
Conseruation District Tips on Land & Water Managementfor Puget Sound Rural Living (zo4).
o
December 2015
Agricultural Activities ln and Near Critical Areas
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Table 6-1. Types of Potential lmpacts from Agricultural Activities
Water Ouality
lncreased sediment in surface runoff Tilling
Grading
X X
Sheldon et al., zoo5
GEl, zoo5
Pesticides and herbicides in surface runoff,
erosion, subsurface drains, groundwater
leaching, or airborne spray drift
Pesticide, herbicide
application X X
Cornell, zorz
GEl, zoo5
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, zor3
Burkart and Stoner, zooT
Smolders et al., zooT
GEl, zoo5
Reduced opportunity for floodplain to
provide water quality improvement functions
due to faster surface water flow
Channelizing streams in
floodplain areas X Whatcom County, zoo5
Hydrology
Changes in amount ortiming of water within
or feeding existing wetlands through
modification of hydrologic regime or
topography.
lrrigation
Tilling
X Sheldon et al., zoo5
Reduction in floodplain capacity to store
water Filling for floodproofing X
Whatcom County, zoo5
PCD, zor3
lncreased surface runoff and reduced
infiltration
Paving
Soil compaction
Expansion or new
(additional) agricultural
structures
X Whatcom County, zoo5
December 2015 Page 66
Agricultural Activities ln and Near Critical Areasoo O
Type of lmpactl
Agricultural
Activities
Potentially
Resulting in lmpact
CriticalAreas Affected
References
Wetlands Floodplains FWHCAS
o o o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Type of lmpact'
Restricted movement of water through
floodplain areas
Constructing barriers
(levees, embankments,
bridges, culvefts, walls)
X Whatcom County, zoo5
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Removal or fragmentation of wildlife habitat Clearing of native
vegetation X X Sheldon et al., zoo5
Conversion of wetlands to fields or pasture
Tilling
Filling
Draining
Removal of wetland
vegetation
X X Sheldon et al., zoo5
Changes to the vegetation structure of
riparian wetlands Livestock grazing X X
Sheldon et al., zoo5
PCD, zor3
Pesticide, herbicide
application
Fertilizers
Runoff of animal waste
X X
De Solla et al., zoog
Zedler, zoo3
Spread of nonnative invasive plant species
(e.9., reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife)
that can outcompete native plants and
degrade wildlife habitat
Runofffrom 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., zoo5
Zedler, zoo3
Jefferson County Noxious
Weed Control Board
(website)
Degradation of fish and wildlife habitat in
floodplains Channelizing streams X X Whatcom County, zoo5
Restricted movement of fish and wildlife,Constructing barriers X X Whatcom County, zoo5
December 2015 Page 6-7
Agricultural Activities ln and Near Critical Areas
Agricultural
Activities
Potentially
Resulting in lmpact
CriticalAreas Affected
References
Wetlands Floodplains FWHCAS
Harm to aquatic species (e.9., amphibians)
due to degradation of water quality
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
1lf BMPs are used these impacts would likely occur at reduced levels.
along with sediment and wood that help to
form habitat features
(levees, embankments,
bridges, culverts, walls)
o o
December 201 5
o
Page 6-8
Agricultural Activities ln and Near Critical Areas
Type of lmpact"
Agricultural
Activities
Potentially
Resulting in lmpact
Critica! Areas Affected
References
Wetlands Floodplains FWHCAS
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
6.2.1 Water Quality
As shown in Table 6-r, the primary pollutants of concern for agricultural uses in Washington State
reported in BAS documents are pesticides and herbicides, nutrients (e.9., 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. ln 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 additionalfactors contribute to the effectiveness of buffers to address water quality:
o Slope gradient and length
o Vegetation type, spacing, and density
o Soiltype, geochemical and physical properties, infiltration rates, and soil water content
. Type and concentration of pollutants
o Flow path through the buffer (both surface and subsurface flow paths
r Adjacent land use practices
The agricultural BMPs provided in JCC r8.zo.o3o 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. ln 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. zor5).
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, zoo5 and Sheldon et al. zoo5). ln 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 r8.zo.o3o may help to protect the hydrology of wetlands, FWHCAs, or
floodplains, but no specific scientific review has been conducted on this topic. ln 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., zoo5; Hruby, zor3).
o
a
December 2015 Page 6-9
Agricultural Activities ln and Near Critical Areas
Jeffenson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
6.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Agricultural practices have had an on-going impact on salmonid habitat in the Chimacum watershed as
noted in the watershed characterization appendix of Latham (zoo4). Salmonids utilizing the watershed
include summer chum, fall chum, pink, and coho salmon; steelhead, and cutthroat trout. The majority
of salmonid use where agriculturaluses are concentrated is juvenile rearing (notspawning). 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, zooz). 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, zoo4).
The agricultural BMPs provided in JCC r8.zo.o3o directly benefit critical areas by protecting water
quality in streams, in particular temperature. ln Whatcom County, Benedict and Shaw (zorz) evaluated
whether buffer width of planted buffers on agricultural watenruays influence water temperature. The
study monitored air temperature and effective shade in five buffer areas with widths of o, 5, r5, 35, and
r8o feet at four different planted agricultural waterways. The results of the study indicated that narrow
(5 foot and r5 foot), dense buffers were just as effective as wide (35 foot and r8o foot) buffers in
lowering air temperature and generating effective shade.
ln 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, zor3). 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 (zor3) 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 criticalareas in Jefferson County.
a
o
o
Page 6-10
Agricultural Activities ln and Near Critical Areas
December 201 5
Fish and wildlife habitat can be directly impacted by agriculture through channelization of streams and
removal of native vegetation. lndirect 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.
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
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 zooz (Gately et
al. zor5). Under CREP, a landowner is paid rent for land put into riparian buffers. Buffers can vary in
width from 35 feet to r8o 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 r5-foot wide hedgerow buffer. Based on soil
productivity, a landowner receives about $3oo 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. zor5).
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.
ln zorz, the WSCC provided the report, zorz lmplementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Results for
the Washington Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP): Plant and Buffer Performance
(Smith, zorz). Results from the report found that over 1,ooo total contracts had been implemented
since the program began, with most using the riparian forest buffer practice (with an average buffer
width of r43 feet) followed by wetland enhancement and riparian hedgerow practices. The percent
canopy cover found in CREP sites with longer (5-ro year) contracts was greater (approx. 7z0h) than
those sites with shorter (r-4 year) contracts. lnvasive species cover was also found to be low in CREP
sites, ranging from 1to 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
ln zooz and zoo5, 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 ll (GEl, zooz and zoo5). 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
(3oo feet or more) than required for agriculture lands as research indicates narrower buffers (5 to 3oo
December 201 5 Page 6-1 1
Agricultural Activities ln and Near Critical Areas
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
meters) were just as effective for water filtration, sediment reduction, animal exclusion, shade, nutrient
removal, and bank stabilization of agricultural streams (GEl, zooz). 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 ll 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 lll of the report includes suggestions for
minimum riparian buffers ranging between z5 and 6o-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 (r8
inches of average annual precipitation) of the state to have a minimum vegetated riparian
buffer width of z5-fee!
Farms demonstrating BMPs implementation on slopes 7 percent or greater in wetter areas
(more than r8 inches of average annual precipitation) of the state to have a minimum
vegetated riparian bufferwidth of 35-feet;
Farms that do not implement BMPs to have a minimum vegetated riparian buffer width of 5o-
feet.
Several of the suggested BMPs from the Phase ll review suppoft 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 (GEl, zoo5). 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:
r) lnclude sufficient timing for vegetation re-growth;
zl Retain sufficient vegetation during peak flows to protect stream banks;
3) Limit grazing time and intensity; and
d Create appealing areas for food, water, and rest away from streams, stream banks, and riparian
vegetation with or without fencing (GEl, zoo5).
Like the Phase I report, the Phase ll 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 ll report as BMPs practiced in Washington and support the agricultural BMPs
listed in JCC r8.zo.o3o(z) .The reports highlights key methods and management options beyond those
provided by FOTGs in a NRCS review completed in tggT 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 managemen!
pesticide field losses and residues; water diversion and distribution systems; water application systems
o
a
a
a
o
o
Page 6-12
Agricultural Activities ln and Near Critical Areas
December 201 5
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
and efficiencies; active water application research and developmenq 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. zor5). 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 localgroups, such as Chimacum High Schooland 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
fecalcoliform concentrations, stream temperatures, dissolved oxygen and salmon returns.
Although concentrations of fecal coliform in the last year of monitoring (zorz) failed the Washington
Department of Ecology (Ecology)'s "extraordinary contact" standard at z5 of z8 monitoring stations,
concentrations have declined over time since monitoring first began in 1988. ln 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 (r5o as designated by USEPA Region ro (zoo3)) standard in zor3. However,
there has been a decreasing trend in temperature since monitoring started in 1998. Stream
temperatures have dropped r degree Celsius in the main stem of Chimacum Creek and z degrees in the
east fork of the creek. Similarly, many of the monitoring stations failed the r-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 sedimenq 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 zoor to 2013 Chum salmon returns ranged from 558 to 3,o66 adults; and Coho returns
ranged from 333 to 3,539 UCCD, zor5). 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.
o
December 20'15 Page 6-13
Agricultural Activities ln and Near Critical Areas
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
6.3.4 Working Buffers on Agricultural Lands Paper
ln cooperation with the NOAA Restoration Center and the Puget Sound Partnership, the Snohomish
Conseruation District (SCD) issued the paper: The Working Buffer Opportunity: A Proposalfor
Ecologically Sound and Economically Viable Riparian Buffers on Agriculture Lands (Dittbrenner et al.,
zor5). 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. lnstead, 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 buffef zone would be used primarily to enhance
stream habitat but could also be used for some low impact harvest practices (e.9. smallfruit, 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-r is a conceptual model of an integrated design using a riparian
buffer zone, a working buffer zone, and integrated runoff management.
o
O
Figure 6-1. Figure 4: Conceptual model of
integrated design usang 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 aforest canopy.
Alley Cropping. Growing an annual or
pe ren n ial ag ri c u ltu ral c ro p si m u ltane o u sly
with a long-term woody crop, both in rows,
typically on contour.
Silvopasture. The canopy is managedfor
timber orfruit/nut production while the
understory is managedfor seasonal and
rotati o n al livestock fo rage.
Short Rotation Biomass. Frequently harvest
fast-growing trees or shrubs that stump-sprout
(willow, cottonwood, or hybrid popla) are
harvestedfor biomass.
I
Cacrh-
N
a
a
aa
a
a
t
I
t
t
I
,
I
I
I
a
a
a
t
a
a
a
I'
a
I
at
a
I
a
I
December 2015
o
Page 6-14
Agricultural Activities ln and Near Critical Areas
\
I
t
I
I
I
I
\
o
o
J
I
\
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
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 (ClG, zor3). Table 6-z highlights how agroforestry
practices can mitigate climate change effects (Schoenberger et al. zotz).
Table 6-2. Climate change mitigation benefits from agroforestry practices.
o Climate cha nge 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 CO, emissions from farmstead structures
Reduce N.O emissions:
By greater nutrient uptake through plant diversity
By reduced N fertilizer application in tree
component
Enhance forage quality, thereby reducing CHa
Adaptation
Actions to reduce or
eliminate the negative
effects of climate change or
take advantage ofthe
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
offorage production
Alter microclimate to reduce livestock stress
Proved greater habitat diversity to supporto
December 2015 Page 6-15
Agricultural Activities ln and Near Critical Areas
Jeffenson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
The working buffers paper concludes that the concept is not appropriate for all situations nor that the
proposed agroforestry techniques will restore all ecologicalfunctions 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 r8.zo.o3o 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. lnformation 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.
O
o
organisms (e.9. 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
December 2015
o
Page 6-16
Agricultural Activities ln and Near Critical Areas
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
o CHAPTER 7. REFERENCES
o
General References
CTED (Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development). zooz.
Citations of Recommended Sources of Best Available Science for Designating and Protecting
CriticalAreas. March zooz. Available at: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-
BAS-Citations-Fina l. pdf.
CTED (Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development). zoo7.
Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protection Critical Areas within the Framework of the
Washington Growth Management Act. January 2oo7. Available at:
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-Critical-Areas-Assist-Handbook.pdf.
CTED (Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development). zoo7. Small
Communities CriticalAreas Ordinance lmplementation Guidebook. June zoo7. Available at:
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-Small-Communities-Critical-Area-Ordinance-
lmplementation.pdf.
Was h i n gton Ad m i n istrative Code tWACl. 355-r9o-o8o f3l. C riti cal A reas
Wetlands
Baker, M E., D E. Weller, et al. zoo5. lmproved methods for quantifying potential nutrient interception
by riparian buffers. Landscape Ecology zt(8):t327-t345.
Baldwin, R.F., J.K. Calhoun. zoo5. Conservation Planning for Amphibian Species with Complex Habitat
Requirements: A Case Study Using Movements and Habitat Selection of the Wood Frog Rana
sy lvati ca. Jou rn a I of H e rpeto lo gy 40 | 4 43- 454.
Bartelq P., C.R. Peterson. zoo4. Sexualdifferences in the post-breeding movements and habitats
selected by western toad (Bufo boreas) in southeastern ldaho. Herpetologica 6o(4):455-467
Bauer, D.M., P.W.C. Paton. zoro. Are wetland regulations cost effective for species protection? A case
study of amphibian metapopulations. Ecological Applications zo:798-815.
Bunten, D., A.McMillan, R. Mraz, and J. Sikes. zorz. Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small
Cities. Western Washington Version. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication
No. ro-o5-ooz. October zo:-z znd Revision. Olympia, WA.
Christensen ,D. zoo4. Review of Best Available Science for zoo4 Comprehensive Plan and Development
Regulations Update. Jefferson County Natural Resources Division. September 22,2oo4.
Corps and EPA (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and US Environmental Protection Agency). zoo8.
Compensatory Mitigation for losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule. Federal Register 73(7o)
ag594-1,97o.
o
December 2015 Page 7-1
References
Jefferson County GAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). zooz. Guidance on Compensatory Mitigation Projects for
Aquatic Resource lmpacts Underthe Corps Regulatory Program Pursuantto Section 4o4 of the
Clean Water Act and Section ro of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899; Regulatory Guidance
Letter. No. oz-2. December 24,2oo2. Available at:
httE//www.usace. army. m il/Pona ls/z/docs/civilworks/RGLS/RGLz -oz. odf.
Corps(U.S. ArmyCorpsof Engineers). zoro. RegionalSupplementtotheCorpsof EngineersWetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version z.o). Report No.
ERDC/EL TR-ro-3. May zoro. Available at:
http ://www.n rcs. usda. gov/l nternet/FSE DOCU M E NTS/stelprd bro4549a.pdf .
Crawford, J.A. and R. Semlitsch. 2oo7. Estimation of coreterrestrialhabitatforstream-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. zoo4. lnfluence of land use on the integrity
of marsh bird communities of Chesapeake Bay, USA. Wetlands z4:837-847.
Denissoff, C. and D. Urban. zorz. Evaluating the Success of Wetland Mitigation Banks. National
Wetlands Newsletter 3+(+)'8.
Dosskey, M.G., M.J. Helmers, D.E. Eisenhauer, and K.D. Hoagland. zooz. 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. zoro. The Role of
Riparian Vegetation in Protecting and lmproving Chemical Water Ouality in Streams. Journal
of the American Water Resources Association 46(z):z6t-277.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). zooz. Washington State Wetland Mitigation
Evaluation Study Phase z: Evaluating Success. Publication No. oz-o6-oo9. January zooz.
Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/ozo6oo9.pdf.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). zoo8. Making Mitigation Work: The Report of the
Mitigation that Works Forum. Ecology Publication No. o8-o5-or8. December zoo8. Available
at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/o8o6or8.odf.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2o12a. Guidance on ln-Lieu Fee Mitigation
Ecology Publication No. rz-o6-orz. December zo!2.
https://fortress.wa. gov/ecy/publications/pu bl ications/rzo6oez.pdf .
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). zorzb. lnteragency Regulatory Guide: Advance
Permittee-Responsible Mitigation. Ecology Publication No. rz-o5-or5. December 2oa2.
https://fortress.wa. gov/ecy/publ ications/SummaryPages/rzo6orq. htm L
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). zo:.5. Wetland Mitigation Banking. How to
become a wetland mitigation bank sponsor. Accessed November zor5. Available at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/mitigation/banking/sponsor. html
o
o
o
PageT-2
References
December 201 5
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Ecology, Corps, and EPA (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and US Environmental Protection Agency). zoo5a. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State-
Part r: Agency Policies and Guidance. Ecology Publication: No. o5-o5-orra. March zoo6.
Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/o5o5orra.pdf.
Ecology, Corps, and EPA (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and US EnvironmentalProtection Agency). zoo5b. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State-
Part z: Developing Mitigation Plans. Ecology Publication No. o5-o5-orrb. March zoo6.
Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/o5o5oub.pdf.
Ecology, Corps, and WDFW (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). zorz. Advance Permittee-Responsible
Mitigation. EcologyPublication No. rz-o6-o15. December2ol2. Availableat:
https://fortress.wa. gov/ecy/pu blications/pu bl ications/rzo6or5. pdf.
Eigenbrod, F., S. Hecnar. 2oo9. Ouantifying the road-effect zone: threshold effects of a motorway on
anuran populations in Ontario, Canada. Ecology and Society t4$): z4 online.
Environmental Laboratory. a987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-r. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Massachusetts.
Ava i la ble at: http://el.erdc. usace.army. m il/e lpu bs/pdf/wlman87.pdf.
Francl, K.E. and S.B. Castleberry (zoo4). Small mammal communities of high elevation central
Appalachian wetlands. American Midland Naturalist 15r:388-398
Goldberg, C.S. and L.P. Waits zoro. Comparative landscape genetics of two pond-breeding amphibian
species in a highly modified agricultural landscape. Molecular Ecology r9(e7):365o-3653.
Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. 2oo5.
Wetlands in Washington State - Volume z: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No. o5-o5-oo8. April zoo5. Available
at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/o5o5oo8.pdf.
Gumiero, B., B. Boz, P. Cornelio, and S. Casella. zorr. Shallow groundwater nitrogen and
denitrification in a newly afforested, subirrigated riparian buffer. Journal of Applied Ecology
48(5):rr35-rr44.
Hannon, S. J., C. A. Paszkowski, S. Boutin, J. DeGroot, S.E. Macdonald, M. Wheatley, and B.R. Eaton
(zooz). 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 3z::r784-:,8oo.
Hanowski, J., N. Danz, and J. Lind. zoo6. Response of breeding bird communities to forest harvest
around seasonal ponds in northern forests, USA. Ecology and Management 229$3-72.
Harper, E., T.A.G. Rittenhouse, and R. Semlitsch. zoo8. Demographic consequences of terrestrial
habitat loss for pool breeding amphibians: predicting extinction risks associated with
inadequate size of buffer zones. Conservation Biology 22it2o5-1,21,5.o
December 2015 Page 7-3
References
Jeffereon County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Hayes, M.P., T. Ouinn, K.O. Richter, J.P Schuett-Hames, and J.T. Shean (zoo8). 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.13g-155.
Henning, B.M. and A. J. Remsberg. 2oo9. Lakeshore vegetation effects on avian and anuran
populations. American Naturalist 16r:rz3-r33.
Hickey,M.B.C.andB.Doran. zoo4. Areviewoftheefficiencyofbufferstripsforthemaintenanceand
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. zoo9. Phosphorus
retentioninriparianbuffers:reviewoftheirefficiency. JournalEnvironmentalOuality33:r942-
1955.
Homan, R.N., B.S. Windmiller, and M. Reed. zoo4. Criticalthresholds associated with habitat loss for
two vernal pool-breeding amphibians. Ecological Applications r4(5):1547-1553.
Houlahan, J E., P.A. Keddy, K. Makkay, and C.C. Findlay (zoo6). The effects of adjacent land use on
wetland species richness and community composition. Wetlands z5(r):79-95.
Hruby, T. zoo4. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. Washington
Departmentof Ecology. Publication No. o4-o5-o25. Available at:
https://fortress.wa. gov/ecy/publ ications/pu bl ications/o4o5oz5.pdf.
Hruby, T., K. Harper, and S. Stanley. zoo9. Selecting Mitigation Sites using a Watershed Approach.
Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. o9-o6-o32.
http://www.ecy.wa. gov/pubs/o9o6o3z. pdf
Hruby, T. zo:'z. Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western
Washington. Washington State Depaftment of Ecology. Publication No. ro-o6-ou. March
zorz. Available at:https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/roo5orr.pdf.
Hruby, T. zor3. Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science, Final Report. Washington State
Department of Ecology. Publication No. 13-o6-orr. October zor3. Available at:
https://fortress.wa. gov/ecy/publ ications/pu bl ications/r3o6om.pdf .
Hruby, T. zot4. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update.
Washington Departmentof Ecology. Publication No. r4-o5-o29. Available at:
https://fortress.wa. gov/ecy/publ ications/pu bl ications/r4o6oz9.pdf.
Kettlewell, C., V. Bouchard, D. Porej, M. Micacchion, J. Mack, D. White, and L. Fay. zoo8. An
Assessment of Wetland lmpacts and Compensatory Mitigation in the Cuyahoga River
Watershed, Ohio, USA. Wetlands. z8:57-67.
Kihslinger, R. zoo8. Success of Wetland Mitigation Projects, NationalWetlands News. 3o (z): 14-16
(zoo8). Available at:
o
a
o
Page74
References
December 2015
a
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
o http://www.tetonwvo.org/compplan/LDRUpdate/RuralAreas/Additional%zoResources/Kihsling
erohzozooS.odf .
Mayer, P.M., S.K. Reynolds Jr., M.D. McCutchen, and T.J. Canfield. zoo7. Meta-analysis of nitrogen
removal in riparian buffers. Journal of Environmental Quality 36::r:17z- ::.8o.
May, C.W. zoo3. Stream-Riparian Ecosystems in the Puget Sound Lowland Eco-Region: A Review of
Best Available Science. Watershed Ecology LLC. 76 pp.
Marton, J., l. Creed, D. Lewis, C. Lane, N. Basu, M.Cohen, and C. Craft zor5. Geographically lsolated
Wetlands are lmpoftant Biogeochemical Reactors on the Landscape. BioScience 55: 4o8-4r8
Martin, T.G., S. Mclntyre, C.P. Catterall, and H.P. Possingham. zoo6. ls landscape context impoftant
for riparian conseruation? Birds in grassy woodland. Biological Conservation :-27i2o1.-21.4.
Mclntyre, C. zou. Predicting amphibian occurrence based on wetland and landscape levelfactors in
Montana. M.S. Thesis, Universityof 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 aoo(t-2)J44-1.52.
NRC (National Research Council). zoor. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act.
The NationalAcademies Press. Washington, DC. Available at:
http ://www.nap.ed u/open book.php?isbn=o3o9o743zo.o
o
Owens, P.N., J.H. Duzant, L.K. Deeks, G.A. Wood, R.P.C. Morgan, and A.J. Collins. zoo7. Evaluation of
contrasting buffer features within an agricultural landscape for reducing sediment and
sediment-associated phosphorus delivery to surface waters. Soil Use and Management
z3(Suppl. !::.65-:i75.
Pearson, S.F. and D A. Manuwal. zoor. Breeding Bird response to riparian buffer width in managed
Pacific Northwest Douglas-firforests. Ecological Applications u:84o-853.
Polyakov, V., A. Fares, and M.C. Ryder. zoo5. Precision riparian buffers for the control of nonpoint
source pollutant loading into surface water: a review. Environmental Review t3i1,2g-1,44.
Ranalli, A. J. and D.L. Macalady. 2o1o. The importance of the riparian zone and instream processes in
nitrite attenuation in undisturbed and agricultural watersheds - a review of the scientific
I iterature. Journal of Hydrology 389:4o6-415.
Ribeiro, R., M A. Carretero, N. Sillero, G. Alarcos, M. Ortiz-Santaliestra, M. Lizana, and G.A. Llorente.
zom. The pond network: can structural connectivity reflect on (amphibian) biodiversity
patterns? Landscape Ecology z6(5):62-682.
Richter, K.O. and A.L. Azous. zoor. Terrestrial small mammaldistribution, abundance, and habitat use.
Chapter 7, pages zo!-22o in A.L. Azous and R.R. Horner (eds.), Wetlands and Urbanization:
lmplications for the Future. New York: Lewis Publishers.
Page 7-5
References
December 2015
Jeffenson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Richter, K.O., D.W. Kerr, and B.J. Earle (zoo8). Buffer-only wetland protection: implications for pond-
breeding amphibians. Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchelland R. E. J. Brown, Societyforthe
Study of Amphibians & Reptiles. pp. 489-5o4.
Rittenhouse, T. and R. Semlitsch. zoo5. Grasslands as movement barriers for a forest associated
salamander: migration behavior of and juvenile salamanders at a distinct habitat edge.
B iological Conservatio n t3a: 4- 22.
Sahu, M. and R. R. Gu. zoo9. Modeling the effects of riparian buffer zone and contour strips on
stream water q ua I ity. Eco lo g i ca I E n g i neeri n g 35(8) ::-:i67 - tt77 .
Semlitsch, R. zoo7. Differentiating migration and dispersal processes for pond-breeding amphibians.
Journal of Wildlife Management 7z:z6o-267.
Semlitsch, R. and J. R. Bodie. zoo3. Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian
habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology t7(5)::-z:g-:-zz8.
Semlitsch,R. andJ. B. Jensen.2oo1. Corehabitat,notbufferzone. NationalWetlandsNewsletter
July-August 2oo1:5-11.
Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale.
zoo5. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume r: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State
Department of Ecology. Publication No. o5-o6-oo6. March zoo5. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/pu blications/pu blications/o5o6oo5. pdf.
Slawski, T. zoro. Managing the water's edge: Making natural connections. Southeastern Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commission Booklet z4pp.
Smith, L. A. and P. ChowFraser. 2o1o. lmpacts of adjacent land use and isolation on marsh bird
communities. Environmental Management 45: 1o4o-1o51.
Smith, T.A., D.L. Osmond, C.E. Moorman, J.M. Stucky, and J.W. Gilliam (zoo8). Effect of vegetation
management on bird habitat in riparian buffer zones. Southeastern Naturalist 7:277-288.
Trenham, P.C. and H.B. Shaffer. 2oo5. Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for
population viability. Ecological Applications r5:rr58-1168.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. zoro. Field
lndicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.o. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V.
Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the NationalTechnical Committee for Hydric
Soils.
Uusi-Kamppa, J. zoo5. Phosphorus purification in buffer zones in cold climates. Ecological
Engineering z4t4gt- So2.
Van Meter, K. and N. Basu. zor5. Signatures of human impact: size distributions and spatial
organization of wetlands in the Prairie Pothole landscape. Ecological Applications , z5(z):45t-
465
o
a
o
Page 7€
References
December 2015
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
WashingtonAdministrativeCodetWACl. al3-22-o35.WetlandldentificationandDelineation.
Wash i n gton Ad m i n istrative Code tWACl. 355-r9o-o8o l3']. C riti cal A reas.
Yuan, Y.P., R.L. Bingner, and M.A. Locke. zoo9. 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. zoro. 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. zoor. 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, Centerfor
Streamside Studies.
Dalton, M.M., P.W. Mote, and A.K. Snover [Eds.]. zor3. Climate Change in the Northwest:
lmplications for Our Landscapes, Waters, and Communities. Washington, DC: lsland Press.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). zorz. Preparing for a Changing Climate
Washington State's lntegrated Climate Response Strategy. Publication No. rz-or-oo4. April
zorz. Available at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/ipa_responsestrategy. htm#REPORT.
Ecology (Washington State Depaftment of Ecology). zo:.4. A Methodology for Delineating Planning-
Level Channel Migration Zones. Publication No. 14-o6-o25. July zor4. Available at:
https://fortress.wa. gov/ecy/pu blications/pu bl ications/r4o6oz5. pdf.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2o15a. Channel migration zones (CMZs)
information. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st guide/jurisdiction/CMZ.html.
Accessed November, zor5.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). zor5b. Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Guidance
for Frequently Flooded Areas. Available at:
http ://www.ecy.wa. gov/programs/sea/f loods/FloodedAreaGu idance. htm l.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). zoo9. National Flood lnsurance Program -
Floodplain Management Guidebook. FEMA - Region ro. Bothell, WA. March zoo9. Available
at: http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/zor3 o7z6-t647-zo49o-
ro4rlnfipguidebook_5edition_web. pdf.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). zor3. Community Rating System Coordinator's
Manual. OMB No. 166o-oozz. Available at: http://www.fema.gov/media-library-
data/r4o6897r948r5-fc66ac5oa3af94 63475t342cb35666cd/FlA-r5-NFl P-Coordinators-
Manual-zor4.pdf
o
December 2015 PageT-7
References
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). zor3. Model Ordinance for Floodplain Management
under the National Flood lnsurance Program and the Endangered Species Act. FEMA - Region
ro. November 2013. Available at: http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/r383 Sgl8g3424-
47 47t7 oz3toa z bbc7eo4ea83d56fpf5/N Fl P_ESA_Model_O rd inance. pdf.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). zor3. Regional Guidance For Floodplain Habitat
Assessment and Mitigation in the Puget Sound Basin. August 2013. Available at:
http://www.fema. gov/media-library-data/r383598u8o5o-
e347 56af ez7rd5zao498b3aooro5c87b/Pu get-Sound_Rro_H a bitat_Assess_guide.pdf.
Huppert, D.D., A. Moore and K. Dyson. zoo9. lmpacts of Climate Change on the Coasts of
Washington State. Chapter 8 in The Washington Climate Change lmpacts Assessment.
Available at: http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciach8coasts65r.pdf.
ISAB (lndependent Scientific Advisory Board). zoo7. Climate change impacts on Columbia River basin
fish and wildlife. ISAB, Report 2oo7-2, Poftland, Oregon. Available at:
http://www.nwcounci l.org/med ia/3r z 47 lisabzooT _z.pdf .
