HomeMy WebLinkAbout092 99
ac: UCD
Ilfc¡fqq
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON
STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF a resolution adopting amendments)
to the narrative text and goals and policies of the Land Use)
& Rural Element of the Jefferson County Comprehensive)
Plan (the Plan) relating to drainage, flooding and stonn- )
water runoff; adopting a new Appendix "G" to the Plan )
which contains a review of existing drainage, flooding and )
stonnwater runoff conditions within the county and affected)
areas of adjacent jurisdictions; adopting amendments to the)
narrative text and tables of the Capital Facilities Element of)
the Plan to include a 20-year forecast of future needs and )
proposed locations and capacities of new capital facilities; )
directing the Department of Community Development to )
prepare revised copies ofthe Plan incorporating the )
amendments set forth in this resolution; and establishing an )
effective date; all in a manner consistent with the )
requirements ofthe Growth Management Act of 1990, as )
amended (Chapter 36.70A RCW) and the Final Decision)
and Order of the Western Washington Growth Management)
Hearings Board in the case of Cotton Cm:poration v. )
Jefferson County, No. 98-2-0017 (April 5, 1999). )
RESOLUTION NO. 92",9.9
FINDINGS
The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners finds as follows:
1.
After extensive public review and a recommendation from the Jefferson County
Planning Commission (the Planning Commission), the County's current
Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (the
Board) on August 28, 1998 (Resolution No. 72-98), to comply with the Growth
Management Act of 1990 (Chapter 36.70A RCW) (the GMA or Act), and to facilitate the
orderly and coordinated growth and development of the County. All findings, recitals and
other provisions of Resolution No. 72-98 are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by
this reference.
2.
Following adoption, the Plan was appealed to the Western Washington Growth
Management Hearings Board (Hearings Board) in Cotton Corporation vs. Jefferson County,
WWGMHB No. 98-2-0017, petitioners alleging noncompliance with the GMA on a variety
of grounds. In its Final Decision and Order, the Hearings Board found that" . . . overall
Jefferson County's CP is an excellent document that generally complies with the goals and
requirements of the Act and provides a solid basis for management of future growth over
the 20-year planning horizon and beyond."
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
1
')-
I '"' '"r"
i_U r~,;,
1 ;¿:11
VOi-
3.
Despite finding the Plan generally consistent with the GMA, the Hearings Board concluded
that the Plan failed to comply with the Act in the following two respects:
a. The Land Use & Rural Element ofthe Plan "did not comply with RCW
36.70A070(1) in reviewing and providing guidance for drainage, flooding, and
stormwater runoff. . ." (Cotton Co:r:poration v. Jefferson County, Case No. 98-2-
0017 (Final Decision and Order, April 5, 1999) at page 10); and
The Capital Facilities Element ofthe Plan "did not comply with the GMA because
of its failure to include a 20-year proj ection of new or expanded capital facilities as
required by RCW 36.70A070(3)" (Cotton at page 11).
b.
4.
Under the terms of Hearings Board's final decision and order, the Plan was remanded to the
County to address the above-listed instances of noncompliance, and County was allowed
180 days to achieve compliance (Cotton at page 11).
5.
This resolution represents the County's response to the Hearings Board Final Decision and
Order and is intended to bring Jefferson County into full and timely compliance with the
GMA and the Hearing Board's Final Decision and Order.
6.
As set forth in the findings below, the opportunities provided for meaningful citizen
participation employed in the preparation and public review ofthese Comprehensive Plan
amendments are wholly consistent with the requirements of the GMA (§§ 36.70A035,
36.70A130, and 36.70A140 RCW).
7.
On September 1, 1999, and after timely and effective public notice, the Planning
Commission held a public meeting to become familiar with staffs proposed compliance
strategy, to discuss the nature and scope of potential amendments to the Land Use & Rural
and Capital Facilities Elements ofthe Plan, and to outline an appropriate schedule for the
formal review and amendment process.
8.
On October 6, 1999, and after timely and effective public notice, the Planning
Commission held an open record hearing to accept public testimony on the following:
a. Proposed amendments to the narrative and goals and policies ofthe Land Use &
Rural Element of the Plan;
Proposed amendments to the appendices to the Plan - specifically inclusion of a
new Appendix "G" relating to drainage, flooding and stonnwater runoff conditions;
and
c. Proposed amendments to the narrative and tables of the Capital Facilities Element.