Klawon. J.E. zoo4. Channel Migration Zone Study for the Duckabush, Dosewalips, Big Quilcene and
Little Ouilcene Rivers, Jefferson County, Washington. U.S. Department of the lnterior Bureau
of Reclamation. September zoo4.
Kusler, J.A. zou. Assessing the Natural and Beneficial Functions of floodplains: lssues and approaches;
future directions. Prepared for the Association of State Wetland Managers, lnc. Berne, NY.
October 18, zorr. Ava i lable at: http ://www.aswm.org/pdf I i b/n bf . pdf
Legg. N.T., P.L. Olson. zor4. Channel Migration Processes and Patterns in Western Washington: A
Synthesis for Floodplain Management and Restoration. Washington State Department of
Ecology. Publication no. r4-o5-o28. August zor4. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecv/ou bl ications/documents/rao6oz8.pdf .
Mantua, N.J., l.Tohver, and A. Hamlet. zoo9. lmpacts of Climate Change on Key Aspects of
Freshwater Salmon Habitat in Washington State. Climate lmpact Group, zoo9, Ch. 6, pp. zt7-
253; The Washington Climate Change lmpacts Assessment. M. McGuire Elsner, J. Little and L.
WhitelyBinder(eds). CenterforScienceintheEarthSystem,JointlnstitutefortheStudyofthe
Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
MRSC (Municipal Research and Services Center). zor5. The National Flood lnsurance Program and the
lmpacts of the Biological Opinion. Available at: http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Public-
Safety/Emergency-Services/Flood-Hazard-Management-Planning-(r)[he-National-Flood-
I nsurance-Program-and-the-l mpac.aspx.
O
o
o
Page 7-8
References
December 201 5
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). zoo8. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation
Final Biological Opinion And Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Essential Fish Habitat Consultation, lmplementation of the National Flood lnsurance Program
in the State of Washington Phase One Document- Puget Sound Region. September zoo8.
Available at: htto://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/zoreozz6-rqoo-z5oaq-
ggoz/nfip biological opinion puget sound.odf
Perkins, S. zoo5. Channel Migration Hazard Maps for the Dosewalips, Duckabush, Big Ouilcene and
Little Ouilcene Rivers Jefferson County, Washington Final Report. Prepared for Jefferson
County Natural Resources Division and Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development.
February zoo6.
PSP (Puget Sound Partnership). 2o1o. Floodplain Management: A Synthesis of lssues Affecting
Recovery of Puget Sound. Prepared by Millie Judge (Lighthouse Natural Resource Consulting,
lnc.); David St. John (PSP) and Caitlin lmaki (PSP). Available at:
http://www.psp.wa.gov/vitalsigns/documents/Floodplain-Management_Report9lzdudgeo/ozo
Fina l-Ju ly%zozoro. pdf.
Rosenburg, E.A., P. Keys, D. Booth, D. Hartley, J. Burkey, A. Steinemann, D. Lettenmaier. zoo9.
Precipitation Extremes and the lmpacts of Climate Change on Stormwater lnfrastructure in
Washington State. Chapter 9 in The Washington Climate Change lmpacts Assessment.
Available at: http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciachgstorminfra65z.pdf.
SteigerJ.,E. Tabacchi,S. Dufour,D. Corenblit,andJ.L. Peiry. zoo5. Hydrogeomorphicprocesses
affecting riparian habitat within alluvial channel-floodplain river systems: A review for the
temperate zone. River Research and Applications zr(7):7tg-731.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Gonservation 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 (zor3), 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. lmaki. zoo7.
Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Science. ro.ro73lpnas.o7o1685ro4.
Correa, G. zooz. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors - Water Resource lnventory Area r7
Ouilcene-Snow Basin. Washington State Conservation Commission Final Report.
Cramer, Michelle L. (managing editor). zo:-z. Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelrnes. 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 Ouality and Fishes:
A Comprehensive Review. Prepared by Jefferson County Conservation District. Port Hadlock,
wA.
o
o
December 2015 Page 7-9
References
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Knight, K. zoo9. LandUsePlanningforSalmon,SteelheadandTrout.Washington Departmentof Fish
and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
Knutson, K. L., and Naef, V. L.:9gl.Management recommendationsforWashington's priority habitats:
Riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. r8r pp.
Larsen, E., J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. zoo4. Management recommendations for
Washington's priority species, Volume lV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Olympia, Washington.
Martin, T.G., S. Mclntyre, C.P. Catterall, and H.P. Possingham. zoo6. ls landscape context impoftant
for riparian conservation? Birds in grassy woodland. Biological Conservation t2li2o1.-21.4.
Mayer, P.M., S.K. Reynolds Jr., M.D. McCutchen, and T.J. Canfield. zoo7. Meta-analysis of nitrogen
removal in riparian buffers. Journal of Environmental Quality 36:La7z- ta9o.
Mclntyre, C. zorr. Predicting amphibian occurrence based on wetland and landscape levelfactors in
Montana. M.S. Thesis, Universityof Montana.
May, C.W. zoo3. 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. zoo3, Updated zoo7. 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. zoor. Breeding Bird response to riparian buffer width in managed
Pacific Northwest Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications rr:84o-853.
Polyakov, V., A. Fares, and M.C. Ryder. zoo5. Precision riparian buffers for the control of nonpoint
source pollutant loading into suface water: a review. Environmental Review t3:1,29-L44.
Ranalli, A. J. and D.L. Macalady. 2o1o. 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 389:4o6-415.
Ribeiro, R., M A. Carretero, N. Sillero, G. Alarcos, M. Ortiz-Santaliestra, M. Lizana, and G.A. Llorente.
zorr. The pond network: can structural connectivity reflect on(amphibian) biodiversity
patterns? Landscape Ecology z6(5):573-682.
Richter, K.O., D.W. Kerr, and B.J. Earle (zoo8). Buffer-only wetland protection: implications for pond-
breeding amphibians. Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchelland R. E. J. Brown, Societyforthe
Study of Amphibians & Reptiles. pp. 489-5o4.
Rittenhouse, T. and R. Semlitsch. zoo6. Grasslands as movement barriers for a forest associated
salamander: migration behavior of and juvenile salamanders at a distinct habitat edge.
B iological Conservatio n a3:-i1.4-22.
o
o
o
Page 7-1 0
References
December 2015
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Roberts, W.M., M.l. Stutter, and P.M. Haygarth. zorz. Phosphorous retention and remobilization in
vegetated buffer strips: a review. Journal of Environmental Ouality 4r:389-399.
Sahu, M. and R. R. Gu. zoo9. Modeling the effects of riparian buffer zone and contour strips on
stream waterquality. EcologicalEngineering 35(8):rr57-rr77.Semlitsch, R. and J. R. Bodie.
zoo3. Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians
a n d re pti les. Con servati on B iology t7 (5) :l-zrg-:-zz9.
Semlitsch and Jensen. zoor. Core Habitat, Not Buffer Zone. National Wetlands Newslettert 4G).
Accessible at:
http://www.northinlet.sc.edu/training/media/zouloSrazorrlsolatedWetlands/RESOURCES/CO
RE HABlTAT.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. zou. Puget Sound Characterization. Volume
r: The Water Resources Assessments (Water Flow and Water Ouality). Washington State
Depaftment of Ecology. Publication No. rr-o5-or5. Olympia, WA. Available at:
https://fortress.wa. gov/ecy/pu bl ications/pu bl ications/rro6or6. pdf.
Stutter, M.l. and S. Richards. zorz. Relationships between soil physiochemical, microbiological
properties, and nutrient release in buffer soils compared to field soils. Journal of Environmental
Ouality 4tt4oo-4o9.
Stutter, M.1., W.J. Chardon, and B. Kronvang. zorz. Riparian buffer strips as a multifunctional
management tool in agricultural landscapes: lntroduction. Journal of Environmental Ouality
4Lt297-3o3.
Syverson, N., and M. Bechmann. 2oo4. Vegetative buffer zones as pesticide filters for simulated sufface
runoff. Ecological Engineering zz: :i75-:.84.
Smith,L. A. andP. ChowFraser.2olo. lmpactsofadjacentlanduseandisolationonmarshbird
communities. Environmental Manaqement 45: 1o4o-1o51.
Smith, T.A., D.L. Osmond, C.E. Moorman, J.M. Stucky, and J.W. Gilliam (zoo8). Effect of vegetation
management on bird habitat in riparian buffer zones. Southeastern Naturalist 7:277-288.
Tomassi, S. zoo4. Management Strategies for Core Wildlife Habitat Areas in Eastern Jefferson County
Prepared for Jefferson County Natural Resources Division. March zor4.
Trenham, P.C. and H.B. Shaffer. 2oo5. Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for
population viability. Ecological Applications r5:rr58-1168.
Washington Administrative Code tWACl. 232-a2-292. Bald Eagle Protection Rules.
Was h i n gton Ad m i n i strative Code tWACl. 365-19o-o8o l3l. C riti cal Areas.
WashingtonDepartmentof FishandWildlife.2oog. LandscapePlanningforWashington'sWildlife:
Managing for Biodiversity in Developing Areas.
PageT-11
References
o
December 2015
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
WDFW (Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife). zoo9. Land Use Planning for Salmon,
Steelhead, and Trout: A Land Use Planner's Guide to Salmon Habitat Protection and Recovery
October zoo9. Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Program.
Wilhere, G.F., T. Quinn, D. Gombert, J. Jacobson, and A. Weiss. zor3. 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/DocsAilatershed_Characterization_WDF
W_Report_Fina l_Deczor3. pdf.
Ag ricultural Activities
Benedict, C. and J. Shaw. zorz. 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. zoo5. Synthesis of design guidelines and
experimental data for water quality function in agricultural landscapes in the lntermountain
West. USDA Forest Service/UNL Faculty Publications. Paper r3.
Burkhart, M.R. and J.D. Stoner. zoo7. Nitrate in aquifers beneath agricultural systems. Water Science
Technology S6(r): S6-6g.
CIG (Climate lmpacts Group). zor3. Climate Change lmpacts and Adaptation in Washington State:
Technical Summaries for Decision Makers. University of Washington.
CLF (Citizens for Local Food). zorz. Jefferson County Farmer Survey zorz Report. Port Townsend, WA.
Cornell University Cooperative Extension. zorz. 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.zooz. SalmonandSteelheadHabitatLimitingFactors-WaterResourcelnventoryArearT
Quilcene-Snow Basin. Washington State Conservation Commission Final Report.
De Solla, S.R., K.E. Petti! C.A. Bishop, K.M. Cheng, and J.E. Elliott. zooz. Effects of agricultural
runoff on native amphibians in the Lower Fraser River Valley, British Columbia, Canada.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry zr(z): 353-350.
Dittbrenner, C., P. Cereghino, E. Hagan. zor5. The Working Buffer Opportunity: A proposalfor
ecologically sound and economical viable riparian buffers on agricultural lands. Snohomish
Conservation D istrict.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). zorz. Section 4o4 and Swampbuster: Wetlands on
AgriculturalLands. Available: http://water.epa.gov/grants funding/wetlands/facts/factrq.cfm.
GEI Consultants, lnc. zooz. Efficacy and Economics of Riparian Buffers on Agricultural Lands - State of
Washington Phase l. Prepared for Washington Agricultural Caucus. October zooz.
o
o
o
PageT-12
References
December 2015
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
GEI Consultants, lnc. zoo5. Efficacy and Economics of Riparian Buffers on Agricultural Lands - State of
Washington Phase ll. Prepared for Washington Agricultural Caucus. July zoo5.
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). zorz. Letter to interested parties and
stakeholders re: ESHB 1885 Voluntary Stewardship Program and Jefferson County dated
February 6, zo:-z. BOCC members PhilJohnson, David W. Sullivan, and John Austin. Port
Townsend, WA.
Latham, A. zoo4. 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. zoo7. Evaluation of
contrasting buffer features within an agricultural landscape for reducing sediment and
sediment-associated phosphorus.
PCD (Pierce Conservation District). zor3. 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. zorz. Branching out: agroforestry as a climate change mitigation and
adaptation tool for agriculture. lournal 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.
zor5. Pesticide concentrations in frog tissue and wetland habitats in a landscape dominated by
agriculture. Science of the Total Environment Volume 5o2: 80-9o.
Smith, C. zorz. zorz lmplementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Results for the Washington
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP): Plant and Buffer Performance.
Washington State Conservation Commission. December zorz.
Smolders, A.J.P., E. Lucassen, R. Bobbink, J.G.M. Roelofs, and L.P.M. Lamers. zoo9. How nitrate
leaching from agricultural lands provokes phosphate eutrophication in groundwater fed
wetlands: The sulphur bridge. Biogeochemistry. Published online November 5, 2oo9.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2oog. 2oo7 Census of Agriculture. US Summary and State
Data. Ava i la ble at: http://www.agcensus.usda. gov/Pu bl ications/zoo7l
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). zoo7. Census of Agriculture. Table r: County Summary
Highlights zorz. Available at:
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/zooz/Full Report/Volume r. Chapter z County
LevelMashington/stqa z oor oor.pdf
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). zorz. Census of Agriculture. Table r: County Summary
Highlights zorz. Available at:
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/zorzlFull_Report/Volume*r,_Chapter_z_County_
Leve lArVas h i n gton/st53-z-oor_oor. pdf
o
December 2015 Page 7-13
References
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
USDA NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resource Conservation Service). zor5. National
Conservation Practice Standards. Available at:
http ://www.n rcs.usda. gov/wps/porta l/nrcs/main/national/techn ica l/cp/ncps/#
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). zor3. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet zoo8-3o63. Distribution of
Elevated Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water in Washington State. Available:
http ://pu bs. usgs. gov/fs/zoo8/ao63/
Whatcom County. zoo5. Whatcom County CriticalAreas Ordinance - Best Available Science Review
and Recommendations for Code Update. Whatcom County Planning and Development
Services. May zoo5.
Yuan, Y.P., R.L. Bingner, and M.A. Locke. zoo9. A review of effectiveness of vegetative buffers on
sediment trapping in agricultural areas. Ecohydrology z(3):3zr-336.
Zedler, J.B. zoo3. Wetlands at your service: Reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale.
Front Ecol Environ zoo3, r(z): 65-lz.
Zhang, X., X. Liu, M. Zhang, and R.A. Dahlgren. zoro. A review of vegetated buffers and a meta-
analysis of their mitigation efficacy in reducing nonpoint source pollution. Journalof
Environ menta I Oua lity 39:76-84.
o
o
o
PageT-14
References
December 201 5
o Final
JEFFERSON COUNTY
CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE UPDATE
Watershed Characterization Report
Prepared for March 2015
Jefferson County r rSA
)
o
Chimacum Creek watershed, eastern Jefferson County
.l
Z
N
N
I
viII
)
,
\l
t-I
E
Z
o
o
o
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Acronvms A-1
1.1 Report Purpose and Context l-l
1.2 Report Organization ...............1-l
CHAPTER 2. County Overview...I
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Climate and Landscape Setting.....
2.2.1 Climate
2.2.2 Geology and Landscape Setting..... .-....2-1
2.3 Vegetation and Land Cover
2-l
2-l
2-l
2.4 Habitats and Species.
2.4.1 Riparian Habitats and Species
2.4.2 Wetlands..
2.4.3 Priority Wildlife Habitats......
2.4.4 Core Habitat Areas and Corridors....
2.5 Water Quality
2.6 Summary of Watershed Management Issues and Opportunities
CHAPTER3. Chimacum CreekWatershed. ......................3-1
3.1 Overview....
3.2 PhysicalCharacterization
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-5
2-6
2-6
3-1
3-1
3.4 Habitats and Species J.J
3.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors...............J-J
3.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions..
3.4.6 wildlife
3.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities
3.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities...........
3.6 Watershed Fact Sheet ..........3-8
3-6
3-7
3-7
3-8
3-8
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-5
4.1 Overview....
4.2 PhysicalCharacterization
4.3 Land Use......
4.4 Habitats and Species.
4.4.1 Core Habitats and Conidors...............
4.4.2 Fish Use......
4.4.3 Water Quality
4.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions..o
Page iMarch 2016
Table of Contents
3.4.5 Wetlands.....
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
4.4.5 Wetlands.....
4.4.6 Witdlife
4.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities
4.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities...........
4.6 Watershed "Fact Sheet".......4-7
CHAPTER5. DiscoveryBayWatershed.............5-1
5-t
5-t
5-2
5-2
5.1 Overview....
5.2 PhysicalCharacterization
5.3 Land Use
5.4 Habitats and Species.
5.4.1 Core Habitats and Conidors...............................5-3
................5-35.4.2 Fish Use
5.4.3 Water Quality
....5-5
..,,5-5
....5-5
5-4
5-4
5-6
5-6
6-l
o4-5
4-6
4-6
4-7
5.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions......
5.4.5 Wetlands.....
5.4.6 Wildlife...
5.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities ...
5.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities
5.6 Watershed "Fact Sheet"
CIIAPTER 6. Ludlow Creek Watershed.
6.1 Overview .................6-l o
6.2 PhysicalCharacterization
6.3 Land Use
6.4 Habitats and Species.
6.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors.
6-4-2 Fish Use......
7 .2 Physical Characterization..............
7.3 Land Use .....
7.4 Habitats and Species.....
7.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors
7.4.2 Fish Use......
7.4.3 Water Quality
6-l
,,,,,,,,,6.2
6-2
6-3
.....6-3
6.4.3 Water Quality........
6.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions..
6.4.5 Wetlands.
6.4.6 Wildlife
6.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities ......
6.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities...........
6.6 Watershed "Fact Sheet"
CHAPTER 7. Northeast Jefferson Watershed.
7.1 Overview ,,,,,,,,,.7-1
6-4
6-4
6-4
6-5
6-5
6-5
6-6
7-l
7-1
1a
,1 .l
t-)
7-3
t-5
Page ii
o
March 2016
Table of Contents
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o 7.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions
7.4.5 Wetlands
7.4.6 Wildlife .
7.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities
7.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities
7.6 Watershed "Fact Sheet"
CHAPTER 8. North Hood Canal Watershed ......................8-l
7-3
7-3
7-4
7-4
7-4
7-5
8.1 Overview....
8.2 Physical Characterization ..............
8.3 Land Use....
8.4 Habitats and Species.....
8.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors
8.4.2 Fish Use.
8.4.3 Water Quality.......
8.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions
8.4.5 Wetlands
8.4.6 Wildlife
8.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities
8-l
8-1
8-2
8-3
8-3
8-3
8-4
8-4
8-4
8-5
....8-5
o
8.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities...........
8.6 Watershed "Fact Sheet"
CHAPTER9. QuilceneBayWatershed.............
9.1 Overview....
9.2 PhysicalCharacterization
8-5
8-6
9-1
9-1
9-1
9-3
9-4
9-5
9-5
9-7
9-8
9-8
9-9
9-9
9.4 Habitats and Species.....
9.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors
9.4.2 Fish Use.
9.4.3 Water Quality.............
9.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions
9.4.5 Wetlands.....
9.4.6 Wildlife
9.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities
9.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities...........
9.3 Land Use
10.4 Habitats and Species.
9-10
9-119.6 Watershed "Fact Sheet"
CHAPTER 10. Southeast Hood Canal Watershed .............10-1
10.1 Overview 10-l
10.2 Physical Charucteiz,ation.............. ...........10-l
10.3 Land Use t0-2
l0-3
l0-3
l0-4
10.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors
10.4.2 Fish Useo
Page iiiMarch 2016
Table of Contents
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
10.4.3 Water Quality
10.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions......
10.4.5 Wetlands...
10.4-6 Wildlife
10.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities
10.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities
10.6 Watershed Fact Sheet.............
CHAPTER 11. Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
11.1 Overview........
11.2 Physical Characterization
ot0-s
l0-5
10-5
l0-6
l0-6
10-7
......10-8
I 1.3 Land Use
11-1
11-1
1t-1
I 1-3
1t-3
tt-4
1t-4
I l-6
I 1-6
I l-6
I l-6
tt-7
I l-8
I l-9
t2-l
11.4 Habitats and Species
1 1.4.I Core Habitats and Corridors...............
11.4.2 Fish Use
11 -4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions..
I1.4.5 Wetlands
11.4.6 Wildlife.
11.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Quality Vegetation Communities
I 1.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities
I 1.6 Watershed "Fact Sheet"
CHAPTER 12. References
List of Tables
I 1.4.3 Water Quality.......
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
l-1.
2-1.
3-1.
4-1.
5-1.
6-1.
8-1.
9-1.
l0-l
I t-l
,,,,,3.4
.t-2
.2-5
.4-4
.6-4
a
Jefferson County Watershed Characterization Map Themes and Content.....
Definitions of Core Habitat Areas and Corridors (Tomassi,2004)................
Fish Presence in the Chimacum Creek Watershed...
Fish Presence in the Dabob Bay Watershed.............
Fish Presence in the Discovery Bay Watershed
Fish Presence in the Ludlow Creek Watershed.
Fish Presence in the North Hood Canal Watershed.............
Fish Presence in the Quilcene Bay Watershed
Fish Presence in the Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
,,,,,5-4
8-4
9-5
r0-4
tt-4
Page iv
Fish Presence in the Southwest Hood Canal Watershed ....
o
March 2016
Table of Contents
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o 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 bi phenyls
PHS Priority Habitats and Species
RM River mile
RVC Rural Village Center
SMP Shoreline Master Program
o
o
Page A-1March 2016
Acronyms
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o
o
UGA Urban growth area
USFS U.S. Forest Service
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. GeologicalSurvey
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources
WRIA Water Resource lnventory Area
Page A-2
o
March 20't6
Acronyms
Acronym Definition
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Report Purpose and Gontext
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. lnformation from this repon,
along with information provided in the Best Available Science Report (ESA, zor5), 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).
o
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., zor5) 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, zo16, in prep.) will use the results of the Watershed Characterization
Repon 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 overuiew 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 r). The watershed analysis unit boundaries were based on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Hydrologic Unit (HUC) mapping (USGS, zor5). The units were named based upon the major stream
system within the watershed (e.9. the 'Chimacum Creek watershed') or the major receiving waterbody
that the watershed drains to (e.9. 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.9. 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.o
Page 1-1March 2016
lntroduction
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
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 r-r.
o
Table 1-,l. Jefferson County Watershed Characterization Map Themes and Content.
o
March 2016
lntroduction
Hydrography Waterbodies (e.9., lakes) (WDNR, zoo6a)
Streams (WDNR, zoo6b)
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARAs)
(Jefferson County, zor3)
Wetlands (USFWS, zor5)
a
a
a
Geological Hazards o Landslide hazards (WDNR, zooT)
o Seismic hazards (Jefferson County, 1997a)
o Erosion hazards (Jefferson County, 1997b)
o Channel migration zones (Reclamation, zoo4)
FEMA Floodplains FEMA roo-year floodplain (FEMA, 1998)a
Jefferson County land use zoning (Jefferson
County, zoo6)
aZoning
Land Cover National Land Cover Database (NLCD) data
(Homer, et al. zor5)
a
Habitats o WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) data
(WDFW, zor6a)
o WDFW fish distribution data (WDFW, zor4a)
o Core habitat data (Tomassi, zoo4).
Page 1-2
o
MapTheme Content
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o CHAPTER 2. County Overview
a
2.1 lntroduction
Jefferson County is located on the Olympic Peninsula in northwest Washington State. lt 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. ln zot4, the County population was estimated
to be 3o,zz8 (U.S. Census Bureau, zot6), 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 gloo. Other
population centers include Port Hadlock, Chimacum, and lrondale (the "Tri-Area"), Port Ludlow,
Brinnon, and Ouilcene.
This report focuses on the watersheds in eastern Jefferson County (Figure r), 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 lnventory Areas (WRlAs) are located within eastern Jefferson County. The majority of the east
County lies within WRIA r7 (Ouilcene-Snow), which includes the Big Ouilcene River, Little Ouilcene
River, Discovery Bay, Chimacum Cree( and Dabob Bay watersheds, along with several smaller
watersheds that drain to Hood Canal and Puget Sound. Southeast Jefferson County is located within
WRIA r5 (Skokomish-Dosewallips), which includes the Dosewallips River and Duckabush River
watersheds.
2.2 Climate and Landscape Setting
2.2.'l Climate
Eastern Jefferson County has a maritime climate dominated by moderate temperatures and abundant
moisture (ESA, zoo8). Maximum Fahrenheit (Fo) temperatures average in the mid-4os in January in the
lowlands; in the summer, average maximum temperatures average in the mi-7os. Temperatures in the
lowlands rarely reach the 9os or fall into the teens in this region.
Precipitation patterns vary throughout eastern Jefferson County; annual precipitation varies from 5o
inches in Ouilcene along Hood Canal, to r8 inches in Port Townsend on the northeast tip of the County
(ESA, zooS). Most precipitation falls between October and April, as rain below r,ooo feet and snow
above z,5oo feet elevation. Rain in the mid-summer is relatively rare, with high pressure aloft and
moderate temperatures predominatin g.
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 rz,ooo years ago (ESA, zoo8). 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 byo
Page 2-1March 2016
County Overview
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
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 subjectto 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,
artificialfill, 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-lrondale). The majority of Marrowstone lsland is underlain by an aquifer. ln 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 (f/o\ or greater chance of flooding in any given year, or within areas subject to flooding due to
high groundwater" (WAC 365-19o-o3o). At a minimum, frequently flooded areas include the roo-year
floodplain designations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Flood
lnsurance Program. The current Flood lnsurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the County has an effective date
of July r9, 1982. A revised FIRM is scheduled to become effective in February zor7.
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 Hoodplain Functions
Ouilcene rivers are short, steep systems that drain the
steep eastern slopes of the olympic Mountains. The Flooding is a natural process that is integral
rivers are confined to narrow canyons for most of their to functioning river ecosystems and
tensth but do contain some timited nooapr.in .i".r- :il"#il?"',i',"ri',ifff [:1lJ:?'o',1'ji,",,,,,
before entering Hood Canal or Ouilcene Bay. Chimacum, and primary productivity, provide off-channel
Snow, and Salmon creeks flow through wetlands prior to refuge habitat for fish, attenuate flood
discharging into the marine environment, and have more damage, filter surface waters, and allowfor
extensive floodplain areas. Frequently flooded areas are groundwater recharge. Despite these
also mapped in the marine environment, although only benefits, flooding can pose a hazard to
the floodplains within freshwater and nearshore people and property.
estuarine environments are described in this report.
,
o
Page2-2
o
March 2016
Coung Overview
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
2.3 Vegetation and Land Cover
Eastern Jefferson County falls within the Noruhwest Coast ecoregion, dominated by coniferous forests
(ESA, zooS). 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 silverfir (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, lrondale, Port Ludlow,
Brinnon, and Ouilcene.
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. lntact 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, zooS). 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. ln 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, zooz).
ln 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., zoo5). Hood Canal streams in
eastern Jefferson County that have been documented as supporting indigenous summer chum
populations include the Big Ouilcene River, Little Ouilcene River, Dosewallips River, and Duckabusho
March 2016
County Overview
Page2-3
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
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. ln eastern
Jefferson County, Chinook spawn in the Duckabush and Dosewallips watersheds (Brewer et al., zoo5).
Additionally, Puget Sound distinct population segment (DPS) steelhead are listed as threatened under
the Act. ln 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 Ouilcene rivers.
ln 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 t73-zz-o3o) defines wetlands as "those areas that are inundated or
saturated by sufface 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:
r Wet meadows, which are characterized by having standing water from late fall to early spring
and are often dominated herbaceous species;
o Scrub/shrub wetlands, with seasonal flooding and vegetation dominated by shrubs and small
trees;
o Forested wetlands, areas that are not usually flooded but have saturated soils, and where
vegetation is dominated by large trees; and
o Shallow marsh, which includes freshwater marshes and open water wetlands (ESA, zoo8).
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.
ln 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 'Yact 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 r.
Freshwater wetlands are scattered throughout eastern Jefferson County, particularly in areas
dominated by certain "hydric" soiltypes (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.
o
o
o
Page24 March 2016
County Overview
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Similarto 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 fores!
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, zooS). Nonbreeding
concentrations of trumpeter swans, waterfowl, and seabirds have also been identified within the
County.
2.4.4 Core Habitat Areas and Corridors
ln zoo4, Jefferson County funded the study, Management Strategiesfor Core Wildlife Habitat Areas in
Eastern Jefferson County, to identify important wildlife habitat units in eastern Jefferson County for
protection and enhancement (Tomassi, zoo4). 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
FederalStudies 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.9. 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 z-r).
Table z-r. Definitions of Core Habitat Areas and Corridors (Tomassi, zoo4)
o
a
a
a
a
a
o
Core r Contain the most intact habitat; support species of significance; contiguous with
landscape; and contain features or habitat types of particular importance to wildlife
Core z Areas that meet most of Core r criteria, but contain developed areas or less valuable
habitat, or are relatively fragmented by highways.
March 2016
County Overview
Page 2-5
Sesignetioh (riteda
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Core 3
Consist of young foresq ditched or drained wetlands, and degraded riparian habitat and
streams.
Corridor lnclude 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 Ouilcene 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, zoo5). 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. ln general, water quality
impairments have been documented in streams that pass through, or downstream of, developed areas
(including agricultural areas).
ln 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 lssues 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 potentialto degrade, overall
watershed health and habitat conditions. On a County-wide scale, the key primary management issues
involve:
o
o
o
Page 26 March 2016
County Overview
r Water quality impairments;
e 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
O
o
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:
lmplement 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;
lmplement 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.
a
o
Page 2-7March 2016
County Overview
o
o
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
CHAPTER 3. Chimacum Greek Watershed
o
o
This chapter describes the conditions of the Chimacum Creek watershed (Figures 2a to 20. 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 Overuiew
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, zooz). The stream is approximately 3o miles in combined length and
discharges into Admiralty lnlet. 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, zooz). Near the confluence of the two streams are the communities of
Chimacum, Port Hadlock, and lrondale. Land uses in the watershed consist of commercial forestry,
agriculture, rural residential, and the Port Hadlock/lrondale 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, zot4).
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 r.3, is narrow and confined by a forested
ravine with relatively little surrounding development (ESA, zoo8). The lower o.z mile of the stream is
tidally influenced and supports nearshore and estuarine wetland habitat. From RM 1.3 to RM
3.oChimacum 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, zor5d). 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.o. Anderson Lake has
a surface area of 57.3 acres and is surrounded by a 4ro-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, zooz).
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, zooS). During the
r98os, the upper reaches of the stream were heavily logged and little riparian buffer vegetation remains
March 2016
Chimacum Creek Watershed
Page 3-1
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
(Correa, zooz). 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. lt has a surface
area of about 20 acres (ESA, zooS). 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, zoo8).
Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) are present in the Chimacum Creek watershed and mapped
throughout Port Hadlock-lrondale, Chimacum, and Center and Beaver Valleys (see Figure za) (Jefferson
County, zoo6a). 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 zb) (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, aggTc). 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 roo-yearfloodplain (Jefferson
County, 1998). The majority of Chimacum and East Fork Chimacum Creeks are mapped within the
FEMA roo-year floodplain as well as a number of lakes in the watershed, including Anderson, Gibbs,
and Delanty Lakes (see Figure zc).
3.3 Land Use
During the late rSoos and early rgoos, the lowlands of the Chimacum watershed were cleared of forest
vegetation and converted to pasture (see Figure ze) (Gately, zorr). Early settlers drained wetlands and
beaver ponds, and channelized both forks of Chimacum Creek and its tributaries for agriculture uses
(JCPW, zoo5). 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 CommercialAgriculture make up a combined 16 percent of the
watershed area (Jefferson County, zoo6b).
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 zd) (Jefferson County, zoo6b). Areas
zoned for Rural Forest and lnholding Forest make up 5 percent and o.r 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 r,3oo acres and makes up 4 percent of the
Chimacum watershed. Zoning types in the UGA include Urban Commercial, Urban Light lndustrial,
Low Density Residential, Moderate Density Residential, and Public. These zoning designations allow
for more intense developmen! however, untilthe sewer system is funded and constructed, more
intensive land uses and development cannot be approved. Therefore, the original zoning designations
o
o
o
Page 3-2 March 2016
Chimacum Creek Watershed
o
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
that were in effect priorto adoption of the UGA (e.9., Rural Residential r:5, Rural Residential 1:1o) are
currently being used within the UGA (see Figure zd).
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 pafts 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:
o Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
database (WDFW, zor6a);
o Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), National Heritage Program GIS dataset
(WNHP, zor3);
o WDFW SalmonScape Database (WDFW, zor6c);
o Washington Depaftment of Ecology (Ecology) Water Ouality Assessment and 3o3(d) List
(Ecology, zor4);
o U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetland lnventory (NWl) database (USFWS,
zor5);
o U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Land Cover database (Homer et al., zor5);
o Jefferson County critical areas, zoning, and core habitat area GIS mapping;
o Jefferson County water quality and other technical reports; and
o Aerialimagery.
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 zf) (Tomassi , zoo4). Core r 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 r - Habitat overlaps with Ludlow Creek watershed and includes tributaries of Chimacum
Creek watershed. Spans rural residential and commercialforestland.
Core 3- lncludes upper Chimacum Creek, Delanty and Peterson Lakes, and surrounding
uplands. Spans commercialforest rural residential, and agricultural land.
Core 3 - Habitat extends through Center and Beaver Valleys on rural residential, commercial
agriculture, and forestlands.
a
a
a
March 2016
Chimacum Creek Watershed
Page 3-3
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Corridor - lncludes 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, zoo5). Timber harves! agricultural use, and residential
development greatly reduced these fish runs, especially coho and summer chum runs. A substantial
culvert failure on lrondale Road in 1985-1986 resulted in heavy sedimentation of the stream (at RM r.o),
further reducing summer chum runs in Chimacum Creek (JCPW, zoo5). As a result of these combined
pressures, summer chum runs went extinct in the stream during the r99os. Recently introduced
summer chum stocks and restoration projects have helped reestablish runs in the watershed. From
2oo1 to zor3, chum salmon returns ranged from 558 to 3,o55 adults and coho returns ranged from 333
to 3,539 (JCCD, zor5). Juvenile coho have also become more abundant at restoration sites.
Table 3-r shows the salmon and trout species documented as present or presumed present in the
watershed.
Table 3-e. Fish Presence in the Chimacum Creek Watershed
'Species presence is based on data gathered from WDFW SalmonScape database (zor6c).
'Presumed presence (WDFW, zor6c).
Other fish species that use the Chimacum watershed include sculpin, threespine stickleback, and
western brook lamprey (Gately, zorr). According to the WDFW PHS database, Pacific lamprey have
been documented in the lower and middle reaches of Chimacum Creek (WDFW, zor5a).
Several complete and partialfish 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, zooz). Another culvert under Eaglemount Road
March 2016
Chimacum Creek Watershed
a o
o
Chimacum Creek X X X X X X
XEast Fork
Chimacum Creek X X X x2
Putaansuu Creek X X
Naylor Creek X X
Gibbs Lake X X
Page 3-4
o
Stream
Species Present'
Summer
Chum FallChum Coho Pink
{Odd year)
Winter
Steelhead
Coastal
Cutthroat
(Resident)
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
is a complete barrier to fish passage; it is located farther downstream near the intersection with Center
Road (WDFW, zor6b).
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, zor5; WDFW, zor6d). 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 r.5 is on the Washington Department
of Ecology 3o3(d) list for bacteria, pH, and ammonia-nitrate water quality impairments (Ecology, zotzl.
From RM r.5 to 2.8 (confluence of Chimacum and East Fork Chimacum Creeks) the stream has listed
temperature i mpairments.
From RM 5.2 to RM 7.o in agricultural areas of Center Valley, Chimacum Creek has impairment listings
for temperature, bacteria, dissolved oxygen, pH, and ammonia-N (Ecology, zotz). Farther upstream in
the watershed from RM r3.7 to RM 16.r, 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., zor5). JCCD assessed
fecalcoliform 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
orygen, 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, zorr). 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 (zor5). Stream temperatures
have dropped roC in the mainstem of Chimacum Creek and z oC in the East Fork (Gately, zor5).
However, monitoring stations continue to fail state standards for temperature.
o
March 2016
Chimacum Creek Watershed
Page 3-5
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
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, zorr). 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 zorr-zorzat z4
out of z8 monitoring stations (Gately, zor5). Human
fecalcoliform was also more commonly detected in
samples from monitored stations than ruminant fecal
coliform.
Con se ruation Reserue En han ced P rog ram
(cREP)
The CREP aims to restore and protect stream
and riparian habitatforfish on agricultural
land through financial incentives for farmers.
As an entirely voluntary program, farmers
can be under a CREP contract for up to r5
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.
o
o
The JCCD repoft 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
transpofted to surface water; and the variety of fecal sources, including human and wildlife (zor5).
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 zor3. 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 3o3(d) list for water quality
impairments, they do have a history of toxic algae blooms and are currently monitored fortoxic blue-
green algae. Gibbs Lake exceeded state guidelines for microcystin cyanobacteria algae blooms from
2011to zor3 and zor5 (Dobrowski et al., zor5; M. Dawson, pers. comm. zo16). Toxic algae blooms in
Anderson Lake have been dominated by the cyanobacteria Anabaena, which produces the toxin
anatoxin-a (Dobrowski et al., zor5). 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 ro days in the last two years before anatoxin-a levels
exceeded the warning level. ln one case from June zoo8, the highest level of anatoxin-a ever recorded
in the world was measured at Anderson Lake (Dobrowski et al., zor5). A study conducted by Oregon
State University on lhe 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
Page 3€
o
March 2016
Chimacum Creek Watershed
\J
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
(Correa, zooz'1. The necessary habitat features for rearing salmonids such as pool frequen cy, 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 overthe years have worked to restore some riparian habitat along the
streams (WDFW, zorSd; RCO, zo16).
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 za). 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, zor5).
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. ln total, wetlands make up approximately m percent of the
watershed (USFWS, zor5).
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 r4 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 ze) (Homer et al., zor5).
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, zor6a).
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, zor6a). 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, zor6a).
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, zor6a).o
Page 3-7March 2016
Chimacum Creek Watershed
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
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 (zor3).
3.5 Key Management lssues 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.
a
o
aa
a
a
Page 3-8
o
March 2016
Chimacum Creek Watershed
WATERSHED AREA:
37 Square Miles
-
Andl Ro-3
Uapr StEmi
CHIMACUM CREEK WATERSHED
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o
o
CRITICAL AOUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (CARAS)
CARAs are mapped in approximately 38% of the total
watershed area; these areas are found near Port
Hadlock-lrondale, Chimacum, and Center and Beaver
Valleys.
FISH AND WLDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION
AREAS
The majori$ 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.
o
Page 3-9March 2016
Chimacum Creek Watershed
)
',
J-.
\r
t
7-
N
, A,.u
EI
Miles
MAPPED CRITICAL AREAS
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Approximately 4o/o of lhe watershed is located within the
FEMA 10O-year floodplain; these floodplain areas are
concentrated along Chimacum and East Fork
Chimacum Creeks as well as Anderson, Gibbs, and
Delanty Lakes.
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.
WATERSHED CON FlG U RATION
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
floodplalns.
WATERQUALIW
The state water quality assessment (2012) lists the
waters of Chimacum Creek as impaired for bacteria,
pH, temperature, dissolved orygen, 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.
LAND COVER
Coniferous forest cover in the watershed is 33%, mixed
forest cover is 14o/o, 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 12o/o of lhe
watershed contains developed areas.
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o
o
o
March 2016
Chimacum Creek Watershed
EXISTING LAND USES
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.
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%).
WATERSHED UODIFICATIONS
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.
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.
o
a
a
a
a
a
KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Page 3-1 0
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
CHAPTER 4. Dabob Bay Watershed
This chapter describes the conditions of the Dabob Bay watershed (Figures 3a to 3fl. The watershed is
described in terms of its physical, ecological, and human environment/land use characteristics.
Characteristics for the watershed are summarized in the 'Yact sheet" included at the end this chapter.
4.1 Overuiew
The Dabob Bay watershed covers approximately z9 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, zooS). 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 naturalarea preserve (the Dabob Bay NaturalArea), which is one of Washington's
highest functioning coastal spit and tidal wetland systems (WDNR, zor5).. 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, zooS). 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
6oo feet elevation (ESA, zoo8). 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, zooz). Roughly 4oo acres of lower Tarboo Creek and its associated estuary,
coastal spits, and uplands are protected as state-owned NaturalArea Preserves (Bahls, zoo4).
The primary land use in the watershed is commercialforestry, 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 Physica! Gharacterization
The upper reaches of Tarboo Creek (above RM 4.o) are characterized by a slight gradient (r to z
percent), with a high frequency of large pool habitat (Correa, zooz).The stream flows through a fairly
confined channel between Highway ro4 and a logging road and as a result has poor connectivity with
the floodplain. Several mass wasting events caused by stormwater runofffrom surrounding roads have
also occurred resulting in increased sediment to the stream (Correa, zooz).
South of Highway ro4, the majority of Tarboo Creek is mapped within the FEMA roo-year floodplain
(see Figure 3c). The middle to lower reaches of the stream (below RM +.o) are characterized by a low-
gradient glide with few pools (Correa, zooz). 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, zoo8; 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 moreo
Page 4-1March 2016
Dabob Bay Watershed
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
than 5oo feet (Bahls, zoo4). 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, zooz).
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, zooz). 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, zooz). The stream enters
Dabob Bay via a narrow channel cut into a rapidly migrating spit. The spit encloses a long, narrow tidal
lagoon (Correa, zooz).
Tarboo Lake is located about 5.5 miles north of Tarboo Bay, between Highway ro4 and Lake Leland
(see Figure 3a). The lake has a surface area of 2o.3 acres and no outlet (ESA, zoo8). The entire area of
Tarboo Lake is mapped within the FEMA roo-year floodplain (see Figure 3c) (Jefferson County, 1998).
About r percent of the watershed area overall is mapped in the FEMA roo-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, zooSa).
ln 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, zoo8). The bluffs in this area are prone to failure and
contribute sediment to the nearshore (Ecology, 1978; Correa , zooz). Landslide hazard areas mapped in
the Dabob Bay watershed include shorelines and upland bluffs, including the western bluffs of Dabob
Bay (see Figure lb) (Jefferson County, 1997a). Similarly, erosion hazards are mapped along shorelines
and upland bluffs in the watershed, primarily on the Bolton Peninsula (Jefferson County, rggTc)..
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, zoo5). Previously, agriculture was concentrated in lower reaches of the
Tarboo Creek drainage, while the upper reaches were largely harvested for timber (Correa, zooz).
Current forestry activities in the watershed occur on private and state forestlands (JCPW, zoo5).
Approximately 57 percent of the watershed is zoned Commercial Forest and 7 percent is zoned Rural
Forest (see Figure 3d) (Jefferson County, zoo5b). Additionally, z percent of the watershed is zoned
Commercial Agriculture and r 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 z9 percent of the watershed. Zelatched Point is a U.S. Navy
property with a helicopter pad and small base (Correa, zooz). Rural residential and vacation homes
along Dabob Bay's shorelines are primarily concentrated at Lindsay Beach, Camp Discovery, and Camp
o
o
o
Page 4-2 March 2016
Dabob Bay Watershed
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
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,
zooz).
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:
o Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
database (WDFW, zor6a);
o Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), National Heritage Program GIS dataset
(WNHP, zor3);
o WDFW SalmonScape Database (WDFW, zor6c);
o Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Water Ouality Assessment and 3o3(d) List
(Ecology, zot4);
o U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), NationalWetland lnventory (NWl) database (USFWS,
zor5);
o U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Land Cover database (Homer et al., zor5);
o Jefferson County critical areas, zoning, and core habitat area GIS mapping;
o Jefferson County water quality and other technical repofts; and
o Aerialimagery.
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 3fl fomassi , zoo4\. Core r areas signify the most intact habitats in the
watershed, Core z areas included mostly intact (some fragmentation) habitats, and Core 3 areas include
important habitats that are degraded or altered. These include the following:
. Core r - lncludes 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 r - Small portion in the western part of the watershed at the head of Ouilcene Bay. Habitat
overlaps into Ouilcene Bay watershed and spans rural residential areas.
o Core z - Extends into the Southeast Hood Canal watershed in the central portion of Toandos
Peninsula. Habitat is located in commercialforestland.
o Core 3 - lncludes middle to upper Tarboo Creek and surrounding uplands in a mix of commercial
and localagriculture and rural residential land uses.
o
o
March 2016
Dabob Bay Watershed
Page 4-3
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
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, zor5c). Table 4-r shows species documented as present or presumed present in the
watershed.
Table 4-r. Fish Presence in the Dabob Bay Watershed
'species presence is based on data gathered from WDFW SalmonScape database (uor6c).
'Presumed presence (WDFW, zorSc).
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, zoo4). A
lagoon atthe mouth of Camp DiscoveryCreek 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., zoo5).
Several road culverts have been identified as fish passage barriers on Tarboo Creek (JCPW, zoo5). Five
of those culverts have been replaced since 1999. Currently, complete culvert barriers are found on roads
along upper Tarboo Creek (WDFW, zo16b). A number of other complete and partial culvert barriers are
found along unnamed tributaries of the watershed (WDFW, zor5b).
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, zor6d; RCO, zo16). 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, zo16). 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, zorS).
o
o
o
Tarboo Creek X X X X X X
East Fork Tarboo
Creek X X X
Browns Lake X
Camp Discovery
Creek X
Lindsay Creek X'X
Page 44 March 2016
Dabob Bay Watershed
Stream
Species Present'
Fall
Chinook Fall Chum Coho Pink
(Odd Yrar)
Winter
Steelhead
(oastal
Cutthroat
(Resident)
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Riparian restoration along Tarboo Creek is also being carried out under the Hood Canal Watershed and
Hood Canal Clean Streams projects (Dawson, zor5). Primarily aimed at improving dissolved oxygen and
temperature 3o3(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 2ox3 to 2014
for surface water quality as part of the Hood Canal Watershed Clean Water Projec! a program of the
County's Public Health Water Quality Division (zor4). Various sites were designated for Pollution
ldentification and Correction (PlC) 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 systemsi one site near a horse pasture on Carl Johnson Road; and another site at a
culvert on Carl Johnson Road (Dawson et al., zot4).
The lower reach of Tarboo Creek (from RM r.o to 3.o) is on the Ecology 3o3(d) list for temperature and
dissolved oxygen impairments (Ecology, zot4). Farther upstream (RM 6.2 to 5.7), 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,
zot4l. 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., zooo).
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,
zooz).
4.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions
ln general, riparian conditions are fair in the watershed (Correa, zooz). 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 resulg the potential for LWD recruitment is high in this
portion of the stream (Correa, zooz). 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, zooz).
4.4.5 Wetlands
Dabob Bay suppofts 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, zoo8). Wetlands in and adjacent to the Tarboo Creek estuary are currently protected by the
WDNR's NHP and are jointly owned bythe WDNR and The Nature Conservancy. Many of theseo
March 2016
Dabob Bay Watershed
Page 4-5
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
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 r34 acres) freshwater emergent complex, located in the Tarboo Wildlife Preserve
(middle reaches of Tarboo Creek), within an area once used for agriculture (USFWS, zor5). This area is
currently protected by the Northwest Watershed lnstitute (NWl) as a fish and wildlife refuge (NWl,
zor5). 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
commercialforest, agriculture, and rural residential development. ln total, wetlands make up 3 percent
of the watershed (USFWS, zor5).
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 r5 percen! shrub cover is r5 percent, deciduous forest cover is ro
percent, herbaceous cover is 9 percent, pasture/hay cover is less than one percent, and woody and
emergent plant cover is z percent (Homer et al., zor5).
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, zor6a). 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 Ouilcene (WDFW,
zor6a). 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 NaturalArea Preserve. Waterfowl concentrations and a band-tailed pigeon occurrence are also
mapped in the eastern shores of Ouilcene Bay (WDFW, zor5a). ln 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 zooz in lower Tarboo Creek
nearthe mouth of the estuary (WDFW, zor6a).
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. ln 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, zooS). Vegetation
communitiesincludepickleweed (Salicorniavirginica),redfescue-silverburrweed(Festucarubra-
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
o
o
Page 4€
o
March 2016
Dabob Bay Watershed
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
enclosed, backshore, polyhaline marsh); coastal spit with native vegetation; and sandy, high salinity,
low marsh (panly enclosed, eulittoral, euhaline marsh) (WNHP, zor3). These areas are currently
protected bythe WDNR's NHP and are jointlyowned bythe WDNR and The Nature Conservancy.
4.5 Key Management Issues and Opportunities
Management issues in the Dabob Bay watershed:
o Water quality in Tarboo Creek does not meet State standards for temperature and dissolved
oxygen.
o Dabob Bay shellfish growing area is designated as an area of concern due to poor water quality
by the State Department of Health.
o 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
o 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.
o Continue conservation and restoration efforts in the lower reaches and estuary of Tarboo
Creek.
o Continue efforts to remove and/or replace road culverts that impede fish passage.
o Continue to protect WNHP identified high-quality vegetation communities in the Tarboo
estuary and Dabob Bay.
o Remove potential sources of concern for water quality (creosote pilings) in Dabob Bay, and
continue efforts to identify and correct sources of fecal coliform.
o Protect designated core habitat and corridor areas within the watershed.
o 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.
o
Page 4-7March 2016
Dabob Bay Watershed
WATERSHED AREA:
29 Square Miles
-
UDTS|IaT
DABOB BAY CREEK WATERSHED
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
a
I
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Approximately 1% of the watershed is located within the
FEMA 1OO-year floodplain; these floodplain areas are
concentrated along Tarboo Creek, its tributaries, and
the area around Tarboo Lake.
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Landslide hazard areas (24o/o of watershed area) are
mapped along the shorelines and upland bluf6
including the western blufb 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.
WETLANDS
Approximately 2% otthe watershed is mapped as
wetland habitat, which is generally associated with
Tarboo Creek and estuary.
FISH AND W]LDLIFE 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.
GRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (CARAS)
CARAs are mapped in approximately 39% of the total
watershed area; these areas are concentrated around
Tarboo Creek and the bay shoreline.
MAPPED CRITICAL AREAS
Page 4-8
o
March 2016
Dabob Bay Watershed
-
Ai@t Roa.ra
\
s
)
A
2 l
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o
o
WATERSHED CONFIGURATION
The majori$ 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.
WATER QUALITY
The state water quality assessment (2012) lists the
lower reach of Tarlcoo Creek as impaired for
temperature and low dissolved orygen levels. Several
sites in Dabob Bay and Tarboo Creek are monitored for
surface water quality. ln 2014, three of these sites in
Tarboo Creek contained elevated E. coll levels.
LAND COVER
Coniferous forest cover in the watershed is 47%, mixed
forest cover is 1 6%, 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.
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES
EXISTING LAND USES
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 e,ommercial and recreational shellfish
harvesting.
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% ot the watershed is
zoned for agriculture, with smaller areas of Paks, and
Forest Resource-based lndustrial (. 1%).
WATERSHED MODIFICATIONS
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.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE
Water quality in Tarlcoo Creek does not meet State standards for temperature and dissolved oxygen, and the
Dabob Bay shellfish growing area is designated as an area of concem 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-quali$ vegetation communities in the Tarboo estuary and Dabob
Bay.
Protect designated priority habitats and core habitats and corridors.
Remove potential sources of concem for water quality (creosote pilings) in Dabob Bay, and continue efforts to
identify and correct sources of fecal coliform.
a
a
a
a
a
KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
o
Page 4-9March 2016
Dabob Bay Watershed
a
o
o
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
CHAPTER 5. Discovery Bay Watershed
This chapter describes the conditions of the Discovery Bay watershed (Figures 4a to 4fl. 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 5o square miles in area. The two major drainages
to the bay are Salmon Creek (approximately ro miles long) and Snow Creek (approximately ro 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 imponant commercial shellfish harvesting areas in
Washington State (ESA et al., zorz). 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 r.5) are designated as shorelines of the state (ESA, zooS).
The primary land uses in the watershed are commercialforestry 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 alluvialvalley
associated with Snow and Salmon Creeks (Correa, zooz). 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., zorz). Snow Creek now joins Salmon Creek in the intertidal area
of Discovery Bay during low tides. Bridges along Highway 1o1and State Route zo also cross the
estuaries of Salmon and Snow Creeks (ESA et al., zorz).
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, zooz; ESA et al., zorz). The valley below Uncas Road was historically developed
for agricultural uses. The lower portion of Andrews Cree( 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 roo-year floodplain (see Figure 4c), although historic modifications, some of
which were removed in zor5, 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 approximalely 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.
o
o
March 2016
Discovery Bay Watershed
Page 5-1
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
CARAs are mapped throughout approximately one-quarter (z4o/o) of the total watershed area. CARAs
are concentrated along the Snow and Salmon Creek stream system and along the bay shoreline
(Jefferson County, zooSa).
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, zoo5). Commercialtimber harvest and agriculture continue
today in similar locations. Currently, most of the watershed is zoned for commercial forestry (43
percent) and rural residential (4r percent), with some agriculture-zoned area (e percent) along Snow
Creek (see Figure 4d) (Jefferson County, zoo3). 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, zoo5).
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, zor6a);
o Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), National Heritage Program GIS dataset
(WNHP, zor3);
o WDFW SalmonScape Database (WDFW, zorSc);
o Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Water Ouality Assessment and 3o3(d) List
(Ecology, zot4);
o U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), NationalWetland lnventory (NWl) database (USFWS,
zor5);
o U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Land Cover database (Homer et al., zor5);
r Jefferson County critical areas, zoning, and core habitat area GIS mapping;
o Jefferson County water quality and other technical reports; and
o Aerialimagery.
o
o
o
Page 5-2 March 2016
Discover Bay Watershed
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
5.4.1 Gore Habitats and Corridors
A few core habitat and corridor types are mapped within the Discovery Bay watershed and described in
Appendix A (see Figure 4fl (Tomassi, zoo4). Core r 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:
o Core r - Habitat block located near the confluence of Snow and Trapper Creeks.
o Core z - Located along lower Snow Creek (up to the Andrews Creek mouth) and extending to
the south along lower Andrews Creek.
o Corridor - Located along upper Snow Creek, riparian corridor from the Andrews Creek mouth to
nearthe 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 4fl (Correa, zooz). 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, zorS)
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, zooS). A total barrier blocks
fish passage at Snow Creek Road on Andrews Creek (Correa, zooz).
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 (zor6c). North of Highway ror, the
stream is dammed to form two man-made ponds (Correa, zooz). Due to the active management of
water levels in the ponds, the creek is dry below approximately RM r.o.
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
nearthe mouth (Correa, zooz). 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, zor6c).
Table 5-r shows the salmon and trout species documented as present or presumed present in the
watershed.
o
Page 5-3March 2016
Discovery Bay Watershed
Andrews Creek X X X X
Contractor's
Creek
X X X
Eagle Creek X X
Salmon Creek X X X X
XSnow Creek X X X
X X X XCrocker Lake
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Table 5-r. Fish Presence in the Discovery Bay Watershed
'Species presence is based on data gathered from WDFW SalmonScape database (zor6c).
5.4.3 Water Quality
The Washington Department of Ecology lists the waters of Discovery Bay for low dissolved oxygen
levels (Ecology, zot4). No fresh water bodies in the watershed are listed as impaired on the :o:(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, zoo5).
ln zoo5, 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 fecalcoliform (JPH, zorr). 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 zoo8. Although,
shoreline sampling in Discovery Bay in zorr and zor5 indicate a slight increase in fecal coliform levels
(JPH, zouand zor5).
From zotz-2o13, water quality testing took place in the Salmon and Snow Creek drainages as part of
the Clean Water District Activities project (Dawson, zo16). More than half of monitoring stations in the
two drainages failed State standards for fecal coliform. Human and ruminant fecal coliform were
detected in r3 percent and 3 percent of samples, respectively (Dawson, zo16).
5.4.4 Riparian Habitat Gonditions
Most of the Discovery Bay watershed remains forested despite past removal of riparian coverfor
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, zooz). The upstream portions of these streams, along with their tributaries, are
generally bordered by dense coniferous forest habitat.
o
o
Page 5-4
o
March 2016
Discover Bay Watershed
Stream
Species Present"
Summer
Chum FallChum Coho Pink
(Odd Year)
Winter
Steelhead
Coastal
Cutthroat
(Resident)
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
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
(z percent of the total watershed area) (see Figure +a) (USFWS, zor5). 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
agricultura I development.
Large estuarine wetlands are present in the Salmon and Snow Creek estuaries as well as surrounding
shorelines of Discovery Bay (USFWS, zor5). 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 nofthern shoreline of Discovery Bay converted a historic spit into a lagoon and pond (ESA et al.,
zotz). 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., zotz). Restoration within the south end of Discovery Bay in zor5
involved removal of the railroad grade, and fill material around tidal channels and a man-made
freshwater pond. This resulted in restored tidalflow to this portion of the bay and allows forthe 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 4r percent, shrub cover is r8 percent, mixed forest
cover is 13 percent, deciduous forest cover is 8 percent herbaceous cover is 5 percent, pasture/hay
cover is z percent, and woody and emergent wetland plant cover is z percent (see Figure 4e) (Homer et
al., zor5).
According to the WDFW PHS database (zor5a), 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.
ln 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 Gommunities
The Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) identifies one rare plant occurrence in the
watershed: blunt-leaved pondweed (Potamogeton obtusifolius) in Crocker Lake (WDNR, zo16). The
WNHP database also identifies two high-quality vegetation types within the watershed: a western red
cedar/western hemlock (Thuja plicatalTsuga heterophylla) forest south of Crocker Lake near the
watershed boundary, and a Douglasfir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forest east of Beckett Point.
o
o
Page 5-5March 2016
Discovery Bay Watershed
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
5.5 Key Management lssues and Opportunities
ln general, there is low potentialfor additional significant development in the watershed due to the
relatively restrictive zoning in the area.
Management lssues in the Discovery Bay watershed:
o Water quality in Discovery Bay does not meet State standards for low dissolved oxygen levels.
o Water quality in portions of Salmon and Snow Creeks do not meet State standards for fecal
coliform.
o 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:
o Continue efforts to monitor and correct fecal coliform levels in Salmon and Snow Creeks.
o Continue restoration efforts in the channels, floodplains, wetlands, and riparian zones of lower
Salmon and Snow Creeks, as well as their estuaries.
o Continue restoration efforts in wetlands surrounding Discovery Bay.
o Correct fish passage barriers on Andrews Creek and Contractor's Creek.
o lnvestigate the potential of removing the ponds along Eagle Creek and restoring the stream
channel.
o Protect WNHP rare plant and high-quality vegetation communities in Crocker Lake and near
Beckett Point.
o Protect designated core habitat and corridor areas within the watershed.
o 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.
o
o
Page 56
o
March 2016
Discover Bay Watershed
WATERSHED AREA:
50 Square Mibs
-
Ad@lRo-.
-- - lrst gnm!
DISCOVERY BAY WATERSHED
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o
o
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Approximately 2o/o of the watershed is located within the
FEMA 10O-year floodplain; these floodplain areas are
concentrated along Salmon and Snow Creeks and the
low-lying areas along the Discovery Bay shoreline.
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Landslide hazard areas (19% of watershed area) are
mapped along the bay blufh and the steeper slopes
located east and south ofthe 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.
WETLANDS
Approximately 2o/o ol the watershed is mapped as
wetland habitat, generally associated with streams and
estuaries.
cRlTlcAL AQUIFER REGHARGE AREAS (CARAe)
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.
FISH AND WLDLIFE 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. ln
addition, several core habitats and corridors are
identified within the watershed.
Approximately 5% of the watershed contains mapped
core habitat areas.
MAPPED CRITICAL AREAS
o
Page 5-7March 2016
Discovery Bay Watershed
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
O
o
LAND COVER
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 2o/o, and woody and emergent
wetland plant cover is 2%. The remaining 11o/o of the
watershed is covered by developed lands.