Following the close of public testimony, the Planning Commission commenced
deliberations and formulated revisions to the proposed amendments and a recommendation
for the advice of the Board of County Commissioners.
b.
9.
On October 18, 1999, and after timely and effective public notice, the Board of County
Commissioners held a final open record hearing to accept public testimony on the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendments and upon the Planning Commission's recommendations,
to deliberate upon the testimony received, and to take formal action to adopt, adopt with
modifications, or reject the proposed amendments and Planning Commission
recommendations.
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
25 ~AC~
F12
. VOL
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Following the close of public testimony on October 18, 1999 the Board deliberated upon
revisions to the proposal and elected to continue its deliberations to October 20, 1999.
During the Board's continued deliberations on October 20, 1999 the Board directed staff to
undertake revisions to both the narrative text and goals and policies of the proposed plan
amendments.
On Thursday, November 4, 1999, and after timely and effective public notice, the Board of
County Commissioners met to review the text of the revisions prepared by staff in response
to the direction given by the Board on October 20, 1999.
As modified by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission's report
and recommendations relating to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments (i.e.,
formulated during the commission meeting of October 6, 1999 and transmitted in written
form to the Board on October 13, 1999) are hereby adopted and incorporated by this
reference.
As modified, the Board of Commissioners finds that the Planning Commission's report and
recommendations regarding the Plan amendments are consistent with the statutory
requirements of the GMA and the Final Decision and Order of the Hearings Board referred
to above. Accordingly, the Board of Commissioners hereby approves the Plan amendments
in their entirety as set forth below, including the revisions recommended by the Planning
Commission and incorporating the further modifications directed by the Board.
The Board of Commissioners finds that the Plan amendments adopted herein have been
subject to environmental review and threshold determination in compliance with the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (Chapter 43.21C RCW, and Chapter 197-11 WAC) and
Chapter 16.05 JCC. On September 22, 1999, the County's SEPA Responsible Official
issued a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) for the legislative amendments adopted
herein, which became final on October 7, 1999.
Consistent with the spirit and intent of the GMA, Department of Community
Development staff forwarded the proposed Plan amendments to the State of Washington
Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (DCTED) for review and
comment prior to the adoption of this resolution (§36.70A.I06). No substantive comments
have thus far been received from DCTED or any other state agency.
16.
This resolution has been prepared in conformance with the goals and requirements
of the GMA (Chapter 36.70A RCW) and is externally consistent and compatible
with the 13 state-wide planning goals contained within the GMA (§36.70A.020
RCW).
17.
This resolution has also been reviewed against the requirements of the County-
Wide Planning Policy for Jefferson County (CWPP) and has been found by the
Board of Commissioners to be in conformance therewith.
Based upon the foregoing findings, the Board of Commissioners finds that adoption of the
following amendments to the narrative text, goals, policies and tables and appendices of the
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ORDER RESPONSE 3 AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
VC!- 2 5 f"~r;~ 1 ~-l3
18.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan will promote the public health, safety and welfare of
the citizens of Jefferson County and should be approved.
NOW THEREFORE, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners in regular session assembled
does hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: INCLUSION OF A NEW APPENDIX "G" - REVIEW OF DRAINAGE.
FLOODING, STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT & POLLUTED DISCHARGES. A new
Appendix "G" to the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan entitled, "Review of Drainage,
Flooding, Stormwater Management & Polluted Discharges" is hereby adopted and shall read as
follows:
APPENDIX G
REVIEW OF DRAINAGE, FLOODING, STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES &
POLL UTED DISCHARGES
Introduction & Context
On September 2, 1998, Jefferson County adopted a comprehensive plan intended to comply with
the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA, Chapter 36.70A
RCW). On October 29, 1998, the Cotton Corporation filed a petition with the Western Washington
Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB or Hearings Board) for review of various aspects of
the plan (see Cotton Cor:poration. Inc. v. Jefferson County, WWGMHB No. 98-2-0017 (Final
Decision and Order, April 5, 1999). Among the issues raised by the petitioner was whether
Jefferson County had complied with the stormwater provisions of §36.70A.070(1). The relevant
sentence from that section of the statute states as follows:
"Where applicable, the land use element shall review drainage, flooding, and stann water
run-off in the area and nearby jurisdictions and provide guidance for corrective actions to
mitigate or cleanse those discharges that pollute waters ofthe state, including Puget Sound
or waters entering Puget Sound."