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES
EXISTING LAND USES
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.
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) (47o/o). Approximately 2o/o of the watershed is
zoned for agriculture, with smaller areas of General
Crossroad, Essential Public Faci I ity (Ai rport),
NeighborhoodA/isitor Crossroad, Parks, and Forest
Resource-based lndustrial (< 1% each).
WATERSHED MODIFICATIONS
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 ofthe
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.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE
ln 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 bcal 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. lnvestigate 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.
a
a
a
o
o
o
KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITlES
Page 5-8
o
March 2016
Discover Bay Watershed
WATERSHED CONFIGURATION
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 conflned
floodplains.
WATER OUALITY
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.
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
CHAPTER 6. Ludlow Creek Watershed
This chapter describes the conditions of the Ludlow Creek watershed (Figures 2a to zf). 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 r8
square miles. lt is characterized by a mix of contrasting land uses including commercial forestry in the
upper portion of the watershed and residentialand 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 Resoft. 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, zooz). Several
waterbodies (lakes, tributaries, and wetlands) are found within the watershed, including Ludlow,
Horseshoe, and Larson Lakes, and many unnamed tributaries.
6.2 Physical Gharacterization
Ludlow Creek flows generally west to east toward Ludlow Bay (see Figure za). The upper poftion 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 r9) has been channelized at the confluence of three tributaries with the
mainstem (Correa, zooz). 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 commercialforest, 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 za). These areas cover
approximately zz percent of the watershed (Jefferson County, zoo6a).
Landslide hazard areas are mapped in the Ludlow Creek watershed (see Figure zb). The majority of
landslide hazard areas are mapped along the northern shoreline of the watershed, the feeder bluffs
west of Tala Poin! 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 r.4 percent of the watershed is mapped within the FEMA roo-year floodplain (Jefferson
County, 1998). Most of the tributary that flows through Beaver Valley is mapped in the FEMA 1oo-yearo
Page 6-1March 2016
Ludlow Creek Watershed
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
floodplain. Only a small portion of Ludlow Creek in the upper watershed is mapped in the FEMA roo-
yearfloodplain (see Figure zc).
6.3 Land Use
Historic land use in the watershed was primarily forestry, and a large lumber mill once operated in Port
Ludlow (JCPW, zoo5). Although the mill is no longer in operation today, commercialforestry activities
still occur on both private and state forest land. ln fact Ludlow Creek and its tributaries are primarily
surrounded by zoned Commercial Forest land (5o percent) and zoned Rural Residential areas
(approximately z5 percent) (Jefferson County, zoo6b). Similarly, the streams in Beaver Valley are
surrounded by a combination of zoned Rural Residential, Rural Forest, Commercial Fores! and
Commercialand LocalAgricultural land (see Figure zd).
Residential development in the northern area of the watershed began in the mid-r95os, followed by
more development in the lower watershed (Port Ludlow area) in the r98os (JCPW, zoo5). Currently, the
Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort consists largely of single-family residences with some Resoft
Complex/Community Facilities and Multiple Family zoning (Jefferson County, zoo5b).
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:
o Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
database (WDFW, zor6a);
o Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), National Heritage Program GIS dataset
(WNHP, zor3);
o WDFW SalmonScape Database (WDFW, zor6c);
o Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Water Ouality Assessment and 3o3(d) List
(Ecology, zot4);
. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), NationalWetland lnventory (NWl) database (USFWS,
zor5);
o U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Land Cover database (Homer et al., zor5);
o Jefferson County critical areas, zoning, and core habitat area GIS mapping;
o Jefferson County water quality and other technical reports; and
o Aerialimagery.
o
o
Page 6-2
o
March 2016
Ludlow Creek Watershed
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
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 zf) (Tomassi , zoo4):
Core r - Covers upper Ludlow Creek and Ludlow Lake, mainly on commercial and rural
residential land.
Corer- Small portion northwest of Ludlow Lake on agricultural land that continues into
Chimacum Creek watershed.
Core r - 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 zf). 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, zor5c). Other species, such as
steelhead and chum, have also been documented in portions of lower Ludlow Creek and tributaries
flowing into Ludlow Bay (Correa, zooz). Table 6-r 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., zoo6). Forage fish spawn just west of the
marina and along Ludlow Spit south of the Mats Mats quarry (Long et al., zoo5).
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 o.5 miles from the creek's mouth (Correa, zooz). 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, zor6b).
One restoration project in zoog removed a fish passage barrier culvert and associated fill on
Swansonville Road (RCO, zo16). Large woody debris was also placed in the stream as part of the
project.
a
a
a
a
a
o
o
Page 6-3March 2016
Ludlow Creek Watershed
Ludlow Creek X X X X
Unnamed
tributary in Beaver
Valley
X X
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Table 6-e. Fish Presence in the Ludlow Creek Watershed
tspecies presence is based on data gathered from WDFW SalmonScape database (zor6c).
6.4.3 Water Quality
None of the waterbodies in the Ludlow Creek watershed are on Ecology's 3o3(d) list for water quality
impairments (Ecology, zor5). Water quality has stayed relatively consistent for all waterbodies in the
watershed since water quality monitoring began in r994 by Port Ludlow Associates (JCPW, zoo5). ln
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, zoo5). ln addition, elevated fecal coliform counts have been documented from
vesselsewage in Ludlow Bay.
6.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions
Commercialtimber harvest agriculture and residential development have reduced riparian cover in the
watershed overtime (Correa, zooz). 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, zor5). Large
wetland complexes are found in Beaver Valley, Ludlow Lake, Horseshoe Lake, Larson Lake, and the
upper watershed (USFWS, zor5) (see Figure za). A sphagnum bog wetland is identified by the
Washington Natural Heritage Program (NHP) within the wetland complex at Ludlow Lake (zor3).
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
o
o
Page 6-4
o
March 2016
Ludlow Creek Watershed
Strearn
Species Presentl
Fall Chum Coho Winter
Steelhead
Coastal
Cutthroat
(Resident)
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
development along the shoreline. Estuarine wetlands are present along the southern shoreline of
Ludlow Bay (USFWS, zor5). 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 Resoft.
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 ze). Shrub cover is 20 percent, mixed forest cover is 13 percent, herbaceous cover is 11 percent,
deciduous forest cover is 8 percen! and woody and emergent wetland plant cover is 5 percent (Homer
et al., zor5).
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, zor6a). 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, zor6a).
o 6.4.7 Rare PlanG 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, zo16). 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 douglasiishrubland habitat, and low-elevation freshwater wetland (WDNR,
zor6).
6.5 Key Management lssues 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 othertributaries 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 culvefts that impede fish passage.
a
a
a
ao
Page 6-5March 2016
Ludlow Creek Watershed
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o Continue to protect WNHP identified high-quality vegetation communities in Ludlow and
Horseshoe Lakes.
o Protect designated core habitat and corridor areas within the watershed.
o 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.
O
a
Page 6€
o
March 2016
Ludlow Creek Watershed
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o
o
o
WATERSHED AREA:
18 Square miles
LUDLOW CREEK WATERSHED
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
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.
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Landslide hazard areas (5% of watershed area) with
majoilty 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 blufE west
of Tala Point.
WETLANDS
Approximately 6% of the watershed is mapped as
wetland habitat, which is generally associated with the
streams and lakes in the watershed.
cRtTtcAL AQUTFER RECHARGE AREAS (CARAS)
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.
FISH AND WLDLIFE 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 marti ns, severa I osprey occurrences,
and great blue herons have been documented
throughout the watershed.
Approximately 15% of the watershed contains mapped
core habitat areas.
MAPPED CRITICAL AREAS
March 2016
Ludlow Creek Watershed
Page 6-7
Mapr Slroms
-
Al.lll Ro.d!
I
---L
N
A F
I
\
k.r1
LF\
:
,)
{
U
f
'tta
WATERSHED CONFIGURATION
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.
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.
LAND COVER
Land cover in the watershedis27o/o coniferous forest,
8% deciduous forest, 20% shrub land, 13% mixed
forest, 1 1% herbaceous, and 5% woody and emergent
wetland plan cover. The remaining 16% of the
watershed is covered by developed lands.
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOG!CAL FEATURES
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o
o
EXISTING LAND USES
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.
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 lhe 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).
WATERSHED MODIFICATIONS
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.
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.
Proleci designated priority habitats, core habitats and corridor areas, and high-quality vegetated communities.
a
o
a
a
KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Page 6-8
o
March 2016
Ludlow Creek Watershed
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE
O
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
CHAPTER 7. Northeast Jefferson Watershed
This chapter describes the conditions of the Notheast Jefferson watershed (Figures za to zf). The
watershed is described in terms of its physical, ecological, and human environment/land use
cha racteristics.
Characteristics for the watershed are summarized in the 'Yact 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 lnlet, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (see Figure za) (JCPW, zoo5). The
watershed is r7.7 square miles in size. Approximately 7 of the 17.7 square miles of the watershed (4o
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 3o percent of the total population of
the County (U.S. Census Bureau, zor5). 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 Noftheast 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 lndustrial Area and Glen Clove Light
lndustrial Area, as well as some other smaller light industrial use areas (JCPW, zoo5). 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 Poft
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 za). Most of the nothern interior
and marine shorelines of the watershed have mapped CARAs, covering approximately 59 percent of the
watershed's area (Jefferson County, zoo6a).
Landslide hazards are mapped along most marine shorelines in this watershed (see Figure zb)
(Jefferson County, 1997a). Erosion hazards are mapped in several bluffs along the shoreline: from the
northern terminus of 49tn Street in Port Townsend to McCurdy Point; and along the northwestern
marine shoreline of the watershed (iefferson County, 1997c). Similarly, most of the watershed's marine
shoreline has mapped seismic hazards (Jefferson County, 1997b). Seismic hazards are mapped in a
o
o
Page 7-1March 2016
Northeast Jefferson Watershed
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
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 roo-year floodplain (see Figure zc) (Jefferson County, 1998).
Approximately z percent of the watershed is mapped within the FEMA roo-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 4o years (JCPW, zoo5). ln fact, z7 percent of the
watershed is zoned for Rural Residential-5 (r lot per 5 acres), 11 percent is zoned for Rural Residential-
zo (r lot per 20 acres), and 9 percent is zoned for Rural Residential-ro (r lot per 10 acres) (Jefferson
County, zoo5b). Only small patches (r percent) of zoned local agriculture occur. lndustrial and
commercial zoned areas, including the Port Townsend Paper Company mill site and the Glen Cove
Light lndustrial area, make up 3 percent of the watershed (see Figure zd) (Jefferson County, zooSb).
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
lndustrial are undeveloped and found immediately north and northwest of the Port Townsend Paper
Corporation mill. ln addition, undeveloped parcels zoned for Light lndustrial/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:
o Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
database (WDFW, zor5a);
o Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), National Heritage Program GIS dataset
(WNHP, zor3);
o WDFW SalmonScape Database (WDFW, zorSc);
o Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Water Ouality Assessment and :o3(d) List
(Ecology, zot4);
o U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), NationalWetland lnventory (NWl) database (USFWS,
u or5);
o U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Land Cover database (Homer et al., zor5);
o Jefferson County critical areas, zoning, and core habitat area GIS mapping;
o Jefferson County water quality and other technical reports; and
o Aerialimagery.
o
o
PageT-2
o
March 2016
Northeast Jefferson Watershed
o
O
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
7.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors
There are no core habitat and corridor types mapped within the Northeast Jefferson watershed (see
Figure zf) (Tomassi, zoo4).
7.4.2 Fish Use
No fish occurrences are mapped within freshwater habitats of the watershed (WDFW, zorSc). 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, zorSb). 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
waterfowlthat use marine and nearshore habitats (WDFW, zor6d). 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 3o3(d) list for
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other contaminants (Ecology, zor5). No other areas in the
watershed have impairment listings on the Ecology aol(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, zor5). 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 zoo3 as part of Ecology's Beach Environmental Assessment,
Communication, and Health (BEACH) Program (Ecology, zor5). The testing shows consistently low
levels of fecalcoliform 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, zoo5). Currently, riparian
vegetation in the watershed consists mostly of coniferous cover and limited mixed forest and
herbaceous cover (Homer et al., zor5).
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 za)
(USFWS, zor5). 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
O
March 2016
Northeast Jefferson Watershed
Page 7-3
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
relatively intact, although some have been modified by residentialdevelopment. ln total, wetlands
make up z percent of the watershed (USFWS, zor5).
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 4o percent, mixed forest cover is 7 percent,
herbaceous cover is 5 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 r percent (see Figure zd) (Homer et
al., zor5).
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, zo:.6a). 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, zor6a).
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, zor3).
7.5 Key Management lssues and Opportunities
Management issues in the Northeast Jefferson watershed:
o Water quality in Port Townsend Bay does not meet State standards for PCBs and other
contaminants.
o 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:
o Restore wetlands and buffers in the watershed through invasive species control, native species
planting, and fill removal.
e Continue efforts to identifiT and repair failing septic systems.
o Continue wetland restoration efforts in Fort Townsend State Park.
o Continue to protect WNHP identified high-quality vegetation communities in Foft Townsend
State Park.
o Protect habitats mapped by WDFW that support PHS listed species.
o
o
Page74
o
March 2016
Northeast Jefferson Watershed
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o 7.6 Watershed "Fact Sheet"
The Fact Sheet for the Northeast Jefferson Watershed is presented on the following pages.
o
o
Page 7-5March 2016
Northeast Jefferson Watershed
WATERSHED AREA:
17.7 Square miles (including City of Port Townsend)
Pon TilMd Ciy tmls
ilapr SlEo!
-
Arl@lRoadr
NORTHEAST J EFFERSON WATERSHED
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o
O
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Approximately 2o/o otthe watershed is located within the
FEMA 100-year floodplain; these floodplain areas are
concentrated along the various waterbodies in 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 blufts 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.
WETLANDS
Approximately 2Yo otlhe watershed is mapped as
wetland habitat, which is generally associated with the
waterbodies 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.
CRITICAL AOUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (CARAS)
CARAs are mapped in approximately 59% of the total
watershed area; these areas are concentrated around
low lying, undeveloped portions of the watershed.
MAPPED CRITICAL AREAS
Page 76
o
March 2016
Northeast Jefferson Watershed
Port
Townsend
-a{ ,,!
y{t
a
N \
I
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o
o
WATERSHED CONFIGURATION
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 bluf6.
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.
LAND COVER
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.
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES
EXISTING LAND USES
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.
ZONING
Lands within the watershed are zoned primarily as
Rural Residential (minimum lot sizes from 5 to 20
acres) (46%). lndustrial and commercial zoned areas
make up 3% of the watershed. Small areas of local and
commercial agricultural are present at less than 1%.
WATERSHED TIODIFICATIONS
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.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE
. 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.
o Some wetland buffers in the watershed are low functioning due to lack of cover and/or surrounding land use
activities.
o 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 identifted highquality vegetation communities in Fort Townsend State Pak.
. Protect habitats mapped by WDFW that support PHS listed species.
KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUN!T!ES
o
PageT-7March 2016
Northeast Jefferson Watershed
O
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o CHAPTER 8. North Hood Canal Watershed
o
This chapter describes the conditions of the North Hood Canal watershed (Figure za to zf). 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 Overuiew
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 lnlet (see Figure za). The watershed
covers approximately r9 square miles and includes both lndian and Marrowstone lslands. The islands
extend north to south for a maximum length of 7 miles (ESA et al., zotz) With the exception of a County
park on the southern shore, lndian lsland is owned by the Navy and is a federal naval munitions base for
forces stationed in Puget Sound. Marrowstone lsland 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 (o.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 commercialforest and rural
residential.
Waterbodies in the Nofth 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, zooz). 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, zooz). 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 (Corre a, zooz). The stream is approximately r.5
miles long with a mile of tributaries that empty out into a low-gradient mudflat in Mats Mats Bay
(Correa, zooz).
The entirety of Marrowstone lsland is a mapped CARA (see Figure za). Other CARAs are mapped in the
Port Hadlock UGA, portions of shoreline on lndian lsland, and small areas throughout the watershed. ln
total, CARAs cover 40 percent of the watershed's area (Jefferson County, zoo6a).
Landslide hazards are mapped along most of the northern and eastern marine shoreline of
Marrowstone lsland. A shorter landslide hazard area is mapped on Marrowstone lsland's western
shoreline (see Figure zb) (Jefferson County, 1997a). Similarly, the marine shorelines of lndian lsland 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).o
Page 8-1March 2016
North Hood Canal Watershed
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Seismic hazards are mapped along marine shorelines on Marrowstone and lndian lslands (see Figure
zb) (Jefferson County, 1997b). Large seismic hazard areas are mapped in the northern interior of lndian
lsland and small patches in the interior of Marrowstone lsland (Jefferson County, 1997b). At the
southern part of lndian lsland, near Portage Canal, there is a mapped seismic hazard area. ln 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 lndian lsland and a small
area in the southern interior of Marrowstone lsland (Jefferson County, Lgglc).
None of the waterbodies within the North Hood Canalwatershed are mapped in the FEMA xoo-year
floodplain (see Figure zc) (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
lndian lsland (formerly Port Hadlock Detachment-lndian lsland) 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 zoo5 and is still being used todayfor Navy operations (ESA, zooS).
The watershed has experienced more residential and commercial growth in recent years, primarily in
the Port Hadlock UGA. Approximately r.r percent of the watershed is mapped as Low Density
Residential, followed by o.r percent UGA - Moderate Density Residential and o.o4 percent UGA - High
Density Residential (see Figure zd). Areas zoned for UGA - Urban Commercial make up about o.z
percent of the watershed (Jefferson County, zoo6b). Land use on Marrowstone lsland is primarily rural
residential along with farming and commercialforestry (Jefferson County, zoo6b). North of Fort Gate
Road the entirety of Marrowstone lsland is Fort Flagler State Park. ln fact, areas zoned as Parks,
Preserves, and Recreation make up 7 percent of the watershed.
Growth on Marrowstone lsland 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.
ln contrast, rural residential and commercial development in the southern watershed is growing (JCPW,
zoo5). Commercial Forest and Rural Residential zoned areas in the remaining watershed make up r5
percent and 45 percent of the total area, respectively (see Figure zd) (Jefferson County, zoo6b).
Commercial shellfish operations also occur in Mats Mats Bay. Other zoned areas in the watershed
include Rural Forest Q percent) and Local and Commercial Agriculture (r 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 developmen! 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
o
o
Page 8-2
o
March 2016
North Hood Canal Watershed
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
effect priorto adoption of the UGA (e.9., RR r:5, RR 1:1o) are currently being used within the UGA (see
Figure zd).
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:
o Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
database (WDFW, zor6a);
o Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), National Heritage Program GIS dataset
(WNHP, zor3);
o WDFW SalmonScape Database (WDFW, zorSc);
o Washington Depaftment of Ecology (Ecology) Water Ouality Assessment and 3o3(d) List
(Ecology, zot4);
o U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), NationalWetland lnventory (NWl) database (USFWS,
zor5);
o U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Land Cover database (Homer et al., zor5);
o Jefferson County critical areas, zoning, and core habitat area GIS mapping;
o Jefferson County water quality and other technical reports; and
o Aerialimagery.
8.4.1 Core Habitats and Corridors
There are no core habitat and corridortypes mapped within the North Hood Canal watershed (see
Figure zf) (Tomassi, zoo4).
8.4.2 Fish Use
Coho salmon and coastal cutthroat have been documented in both Little Goose Creek and Piddling
Creek (WDFW, zor6c) (see Figure zf). Table 8-r 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 fafther up the stream (Correa, zooz). 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, zoeSb). 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 lndian lslands support extensive forage fish (sand lance, surf smelt
and herring) spawning beaches (Penttila, 2ooo; Long et al., zoo5; WDFW, zor4b).
O
o
Page 8-3March 2016
North Hood Canal Watershed
Little Goose Creek X X
Piddling Creek X X
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
An ongoing restoration project in the watershed is located between lndian and Marrowstone lslands.
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., zorz). These actions would
allow for tidal exchange, and sediment transport.
Table 8-e. Fish Presence in the North Hood CanalWatershed
'Species presence is based on data gathered from WDFW SalmonScape database (zor5c).
8.4.3 Water Quality
ln zoo8, commercial shellfish operations in Mats Mats Bay experienced increasing levels of fecal
coliform bacteria and failed state water quality standards (Dawson and Fickeisen, zotz). To improve
surface water quality in the bay, the Mats Mats Bay Water Ouality lmprovement Project was developed
as a program of the Jefferson County Public Health Water Ouality 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 3o3 (d) list. The northern waters off of Crane Point on lndian lsland in
Port Townsend Bay are also currently on the Ecology 3o3(d) list for bacteria.
Water quality testing in shorelines of the watershed, as part of the Northeast Jefferson Clean Water
Projecq revealed E. coli "hot spots" in areas south of the Chimacum Creek estuary, along lower Little
Goose Creek, lrondale Creek, and areas of Oak Bay (JPH, zor5). These areas are largely surrounded by
residences with on-site septic systems, which potentially contribute to the increased coliform levels
(JPH, zor5).
Fecal coliform levels in the nearshore marine areas adjacent to Fort Flagler and Mystery Bay have been
tested annually since zoo3 as part of Ecology's Beach EnvironmentalAssessment, Communication, and
Health (BEACH) Program (Ecology, zor5). 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, zooS).
8.4.5 Wetlands
Several freshwater emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested wetlands are found throughout the North
Hood Canal watershed (see Figure za). ln total, wetlands make up 2 percent of the watershed (USFWS,
o
o
Page 8-4
o
March 2016
North Hood Canal Watershed
Stream
Species Present"
Coho Coastal Cutthroat
(Resident)
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
zor5). A number of wetlands have been created or modified in residential areas (USFWS, zor5). Large
freshwater emergent wetland complexes are found on the southern shores of both Marrowstone and
lndian lslands. 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 rr5 causeway closed historic tidal channels and eliminated tidal exchange
between Kilisut Harbor and Oak Bay (ESA et al., zorz). Reduced tidal exchange caused partial filling of
the channels north and south of the road. Restoration projects mentioned in Section 1.4.2 are working
to restore tidalflows 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 4o 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 r
percent (see Figure ze) (Homer et al., zor5).
Wildlife habitat on lndian lsland 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, zoo8; Penttila, zooo; Long et al., zoo5). According to the WDFW PHS database, bald eagle
breeding areas are found in several locations at Portage Bay and Marrowstone lsland: Griffith Point
Road, Nodule Point, Mystery Bay, and near many shorelines (WDFW, zor6a). 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 lndian lsland and within Fort Flagler state
park (WDFW, zor6a). lmportant overwintering areas for brant and other waterfowl are found in Oak
Bay, Killisut Harbor, Scow Bay, and the lndian lsland Navy Dock. ln addition, the North Hood Canal
watershed is located within a mapped communal roost occurrence area for big brown bat (WDFW,
zor6a).
Harbor seals have mapped haulout occurrences on the Kilisut Harbor spit, as well as the rocks east of
Marrowstone lsland (WDFW, zorSa).
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, zor3).
8.5 Key Management lssues and Opportunities
Management issues in the North Hood Canalwatershed:
o 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, lrondale
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.o
March 2016
North Hood Canal Watershed
Page 8-5
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Opportunities in the watershed:
o Restore channels, floodplains, wetlands, and riparian zones of Little Goose and Piddling Creeks
and other tributaries of the watershed; restoration actions could include LWD placemen!
armor removal, invasive species control, native species planting, and stream reconfiguring.
o Continue restoration efforts in the salt marshes between Marrowstone and lndian lslands.
r ldentify and repair failing septic systems.
o Restore remaining wetlands and buffers in the watershed through fill removal, native species
planting, and invasive species control.
o Remove and/or replace road culverts and dams that impede fish passage.
o Continue to protect the high-quality vegetation community in Fort Flagler State Park.
o Protect habitats mapped by WDFW that support PHS listed species, including important forage
fish spawning beaches in the watershed.
o
8.6 Watershed o'Fact Sheet"
The Fact Sheet for the North Hood Canal Watershed is presented on the following pages.
a
o
March 20'16
North Hood Canal Watershed
Page 8-6
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o
o
WATERSHED AREA:
19 Square miles
NORTH HOOD CANAL WATERSHED
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Landslide hazard areas (3% of watershed area) are
mapped along the northern and eastern shoreline of
Marrowstone lsland as well as the shoreline of lndian
lsland. Small areas of erosion hazards (1% of
watershed area) are also mapped on the southwest
shoreline of lndian lsland and the interior of
Marrowstone lsland. Seismichazard areas (10% of
watershed area) are also mapped for the majority of the
shoreline of both islands.
WETLANDS
Approximately 2o/o olthe watershed is mapped as
wetland habitat, which is generally associated with the
shoreline and estuaries of the watershed.
CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (GARAS)
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
lsland.
FISH AND WLDLIFE 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 lndian lsland 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 lsland.
There are no core habitats or corridors mapped within
the watershed.
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
No portion of the watershed is mapped in the FEMA
100-year floodplain.
MAPPED CRITICAL AREAS
o
Page 8-7March 2016
North Hood Canal Watershed
-
Add.l Rod!
M6pr Slroe!
r'l
{-{r
/'r. I
N
A
1.5
WATE RS H E D CON FIGURATION
lndian and Marrowstone lslands contain slight to
moderate slopes, with blufb located along much of their
marine shorelines. The remaining portion of the
watershed contains similar slopes. ln general, few
streams are located within the watershed.
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.
LAND COVER
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 2o/o, and woody and emergent
wetland plant cover is 1%. The remaining 20% of the
watershed is covered with developed areas.
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o
a
o
March 2016
North Hood Canal Watershed
EXISTING LAND USES
The watershed has experienced residential and
commercial growth in recent years primari[ in the Port
Hadlock UGA. Land use on Marrowstone lsland is
primarily residential with some farming and commercial
forestry. A large portion of the lsland also contains Fort
Flagler State Park.
WATERSHED MODIFICATIONS
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.
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 7o/o ol lhe watershed is zoned as Parks,
and Forest Resource-Based lndustrial, with less than
1o/o zoned for Agriculture.
Several fish barriers are present within the watershed
along Little Goose Creek and other streams within the
watershed.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE
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, lrondale 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 lndian lslands, 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.
a
a
a
a
KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Page 8-8
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES
o
a
a
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
CHAPTER 9. Quilcene Bay Watershed
This chapter describes the conditions of the Ouilcene Bay watershed (Figures 5a to 5fl. 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 Overuiew
The Ouilcene 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 Sa) [t 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. Ouilcene Bay is also famous for its clams, oysters (including the native Olympia oyster), and
mussels (ESA et al., zorz). The Big Quilcene River originates in the Olympic Mountains, flows south of
the town of Ouilcene, and empties into Ouilcene Bay. The mainstem is r9 miles long with 80 miles of
contributing tributaries, and elevations up to 7,8oo feet (ESA, zoo8). The upper drainage is protected by
Olympic National Park (ONP) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) wilderness areas (Correa, zooz). The Little
Ouilcene River also originates in the northeast Olympic Mountains on the northern side of Mount
Townsend (ESA, zoo8). The river flows generally southeast and empties into Ouilcene Bay just north of
the town of Quilcene. Unlike the Big Ouilcene River, only a small part of the Little Ouilcene River
drainage is protected by ONP or USFS designated wilderness areas (ESA, zooS). The mainstem length
of the Little Ouilcene River is rz.z miles with a tributary length of 8r.z miles (Ames et al., zooo). Both
Big Ouilcene and Little Ouilcene Rivers are designated as shorelines of the state.
Smaller drainages in the watershed include lndian George and Donovan Creeks, as well as many
unnamed streams. lndian George Creek empties into Quilcene Bay approximately o.5 miles south of Big
Ouilcene River, and Donovan Creek empties into the north end of Quilcene Bay.
The town of Ouilcene borders Quilcene Bay on all sides; primary land uses in the remainder of the
watershed consists of commercialforestry, agriculture, ruralforest, and rural residential. Additional
waterbodies found within the watershed include Rice Lake, Leland Lake, Lords Lake, Devil's Lake,
Leland Cree( Penny Cree( Ripley Creek, Howe Cree( Townsend Cree( Tunnel Creek, Cedar Cree(
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, zoo4). Penny Creek, Townsend Creek,
and Tunnel Creek are the primary tributaries of the river. However, Townsend Creek and Tunnel Creek
are outside of the Ouilcene Bay watershed. The majority of the Big Ouilcene River is within the high-
risk channel migration zone (CMZ), especially in the very lower and upper reaches (ESA, zo16b).
Underlying geology includes volcanic bedrock present in the upper reaches of the drainage with some
o
o
March 2016
Quilcene Bay Watershed
Page 9-1
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
alluvial or glacial deposits present along major
tributaries. Although, intensive logging in the upper Channel Migration Zone
watershed has also contributed to increases in A channel migration zone (CMZ) is an area
sediment deposits and transport in the river as well as within which a river channel is likely to move
deposition in the lower reaches and delta (ESA et al., over a period of time. lt is further delineated
zotz). At the mouth of the Big Ouilcene River these into areas of relative risk for future channel
deposits make up the principa I aquifer for many of the erosion: severe, high, moderate, or low
domestic wells in the area (Parametrix et al., zooo; (Ecology, zorS)'
Simonds et al., zoo3). Channel migration zones (CMZs) occur in
Jefferson County within the floodplains of
To protect the town of Quilcene and adjacent the Big and Little Ouilcene Rivers, the
properties from flooding, dikes were constructed along Dosewallips River, the Duckabush River, and
both the Big and Little Ouilcene Rivers. The the lower Hoh River. Although the majority
construction of dikes along the rivers interrupted of CMZs for these rivers fall under Shoreline
hydraulic processes and resulted in an almost Mal.agement Program (sMP) jurisdiction'
complete loss of floodplain habitat (Correa, roor, esR n*:::j :1",:Yf:-T.1::l* :j:yt
et al., zorz). subsequent channel aggradation has il:i::i::i:l
t'd tarr under crrtrcar areas
increased the elevation of the Big Ouilcene River
streambed and extended the river mouth more than
r,5oo feet into the estuary (ESA, zoo8). Ongoing
restoration projects to remove dikes near the mouth of
the Big Ouilcene River are working to restore some of the lost floodplain and wetland habitat of
Ouilcene Bay (ESA et al., zorz; WDFW, zor6d).
Similar to the Big Ouilcene River, the Little Ouilcene River also fluctuates in sinuosity. From the mouth
to RM r.3 the channel is mostly unconfined. The lower o.z mile of the channel is relatively wide
compared to upstream reaches of the river and tidally influenced (ESA, zooS). 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, zor6b). 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, zor4).The upper reaches of the river contain more LWD, but feature less pool habitat in the
stream channel (ESA, zooS).
The Little Ouilcene Riverflows 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 Ouilcene Bay (Simonds et
al., zoo3). A moderate rate of groundwater recharge in the drainage is largely controlled by the
presence of bedrock and till (ESA, zooS). 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., zooo, Simonds et al., zoo3).
Both Leland and Lords Lakes drain into the Little Quilcene River drainage and have a surface area of
approximately ro8 and 6o 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
Ouilcene River for municipal use as a result of low flows or excessive suspended sediment (ESA, zooS).
O
a
Page 9-2
o
March 2016
Quilcene Bay Watershed
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Rice Lake is located in uplands east of the lower reach of the Little Ouilcene River, but does not appear
to drain into the river. The lake has a surface area of 20 acres.
lndian George Creek is a smaller drainage of the watershed, entering Quilcene Bay approximately o.5
mile south of Big Ouilcene River (Correa, zooz). 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, zooz). Donovan Creek flows into the north end
of Ouilcene 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,
zooz). Restoration projects in the lower drainage have worked to restore the sinuosity of the stream,
add LWD structures, and plant riparian vegetation (RCO, zorS).
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 ofthe total watershed area (Jefferson County, zoo6a).
Landslide hazards are mapped throughout the Ouilcene Bay watershed, including the Big Ouilcene
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 Ouilcene 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 Ouilcene, the
Quilcene Bay estuary, along the Big and Little Ouilcene River drainages, and the Leland Creek drainage
(Jefferson County, aggTc).
The majority of the Big Ouilcene River within the County's jurisdiction is mapped in the FEMA 1oo-year
floodplain (see Figure 5c) (Jefferson County, 1998).The Little Ouilcene River is mapped in the FEMA
roo-year floodpla in from the mouth to just north of the river crossing at Fern Hollow Road, and
Donovan Creek is mapped as well. ln addition, Leland Lake is entirely mapped in the FEMA 1oo-year
floodplain, including pafts of Leland Creek that flow into and out of the nonhern and southern ends of
the lake. ln total, about z percent of the watershed area is within the FEMA roo-yearfloodplain
(Jefferson County, 1998).
9.3 Land Use
lntensive 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, zoo8). 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, zoo5). 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., zorz).
Presently, the town of Ouilcene is zoned for Rural Residential areas and Rural Village Center (RVC)
commercial areas (see Figure Sd). The Quilcene RVC covers 5l acres and makes up o.1 percent of the
totalwatershed area (Jefferson County, zoo6b).ln addition, a small portion of the Ouilcene RVC is
within the FEMA roo-year floodplains of the Big and Little Ouilcene River (JCPW, zoo5).
o
March 2016
Quilcene Bay Watershed
Page 9-3
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Zoning in the rest of the watershed includes Commercial Forest (33 percent); Light lndustrial/
Manufacturing (22 percent); lnholding Forest (4 percent); Rural Forest (7 percent); Local Agriculture (r
percent); CommercialAgriculture (r percent); Rural Residential (zr percent); and Parks, Preserves, and
Recreation (r percent) (see Figure 5d) (Jefferson County, zoo5b).
The upper Big Ouilcene 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, zooz). Upstream from the hatchery next
to a residential development, further diking, riprap, and development have occurred in the river's
floodplain. ln addition, the City of Port Townsend maintains a water right of 3o cubic feet per second
(cfs) to the Big Ouilcene River (ESA, zooS). The water is diverted out of the basin at RM g.+.
Land use in the lower reaches of the Little Ouilcene 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 Ouilcene Bay (JCPH, zoo5). These modifications
exacerbated flooding, and salmon habitat in the estuary was negatively impacted. lt is estimated that
about 5o percent of the floodplain of the lower Little Ouilcene has been developed (May and Peterson,
zoo3). Recent restoration projects, discussed in Section 8.4.r, 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 Residentialwith limited LocalAgriculture and CommercialAgriculture zoning. Lords Lake is
completely surrounded by lnholding 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:
o Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
database (WDFW, zorSa);
r Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), National Heritage Program GIS dataset
(WNHP, zor3);
r WDFW SalmonScape Database (WDFW, zorSc);
o Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Water Ouality Assessment and 3o3(d) List
(Ecology, zot4);
o U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), NationalWetland lnventory (NWl) database (USFWS,
zor5);
o U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Land Cover database (Homer et al., zor5);
r Jefferson County critical areas, zoning, and core habitat area GIS mapping;
o Jefferson County water quality and other technical reports; and
O
o
Page 9-4
o
March 2016
Quilcene Bay Watershed
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Charaderization Report
Final
r Aerialimagery.
9.4.1 Core Habitats and Gorridors
Numerous core habitat and corridor types (described in Appendix A) are mapped in the Quilcene Bay
watershed (see Figure 5fl (Iomassi , zoo4). Core r 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:
o Core r - Covers Lords Lake, the surrounding uplands, and parts of Howe and Ripley Creeks.
Habitat located primarily on commercial forestland and National Forest.
o Core r - lncludes the mouths of Big and Little Ouilcene Rivers, Donovan Creek, and head of
Ouilcene Bay estuary.
o Corer - lncludes reaches, tributaries, and upland areas of the Big Ouilcene River, as well as
Devil's Lake and adjacent hillside areas. Mostly within National Forest commercialforest, and
ruralforest.
o Core z - 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.
o Core z - 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.
o Core z - lncludes 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.
o Core 3 - Small habitat area covering middle reach of Big Ouilcene River next to rural residential
areas.
o 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.
o Core 3 - Extends over agricultural lands immediately south of lower Little Ouilcene 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 S0 (WDFW, zorSc). Rainbow trout have only been documented in
the Big Ouilcene River in the watershed. Table 9-r shows species documented as present or presumed
present in the watershed.
Table 9-r. Fish Presence in the Ouilcene Bay Watershed
o
March 2016
Quilcene Bay Watershed
Page 9-5
Stream 5pecies Present'
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
.Species presence is based on data gathered from WDFW SalmonScape database (zor6c).
'zPresumed presence (zor6c).
The USFWS Ouilcene National Fish Hatchery (NFH) is located at the confluence of the Big Ouilcene
River and Penny Creek along Highway ror. Roughly 47 acres in size and in operation since r9rr, the
NFH has raised severalspecies of fish, including:coho, chum, pink, Chinook, and sockeye salmon; and
cutthroat, brook, and rainbow trout (USFWS, zorr). Currently, the NFH raises coho salmon for release
on location and provides coho salmon eggs and fingerlings to tribal programs (USFWS, zorr). lt also
coordinates with other groups to monitor local summer chum salmon runs. The NFH fish production
program also partners with severaltribes, federal, state, and local agencies.
Lake Leland is presumed habitat for coho salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout (WDFW, zooll.
Forage fish species, such as sand lance and herring, have been documented spawning in Jackson Cove,
north of Whitney Poin! and in Ouilcene Bay (WDFW, zor5a). Anotherforage fish species, surf smelt,
has been documented spawning along segments of the beach from Whitney Point to a boat marina
(Long et al., zoo5).
Two culverts on Fish Hatchery Road along Penny Creek are complete barriers to fish passage (WDFW,
zo16b). Another nearby complete barrier is the electronic weir operated by the Ouilcene 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, zoo8). The fish hatchery also
diverts water from the Big Ouilcene River and Penny Creek through a water intake structure, which
O
o
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 X'X
Leland Creek
X X X X
lndian George
Creek X X X X
Penny Creek
X
Page 9-6
o
March 2016
Quilcene Bay Watershed
E3
(J
lElJ.
at-trE
E-c3rJ
UI
o
o
TJ
JEir
.loo
.g
t,
:o
Llooo
=gu)
=oii€d
lUF
&,
E€+"Ed
o
F
)o
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
permanently blocks fish access to Penny Creek, a potentially excellent refugium (Correa, zooz; May et
al., zoo3).
There are no barriers to fish passage in the lower 5 miles of the Little Ouilcene River (Correa, zooz).
There is an unscreened irrigation canalon the Little Ouilcene Riverthat allows coho, cutthroat and
steelhead juveniles access to the canal (ESA, zooS). ln addition, a partial culvert fish passage barrier is
found in lower Donovan Creek off of Center Road (WDFW, zor6b).
A variety of restoration projects aimed at restoring habitat for fish use have been completed in the
Ouilcene 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, zor5d). A bridge was also installed over Donovan Creek, which flows into the Little
Ouilcene estuary, to benefit tidal flow and fish passage.
Numerous restoration projects have been concentrated in the lower reaches of the Big Ouilcene River
and lndian George Creek, including their estuaries (WDFW, zor6d). These projects have also involved
adding LWD, and removing levees and dikes along the river and in the estuary (WDFW, zorSd; RCO,
zo16). A restoration project completed in the lndian George Creek estuary removed fill associated with
a parking lot at a WDFW shellfish harvesting site, and an abandoned barge (ESA, zoo8).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., zot4).
9.4.3 Water Quality
ln general, water quality in the Ouilcene Bay watershed is excellent with the exception of the upper bay,
which experiences intermittent fecal coliform issues (ESA, zooS). Problems with fecal coliform
contamination have been attributed to natural harbor seal populations, animal keeping practices, and
onsite septic systems (Parametrix et al., zooo).
Two stretches of the lower Big Ouilcene River are impaired according to Ecology's 3o3(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 (zorz). Fecal contamination caused by
recreationalfishing users in the lower stretches of the river led to an emergency closure of commercial
shellfish beds in Ouilcene Bay by the DOH (Dawson et al., zor4). 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., zooo; Dawson et al., zor4).
From RM 2.9 to RM 4.7,lhe Little Ouilcene River is listed as having temperature impairments and is
currently being studied as part of the Hood Canal Clean Streams project (Ecology, 2012; Dawson, zo16).
ln the pas! low-levels of fecal coliform have also been measured in the Little Ouilcene River and
attributed to residential development and agriculture (Gately, 1992 as cited in Parametrix et al., zooo).
A pond used for cattle watering with outflows back into the Little Ouilcene River has been documented
as a priority site of fecal coliform contamination bythe JPH and JCCD (Dawson et al., zot4). Similarly, a
site on lndian George Creek with a nearby old septic system has been designated a priority for fecalO
Page 9-7March 2016
Quilcene BayWatershed
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
coliform contamination (Dawson et al., zor4). Several other sites monitored for water quality located in
the center of Ouilcene consistently fail State standards for fecal coliform (Dawson et al., zor4).
Lake Leland is on the Ecology 3o3(d) list for several water quality impairments including total
phosphorous, PCBs, mercury, invasive exotic species, and other toxins (Ecology, zotz). 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, zooz).
Donovan, Ripley, Howe, and Leland Creeks are all on the Ecology 3o3(d) list for temperature
impairments (Ecology, zorz). 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, zorz and zot4).
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 , zooz). This is also true for the middle and upper Big Ouilcene 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 Ouilcene River have retained some coniferous coverage
scattered throughout a largely deciduous riparian zone despite residential development (ESA, zoo8).
The lower reach lacks LWD structures. The Little Ouilcene River drainage has experienced riparian
cover loss primarily from agriculture and residential development, especially in the lower reaches. lt
lacks LWD structures and coniferous cover in this segment (Correa, zooz). 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
Ouilcene Rivers and Donovan Creek deltas merge (see Figure 5a). This mudflat and salt marsh complex
is o.75 mile wide and approximately r.5 miles long (ESA et al., zorz). Although, several historic
wetlands in the deltas have been diked, drained, or filled for agriculture and residential development
(Correa, zooz). Freshwater and upland forested wetlands are found primarily in the Big Ouilcene River
drainage and estuary (USFWS, zor5). Limited freshwater wetlands are found in the upper reaches of
the Little Ouilcene River drainage compared to the Big Ouilcene 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., zorz). 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., zorz). 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
O
o
Page 9-8
o
March 2016
Quilcene Bay Watershed
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
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 (zor3). 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. ln total,
wetlands cover 3 percent of the watershed area (USFWS, zor5).
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., zor5).
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 Ouilcene Bay, near the Ouilcene hatchery, lower Big
Quilcene River, Penny Creek, and Leland Lake (WDFW, zorSa). Bald eagles regularly concentrate along
the lower reaches of the Big Ouilcene 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
Ouilcene River. Great blue herons have documented breeding areas in Devil's Lake and southern
Quilcene.
Winter concentrations of waterfowl are found in northern Ouilcene Bay, including trumpeter swans,
brant, and diving ducks (ESA, zoo8; WDFW, zor6a). 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 Ouilcene River (WDFW, zorSa). ln
addition, the upper reaches of the Big Ouilcene River drainage are within a mapped northern spotted
owlterritory 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, zooz). ln fact,
Ouilcene 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 Ouilcene, just north of Highway
ror (WDFW, zor6a).
9.4.7 Rare Plants and High-Qualaty Vegetation Communities
The Washington Natural Heritage Program identifies several high-quality vegetation communities in
and around Devil's Lake, including a Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesir), western hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla), Pacific rhododendron (Rhodendron macrophyllum), and evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium
ovatum) fores! a western hemlock (T. heterophyl/a), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), bog Labrador-o
Page 9-9March 2016
Quilcene Bay Watershed
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
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, zor3). 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. ln the
northern portion of the watershed on state-managed timberlands, a western red cedar (7. plicata),
western hemlock (T. heterophylla), skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanus) forest is mapped (WNHP,
zor3).
9.5 Key Management lssues and Opportunities
Management issues in the Ouilcene Bay watershed:
Several waterbodies in the watershed are below State water quality standards;
o The Big Ouilcene River does not meet State standards for temperature, bacteria,
instream flow, and pH;
o The Little Ouilcene 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
temperaturei
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
Ouilcene.
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 Ouilcene Rivers, and other
streams and tributaries in the watershed.
o Continue restoration efforts in the estuaries of the Big and Little Ouilcene Rivers.
o Continue efforts to remove and/or replace road culverts that impede fish passage.
r Continue to protect WNHP identified high-quality vegetation communities and rare plant
occurrences in Leland and Devil's Lakes.
o Protect habitats mapped by WDFW that support PHS listed species.
a
o
e
O
a
a
Page 9-10
o
March 2016
Quilcene Bay Watershed
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
O 9.6 Watershed "Fact Sheet"
The Fact Sheet for the Quilcene Bay Watershed is presented on the following pages.
o
o
Page 9-1 1March 2016
Quilcene Bay Watershed
WATERSHED AREA:
54 Square miles
-
Addl Road!
-
llap. Slt5!
QUILCENE BAY WATERSHED
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o
o
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Approximately 2o/o of lhe watershed is located within the
FEMA 1O0-year floodplain; these floodplain areas are
concentrated along the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers
and the Quilcene Bay estuary.
GEOLOGIGALLY 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. Seismichazard areas (6% of watershed
area) are mapped in for a large portion of the Quilcene
Bay estuary and along various stream drainages.
WETI-ANDS
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.
CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (CARAS)
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.
FISH AND WLDLIFE 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.
MAPPED CRIT!CAL AREAS
Page 9-12
o
March 2016
Quilcene Bay Watershed
fI
Ll
2
N
A
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o
a
o
WATE RSH ED CON FIGU RATION
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.
WATER QUALIW
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.
I.AND COVER
Coniferous forest cover in the watershed is
49%, scrub shrub cover is 17o/o, mixed forest
cover is 12o/o, deciduous forest cover is 7%,
herlcaceous cover is 4%, pasture/hay cover is
2o/o, and woody and emergent wetland plant
cover is 3%. The remaining 6% of the
watershed is covered by developed lands.
PHYS!CAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES
EXISTING LAND USES
Portions of the watershed belong to the Olympic National Park
and the USFS wildemess. 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.
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 2o/o
of the watershed is zoned for agriculture, with smaller areas of
Light lndustrial/Manufacturing and Paks, and Forest Resource-
Based lndustrial (< 1o/o each). The remaining areas within the
watershed are USFS and National Park lands.
WATERSHED MODIFICATIONS
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.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE
. 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.
o Flooding occurs regularly along the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers within the town of Quilcene.
o 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.
o Protect priority habitats, core habitats and corridors, high-quality vegetation communities, and rare plants.
KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
March 2016
Quilcene Bay Watershed
Page 9-13
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o CHAPTER 10. Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
This chapter describes the conditions of the Southeast Hood Canal watershed (Figures 5a to 60. 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.'l Overview
The Southeast Hood Canal watershed is approximately 4t.6 square miles in area. lt 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, zoo5). The stream empties into Thorndyke Bay and Hood
Canal. Smaller drainages in the watershed include Nordstrom, Shine, Bones, and Fisherman Harbor
Creeks (Correa, zooz). 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, zooS).
Primary land uses in the watershed consist of rural residential development and commercialforestry.
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 Gharacterization
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, zooz). As a result,
the stream has maintained a natural channelwith 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, zooS). 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, zoo8). There are consumptive use
rights for surface water totalin g z.3t cfs, and claims of 2.96 cfs. lf actual use approaches the claimed
volume, it could significantly influence summer low flow (Parametrix et al., zooo).
Nordstrom Creek begins in the foothills of the Toandos Peninsula, flows through forestlands, and
empties into Hood Canal north of Thorndyke Bay. lt is approximately r.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, zooz). 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, zooz).
o
March 2016
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
O
Page 10-1
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Shine Creek originates in a forested wetland near the Port Ludlow Golf Course in the Port Ludlow MPR
(Correa, zooz).Thestreamgenerallyflowssouthward,followingHighwaylo4atonepoint,and
empties into Squamish Harborthrough a large estuarine wetland (ESA, zooS). Again, most of the
drainage is owned by Pope Resources and managed by Olympic Resources Management for timber
harvest, recreation, and rural development (Correa, zooz). Although the lower reaches of the stream
(mouth to Highway ro4) 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, zooz). The upper reaches of Shine Creek (above
Highway ro4) 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, zooz).
Bones Creek flows southward through forested and residential areas into a modified estuary in
Squamish Harbor (Correa, zooz). The stream has been channelized and armored in the lower reaches,
resulting in limited estuarine function.
Sandy Shore Lake is located approximately r.5 miles west of the intersection of Highway ro4 and
Highway r9 (ESA, zooS). lt has a surface area of approximately 34.9 acres. Wahl Lake is located south of
Highway ro4 and has a surface area of zr.5 acres. lt is one of several isolated lakes in the Southeast
Hood Canal watershed (ESA, zooS). Both Sandy Shore Lake and Wahl Lake are owned by Pope
Resources and experience logging in surrounding areas. Teal Lake is located about r.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 o.3 miles north of the intersection of Thorndyke Road and
Kelly Drive (ESA, zoo8). lt is a small lake with less than an acre of open water. Little development has
occurred in areas surrounding the lake (ESA, zooS).
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 5a). ln
total, CARAs cover 32 percent of the watershed area (Jefferson County, zooSa).The lower reaches of
Thorndyke Creek and its estuary are within the FEMA roo-year floodplain (see Figure 6c) (Jefferson
County, 1998). The lower reaches of Shine Creek and its estuary are also within the FEMA loo-year
floodplain. Fisherman's Harbor is in the FEMA roo-yearfloodplain as well. About z percent of the
watershed is within the FEMA roo-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, zoo8). 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, aggTc). 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
o
o
Page 10-2
o
March 2016
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
relatively natural condition. Current forestry activities in the watershed occur on private and state
forestlands. Approximately 6z percent of the watershed is zoned Commercial Forest, 1 percent is zoned
lnholding Forest, and 4 percent is zoned Rural Forest. Minimal agriculture occurs in the watershed; only
o.1 percent is zoned Local Agriculture (see Figure 5d).
Residentialuse is concentrated atthe 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 r 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:
o Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
database (WDFW, zor5a);
o Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), National Heritage Program GIS dataset
(WNHP, zor3);
o WDFW SalmonScape Database (WDFW, zorSc);
o Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Water Ouality Assessment and 3o3(d) List
(Ecology, zot4);
. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), NationalWetland lnventory (NWl) database (USFWS,
zor5);
o U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Land Cover database (Homer et al., zor5);
r Jefferson County critical areas, zoning, and core habitat area GIS mapping;
o Jefferson County water quality and other technical reports; and
o Aerialimagery.
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, zoo4). Core r areas signify the most intact habitats in the
watershed while Core 2 areas include mostly intact (some fragmentation present) habitats. These
include the following:
o Core r - lncludes lower to middle reaches of Shine Creek riparian corridor, surrounding uplands,
and estuary. Habitat is primarily located on commercialforestland and some ruralforestland.
o
March 2016
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
o
Page 10-3
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Core r - Covers lowerto middle reaches of Thorndyke Creek riparian corridor, surrounding
uplands, and estuary. Spans entirely over commercial forestland.
Core z - Small portion of habitat extends into Dabob Bay watershed. lncludes foothills and
smalltributary drainages of Hood Canal in the upper portion of the Toandos Peninsula. Mostly
located on commercialforestland 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, zor5c). Table ro-r shows species documented as present or presumed present
in the watershed.
Table eo-e. Fish Presence in the Southeast Hood CanalWatershed
"Species presence is based on data gathered from WDFW SalmonScape database (zor6c).
'Presumed presence (WDFW, zor6c).
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, zooS). 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, 2ooo; Long et al., zoo5).
Three culverts along Thorndyke Creek are partial barriers to fish passage (WDFW, zorSb). 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 culvefts is possible during certain flows (Correa, zooz). Three
culverts mapped along Shine Creek are partial barrier for fish passage (WDFW, zorSb). These are
located on Highway ro4 and further upstream, near the Port Ludlow Golf Course. Several culverts roo
km and greater in length are located beneath the golf course and obstruct fish passage in upper Shine
Creek (Correa, zooz). There are many other culvefts that are complete barriers to fish passage
oa
a
o
o
Thorndyke Creek X X X X
X X x2 XShine Creek
Nordstrom Creek X
XBones Creek
X'XSandy Shore Lake
Teal Lake X
Page 10-4 March 2016
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
Stream
Species Present'
FallChum Coho Winter
Steelhead
Coastal
Cutthroat
(Resident)
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
throughout the watershed along unnamed tributaries of Hood Canal and other streams (WDFW,
zorSb).
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, zor5d; RCO, zo16). The culvefts were replaced
with a bridge.
,l0.4.3 Water Quality
No waterbodies within the watershed are on the Ecology 3o3(d) list for impairments (zor4). 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, zot4).
Several sites within the watershed have been monitored for fecal coliform as paft of the Hood Canal
Watershed Clean Water project and the majority have failed State standards (JPH, zot4). 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, zo16). However, the project has yet to be implemented
(Dawson, zo16). 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.
ln zorr, Silent Lake experienced a toxic cyanobacteria bloom, but the toxin levels remained below state
recreational criteria for closure (Thomason et al., zor3)
10.4.4 Riparian Habitat Conditions
Overall, riparian habitat conditions are good in the watershed (Correa, zooz). Thorndyke Creek has
excellent canopy cover, predominantly mixed forest. However, due to logging activities in the
watershed, LWD and recruitment potential is poor (Correa, zooz). 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, zooz). lnvasive 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, zooz). 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
March 2016
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
o
Page 10-5
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
bordering lakes and smalltributaries. The majority of wetlands and buffers in the watershed have
intact vegetation cover. ln total, wetlands comprise 3 percent of the watershed (USFWS, zor5).
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 r5 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 z
percent (See Figure 6e) (Homer et al., zor5).
According to the WDFW PHS database, priority species have been documented in undeveloped and
developed areas of the watershed (WDFW, zor6a). 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, zor6a). 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, zorSa).
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, zo:.6a).
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:
o Organic, sand, mixed-fine, or mud partly enclosed, backshore oligohaline marsh;
o Organic, partly enclosed, backshore, polyhaline marsh;
o Sand or mixed fine lagoon, hyperhaline, euhaline marsh;
. Sand, party enclosed, eulittoral, polyhaline marsh;
o Coastal spit with native vegetation;
. Tufted hairgrass/Lyngby's sedgeisaltgrass (Deschampsia caespitosalCarex lyngbyei/Distichlis
spicata);
o Saltgrass/pickleweed (Distich lis spicata/Salicorn ia vi rgin ica) ;
. Lyngby's sedge/saltgrass/seaside arrowgrass (Carex lyngbyei/ Distichlis spicata/ Triglochin
maritima);
o American dunegrass/Japanese beach pea (Leymus mollis/Lathyrus japonicus);
o Red fescue/silver burweed (Festuca rubra/Ambrosia chamissonis);
o
o
Page 10-6
a
March 2016
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Charasterization Report
Final
o Hard-stem bulrush (Shoenoplectus acutus);
o Broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia); and
o Pickleweed (Salicornia virginica)(WHNP, zor3).
High-quality vegetation and habitats identified in Thorndyke Lake include the following
o Low-elevationfreshwaterwetland;
o Douglas'spirea (Spireadouglasii);
o Dulichium(Dulichium arundinaceum);
o Hard-stem bulrush (Shoenoplectus acutus)i
o Yellow pond-lily (Nuphar lutea ssp. Polysepala); and
o Western crabapple (Malusfusca) (WHNP, zor3).
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.)t bog cranberry/sphagnum species (Vaccinium orycoccos),
Cusick's sedge (Carex cusickii), Sitka sedge (Carex aquatil/is), bog Labrador tea/bog laurel lea (Ledum
groenlandicum/Kalmia polfolia), and western crabapple (Malusfusca) (WHNP, zor3). Dulichium
(Dulichium arundinaceum) is also mapped within Wahl Lake. ln addition Bywater Bay has sand or mixed
fine lagoon habitat (hyperhaline and euhaline) (WHNP, zor3).
10.5 Key Management lssues and Opportunities
Management issues in the Southeast Hood Canalwatershed:
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.
a
a
a
o
Page 10-7March 2016
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
a
a
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o Restore riparian and wetland buffers associated with other streams and tributaries in the
watershed.
. ldentify and repair failing septic systems.
o Continue efforts to remove and/or replace road culverts that impede fish passage.
o Continue to protect WNHP identified high-quality vegetation communities in Thorndyke Bay
and Lake, and isolated lakes in the Toandos peninsula.
o Protect designated core habitat areas within the watershed.
o Protect habitats mapped by WDFW that suppoft PHS listed species.
10.6 Watershed Fact Sheet
The Fact Sheet for the Southeast Hood Canal Watershed is presented on the following pages.
o
o
o
Page 10-8 March 2016
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o
o
WATERSHED AREA:
42 Square miles
SOUTHEAST HOOD CANAL WATERSHED
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Approximately 2o/o of the watershed is located within the
FEMA 1OO-year floodplain; these floodplain areas are
concentrated along the eastern Hood Canal shoreline
and the lower reaches of Thomdyke and Shine Creeks.
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 bluffr.
WETLANDS
Approximately 3% of the watershed is mapped as
wetland habitat, which is generally associated with the
streams and estuaries in the watershed.
cRlTlcAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (cARAs)
CARAs are mapped in approximately 32o/o of the total
watershed area; these areas are concentrated around
the major streams in the watershed, as well as the
canal shoreline.
FISH AND WLDLIFE 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. Harlcor seal haul-outs are mapped north and east
of Tala Point.
Approximately 15% of the watershed contains mapped
core habitat areas.
MAPPED CRITICAL AREAS
o
Page 10-9March 20'16
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
-I
\
-
Altill Ro.rr.
-
R.*r.d.l Rod.
-
Itp. glur
.r dt
I
WATERSHED CONFIGURATION
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.
WATER QUALIW
Per the State's Water Quality Assessment (2012), the
waters of Hood Canal are listed as impaired for low
dissolved orygen 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
Coung's Clean Water District.
LAND COVER
Coniferous forest cover in the watershed is 43%, shrub
cover is 16%, mixed forest cover is 9%, herlcaceous
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.
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o
o
EXISTING LAND USES
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.
ZON!NG
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) (24o/o). Smaller areas of Local Agriculture and
Resorts also occur (< 1% each).
WATERSHED MODIFICATIONS
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.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE
Water quality in the waters surrounding the southern Toandos Peninsula does not meet State
standards for dissolved orygen 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.
a
a
a
a
a
a habitats coreProtect unities in the watershedand
KEY MANAGEMENT !SSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Page 10-10
O
March 2016
Southeast Hood Canal Watershed
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
O CHAPTER 11. Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
This chapter describes the conditions of the Southwest Hood Canal watershed (Figures 7a to 7fl. The
watershed is described in terms of its physical, ecological, and human environment/land use
cha racteristics.
Characteristics for the watershed are summarized in the Yact sheet" included at the end this chapter.
11.1 Overuiew
The Southwest Hood Canal watershed extends into Mason County and onto USFS land. The portion of
the watershed within Jefferson County is approximately 7r 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, zoo8). 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,
zooz). The other large river drainage, the Dosewallips River, is 28.3 miles long with r4o 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, zooS). 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, zooz). Rocky Brook Creek is the largest tributary to
the Dosewallips River (Correa, zoo3). 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 Resoft. Additionalwaterbodies found within the watershed include several
unnamed streams and tributaries.
11.2 Physical Gharacterization
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 4rr cubic feet per second (cfs) at a gauging station
at RM 4.9 (Correa, zoo3). The middle to lower drainage is fairly confined and steep throughout except
for the last z miles of the river, which flow through a broad floodplain (Correa, zoo3). Floodplain
connectivity is considered fair overall but poor in the lower half mile because many streambanks are
heavily armored and restrict flooding (Correa, zoo3).The estuary is an extensive mud and gravel flat
area that supports productive shellfish beds. Highway :'o:. crosses the estuary via bridges. Historically,
o
o
March 2016
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
Page 11-1
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
the estuary consisted of a broad tidal channel network, but have since been blocked or modified by
berms (ESA et al., zorz).