Petitioner Cotton contended that the comprehensive plan was devoid of the required review of
drainage, flooding and stormwater run-off and specifically that the land use element contained no
discussion ofthe above-quoted statute. In its April 5, 1999 Final Decision and Order, the Hearings
Board largely agreed with the petitioner in concluding that the County was not in compliance with
the statute because the "the balance of the land use element did not contain the review and guidance
for corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse polluting discharges." (Cotton at p. 7). As a result, the
Hearings Board ordered Jefferson County to amend the Land Use & Rural Element of the Plan
within 180 days to include a review of current drainage, flooding and stonnwater run-off
conditions in the county, as well as policy direction to mitigate discharges that pollute waters of the
state.
This appendix is incorporated by reference within the Land Use & Rural Element of the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan. In combination with the stormwater goals and policies contained in
that element, this appendix represents Jefferson County's response to the Hearings Board Final
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ORDER RESPONSE 4 AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
25 r~E 12.14
I VOI-
Decision and Order. This appendix, coupled with the addition of stonnwater goals and policies in
the Land Use & Rural Element, have the following objectives:
. To review and consider known flooding, drainage and stonnwater run-off problems county-
wide (i.e., based on existing studies and available data); and
. To identify goals, policies and implementing steps to be taken by the county to mitigate or
cleanse polluted discharges to waters of the state.
Existing Regulatory & Institutional Framework
Flood Hazard Areas
Federal Framework
National Flood Insurance & Flood Disaster Protection Acts
In an effort to alleviate flood damage and expenditures of government funds, the federal
government adopted the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and subsequently the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. §4001 et seq.). Federal programs have been established under
the authority of these laws in an attempt to control flood losses and disaster assistance costs that
have continued to rise despite decades of flood management efforts.
Under the federal program, flood hazard areas are identified through the Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM) produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The FIRM
maps identify the base or 100-year floodplain, which is the area expected to be covered by flood
waters at least once in a 100 year period, or having a one percent chance of occurrence in any given
year. These maps are used as the basis for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) (created
in 1968). The NFIP provides the public an opportunity to obtain insurance coverage to cover
damages to property and personal possessions resulting from flooding. However, insurance
coverage is only available in local jurisdictions that have adopted and enforce floodplain
management regulations meeting FEMA standards. Jefferson County participates in the NFIP, and
has adopted a floodplain management ordinance meeting federal standards (Jefferson County Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance, No 18-1120-95).
Jurisdictions that apply more stringent flood management standards than those required by the
NFIP may be eligible for reduced insurance rates for property owners through the NFIP's
Community Rating System (CRS). Insurance premium discounts for affected property owners can
range from 5 to 45 percent, and are offered in jurisdictions which undertake some or all of the
eighteen public information and floodplain management activities described in the CRS
Coordinator's Manual. Currently, Jefferson County does not participate in the CRS program.
The National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) was
implemented in 1990 as a program for recognizing and encouraging community floodplain
management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP standards. Under the CRS, flood insurance
premium rates are adjusted to reflect the reduced flood risk resulting from community activities
that meet the three goals ofthe CRS:
. Reduce flood losses;
. Facilitate accurate insurance rating; and
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
VOL
5
C) r'-
L J r~~~
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
1~.lS
. Promote the awareness of flood insurance.
The National Flood Insurance Refonn Act of 1994 codified the Community Rating System in the
NFIP.
Finally, FEMA administers the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) that provides federal
funds for mitigation proj ects that help communities respond to disaster damages and helps to
reduce future damages by at least as much as the mitigation project would cost.
State Framework
Flood Plain Management Act
Under the Washington State Flood Plain Management Act, the Washington State Department of
Ecology (DOE or Ecology) is the agency responsible for coordinating the flood plain management
regulation aspects of the NFIP (see Chapter 86.16 RCW).
Washington State's Flood Control Assistance Account Program (FCAAP) is administered by the
DOE, and provides funds for local flood hazard management plarming efforts. Typically these
plans are more specific plans than a comprehensive land use plan and pertain only to watershed-
based flood hazard management. These grants may be used to prepare flood management hazard
plans that enable a community to become eligible for FEMA's Community Rating System (CRS),
thereby lowering insurance rates for property owners in floodplain areas.
Recently, DOE awarded an FCAAP grant to the County to prepare a Comprehensive Flood
Management Plan for the Big Quilcene River. In July 1998, the Lower Big Quilcene River
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan was fonnally adopted by Jefferson County.