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, zoo8). 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, zor6b). Similar to the Duckabush River, the Dosewallips River flows in a
general eastward direction toward Hood Canal (Correa, zoo3). lt 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.r (ESA, zooS). A large portion of the Dosewallips River is
within the high-risk channel migration zone, especially to the south of the channel (ESA, zor6b). 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, zoo3). 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,
zoo3). However, of the 5o mass wasting events identified by the USFS, only one was road-related
(USFS, 1999). USFS ownership begins at RM 6.r 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, zoo3). Historically, the drainage was clearcut for timber harvest and experienced 45
mass wasting events. Most of these events Q5) were road-related (Correa, zoo3). Spencer Creek, a
tributary of Hood Canal, is approximately 3.8 miles in length with r.r miles of contributing tributaries
(Correa, zoo3). Marple Creek, another tributary of Hood Canaljust south of Spencer Creek, is
approximately 2.4 miles in length with z.z 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, zooz). As a result, channel migration and estuarine functions are limited in the Marple Creek
estuary.
McDonald Creek is a r.9-mile-long tributary to Hood Canal south of the Duckabush River (Correa,
zoo3). A small poftion 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 alluvialfan (Correa, zoo3). The stream mouth and floodplain in the lower reach are
constricted by Highway ror and associated fill.
Fulton Creek originates in the foothills of the Olympic Mountains and empties into Hood Canal south of
McDonald Creek (ESA, zoo8). lncluding the South Fork, the stream is approximately 9.o miles long
(Correa, zoo3). 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 alluvialfan (Correa, zoo3). Floodplain connectivity and habitat have been largely lost due to
bank armoring and/or diking for residential development in the lower reach.
o
o
Page 11-2
o
March 2016
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
CARAs are mapped in the major river and stream drainages, as well as their estuaries within the
watershed (see Figure 7a). ln total, CARAs cover 75 percent of the watershed area (Jefferson County,
zoo5a). The majority of the Duckabush and Dosewallips Rivers, Fulton Creek, and estuaries in the
watershed are also within the FEMA roo-year floodplain (see Figure 7c). About 3 percent of the
watershed is within the FEMA roo-year floodplain (Jefferson County, r998)
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 nonh 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 majortributaries, streams, and rivers (Jefferson County ryg7c). Similarly, seismic hazards are also
mapped in adjacent uplands of major tributaries, streams, and rivers (Jefferson County, 1997b).
11.3 Land Use
ln the late r8oos, many of the drainages within the Southwest Hood Canal watershed were convefted
to pastureland (Correa, zoo3). 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, zoo3). Logging still occurs
today on federal, state, and privately owned forestland. Approximately 15 percent of the watershed is
zoned Commercial Forest, 5 percent is zoned lnholding Forest, and r percent is zoned Rural Forest
(Jefferson County, zooSb). Only o.r 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), RuralVillage Center (RVC), and Rural Residential areas. Some residential development is
located just south of the Duckabush River delta and on the nonh and east sides of Black Point as well
(ESA et al., zorz). Overall, about :. percent of the watershed is zoned MPR, o.r percent is zoned RVC,
and r3 percent is zoned Rural Residential. Dosewallips State Park is located on the south side of the
Dosewallips River, estuary, and is 42S acres in size (ESA, zor6b). Areas zoned for Parks, Preserves, and
Recreation make up :' 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 Depaftment of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
database (WDFW, zorSa);
Washington Depaftment of Natural Resources (DNR), National Heritage Program GIS dataset
(WNHP, zor3);
a
a
o
Page 1 1-3March 2016
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o WDFW SalmonScape Database (WDFW, zorSc);
o Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Water Quality Assessment and 3o3(d) List
(Ecology, zot4);
o U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), NationalWetland lnventory (NWl) database (USFWS,
zor5);
o U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Land Cover database (Homer et al., zor5);
. Jefferson County critical areas, zoning, and core habitat area GIS mapping;
o Jefferson County water quality and other technical reports; and
o Aerialimagery.
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 7fl ffomassi , zoo4). Core r 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:
o Core r - Covers the Duckabush River estuary.
o Core r - lncludes 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.
o Core r - Upper reaches of Spencer Creek and surrounding uplands. Habitat extends into
Ouilcene Bay watershed, primarily in commercial forestland.
e Core z - Middle to upper reaches of Dosewallips Rivers and surrounding uplands. Spans
commercial forest, ruralforest, rural residential, and inholding forestlands.
o Core 3 - Lowerto middle reaches of the Duckabush Riverto USFS boundary. Located primarily
on commercialforest but rural residential land as well.
o Corridor - Follows riparian corridor of the Duckabush River from the mouth to lower reach.
Extends over areas zoned as Rural Residential.
1'1.4.2 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;
bulltrout; and kokanee (WDFW, zooT). Table rr-r shows species documented as present or presumed
present in the watershed.
Table u-r. Fish Presence in the Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
o
o
Page 1 1-4
o
March 2016
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
Stream Species Present'
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
lSpecies presence is based on data gathered from WDFW SalmonScape database (zor6c).
'Presumed 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., zoo3). The
adjacent nearshore also provides high-quality rearing and migration habitat for salmonids (ESA, zooS)
Forage fish species (surf smelq sand lance, and herring) also use nearshore areas of the watershed,
especially near Pleasant Harbor, Black Point, and Quatsap Point (Penttila, zooo; 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, zoo3). The second culvert is located farther upstream on Highway ror (WDFW, zor5b). 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 removalof structures, dikes, and fill;
invasive species control; native tree and shrub planting; and property acquisition (WDFW, zorSd; RCO,
zo16). A multi-phased project in the Dosewallips River floodplain and estuary also includes engineered
log jams (RCO, zor5). Other restoration projects in the watershed involve similar actions and are
located in drainages of smaller tributaries to Hood Canal.o
Duckabush
River X X X X X X X'X X X
Dosewallips
River X X X X X X X'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
March 2016
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
Page 1 1-5
!LI
Q,
E
E
a
U
|DIT
o.troL'
c(E-vos>E€
o
-voo
rJ
l!lr
!,t!o
?tl,+,
UT
a
.E
3
PEE-EE(u3(utfi
roo
-EaEF.
-lalE(Uug
rtotJ
,
eF
:)o
oog
IE.Yov
3o
F
3o,o
.E
d,
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
11.4.3 Water Quality
The Hood Canal Watershed Clear Water Project monitors surface water quality in the Southwest Hood
Canalwatershed 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., zor4). 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, zot4). From the mouth of the Dosewallips Riverto RM r.r, Ecology identifies temperature
and pH impairments. The first o.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 ofwater quality concerns based on
monitoring results (DOH, zor4). Homes in Duckabush have documented water quality issues with
graywater discharges, unsecured tank lids, and unpermitted holding tanks or outhouses (Dawson,
zorS). The areas of Brinnon, Pleasant Harbor, and Duckabush have been identified as high priority
areas by the Hood Canal Regional Pollution ldentification and Correction (PlC) program (Dawson,
zor5).
'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, zooz, zoo3). 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. lnvasive plant
species such as bullthistle, 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
agriculturaland residential development. Dikes and fillwere also constructed. Recent restoration
projects in the watershed have aimed at removing structures such as dikes and associated fill to restore
wetland habitaq especially in estuaries. Currently, wetlands cover 1 percent of the watershed (USFWS,
zor5). 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 tidalflows due to the Highway ror crossing (ESA et
al., zorz). 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. lt has the largest amount (69 percent) of
coniferous forest cover out of the nine watershed described in this report. Shrub cover is 13 percent,
o
o
Page 1 1-6
o
March 2016
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
O
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
mixed forest cover is 5 percent, herbaceous cover is 3 percent, deciduous forest cover is z percent, and
woody and emergent wetland plant cover is r percent (see Figure 7e) (Homer et al., zor5).
According to the WDFW PHS database, priority species have been documented in undeveloped and
developed areas of the watershed (WDFW, zor6a). 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, zor6a). 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, zor6a). 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. ln
addition, most of the watershed lies within mapped northern spotted owl occurrence and management
buffer areas (WDFW, zor6a).
A few priority mammal species are documented in the watershed, including marten, harbor seal, and
bat (WDFW, zor6a). 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 throughoutthe year (WDFW, zor6a; ESA et al., zorz). Winter
harbor seal pupping occurs in the Duckabush estuary (ESA et al., zorz). 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 menziesiil
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, zor3). The WNHP identifies the following high-quality vegetation
communities in the Duckabush estuary:
o Sandy, moderate salinity, low marsh;
o Low salinity high marsh;
. Gravelly low marsh;
. Silty, low salinity, low marsh;
. Lyngby's sedge/saltgrass /seaside arrowgrass (Carex lyngbyei , Distichlis spicata, Triglochin
maritima);o
Page 11-7March 2016
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
r Pacific silverweed/Baltic rush (Argentina egedii, Juncus balticus);
o Saltgrass/pickleweed (Distichlis spicata, Salicorniavirginica);
e Sea milkwort (Glaux maritima\;
. Lygnby's sedge (Carex lyngbyer); and
o Picklewe ed (Salicornia virginica).
Two occurrences of the rare chain-fern (Woodwardiafimbriata) are identified in the watershed (WHNP,
zor3). 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 lssues and Opportunities
Management issues in the Southwest Hood Canalwatershed:
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 ldentification and Correction (PlC) 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:
o 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.
o Restore riparian and wetland buffers associated with other streams in the watershed.
o Continue efforts to remove and/or replace road culvefts that impede fish passage.
o Continue to protect WNHP identified high-quality vegetation communities and rare plant
occurrences in the watershed.
a
o
o
a
a
Page 1 1-8
o
March 2016
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
O
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o ldentify and correct sources of water pollution originating from the Brinnon, Pleasant Harbor,
and Duckabush areas.
o Protect designated core habitat and corridor areas within the watershed.
r 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.
o
Page 1 1-9March 2016
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
WATERSHED AREA:
71 Square miles
-kmtRds
-
Uapt glqr
SOUTHWEST HOOD CANAL WATERSHED
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final o
o
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Approximately 3% of the watershed is located within the
FEMA 1OO-year floodplain; these floodplain areas are
concentrated along Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers
and the low-lying areas along 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 (4o/o of watershed area) are mapped in
several areas, also primarily along major rivers.
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.
CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (cARAs)
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.
FISH AND WLDLIFE 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.
MAPPED CRITICAL AREAS
Page 11-10
o
March 2016
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
tt
\
D}\
-"\
3
I
It.'/
h.
{\-\
N
A 1.5
,dv
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o
O
WATERSHED CONFIGURATION
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.
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 ClearWater
Prolect.
LAND COVER
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
7o/o otthe watershed is covered by developed lands.
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES
EXISTING LAND USES
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.
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), NeighborhoodA/isitor Crossroad,
Parks, and Forest Resource-Based lndustrial (< 1% each).
The remaining areas within the watershed are USFS and
National Park lands.
WATERSHED MODIFICATIONS
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.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE
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 ldentification and Correction (PlC) 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.
a
a
a
a
a
KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
o
Page 1 1-1 1March 2016
Southwest Hood Canal Watershed
a
o
o
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
CHAPTER 12. REFERENCES
Ames, James and Bucknell, Patrick r98r. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization
Washington State Department of Fisheries.
Ames, Jim et al. zooo. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation lnitiative. Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife and Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes.
Bahls, P. zoo4. Fish Distribution and Abundance in Shallow lntertidal Habitats of Tarboo and North
Dabob Bays. Prepared for Jefferson County Marine Resources Committee. February zoo4.
Bargmann, G. 1998. Forage Fish Management Plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Brewer, S., J. Watson, D. Christensen, and R. Brocksmith. zoo5. Hood Canal and Eastern Strait of Juan
de Fuca Summer Chum Salmon Recovery Plan. Hood Canal Coordinating Council, version
November 15, 2oo5.
Correa, G. zooz. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors - Water Resource lnventory Area r7
Quilcene-Snow Basin. Washington State Conservation Commission. November zooz.
Correa, G. zoo3. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors - Water Resource lnventory Area 16
Dosewallips - Skokomish Basin. Washington State Conservation Commission. June zoo3.
Dawson, M. zo16. Personal communications with Michael Dawson, Water Ouality Manager Jefferson
County Environmental Health, for water quality monitoring results in Eastern Jefferson County
Dawson, M. zor5. Jefferson County Clean Water District Water Ouality Monitoring Plan. Jefferson
County Public Health. June zor5.
Dawson, M. and D. Fickeisen .2c:-2. Mats Mats Bay Water Ouality lmprovement Project Final Report.
Jefferson County Public Health. December zorz.
Dawson, M., A. Watkins, and G. Gately. zor4. Hood CanalWatershed Clean Water Project Final Report.
Jefferson County Public Health and Jefferson County Conservation District. December zor4.
Dobrowski, E. and M. Dawson. zor5. Jefferson County Toxic Cyanobacteria Project Final Report.
Jefferson County Public Health. June zor5.
DOH (Washington Department of Health). zor4. Washington State Department of Health zo:,4Early
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 CarlYoungman.
Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). zor4. Water Quality Assessment and 3o3(d) list.
Accessed January zo16.
o
o
Page 12-1March 2016
References
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). zor4. BEACH Program: Bacteria Trends at Core Marine
Beaches, 2oo3-2014. December zor5.
Ecology (Washington Depaftment of Ecology). zo16. Shoreline Management: Channel migration zones
Accessible at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st guide/iurisdiction/CMZ.html#Top.
EPA. zoo5. Nutrient Pollution Webpage. Accessed August !7,2o!5. Available
http ://wwwz.epa.gov/nutrientpol lution
ESA (Environmental Science Associates) Adolfson. zoo8. Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program
Update Project - Final Shoreline lnventory and Characterization Report, Revised. Prepared for
Jefferson County, November zoo8.
ESA, ESA PWA, Anchor OEA, Coastal Geologic Services, KPFF, and Pacific Survey & Engineering.2c:.2.
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 zorz.
ESA. zor5. Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance Update - Best Available Science Report.
Prepared for Jefferson County, December zor5.
ESA (Environmental Science Associates). zor5a, in prep. Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance
Update - Recommendations Report. Prepared for Jefferson County, May zo16.
ESA (Environmental Science Associates). zo16b. Jefferson County No Net Loss Project- lnventory
Update Reach Summaries. Prepared for Jefferson County. February zo16.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1996. 03 Flood Data, Jefferson, WA.
Gately, G. zou. Water Ouality Monitoring Repoft: Chimacum Creek Clean Water Project. Jefferson
County Conservation District. June, zom.
Gately, G., J. Clarke, D. Ecelberger, and C. Schrader. zor5. Chimacum Watershed Water Ouality and
Fishes A Comprehensive Review. Jefferson County Conservation District. May, zor5.
Hirschi, R. 1999. Critical nearshore habitats, Tala to Kala Poin! 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., zor5, Completion of the zorr National Land Cover Database for the
conterminous United States-Representing a decade of land cover change information.
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 8r, no. 5, p.345-354. Available:
http ://www. mrlc. gov/n lcd zorr.php
Jefferson County. agg7a. Landslide Hazard GIS layer data. Conducted January zor5.
Jefferson County.r997b. Seismic Hazard GIS layer data. Conducted January zor5.
Jefferson County. agg7c. Erosion Hazard GIS layer data. Conducted January zor5.
O
o
Page 12-2
o
March 2016
References
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
o Jefferson County. zoo6a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas GIS layer data. Conducted January zo16
Jefferson County. zoo6b. Parcel GIS layerforzoning data. Conducted January zo16.
Jefferson County. zor4. Shoreline Master Program: Comprehensive Update. February zor4.
JPH (Jefferson County Public Health). zou.Discovery Bay Clean Water Project (Final)
JPH (Jefferson County Public Health). zor5. Noftheast Jefferson Clean Water Project (Final). December
2O15.
JCPW (Jefferson County Public Works). zoo5. Surface Water Management Plan. December zoo5.
Johannessen, ).:rggz. Net Shore-Driftof San Juan and parts of Jefferson, lsland and Snohomish
Counties, Washington. Shorelands and CoastalZone Management Program, Washington
Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.
Klawon, J.E. zoo4. Channel Migration Zone Study for the Duckabush, Dosewallips, Big Quilcene and
Little Ouilcene Rivers, Jefferson County, Washington. US Department of lnterior Bureau of
Reclamation. September 2oo4.
o
Long, K., N.E. Harrington and P.J. Mackrow. 2oo5. lntertidalforage fish spawning site investigation for
Eastern Jefferson County, Northeastern Kitsap County and North Mason County 2e,c,L-2c,c.4.
Prepared by North Olympic Salmon Coalition. Final Report to: Salmon Recovery Funding
Board, Washington Depaftment of Fish and Wildlife, Jefferson County Marine Resources
Committee, Jefferson County, and City of Port Townsend.
May, C. and G. Peterson. zoo3. East Jefferson County Salmonid Refugia Report.
NWI (Northwest Watershed lnstitute). 2015. Tarboo Watershed Program webpage. Available at
htto://www.nwwatershed.org/ta rboo-wi ld I ife-preserve. html.
Parametrix, lnc., Pacific Groundwater Group, lnc., Montgomery Water Group, lnc., and Caldwell and
Associates. zooo. Stage r technical assessment as of February 2ooo of WRIA r7. Prepared for
WRIA r7 planning group. October zooo.
Penttila, D. zooo. 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.l. Longpr6, and G.B. Justin. zoo3. Hydrogeology of the Chimacum Creek Basin and
Surface Water / Groundwater lnteractions in the Ouilcene 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). zor5. PRISM project database. Accessed
January zor5.
o
Page 12-3March 2016
References
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
Reclamation (U.S. Department of the lnterior Bureau of Reclamation). zoo4. Channel Migration Zone
Study, Jefferson County, Washington: Duckabush, Dosewallips, Big Ouilcene and Little
Ouilcene Rivers.
Thomason, G. and M.Dawson. zor3. Jefferson County Lakes Toxic Algae Project Final Report. February
2Oa3.
Todd, S., N. Fitzpatrick, A. Carter-Mortimer, and C. Weller. zoo6. 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 o5-r.
December zoo6.
Tomassi, S. zoo4. Management Strategies for Core Wildlife Habitat Areas in Eastern Jefferson County
Prepared for Jefferson County Natural Resources Division. March zor4.
U.S. Census Bureau. zor5. State and County OuickFacts database information. Accessed January zo16.
USFS (United States Forest Service). 1998. Duckabush River watershed analysis. US Department of
Agriculture, Olympic National Fores! 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). zorr. Quilcene National Fish Hatchery. Accessible at
http : //www.fws. gov/q u i lce n e nf h/.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). zor5. NationalWetlands lnventory spatialview GIS data layer
Accessed January zo16.
USGS (U.S. Geologically Survey). zor5. Hydrologic unit data. Accessed December S,2oa1.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). zor4a. Statewide Washington lntegrated Fish
Distribution (SWIFD) GIS layer. Conducted January zo16.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) zor4b. Forage Fish Spawning interactive map.
Available at:
http://wdfw.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=rgbSfraezdarazocbdSobr
afSdedd5ba&extent=-r26.ra68.as.658a. -rrq.64ga.ag.oz8r.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). zor5a. Priority Habitats and Species database
information. Accessed January zo16.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). zo16b. Fish passage barrier map information
Accessed January zo16.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). zor5c. SalmonScape interactive mapping tool
Ava i la b le at http ://a oos.wdfw.wa. gov/sa I m onsca pe/.
o
o
Page 124
o
March 2016
References
o
o
Jefferson County CAO Update Watershed Characterization Report
Final
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). zor6d. Puget Sound Nearshore Projects site
database. Availa ble at http ://www.psnerp.ekosystem. us/.
WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). zoo5a. Washington State Water Body (WBWS)
Hydrography GIS layer data. March zoo6.
WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). zoo6b. Washington State Watercourse (WC)
Hydrography GIS layer data. March zoo6.
WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). zor5. Dabob Bay Natural Area Preserve
Ava i la b le at http ://www. d n r.wa. g ov/d a bo b- bay- n atu ra I -a rea - prese rve.
WNHP (Washington Natural Heritage Program). zor3. Geographic information data set for rare plant
species and ecosystems. October 2cr-3.
o
Page 12-5March 2016
References
Tofflsend
Port
N
STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA
a7
"c ,\'
BayI
o%
turt
Towrtsand
Oiscovory
Bay =1
I
=a
x
Oak
B.y
oc
Ia"
Canal
l.lood
Squrmich
Httbor
Dabob
B.y
!t
County Boundary
@NaionatForest
-
Major Stream
\A'RIA
Vvatershed Analysis UnitEf
s
)
o
o
JeffoMn County CAO. 15G524
Figure I
Watershed Analysis Units
SOURCE:ESA2Or5; E@lory 2014; J.tulw Counv 2015; OSM 2014 o
L
i
i
I
1
chim\
t\\
\I
Po rt
Clty
EFFERS
,!It
\I
\
IPor,t
o
I/
an
rl\\
/
r
,T{
\
r\l
)fi'
q
B
\)
Y
rt
t
NO
H
A
rW
K
Y
,1
.l
I tl
)
I
Sfrait of
Juan de Fuca 8-
Pofr Hud3d
Madna
Corpra(on
PotiTownsend
Bay (Admiralty
lnlet
Harbor
Discovery
Bay
Scov
Polnt
Oak Bay
-
Hat nb
. Bcy
Ludlow
Bay
I Critcal Aquifer Recharge Area
Iwetland
-
Stream
[---l wateruooy
El \i\ratershed Boundary
t ql
Ji
Iil
o
o
6
2
e
!o
I
€t
I
II
a
cE9
q
I
o Jeffe6on County CAO. 150524
SOURCE: ESRI, 201i|; Jefie6on County, 2006: WDNR, 200.t; USGS,201 5; USFWS, 2015 Figure 2a
Hydrography - Chimacum Creek, Ludlow Creek, NE Jefferson, N Hood Canal Watersheds
1YJ
I
II
L
I
/
sdto,J@d.Rq
Sfirfi of
Judt de Fuca
WotWAtuq
&*o
Port Towns
ci ty Li
Poi Hudgs
tafln.
N E..EFFERS N
corpohton
PorlTownsend
Bay
sbE
Adminlty
lnlet
Esket
a
a
l':"
Xala
Xllllsut
Harbor
AddryE&erl
Dkcovery o
/Bay
0
L Brl Polnt
Th
//.,,
Oak Bay
,.4
t
!\
2z
NO
HO ,,atE nats
cHtm
CR
U CAT{A B.y
a
,.
-zi
,Ludlow4\Bay
\
.lgo.L D w
"/)4,K
oi,t
////l Landslide Hazard Area
Seismic Hazard ArBa
I Erosion Hazard Area
-
Stream (Maioo
f---l utateooay
ft\rlbtersheO Boundary
I
\
a
a/
t.
t
0
65
a
€
I
!
{
I:
€
!
!t
i!
e
,
6
I
E€t
a
II
zt
g
I
-9.
o
o
SOURcE: ESRI,20l4i JefeBon County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015
Jefie6on Coonty CAO . 150524
Figure 2b
Geologic Hazards - Chimacum Creek, Ludlow Creek, NE Jefferson, N Hood Canal Wate6heds
o
I
1
I
a
t|
\
t
t
,
lr
t*\
I o
,ise"
..r€
I
L.
I
I
o
e
6
5
a
J
T
f
,
EI
t
!,it
.!t!I
I
a
,
o
?
I
€
:'
a
I
7t
E\I
6
9o JefieBon County CAO . ,|50524
SOURCE: ESR|.20'14; Jsfe6on County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS,2015; FEMA, 19S6 Figure 2c
Strart of
Juan de Fuca
Po rt
$d,o,
Jnn 6 Rtq
8-City L
Pon Hud3on
Madna
NE EFFERS N
PofiTownsand
Bay (Admiralty
lnlet
Belet
o
Klllsut
Harbot
Adelm
&eh
Discovery
Bay
0
ScowtBEy Polnl
ua{oan
il"t"(J
Oak Bay
tt*",t
&.t
\
!
.l,t L\,c"
\NO
HO ilets NqtE
CHIM
CR
U CANA B.y
I Ludlow\a Bay
t\
Ll{,on LU ow
CR K
oi,t
t-
I FEMA 1oo-Year Floodplain
-
Stream (Major)
I--.l utatertooy
ftuaterstreo Boundary
"t:-J t
4
{I 8*
G\
.8q,sl.
I
FEMA Floodplain - Chimacum Creek, Ludlow Creek, NE Jefferson, N Hood Canal Watersheds
o
Port Townaend
Gity Limits
soN
Strait of
Juot de Fuca
corph0s
PorlTovnsend
Bay
Admiralty
lnlet
Hatbr
Di9,covery
Bay
Can.l
Oak Bay
Bay
Bay
Zoning f] Harvy lnd. I Nei0hborhood Xroad E Resort-open space I Rur ResidentiaF2o E UGA-Urb.n comm.
I comm. Ag 20 m lnholding Forc.t 20 I P.rks I Re6ort-Recrealion I Rur ResidenliaFs I UGA-u.b.n Liohl lnd.
I comm. Forost-8o I ught lnd. I Public Facility-Airpod Bl Resort-SF TracG l:2.5 I UGA- Mod Oen. Re6. 7-12 I UcA-visitor comm.
Icomm.ForcsuMin.goEUOhtlna.loomm. EPublicFacility-wade EReson-singleFamily IucA-HighDen.R6s.t3-lSIVlllageComm.
I Convenicnce X{oad E Uoht lnd,/Manu. I Resort-Facilites E Rur. Fo.est-,lo I UGA-High Den. Res. 4-6 ElyhteEhed Bound.ry
EGcn.x-ro.d ILocelAg20 IR.sort-MultiFamily IRur.Residenlial-l0 EucA-Public
f
iLir-E
ril
II
I
NI ,ttr
I ttd
a
t I,
RN IIIIrl
\ II
,,IEL [:]:1t,,f
\
I
I
I I
-Eh\rr t I.
I 71 ,)t,r - ,'i ,1,,d,
t^l
!I II I
I
-t.
Ia.!I f It
pr\I {9 }^',' #
I 13 jrr iinII
Ft
\.L
l,II!
/(
l=I IT\,II
o
O
JeffeMn Counly CAO . 150524
Flgure 2dSOURCE: ESRl,2014; Jefe6on County. 2006; USGS, 2015
Zoning - Chimacum Creek, Ludlow Creek, NE Jefferson, N Hood Canal Wat€rsh6ds
o
!J
t
L
t
d lttl
CTTIfi
L=*
tr
'-
o
o
6
6
E
/,
!
t
!i
6
,
t6
o
c
3II
9II
7I
E6
0I
SOURCE: ESRI,201,1; JefeEon County, 2006; WDNR. 2000; USGS, 2015; NLCD,2011
JeffeEon County CAO .150524
Figure 2e
&*
trdt o,
I Open Water I Developsd, High lntensity @ Mixed Forest
EDeveloped, open space IBanen Land (Rocki/Sandclay) &Shrub/Scrub
IDeveloped,Lowlntensity IDsciduousForest EGrassland/Heriaceous
IDeveloped,Mediumlntensity!EvergreenForest mPasture/Hayt
l-] Woody Wetlands
I Emergent Herbaceous Woodlands
ft\4/atershed Boundary
t
$
Y
o
Land Cover - Chimacum Creek, Ludlow Creek, NE Jefferson, N Hood Canal Watersheds
I
5'
)
J
\f
ttl
Strait of
Juan de Fuca
Port Townsend
Bay
.1'
Admiralty
lnletI
,iL
Xillisut
Harbor
.J
b Bay
Discovery
Bay
Scow
Bay
Oak Bay
Mats Mats
Bay
Ludlow
Bay
{
, )!t
I
NE NEFFERS
o
staE
Madna
Corpraton
PortTownsend
Bay
KillEut
Hrtbor
I
ooAC
EE
Lr
\
rL*t
cHr
c
t
CANA
RTH
\
ow
K
Stait of
Juan de Fuca
acIefr
Polnt
tnlet
B*h
DEcovery
Bay
O* Bay
H.as ntu
Bay
Ludlow
Bay
Fish Distrlbutlon
-
Bull Trout
-
Resident Cutthroat Trout
-
Chum Salmon
-
Chinook Salmon
-
Coho Salmon
-' " Pink Salmon
-
Steelhead Trout
Core HabitaE and Corridors
MCorel
ffi core z
Core 3
ft\Ahtershed Boundary
t
!Conioorl--l watertooy
f*
t
L&.
6
R-
J
E
€
e
,9
E!
a
,
6
q
e
I
a
Eg
II
o
o
Jefferson County CAO . 150524
SOURCE: ESRI,201,1; JsfeEon County, 2006; l /DNR, 2006: USGS,20i5; WDFW 2010 Figufe 2f
Habitat and Fish Distribution - Chimacum Creek, Ludlow Creek, NE Jefferson, N Hood Canal Watersheds
o
City
Po rt s--
stdr, otJw.btua
o
o
o
5
I!
a
!
Ii
I
I
6I;
z
8
F
I
6
9o J€ff€en County CAO . 150524
Figure 3a
\\t
A o
Y
I cdticalAquifer Recrlarye Area
Iuteuano
-
Stream
l---l utatertooy
im Natonal Forest
County Boundary
ft\4/btershed Boundary
o2
Mh'
t
SOURCE: ESR|,2014; Jeffereon County, 2006; WDNR. 20061 USGS, 2015: USFWS,2015
Hydrography - Dabob Bay
ffio,
Jlun aL fu{
u
,t
I
I
a
o
t ,'
t
l-)
)
1
Y 2
/
l
Pulall
Tatboo
B.y
B.y
B.y
Dabob
Bay
CM
\
<
a
s
5
d
E
!
a
{
t
E
3
6
2
E
g
I
n
t
I
,\
I
r
€t,
$
aII
zt
E
6III
o
o
J€fferson County CAO . 150524
Figure 3b
a
,,,
t
dP.t d}nkkl
t,
u
ffiot
Anabtua
fl
4/
*.
d
t
ABOB
BAY
,r17
\
I
l/0
0
$\
D
oo
0
H,
q
\e
').
?....;
i
1....rr.,<,.. ..
i.,7
7///ztandstideHazardAr6a
Seismic Hazard Area
I Erosion HazatdAJea
Channel Migration Zone
-
Stream (Maior)
f---l \aateroooy
E National Forest
County Boundary
ftWhtersneo Boundary
??t
r|tboo
Bg 8ay
JAtibene
/ ) r//.
Br@d
Splt
Thomdyke
B.y
Qullccna
B.y
,"r,)
Dabob
Bay
f
^t
.ii"
$ffrr.4m
o
Polnt
0
Polnt
Tahk
Polnt
J.chrmCffi
Pul.ll
Polnt
SOURCE: ESRI,2014; Jofimon County, 2000; WDNR, m00;USGS.20l5; R@hmtion.2004
Geologic Hazards - Dabob Bay Watershed
o
I
.-
I
?.,,,
'2a
I
!
0
I
I
t
2,
(
il
t
o
o
a
5
5
E
!
E
I
i
3
I
!
3!
2
,
E
E
.1I
a
{
p
6II9
JoffeBon County CAO. 150524
Figure 3c
a
Pda/idh
Llekd
u
L
$nai o,
Jwh
il 4
o
*
6 oto
ogs
I
b"
LLkI
L/
DABOB
BAY
I
eea
LleL
, ",Lo* nm']- o* uo
,o
u
t0
o
a
,Yinr
x"
\
DO
D
4
1l
.rlP
q
\3
\
t
I FEMA 100-Year Floodplain
-
Stream (Maior)
I ---l \ /aterbody
I National For$t
County Boundary
ftutaterstreo Boundary
o2
k
f
T.rb@
Bay
Erdd
sptrt
Q Thomdyka
B.y
Qulbeno
Bel
Polnt
Polnt
Dabob
Bay
Tab6l
Jackt&
Cm
f
Pulall
I
o
eYlg"
uqgoh
aarbor
o SoURcE: EsRl, 201 4; JeffeEon County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; UsGs, 201 5; FEMA, 1 996
FEMA Floodplain - Dabob Bay Watershed
9
t4
&tff
Polnsula
O
o
6
E
!
!I
3
9I
,9
a!
JeffeEon County CAO . I 50524
Flgure 3d
o
Zoning E lnholdinc For6t 20 I P.rt! I R.&rl-R!c,r.lion I Ru.. Reridcntalto I \dho6 cohm.
Icohfr.Ag20 Iughtlnd. IR..ort-BiinnM IR..ortsFTr.ct l:2.5Ittur Reidcnt.!2o countyBoundary
I Comh. For€t-8o E UOht lnO./Mmu. I Rcloit-MuIi Family I R.rorLslnCc Fimily I Rur R.rid.nti.l-5 Elw.t.ch.d Bound.ry
I Convcnioe X*o.d I Local A0 20 I R.sod-opcn spacc E Ru[ Fffc.t-4o I Ruf, vilhgc ccmdt
mondyk
B.y
I
-=
\-r l-r
I
I
l
-T
,lh
"r
I I
!ll,tI
FI
I
n tsI
-tt
\I IIILI r'fr I
\--\
;t;'rI ttJ
tII
I \Ir
I T I
I
a iE-
(: lr. i
I I I
I t
II
'a2-
Ig
1F
I I
l,
N
-l
SOURCE: ESRl,2014: JetreFon County, 2006; USGs, 2015
Zoning - Dabob Bay Watershed
9dot
Jot ahM
u
Tatloo
B.y
B.y
Dabob
Bay
Pulall
I
\
t
I
[:
-a
.l
O
o
6
I
I
,
-8
!
,9
!
!
!
e
i
I,
8
9I
6t
d
I9I
9.
o Jetb6on Counly CAO . 150524
Figure 3e
Land Cover - Dabob Bay Watershed
e
!
t
^t*,-
t'.
rgl
.t..
Yt"
iv
r{i:
rl
I Open Water I De\reloped, High lntensity @ Mixed Forest f Cuftivated Crops
E oeveloped, Open Space I Banen Land (RocUsand/Clay) E Shrub/Scrub E Woody Wetlands
E Developed, Low lntensity I Deciduous Forest E Grassland/Heftaceous I Emergent Herbaceous Woodlands
I Developed, Medium lntensity I Evergreen Forest E Pasture/Hay ftwatershed Boundary
f
t
tr
SOURCE: ESR|,20'14; JofeBon County, 2006; \ /DNR, 2006; USGS,20,5; NLCD, 2011
l..,
u
wo,JEaAtu
i{
t,\t
",l
,,
I
..\
,it
.\
b
I
Cove
Tarboo
Bay
Bay
Dabob
Bay
\
I}{EII]
F,ilif
1
L
o2
6
ts
o
o
Jofia@n CantY cAO ' .l5052''
Figure 3f
Habitat and Fish Distribution - Dabob Bay Watershed
o
a
DA o
Y
4
I
tqn),\
Jffi
$
o
i
\
D
o
DO
T
0
,w
Fish Dbtrlbuuon
-
BullTrout
-
Resident Cutthroat Trout
-
Chum Salmon
-
Chinook Salmon
-
coho salmon
"-* Pink Salmon
-
Steglhead Trout
Core Habltats and Conldors
m corE I
m cor€ 2
Core 3
!cooioor[-] utaterooay
Et\ ratershed Boundary
County Boundary
E Natonal Forest
f
T.rb@
Bay
fhomdyke
Bay
t\
a
\
s{fr
bq9d
I
0'
o
Wo,
u
n
b"
lu*[v
-
(\l.l I t;
I
\l
Qultconc
Bry
Dabob
Bay
T6b@X
Polnt /
,,bckail
Cm
Pulall
o
o
6
!
€
E
J
8
6
!
3
!
,
I
E
I'
I
II
zII99
6
9.
Figure 4a
Hydrography - Discovery Bay Watershed
\{
I
ll
I Criticatequiter Redlarge Area
Iwetland
-
Stream
[---".lutateoooy
n Natonal Forest
County Boundary
Q\rrlatershed Boundary
ol:J* f
J€ff€Eon County CAO . 150524oSOURCET ESRI,2014: JefeEon County, 2006; wDNR, 2006; USGS,2015; USFWS,2015
+4
t
t
(j
X
crtt tt
\
I
E
t
Discovery
Bay
)
1
t
(
a
{I
u
I
t
I
o
Kala
C6ne
\o
9t
I
#Polnl
calttks
Discovery
Bay
/a
B
,%zZl'
,2,
Dtscov
BA
Pf,
,,4
,4
24.r
/-
/
:..j.2.
,
..//.
E
t
,4
///Z tandslide Hazard Area
Seismic Hazard Area
f, Erosion Hazard Area
-
Stream (Majo0
I---l uiatertooy
[.€ National Forest
County Boundary
ftuiatershed Boundary
f
firooDrts /a'/o1
,l,rr, t
0
t.
*
JeffeEon County CAO . 150524
Figure 4b
o
o
SOURCE: ESRl,2014; J€fioEon County, 2006; WDNR, 2006i USGS, 2015
Geologic Hazards - Discovery Bay Watershed
o
Wol
P
(
I
\
to
\
t
o
o
6
B
E
t
t
t
.
8
6
!
I
!z
t!
It,
6
I
tl
I
II
5tE
6II
1)
o Jeft€Mn County CAO . 150524
Figure /tc
r9
Pofr
Xala
Pdnt
Chnc
m#,,
tletiu
,U
II
t
Discovery
Bay
Sufict
Lak O
t
DrscovER
BA
o
!
Lt
\
Bcfr.nc
r\*bJ[,
\
o
T
I:
,19".
=i,rt.
I FEMA 100-Year Floodplain
-
Stream (Major)
l---l uatertooy
I Natonal Forest
County Boundary
ftutatersneo Boundary
t------.r' t
ry
0
t.
H.
s
B
SOURCE: ESRI, 201 4; JeffeEon County. 20m; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 201 5; FEMA, 1 996
FEMA Floodplain - Discovery Bay Watershed
p
Silo,
{ *,**
1\
1
0
I
\
4
l
o
o
6
ts
Jeffe6on County CAO . 150524
Flgure 4d
Zoning - Discovery Bay Watershed
Kala
Cran6
Potnt
Zoning E Gcn. x-ro.d E Ligtrt tnd.tuanu. f, Puutic rralv-wad. I UGA- Mod D.n- R... 7-12 I ucA-urb.n ught lnd.
Icomm.Ao20 EHclvylnd. Itrlagzo f:lR!r.Fq.st4o IUGA-HiehD.n.R6. l3-18IUcA-vlr[orcomm.
IComm.For6t-80 ffilnholdinoFor.8t20INcighborhoodX-ro.dIR!r.Re.identi.l-10 IUGA-H|ChD6n.R6.a.6 CdntyEoundary
I comm. For6ruin. 60 I ughr lnd. I Park! I Rur. R.!identiil-20 Ef ucA-Public Elt ht Eh.d Edndlry
E Fded R6ource-lnd. I Uot{ lndJoomm. I Public F.cility-Ajrpon I R!r. R63identid-5 E UGA-urb.n Comm.to2
l
aI'I
il%:::-.r
tI
T.
t I \E I I
t t
71
,)
I I rf
N
---
,ITI f Ir.
JS I-\E
I Ir L l
ffi_
t
1rI.l K
FI
l,!
T rt t=t II\
SOURCE: ESRI,2014; Jefle6on County, 2006; USGS, 2015 o
$
suJr o,
Discovery
Bay
I
U
l'
IfI
{-.}f-lx4I
r
DISCOVE
B
tr !_ _-,, I
I
\rl
rtr
F
,le
Er
o
o
a
s
I
Et;
J
I
!
!z
!
!
,
I
e
E
I'
I
I
.x
8
I
I
9a JetreBon County CAO ,150524
Figure 4e
Land Cover - Discovery Bay Watershed
$
t Jto,
J0nah tua
t
t!
I Open Water I Developed, High lntensiv I Mix6d Foresl E Woody wetlands
E Developed, Open Space I Baren Land (RocUsand/Clay) I Shrub/Scrub I Emergent Herbaceous woodlands
I Dewloped, Low lntensity I Deciduous Forest E:] Grassland/Her0acaous fl]waterched Boundary
I Dewloped, Medium lntensity ! Evergreen Forest @ Pasture/tlaylit
.{
iL
,r1-
\..
t
,r{
t
{
T T
:r
fr'
rl'^_i
-:.,
Discovery
Bay
',{!, -. \
itt ,iU ' ,.,d-{9,
\ '',i:'i r t
a,d; , '*
\ l'--.,U. r'
rt
ll
SOURcE: EsRl, 201,1; JetreEon county, 2006; WDNR, 2006: USGS, 201 5; NLCD, 2011
,!
tl
t
{
I
F'
I
-t_tt!
tlI_:t
11.
I
t
I
J
I
o
o
JoffEEon Coun9 CAO. 150524
Figure 4f o
6
5;
4
I!I
J!I
8
!
rt!i
I
,
3
cgttl
H
6
;
3
q
EI
o
t
ua#,rn
8
f,t
I
cdB*c
Di€,covery
Bay
Llh o
I
D COVER
A
!
D
Fl.h Dlitrlbution
-
BullTrout
-
Resident cutthroat Tmut
-
Chum Salmon
-
Chinook Salmon
-
coho salmon
'- Pink Salmon
-
Steolhead Trout
Coro H.blt t!.nd Corrldoru
ffi core t
ECorc2
Cors 3
!conioot
l--'l UtaterOoOy
flutatersneo Boundary
County Boundary
I National Forest
0 t.l t
4
6tr
r4$
.4
t.
SOURCE: ESR|,2014; J6fi6Eon County, 2006; WDNR,2006; USGS,2015i WDFW.2010
Habitat and Fish Distribution - Discovery Bay Watershed
JtEi A &o
F
t.
.,E
I
o
o
c
I
,I
5
e
Eet
I
6tt
z
3'e
E
jo Jeffe6on County CAO. 150524
Flgure 5a
'v
I critical Aquifer Rochange Area
Iwetland
-
Stream
T--l wbterbody
I National Forst
County Boundary
ftWhtarshed Boundary
i--==-l,t
SOURcE: ESRl,2014; JoffeEon County, 2006; WONR, 2006t USGs,2015; USFWS, 2015
Hydrography - Quilcene Bay Watershed
)
7
ffio,
fi
/
{U
I
t
t
UI
BA
I
)
\
\)
//)
fotboo
B.y
Qg,tc@o
Bry
Dabob
Bay
Cws
Pulall
\
a
a
6
-
!'
:
;,!,Ft
e
It
!
a
6
i
€
I
T
nt
EI
EI
9_
JofioMn Cdnty CAO. 150524
Figure 5b
0 fi
a
\1 ,
DO
2a
UI
)<2
ffi*a
7///zvnasloeHazardArea
Seisrnic Hazard A.ea
I Erosion Hazard Area
Channel Migration Zone
-
Stream (Maior)
T- \ rater Body
t Natonal Forast
CounV Boundary
Qt^/atershed Boundary
t
,1
f.rbo
B.y
Broad
Splt
Qullcenc
B.y
Dabob
Bay ca(np
CM
zerabhed
'r4
)l
Pdnt
P!lall
Pdnt
SoURCE: EsRl,2014; Jofison County, 2006; lrlDNR, 2006;USGS,2015; Rehmlion,2004
Geologic Hazards - Quilcene Bay Wate6hed
o
ffiof
ADAtua
D
)
0
t
I
Polnt
o
o
o JefisFon County CAO . 150524
Figure 5c
I
F
I reua tooYear Floodplain
-
Stream (Major)
f-.-l vthteoody
tr National Forest
CounV Boundary
fl \rl/atershed Boundary
"l:J* f
Lsg
Splt
frtbo
B.y
Bro.d
Spll
Mbn
Qullcqe
B.y
e
Dabob
Bay
Cm
G
Camp
Dl$ovcry
Camp
Harmdy
T.bl
tulall
SOURCE: ESRI,2014t J6fie6on County, 206; WDNR, 2006: USGS,2015; FEMA, 1996
FEMA Floodplain - Quilcene Bay Watershed
Wo,
ft
\
rirl))
DO
UILCENE
BAY
D
4
ZelaEhd
Polnt
ffiot
An*tua
fi
T.ttoo
B.y
Broad
Splt
Qullc@c
aty
Dabob
Bay
Core
T.bk
Pdnt
Puhn
Zoning Icomm.Forst{o ILightlnd. Ipa*r IRur.Residential-2o cdntyBound.ry
I comm. Ag 20 I conveniene x{o.d E Llcht lnd./Manu. - Rur. For..t-4o I Rur. Re.identiaLs EtrateEhed Boun&ry
El lnholding For6t 20 I Loc.lAg 20 I Rur. Re3idcnd.l-lo I Rur Mllagc center
-0 t
I
DLrrFG\
Ir,)
,
I r \
1l.I
fi
Tr
I !
ltfiHjI
II
E3
rr \irtrT
\-L It-
',i'rJ
I !
I
I r!
I T
I
arpAl r I
'rf
I I I
I
Ir'
,{
F
o
o
JefieBon County CAO . 150524
Figure 5d
6
B
5
E
t
c
,-
!
,9q
,9
t!
,_
6
3
€
3
I
7!I
9
9
SOURCE: ESRl,2014i JefeEon County, 2006; USGS, 2015
Zoning - Quilcene Bay Watershed
o
rT
tr
-t tr
o
O
6
s
5
E,
J
3
r'
a
E
!
,l
t
I
i
,
I!
I
I
9I
E
it0II9
@
o Figure 5e
Land Cover - Quilcene Bay Watershed
tr
ffio/
I Open Water I De\reloped, High lntensity E Mixed Forest E Woody Wetlands
l-] Dewloped, Open Space I Banen Land (Rocldsand/clay) I Shrub/Scrub I Emergent Hertaceous Woodlands
I Developed, Low lntensity I Deciduous Forest E Grassland/Herbaceous flwatershed Boundary
I Dereloped, Medium lntensity I Evergreen Forest EIX Pasture/Hayt
'{
tr
A
!
i\
--,1,-. ' qfJ
!{
JoffeEon County CAO . 150524
SOURCE: ESRI,2014i JefoFon County. 2006: WDNR, 2006; USGS,2015; NLCO, 2011
1.t
t.,
f
t_-
. tfrt
7;..
-r' tl'
>.
I
\\
a
{
I
f:!
'tr
.-l/i
lST
'l
*\
r
t
{{,
.l.
t,
u),
\,,t'"'-"''^'
*
.I
tt
''.. -'d r
t-t\
1vj:fi#*!F l;*t"JllEEr r -fu.f:<; {
6
c
o
o
J€ff€Eon County CAO . 150524 o
Figure 5f
Habitat and Fish Distribution - Quilcene Bay Watershed
E
oo
BAY
,\
o.P,r"
FI!h Dlltrlbutlon
-
BullTrout
-
Residant Cuttlrroat Troul
-
Chum Salmon
-
Chinook Salmon
-
Coho Salmon
--- Pink Salmon
-
Steelhead Trout
Coro H.blt t!.nd Conldors
EG Core I
F Corez
CorB 3
!conioor
f--..l UtaterOoCy
ftwtersneo Boundary
County Boundary
- National Forcst'L+ f
4Bd
Splt
Bry
Camp*t,
\
Dabob
Bay
,|ttu
B.y
TabX
Pulall
Polnt
A&hed
SOURCE: ESRl,20l,l; JoffeBon County, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS, 2015; WDFW 2010
0 t f;
wo,Jd,frRE
)
--!I
!
Long
Splt
aII
a
Cw
I.1
I
h-
o
o
6
a
!t
a
5
er
*-'i
s
6
xI
aIa
6Ia
9o Figure 6a
Hydrography - SE Hood Canal Watershed
rl
!
I
ttI
llt
Ludlow
Bay
Bsy
o
a\
osE i{
A
o
\I critlcal Aquifer Recharge Area
Iwettano
-
Stream
[-_-l utateruooy
County Boundary
ft!4tatershed Boundary
fu
Squrmlth
Hetbot
Tarloo
B.y
Brd
Splt
a.y I
f
Dabob
Bay
TabX
o
Polnt
<\
t
r/\
J€tfoEon County CAO . 150524
SOURCE: ESRl,2014; Jefie6on County, 2006; WDNR, 2000t USGS, 2015; USFWS, 2015
ffio,
6
E
;
I
3
B2
:
I
.t
EiI
2
,
o
c
rt
3
a
EI
.x,
8
Eq
29I
9
o
o
JeftoMn Cdnty CAO ,15o52il
Figure 6b
6
r
S,rrr c,
\
'ri,
,,b*
o"1r
t
,e
t
tI
o/
e,,
?,
Ludlow
Bay
0.
B.y
Dootkt
?
0
SE Ht
CAN
,u?
u
,-7
'///
\
I
\
0
t
V//z tandslioe Hazard Area
I Seismic Hazad Area
I Erosion Hazard Area
-
Stream (Major)
f__l wateruooy
Etwatershed Boundary
02
k
ftL\
Sgs!Orsrt
Harbor
2
%?,,7/,,
'y'"',Pdnt
fatboo
B.y
Ardd
Splt
fhmdyko
Bay
Polnl ,
ca(p
Dabob
Bay
TabI
r\
Lii"
Zelabhed o
s"'llF
L.q!,a
Polnt
SOURCE: ESRI,2014; JofeBon Couhty, 2006; WDNR, 2006; USGS.2O15
Geologic Hazards - SE Hood Canal Watershed
o
*t
Y
\
trI
7r,
I
!
o
t
I
t
I
6
\_
I
0
o
o
Jefis6on County CAO . 1 5(}52,{
Figure 6c
FEMA Floodplain - SE Hood Canal Watershed
a
Strrl o,JMatatua
\
4
oia
t.
D
..d
,8et
t
{
Ludlow
Bay
l.
AW.*
B.y
, -iji,ro'-"s'1- o.
-o
i
,wn)*\[.
.s3"
0
sE HOBD
CAI{AL
til"
\
I
\
I
0
t
I FEMA loGYesr Floodplain
-
StrBam (Maior)
T-_.] \ivater Body
El\ivatershed Boundary't# taa
Squamlah
Hor'bor
bng
Splt
Tarboo
B.y
Brdd Camp
Spll
adbn
P6lnaula
Thomdyke
B.y
Dabob
Bay Camp
Tabt
Polnt
E**.lutli.
o
s.yfr
!.q!,on
ar&hd
Polnt 3
o SOURCE: ESRI,2014; Jefie6on County, 2006: WDNR. 2006; USGS,2015; FEMA, 1996
r
t
t
I
t
0
I
a
0
r
ffiot
JN { tua.
Zoning I conveni.ncc x{oad I Parks E Resod-opcn space I R*ofr-sinolc Femiy I Rur. Residential-2o
I comm. Ag 20 E lnholdino Fore3t 20 I R.6ort-Facilith6 I Reson-Recreation EI Rur Fore3t4o I Rur. Rcsidential-5
I comm. For6t-80 I Local Ag 20 I Relorl-Multi F.mily @B Resort-sF Tra6 1 :2.5 I Rur. Re3idcnti.l-lo I Mllage comm.
Etlry'.trBh€d 8ound.ryto2
9'
Ra;
€!
i
T
5
J
I
€!i
,iI
E
!I
{!
I
Pil
6
T
z
8
6i
@I
o
o
J€fioen Counly CAO .15(E2,i
Figure 6d
Zoning - SE Hood Canal Watershed
SOURCE: ESR|,201,l: Jeietson County. 20(F; USGS,2015 o
Bay
Admlralty
lnlet
Y)
I
G7
trt
I ll
rru\t-r
tr -t tr --l
l.l
N I
t
tr I
SE HOOD
CANAL
IE'
r tr
7 n I
II
tr
M
2I \
[tmF
s4/uaml.h
tlerbot
Totb@
B.y
Thomdy*a
B.y
Qullcenq
Bry
Polnt
Dabob
Bay
Pul.ll
Polnt
alabhd
Polnt
o
o
a
E
E
E
d
p
!
I
2
nt!
e
,,6
Io
I:
t
tI
ig
II
E
f
ilot
lt
IOpenVrfater IDeveloped, High Intensiv EMixed Forest ICutivaled Crops
E Developed, Open Space I Banen Land (Rocldsandclay) I Shrub/ScruO E Woody Wetlands
I Derrelopeo, Low lntensity I Decjduous Forest E Grassland/Herbaceous ! Emergent Herbaceous Woodlands
I Derreloped, Medium lntensity ! Evergreen Forest $$ Pasture/Hay Qwaterstreo Boundaryt
Jefie6on County CAO .150524
Figure 6eoSOURCE: ESR|.20'14; Jefe6on Coun9, 2006; WDNR, 2006: USGS, 2015; NLCD,20'11
Land Cover - SE Hood Canal Watershed
,t' \rrtF-lt-
t
I
trl
l
'b r
Bay
Bay
Squafrish
Harbor
Tarboo
8ay
fhomdyke
Quilcene
Bay
Bay
Dabob
Bay
iU fil,f
Bfrrc
tr.r'l {
E
JoItoEon Counly CAO . 150524
o
o
Figure 6f
Habitat and Fish Distribution - SE Hood Canal Watershed
\
J
D
a
0
/
Ludtow
Bay
lnlet
l.
'y i
,vn,k
t
,(
SETHOOD
rlf
${
t
a-o$
Fl!h Distrlbutlon
-
BullTrout
-
Residenl cufihroat Trout
-
Chum Salmon
-
chinook satmon
-
Coho Salmon' Pink Salmon
-
Steelhead Trout
Core Habitats and Corddor.
ffiCore t
E Core2
Core 3
!conioot
Ewateoooy
ftwatersrreo Boundary
o2
Mk.
t
(
Y Squ.ml.h
Harbor
>ronsl
splt I
If,
Trrboo
B.y
Broad
Splt
Bdton fhomdyke
Qullc.n.
B.y
B.y N
rt
Pdnr
{
Dabob
Bay Camp
Harmony
Jtcktn
Cova
Pulall
0'
o
9,Yfe"rr{m
b.Ebd
\
)
SOURCE: EsRl,2014; Jefe6on County, 2006; !ryDNR, 2006; USGS,2015; wDFw, 2010 o
ffid
Jw.tatuq
r
I
I
T 0."{
F
)
o
o
6
t
J
Ej
E
t
,
.F
E
*
!
g
e
!
u!,
6
E
1
II
6:EI
a
9.
o Jefie6on County CAO . 150524
Figure 7c
t
)
I FEMA 100-Year Floodplain
-
Stream (Major)
l---l \Ahtertooy
E National Forest
County Boundary
f! \l,tatersneo Boundary
L-J* t
- -'-\-;- I
Cwa €
0
,3
It
J*kaw
Con
Ptwant
Harbot
Tdton
CM
SOURCE: ESRI,2014; Jefle6on County, 2006; WDNR,2006; USGS,20i5; FEMA. lS96
FEMA Floodplain - SW Hood Canal Watershed
Sffo,
Mhtuq
B
0
I
sw HooD
CANAL
/
m\{,ons
a
6
ea
a
s
3
J
g
II
a
Ea
It
,
t
II
I
I
9
T
aItE6Ia
o
o
Jofremn County CAO . 150524
Figure 7d
Zoning - SW Hood Canal Watershed
nE
rI
r
sw HooD
CANAL
Cove
Ptm,,t
Hqbor
CM
TdtonCm
Zonlng I comm. For6t-60 Q Llgtrt tnd,iuanu. ! Re.ort-Bdnnon I Rur. Re.id.ntrl-20 county Bound.ry
! comm. rg 20 I convrnirn@ x{ord I LoorlAg 20 E Rur. Fore.t-,to I Rur. R..ldcntal-s Ev\hteEhed Bound.ry
- ErnnoqngFor6t20 IFan! IRur.Rcro.nt.FloIRurv-rngcCcnrer-'t---i f
SOURCE: ESRI,20l4: JefieEon County, 2006: USGS.2015 o
u
Wot.Xm-tuo
/
r,
ar
tr
II
1
tr
o
o
6
-
E
9
I
2
;l
t
,
!o
I
II
8
d
4
9I
9
Jefforson County CAO. 150524
Figure 7e
Land Cover- SW Hood Canal Watershed
rrdr o,
l,
I Open n/ater I Developed, Medium lntensity ! Evergreen Forest @ Pasture/Hay
E Percnnial lcey'Snow I Developed, High lntensity E Mixed Forest l-] Woody wbtlands
E Deraloped, Open Space I Banen Land (Rocldsand/Clay) f Shrub/Scrub I Emergent Herbaceous Woodlands
I De\r€loped, Low lntensity I Deciduous Forest E GrasslandHerbaceous fl\ivatershed Boundary+f
o SOURCE: ESRI,2014: &fioEon County, 2006; WDNR. 2006; USGS,2015: NLCO,2011
I t,
Cove
*l
Cove
1
Pleasant
Hatbor
friton
Cove
I
'tt
I
{rt
t^
r
-rl ,i +?t
t.+1 bF-..
!
,l
t.1
{,r .t'
.l
i:!'l
i, /.;,i
tfi *J
\;a.I -,I,,,
*''l
t
,i,
d.a 4
r-n.f iiit a) i.
'I , (1 ,,"$.)''t -1.
!
s
-,r/ *ri ':t'
I '\r
.t
l t'
I i't
t.
a
JofioMn Cdnty CAO. 15052,1
o
o
Figure 7f
#a
4
Fbh Dlstribution
-
BullTrout
-
Resident Cutlhroat Trout
-
Chum Salmon
-
Chinook Salmon
-
Coho Salmon
- -* Pink Salmon
-
Steelhead Trout
Core Hebitab and Corrldort
lff Core 1
e Core z
Core 3
!conioot
l---l utaterbooy
Elt latershed Boundary
County Boundary
I Natonal Forest
t
SOURCE: ESRI,20i4t J€fl*on County, 2006; WDNR, m06; USGS, 2015; \I/DFW 2010
Habitat and Fish Distribution - SW Hood Canal Watershed
o
u
grrtot
Mtbtu
Y
<t
f 0o
v
0 tL€l
)
ooD
L
o
fdbn
{'0
/,
)
I
o
Draft
JEFFERSON COUNTY
CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE UPDATE
Recommendations Report
Prepared for
Jefferson Countlr
April 25, 2016
r ESA
o
Port Tomsnd Bay (Credit WA Oepanment of E@logy Coaslal Ailas)
ig,t .h'frf;
E
, ,\,
ffi
5''I
lr' r
r1-l i.hi-;r.-r
I F-.li
o
O
o
o
Jefie'son Counq CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
Table of Contents
CHAPTER z. Methods 1
CHAPTER 3. General Structure and Content... .......................2
CHAPTER 4. Wetlands 3
CHAPTER 5. Frequently Flooded Areas ...........4
CHAPTER 5. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas............. ..............5
CHAPTER 7. AgriculturalActivities ln and Near Critical Areas.......... .............6
T.L Definition of Agricultural Activities........ +
I
7.2 Exemption for Existing and Ongoing Activities........... ...........................7
7.3 Options for Current Comprehensive Plan and CAO Update ,f
7.3.a Productive Use of Agricultural Lands .8
o
List of Appendices
Appendix A - Best Available Science Review and Gap Analysis Matrix
o
April 2016 Page i
o
I
o
O
o
JefiBrson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Drafi
CHAPTER 1. lntroduction
Jefferson County is updating its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in accordance with the requirements of
theGroMhManagementAct(GMA). PertheGMArequirements,theCountyhasperformedareview
of current best available science (BAS) for informing policies and regulations that protect and manage
activities i n and near critical areas (ESA, zor5). 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 Reportthat 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, zo16). 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 r8.zo.o3o against
current scientific information, case law, and state law.
CHAPTER 2. Methods
To organize ourassessment of the County's CAO, we developed a gap analysis matrix (Appendix A) to
identifo gaps and document consistency between CAO provisions and GMA regulations, relevant
agency guidance, and BAS published since 2oo5. Since that time new scientific findings have been
published describing methods for improving the success of compensatory wetland mitigation, buffer
effectiveness, and ecological functions offloodplains, among othertopics. The gap analysis matrix
provides an assessment of general consistency and the corresponding rationale and source for each gap
identified. ln 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 ofthe code to make them clearer and easier to
implement. We categorized our assessment as follows:
o Gap or Missing protection. New code provision should be added to ensure compliance with
GMA and BAS.
. Consistency whh 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.
April 2016 Page 1
o
Jefierson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
Clarity/ User friendliness. Code provision is difficult to administer due to clarity, readability,
and understandability.
lnternal consistency. Code provision is redundant (included in multiple sections) or is located in
an inappropriate section.
ItemidentifiedbyCountystaff. CodeprovisionhasbeenidentifiedbyCountystaffasneeding
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
codelanguagetoachievecomplianceorimproveconsistency. PleaseseeAppendixAforthecomplete
list of gaps and recommendations.
CHAPTER 3. General Structure and Content
ln general, the Jefferson County CAO is reasonably clearand 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 ll - 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 r8.zz.35o).
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: Proteding Critical Areas within the
Framework of the Washington Grovtth ManagementAct (CTED, zooT); example code provisions for
a
a
t
a
o
o
Page2 Apnl 2016
o
o
o
JeffeEon County CAO Update Recommendations Reporl
Drafi
wetlands in Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities, Western Washington Version (Bunten
et al., zorz); WAC standards; and, best professionaljudgment.
CHAPTER 4. Wetlands
The County amended its wetlands ordinance in zor4 in response to Ecology's recent update to the
Wetland Rating System (Hruby, u or4). The amendment addressed wetland buffer provisions and
revisedvariousprotectionstandardstobeconsistentwiththeupdatedEcologyguidance. Priortothis
amendment, the wetland provisions were last updated in zooS 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, zor5).
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).
o References to the current version ofthe federal wetland delineation manual (current ordinance
references the incorrect manual in several locations).
o Wetland buffertables (JCC r8.zz.33o) (minor changes are needed to reflect Ecologfs modified
version of its guidance for "Buffer Ahemative 3"; does not include changes to buffer widths).
o Provisionsforwhen bufferreduction and/oraveraging isoris notallowed could be improved
(current code provides limited standards).
o 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).
o Preference of mitigation actions for permittee-responsible mitigation (code does not specify
compensatory miti gation types).
o Allowance forthe use of alternative mitigation strategies including mitigation banks and in-lieu
fee programs.
o Preferenceforwatershed-based mitigation ratherthan 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 ofwetland ordinances and contains vague language that could be clarified.
o
April 2016 Page 3
Jefie6on County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
- 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, zo16), 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. ln these watersheds, non-
regulatoryactionstoimprovewatershedhealthandhabitatconditionsshouldbeconsidered. General
management opportunities for each ofthe nine watershed analysis units are suggested and described
in the Watershed Characterization Report (ESA, zo16). 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 offrequently flooded areas outside of shoreline
jurisdiction through reference to Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (JCC rS.rS). JCC r5.r5 includes
standardsforidentification, reporting, and protection offloodplains, and referencesfloodplain
standardsfornewdevelopmentandstructures. JCCr5.15hasservedthedual-purposeofsatisfyingthe
requirements of the GMA (RCW 36.7oA) and the Floodplain Management statute (RCW 86.16) since it
was adopted in zoo5. The Best Available Science Report (ES& zor5) concluded that the regulations
address floodplains and the risks of flooding from a human health and public safety perspective, but
there is no consideration ofthe ecological functions offloodplains. Ecology's Guidance to Local
Governments on Frequently Flooded Arcas Updates in CAOs (Ecology, zor5a) states that the local
governments need to considerthe 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 Ouilcene 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 r8.zz.r7o (CMZs are currently included in
the code as a geologically hazardous area).
Considering the revised FIRM scheduled for issue in zorT 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.
a
a
a
a
o
o
Page 4 April 2016
o
o
a
Jeffercon County CAO Updat6 Recommendations Report
Draft
Reviewing article to ensure it is aligned with the SMP and clarifying thatthe regulations do not
apply to land uses and modifications within shoreline jurisdiction (many frequently flooded
areas in the County are also regulated underthe County's 5MP since they lie within shorelands)
o
The above options are suggested as opportunities to strengthen consistency with FEMA Region X's
Floodplain Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Guidance (FEMA, zo13) for achieving compliance with the
National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion (NMFS BiOp) forfloodplains. 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 appearto have been updated during a differenttime period than
othersectionsoftheCAObasedontheconsistencybetweensectionsandclarity. Theinitial
designation of FWHCAs include some but not all of the types listed by the GMA and its implementing
regulations (WAC 365-r9o-r3o). 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
WACzzz-:.6-o3oisavailable. Withoutthedescription,thedivisionbetweenthetwocategoriesofType
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 r8.zz.zoo) to be consistent with the
regulated fish and wildlife habitat conservation area types listed in WAC a65-r9o-r3o and in the
example code by CTED (zoo7) (current code lacks Naturally occuning ponds under twenty acres
and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat and Waters oJ the state os
defined in RCW 9o.48.ozo and classified in WAC zzz-t6-qo).
Add provisions requiring mitigation for impacts to FWHCfu 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 FWHCfu instead of a standard buffer.
a Ievise stream and riparian buffers for clarity and potential consistency with BAS (current code
a
a
a
is unclear)
Provide summary descriptions of stream characteristics and typing according to WAC zzz-t6-
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 zo acres, and marine shorelines are regulated under the County Shoreline Master
Program.
April 2016 Page 5
a
o
CommenEd EELl]: Donna/llon to discuss
Jefferson County CAO Update Recommendations Reporl
Draft
- Revise the regulated activities section to incorporate references to the WDFW guidance BAS
documents forfish passage and stream restoration.
- lncorporatereferencestotheCounty-sponsoredstudyManagementStrategiesforCoreWildlife
Habitat Areas in Eastern lefferson County (f omassi, u oo4) where relevant (current code does
appear to integrate or codify the wildlife habitat study, but should be incorporated ifthe
County is using the study orthe 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
foreachoftheninewatershedanalysisunits(ESArzor5). Generalmanagementopportunitiesforfish
and wildlife habitat protection and enhancement should refer to this resource and include actions such
asprotectingexistingCorerdesignatedhabitatsthroughacquisitionorothermethods. Additional
actions could include incentive programs to engage landowners in conservation efforts, such as
enhancement of Core z or 3 designated habitats or Corridors that connect core areas.
CHAPTER 7. Agricultural Activities ln and Near
Gritical Areas
the Best Available Science Report (ESA, zor5) provides an in-depth summary ofthe 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, zoo4) and the Chimacum WatershedWater Quality and Fishes Report (Gately et
al., zor5). The purpose of the BAS Report was to establish a basis for reviewing agricultural activities
provisionsofCountycodetoprotectcriticalareasandagriculturaluses. Thereportconcludesthat
agricultural uses and activities can have impacts on waterquality, 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
referto the BAS Report for supporting information on these conclusions.
The following sections first establish the definition of agricultural activities and provide a history of
agriculturalexemptionstocriticalareasregulations. Subsequently,optionsfordevelopingasetof
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-zo and
AL-zo); provided, that agricultural activities were conducted on those lands at any time during the five
yearperiodprecedingAprilz8,zoo3." Newagricultureisdefinedas"activitiesproposedorconducted
after April 28, u oo3, and that do not meet the definition of 'existing and ongoing agriculture."' New
agriculturalactivitiesaresubjecttothecriticalareasregulationsinJCCr8.zz. Conversely,existingand
o
o
Page 6 April 2016
o
a
o
o
JefiaEon County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
ongoing agriculture is exempt from critical areas regulations, but is subject to the objectives and
standards of JCC r8.zo.o3o "Agricultural Activities and Accessory Uses" through voluntary compliance
JCC e8.zo.o3o 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 Ongoang Activities
Existing and ongoing agriculture has historically been exempt from critical areas regulations
promulgated underthe GMA. ln 2oo5, case law established that existing agriculture can generally no
longer be exempted from critical area ordinances (Clalla m County v. Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board, zoo5). An additional Supreme Court case in zooT clarified multiple key
terms with regards to critical areas protection and agricultural land uses (Swnomrsh lndian Tribal
Community v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board; zooT). The Swinomish
decision clarified that the G MA 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 zooT and 2o11, a temporary allowance for agricultural exemptions was in place (RCW 7oA.56o)
while the Ruckleshaus Center examined the conflict between protecting agricultural land and
protectingcriticalareasunderGMA. lnzorr,WashingtonstateadoptedtheVoluntaryStewardship
Program(VSP)(RCW36.7o4.7o5-9o4)andthetemporaryallowanceended. ThepurposeoftheVSPis
to protect natural resources, including critical areas, while maintaining and enhancing the state's
agriculturaluses. ltencouragesvoluntarylocalstewardshipeffortsasanalternativetocriticalareas
regulationundertheGMA. CountiesarenotrequiredtoimplementtheVSPuntiladequatestate
funding is available.
ln zo:.r and zorz, 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. ln zorz, 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,zorz). lntheletter,theBOCCstatedaconcernforunknownsandrisksassociatedwithprogram
implementation, but noted positive value in the goals offered bythe 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
protectcritical areasandsustainagricultural activities. TheynotedthattheCountyusesmanyofthese
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 GAO 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. ln zor4, the
County, WSU Extension, and the County Planning Commission formed an "A9/CAO Task Force." The
task force was comprised of these three entities as well as interested citizens with the purpose of
April 2016 Page 7
o
Jefferson County CAO Updat Recommendations Reporl
Draft
crafting critical areas regulations that both protect critical areas (especially water quality for salmon
habitat)whilealsoallowingfortheproductiveuseofagricultural lands. Thetaskforcemetfourtimesin
zor4 and held working sessions as well as a tour of local farms where conservation p ractices were
occurring alongside agricultural activities.lruo formal report ofthe task force was ever but
the following discussion incorporates potential solutions suggested by the task force as derived
meeting notes, email communication, and other materials.
Based on a review of case law, the VSP statute (RCW 7oA.S5o), and materials prepared by the counties
opting-in to the program, a VSP-like plan or ordinance would need the following elements:
o 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 ofcritical areas from harm or degradation by maintaining existing level offunctions
and values.
o Definition ofexisting conditions and existing level offunctions ofvalues.
o Creation of a long-term monitoring plan that includes measureable benchmarks designed to
promote voluntary, incentive-based measures that: r) provide long-term protection of critical
areas and z) 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 o
To maintain and enhance agricuhural 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
presumedtobeworkingtowardtheprotectionandenhancementofcriticalareas. 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
r8.zo.o3o(z)(b)(iii). The list of resources and best management practices (BMPs) in the code are
supported by the Chimacum Watershed Agriculture, Fish & Wild@ Habitat Protection Plan (Latham,
zoo4), 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:
(l) Livestock and dairy management
(ll) Nutrient and farm chemical management
(lll) Soil erosion and sediment control management
(lV) Operation and maintenance of agricultural drainage infrastructure
(V) Riparian management
Comm€ltbd [IEL2I: Donna to confirm.
Page I April 2016
o
a
O
JeffeEon County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
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) forthe 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
astheprotectionbaseline. FortheVSP,thedefinitionofexistingconditionsfor"nonewharm/no
further degradation" standard was effectively codified in zo:.:. by VSP statute. Therefore , )uly zz, zo:lr
became the protection baseline for counties participating in the program.
The current Jefferson County regulations governing agricultural activities and accessory uses (JCC
18.zo.o3o) already includes a "no harm or degradation" standard defined as:
(l) Maintaining or improving documented water quality levels, if available.
(ll) Meeting, orworking towards meeting, the requirements of any total maximum daily load
(TMDL) requirements established by the Department of Ecology pursuant to Chapter 9o.48
RCW.
(lll) Meeting all applicable requirements of Chapter 7.55 RCW and Chapter zzo-rro WAC
(Hydraulics Code).
(lV) 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.
ln addition, this code section defines "existing functions and values" in JCC 18.zo.o3o(z)(F) as follows:
(l) Water quality, as documented in a given watershed by the Jefferson County conservation
district or other management agency.
(ll) 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 zooo and zoo3 forthe Water Resource
lnventory Areas (WRlAs) :.6, t7, zo, and z1 or other relevant studies.
o
April 20'16 Page 9
Jefforson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
(lll) 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 u ooo
and zoo3 for the Water Resource lnventory Areas (WRlAs) :16, a7, zo, and 21, or other relevant
studies.
(lV) The existing channel morphology as documented with year 2ooo 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 underthe GMA. However, a key element of the decision is the
support for the overall protection critical areas at the aggregate orwatershed level from new harm or
degradation. Thisallowsharmorimpacttocritical areasinoneareaof awatershedtobeoffsetby
enhancementinanotherportionofthespecifiedwatershed. PreviousplanningintheChimacum
watershed (Latham, zoo4) provides habitat improvement recommendations for each stream reach that
would be relevant for determining the County's approach to protecting critical areas atthe 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 activlties implemented since the established protection baseline
date. Theplanshouldassessactionsatthewatershedscaleandnotsite-specificscaletokeepthe
aggregatelevelofcriticalareaprotectionfromdegradingbelowtheprotectionbaseline. TheVSP
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 N RCS 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
baselinefortheVSP(ThurstonCounty,zor4). Examplepracticesinclude:PrescribedGrazing,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:
o
o
Page 10 April 2016
o
o
o
Jefrercon County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
o Acres of farmland protected via easements
o Acres of habitat protected via easements
. Riparian feet protected via easements
o Miles of streambank protected
e Fish barriers removed/blockages corrected
. ln-stream LWD structures installed
r Acres of riparian plantings
o 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 r8.zz and r8.zo.o3o in light of cunent 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:
a lRemove agricultural activities exemption from JCC r8.zz.o7o. Agricultural activities
longer exempt from critical areas regulations though are regulated in JCC r8.zo.o3o.
are no
o Add provisions indicating allowances forfarmed wetlandsto Article VllWetlands (of JCC r8.zz)
with a reference to JCC :.8.2o.o3o. Note that existing farms with actively farmed wetland areas
need to complete a stewardship/conservation plan.
. Limit the application of JCC r8. zo.o3o to specific watersheds in the County where agriculture is
a dominant land use. Apply critical areas protection in JCC r8.zz to other watersheds.
r Allow site-specific stewardship/conservation plans in all zoning categories (notjust
agriculturally zoned areas).
r Allow and encourage site-specific stewardship/conservation plans to include off-site mitigation
that contributes to a comprehensive watershed-level restoration plan.
r Review and consider revising the definitions for "agriculture" and "agricultural activities" to be
consistent with RCW 9o.58.
r Throughout JCC r8.zo.o3o, revise references to JCC :.8.r5 (repealed) to be JCC r8.zz.
ComtnenEd [IEl3l: Donna, let's dlscuss.
o
April 2016 Page 1 1
Jefferson County CAO Updete Recommendations Reporl
Draft
CHAPTER 8. References
Bunten, D., A.McMillan, R. Mraz, and J. Sikes. zorz. Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small
Cities. Western Washington Version. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication
No. ro-o6-ooz. October 2012 znd Revision. Olympia, WA. Available at:
htto://www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/gma/guidance.html
Clallam County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. Court of Appeals of
Washington, Division z. No. 31283-z-ll. October 25, u oo5.
Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). zooz. Guidance on Compensatory Mitigation Projects for
Aquatic Resource lmpacts Under the Corps Regulatory Program Pursuant to Section 4o4 ofthe
Clean Water Act and Section ro ofthe Rivers and Harbors Act of1899; Regulatory Guidance
Letter. No. oz-2. December 24t 2oo2. Available at:
htto://www. usace.army. mil/Portals/z/docs/civilworks/RGLS/RGLz-oz.pdf.
Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). zoro. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version z.o). Report No.
ERDC/EL TR-ro-3. May zoro. Available at:
htto://www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE DOCUM ENTS/stelprdbroa6aqa.pdf .
CorpsandEPA(U.S. ArmyCorpsofEngineercandUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgency). zoo8.
Compensatory Mitigation for losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule. Federal Register2(7o):
19594-197o.
CTED (Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development). zoo7.
Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protection Critical Areas within the Framework of the
Washington Growth ManagementAct. January zoo7. Available at:
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/G MS-Critical-Areas-Assist-Handbook. pdf.
Ecology (Washingrton State Department of Ecology). 2oo2. Washington State Wetland Mitigation
Evaluation Study Phase z: Evaluating Success. Publication No. ou-o6-oo9. January zooz.
Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/ozo5oo9.pdf.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). zoo8. Making Mitigation Work: The Report of the
M itigation that Works Forum. Ecology Publication No. o8-o6-o18. December zoo8. Availa ble
at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecv/publications/publications/o8o6o:.8.odf.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). zorza. Guidance on ln-Lieu Fee Mitigation
Ecology Publication No. tz-o6-o:-z. December zorz.
httos://fortress.wa. gov/ecv/oublications/publications/rzo5orz. pdf .
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). zorzb. lnteragency Regulatory Guide: Advance
Permittee-Responsible Mitigation. Ecology Publication No. rz-o6-or5. December zorz.
https://fortress.wa. gov/ecy/oublications/SummaryPages/rzo5or<.html.
o
o
Page 12 April 2016
o
o
Jefierson County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Draft
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). uo:.5a. Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Guidance
for Frequently Flooded Areas. Available at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/floods/FloodedAreaGuidance.html.
Ecology(WashingtonStateDepartmentof Ecology). uo:.5b. WetlandMitigationBanking. Howto
becomeawetlandmitigationbanksponsor. AccessedNovemberzorg. Availableat:
htto://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). zoo5a. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State-
Part:.: Agency Policies and Guidance. Ecology Publication: No. o6-o6-oua. March zoo6.
Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/oublications/o5o6orra.odf.
Ecology, Corps, and EPA (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and US Environmental Protection Agency). zoo6b. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State-
Part z: Developing Mitigation Plans. Ecology Publication No. o6-o6-orrb. March zoo6.
Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/o6o5orrb.pdf.
Ecology, Corps, and WDFW (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). zorz. Advance Permittee-Responsible
Mitigation. Ecology Publication No. rz-o6-o:.5. Decemberzo:.2. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.oov/ecv/publ ications/publications/rzo6or<. odf.
o ESA (Environmental Science Associates). zor5. Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance Update -
Best Available Science Report. Prepared for Jefferson County, December zoe5.
ESA. zo16. Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance Update - Watershed Characterization Report.
Prepared for Jefferson County, May zo16.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). zo13. Regional Guidance For Floodplain Habitat
Assessment and Mitigation in the Puget Sound Basin. August zor3. Available at:
http://www.fema.gov/media -library-data/e383598rr8o6o-
q4756alez7ld5zao498b3aooroSc87b/P uget_Sound_Rro_Habitat_Assess_guide.pdf.
Gately, G., J. Clarke, D. Ecelberger, C. Schrader. zor5. Chimacum Watershed Water Ouality 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. zoo5.
Wetlands in Washington State - Volume z: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No. o5-o6-oo8. April zoo5. Available
at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/o5o6oo8.pdf.
Hruby, T. zoo4. Washington State Wetland Rating System forWestern Washington. Washington
Department of Ecology. Publication No. 04-06-025. Available at:
https://fortress.wa. gov/ecy/publ ications/publications/o4o6oz5.pdf .
o
April 2016 Page 13
Jefrerson County CAO Updato Recommendations Report
Draft
Hruby, T. u orz. Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western
Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No. ro-o5-orr. March
zorz. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/roo6ou.pdf.
Hruby,T. zor3. UpdateonWetlandBuffers:TheStateoftheScience,Final Report. WashingtonState
Department of Ecology. Publication No. :.3-o5-orr. October zor3. Available at:
https://fortress.wa. gov/ecy/publ ications/publications/r3o5orr.pdf .
Hruby, T. zor4. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: zo:4 Update.
Washington Department of Ecology. Publication No. 14-o6-o29. Available at:
https://fortress.wa. gov/ecy/publications/publ ications/r4o6oz9.pdf .
Hruby, T., K. Harper, and S. Stanley. zoo9. Selecting Mitigation Sites using a Watershed Approach
Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. o9-o6-o32.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/o9o6o3z. pdf
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). 2012. Letter to interested parties and
stakeholders re: ESHB 1885 Voluntary Stewardship Program and Jefferson County dated
February 6, zorz. BOCC members Phil Johnson, David W. Sullivan, and John Austin. Port
Townsend, WA.
Knight, K. zoo9. Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout. Washingiton Department of Fish
and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
Knutson, K. L., and Naef, V. L. :.997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats:
Riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. r8rpp.
Latham, A. zoo4. Chimacum Watershed Agriculture, Fish & Wildlife Protection Plan. Prepared by
Jefferson County Conservation District. Port Hadlock, WA.
May, C.W. zoo3. 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). zoo9. Final Biological Opinion lmplementation of the
National Flood lnsurance Program in the State ofWashington, Phase One Document - Puget
Sound Region. Bothell, WA.
PSP (Puget Sound Partnership). zoro. Floodplain Management: A Synthesis of lssues Affecting
RecoveryofPugetSound. PreparedbyMillieJudge(LighthouseNaturalResourceConsulting,
lnc.); David St. John (PSP) and Caitlin lmaki (PSP). Available at:
http://www.psp.wa.gov/vitalsigns/documents/Floodplain_Management_ReportVozoJudge96zo
Fi nal-J uly%zouoro.pdf.
Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale.
zoo5. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State
Departmentof Ecology. Publication No. 05-06-005. March zoo5. Availableat:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/o5o6oo6.pdf .
o
o
Page 14 Apnl 2016
o
o
o
Swinomish lndian Tribal Community v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.
Supreme Court of Washington. N0.75339-9. September :.3, zoo7.
Thurston County. zor4. Voluntary Stewardship Plan -Work Plan Draft. Dated June 3o, zor5.
Prepared by the Thurston County Long Range Planning Division. Olympia, WA.
Tomassi, S. zoo4. Management Strategies for Core Wildlife Habitat Areas in Eastern Jefferson County.
Prepared for Jefferson County Natural Resources Division. March zor4.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. zoo9. Landscape Planning forWashington's Wildlife:
Managing for Biodiversity in Developing Areas.
WDFW (Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife). zoo9. Land Use Planning for Salmon,
Steelhead, and Trout: A Land Use Planner's Guide to Salmon Habitat Protection and Recovery.
October zoo9. Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Program.
il
I
o
April 2016 Page 1 5
Jeffercon County CAO Update Recommendations Report
Drafl
o
o
o
o
APPENDIX A
BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE REVIEW
AND GAP ANALYSIS MATRIX
o
O
Jefferson County
Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update
Best Available Science Review and Gap Analysis Matrix
DRAFT
Article I. Purpose
r8.zz.oro
Purpose -
Generally
Could be revised to be
more consistent.
Does not cite implementation of
the GMA orthe County's
Comprehensive Plan.
(2) Does not speciry 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 zoo7.
Consider clarifying that CASP method is for
residential developments.
C ritical Areas As s istan ce
Handbook: Protecting
Critical Areas within the
Framework of the
Washington Grovvth
Monagement Act (CTED,
zooT)
Article Il. Administrative Provisions
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 r
for examole lanouaqe.
Adherence to federal and
state standards; WAC 365-
190
Standard for
jurisdiction - None
lnconsistent with GMA.
Standard for
critical areas
review process and
application
requirements -
None
lnconsistent 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. SCgEgqhgle2_bI€IA11plg
language. Taylorlanguageto ensure it is
consistent with current County procedures.
lmprove clarity/user
friendliness for applicants
and consistency with
guidance. CTED, zooT
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 e for examole
laneuaqe.
CTED, zooTStandard for best
available science -
None
lnconsistent with GMA
and guidance.
Code does not include a best
available science requirement or
note special consideration of
anadromous fisheries.
Code does not include a general
mitiqation seouencinq
Proposed impacts to all critical areas and their
buffers must adhere to the mitiqation
Adherence to federal and
state standards WAC rqz-
Standard for
mitiqation
lnconsistent with GMA.
o
Pagerofug
o o
Existing CAO
Provision
JCC Chapter/
Section
Degree of
Consistencywith BAS
& Guidance
Reason For Lack of
Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for
Suggested Change
o o o
Jefferson County- CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT
sequencing - None requirement. The mitigation
sequence is currently only applied
to wetlands (18.22.35o).
sequencing steps. Consideradding a section
that lists the steps; ggge!0plgle4.agC_jn
Footnote a.
rr-t.68; CTED, uooT
Standard for
unauthorized
alterations and
enforcement -
None
lnconsistent 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 languaoe
shown in Footnote 6.
CTED, zooT
18.zu.ozo
Applicability
Could be revised to be
more consistent with
state guidance and for
clarity.
Code contains general
applicability language
(r8.zz.ozo).
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 < for examole
languagf.
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 z for example
lanouaoe.
Clarity/ User friendli ness
Ecology guidance (verbal)
Consider merging this section with r8.zz.ozo
to improve clarity for applicants.
Section (z) should be revised to state than any
action taken in a critical area "or its buffe/'
desionated under this chaoter...
lmprove clarity ease-of-
use.
r8.zz.o5o
Coverage
Could be revised for
clarity.
The contents ofthis section
overlap with'Applicability'
(18.22.o2o).
:.8.zz.o7o
General
exemptions
Gap or missing
protection.
Code does not include
requirements for minimizing
impacts to critical areas.
Consider revising the introductory language
to: "Allexempted 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
ofthe exempted activity shall be restored at
the responsible parh/s expense.
Critical area impacts
resulting from exempt
activities should be
minimized as much as
possible. CTED,2oo7
Page u of z9
Existing CAO
Provision
JCC Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistencywith BAS
& Guidance
Reason For Lack of
Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for
Suggested Change
Jefferson County- CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT
The following developments, activities, and
associated uses shall be exempt from the
requirements ofthis chapter, provided that
they are otherwise consistent with the
provisions ofother local, state, and federal
laws and requirements:"
e8.zz.o7o (r)
General
exemptions
lnconsistent with GMA.Section exempts existing and
ongoing agricultural activities.
lemove provision. Agricultural activities are
no longer exempt from critical areas
regulations though are regulated in JCC
r8.zo.o3o,
Provisions ind icati ng allowances for fa rmed
wetlands could be added to Article Vll
Wetlands with a reference to JCC r8.zo.o3o.
RCW36.7oA.7oo: GMA
amendment establishing
Voluntary Stewardship
Program (July zz, zorr)
and removaltemporary
allowance for agricultural
exemptions (RCW
36.7oA.56o).
Also case law (Clallam
County v. \MWGMHB,
2oo5), pre-existing
agriculture can generally
no longer be exempted
from the CAO.
:"B.zz.o7o(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 365-19o
ln 5ome 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.zz.o7o (5)(b),
(6)
General
lnconsistent 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
orovided in Footnote 8.
CTED, zooT
Commented [IEL{: Dom4 la's dircuss.
o
Page 3 of z9
o o
Existing CAO
Provision
JCC Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistency with BAS
& Guidance
Reason For Lack of
Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for
Suggested Change
o o o
Jefferson County- CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT
exemptions require construction permits.
r8.zz.o7o (8)
General
exemptions
lnconsistent with
guida nce.
Code does not require mitigation
for critical area impacts from
emerqency actions.
Revise to include mitigation requirements.
Considerusino lanouage provided in Footnote
q.
CfED, zooT
:8.zz.o7o (g)
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 a5 mitigation or that provide
habitat for salmonids."
ln some environments,
manmade wetlands or
ponds may be ponds that
were historically
straightened and ditched,
which may still provide
fish habitat.
r8.zz.o7o (r:.)
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"
ln some environments,
existing ditches,
reservoirs, or ponds may
be completely manmade,
or may be ponds and
streams that were
historically strai ghtened
and ditched, which may
still provide fish habitat.
r8.zz.o7o (rz)
General
exemptions
Could be revised to be
more specific.
BAS supports low-impact,
passive recreational boating,
such as canoeinq or kayakinq.
Remove "boating" and replace with
"canoeing" or "kayaking"
CTED, zooT
L8.22.o7o(r4)
General
Could be revised for
clarity.
Exemption appears to cover
artificially created wetlands.
Remove provision. Anificially created
wetlands will be addressed in the definition of
lnternal consistency
Page 4 of z9
Existing CAO
Provision
JCc chapter/
Section
Degree of
Consistencywith BAS
& Guidance
Reason For Lack of
Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for
Suggested Change
Jefferson County- CAO Update - Gap Analysis Matrix DRAFT
wetland (see Suggested Change to r8.zz.3oo).
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 dninage ditches, grass-lined
swales, canals, detention facilities,
wastewater treatment facilities, farm
oonds..."
exemptions
Wetlands in Washington
State, Volume z: Guidance
for Protecting and
Managing Wetlands
Ecology P ub licati o n # o 5 -
o6-oo8 (Granger et al.
zoo5l.;
Wetlands andCAO
Updates: Guidance for
Small Cities, Western
Washington Version
(Bunten et al., zorz)
18.zz.o7o (r8)
General
exemptions
lnconsistent 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 ofthe buffer could
be allowed.
Remove provision or review "Allowed Buffer
Uses" in Bunten et al. (zorz). Also consider
adding a mitigation requirement and moving
the provision to Article Vll.
r8.zu.o7o (zo)
General
exemptions
lnconsistent with BAS
and guidance
BAS does not support exempting
any construction-type activities
in critical areas.
Remove "drilling or digging" from provision.CTED, zooT; Granger et al.
2OO5
18.22.o8o
(3)Nonconforming
uses
lnconsistent 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 currentfootprint. Considerthe 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 r8,zo.z6o."
CTED, zooT
a
Page5ofug
o o
Existing CAO
Provision
JCC Chapter /
Section
Degree of
Consistencywith BAS
& Guidance
Reason For Lack of
Consistency Suggested Change Rationale/ Basis for
Suggested Change