Local Framework
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
The Jefferson County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Ordinance No. 18-1120-95) was first
adopted in 1989 and subsequently revised in 1995. The central purpose of the regulation is to
reduce the risk to public health and safety from development occuning within floodplains. All
proposed development that requires an application for a "triggering pennit" is reviewed under the
Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance (Ordinance No. 05-0509-94). Areas designated as
"frequently flooded" are identified through infonnation found in the FIRM and FEMA maps. The
ordinance regulates development activities within frequently flooded areas, and substantially
restricts development in floodways.
Local Flood Boards
In addition to local regulations, local "flood boards" have been established for the Dosewallips
River, Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, and the Duckabush River. These flood boards were fonned
to provide local citizen input into decisions regarding county floodplain management. The
Quilcene Flood Board played a central role in developing the Lower Big Quilcene River
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan mentioned above.
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
, VOI-
6
i)5
I ' ~ r-
'- r,.\]~ .
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
t:.16
Surface/Stormwater & Water Quality Management
Federal Framework
Clean Water Act
Federal requirements governing drainage and stonnwater are contained principally in the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, which was amended in 1977 by the Clean Water Act and
again in 1987 by the Water Quality Act. Collectively, these laws are referred to as the federal
Clean Water Act (33 D.S.c. § 1251 et seq.). The objective ofthis Act is to "restore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity ofthe nation's waters" by eliminating all pollutant
discharges into navigable waters and achieving "fishable and swimmable conditions." Key
objectives and requirements of the Act relating to drainage and stonnwater include the following:
. Prohibiting discharges of toxic pollutants;
. Developing the technologies needed to eliminate polluting discharges; and
. Implementing programs to control nonpoint source pollution.
The US. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) has the responsibility to develop, administer and
enforce the regulations necessary to implement the Act. In our state, this authority and
responsibility has been delegated to the Department of Ecology.
At the core of the Clean Water Act is a system of penn its called the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). Two types ofNPDES pennits are established under the Act for
stonnwater discharges:
. One for construction projects (i.e., any clearing, grading, or excavating activities) that will
disturb five (5) acres or more ofland; and
. A second for publicly owned or operated stonnwater systems for municipalities exceeding
100,000 in population (Jefferson County lies well outside the current pennit threshold).
A total of9 NPDES "stonnwater general" pennits have been issued for Jefferson County.
Endangered Species Act
Although it does not directly pertain to drainage and stonnwater runoff, the federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA) (16 US.c. §1531 et seq.) also has the potential to significantly affect both state
and local regulation of drainage and stonnwater runoff in Jefferson County. The ESA protects
listed species by prohibiting activities that harm the species or its habitat. Rules issued by the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the ESA (i.e., Section 4(d) rules) may prohibit
activities that adversely affect listed species. Alternatively, the NMFS can allow specified
activities under Section 4( d) if such activities adhere to a reliable, protective conservation plan
approved by NMFS. Examples of activities that could be prohibited under Section 4(d) of the ESA
include the following:
. Land use or water activities that adversely affect habitat;
. Discharges of pollutants into waters that support salmon stocks; or
. Destruction or alteration of salmon habitat.
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
7 AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
25 r~:)~ .. 1 ~,l.i'
'/01-
In February of 1998, NMFS listed Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon as a threatened species
under the ESA. The listing took effect on May 24, 1999. NMFS has not yet designated final
critical habitat for summer chum, although summer chum spawn in streams draining to Discovery
and Dungeness Bay and along Hood Canal. These ESA listings could profoundly impact the
county's regulation and enforcement of drainage and stormwater controls. Moreover, the listings
underscore the need for the county to preserve and protect the fimctions and values of the county's
natural drainage system, reduce or eliminate polluted discharges, implement best management
practices for development, and continue to adhere to the controlled growth principles ofthe GMA.
State Framework
Water Pollution Control Act
Because Washington's NPDES program has been "delegated" to the state by the federal
government, the Department of Ecology has the primary responsibility under the Washington State
Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW) for regulating water quality in this state. DOE also
administers the state waste discharge program, establishes effluent treatment and limitation
requirements, as well as standards for water quality for "waters of the state." Ecology is currently
monitoring a total of32 "industrial general" NPDES permits in Jefferson County (i.e., 6 for
boatyards, 16 for industrial activities, and 9 for stormwater discharges).
Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters
Chapter 173-201A ofthe Washington State Administrative Code (WAC) establishes the water
quality standards for the state. The standards are established based on present and potential surface
water uses and upon "natural water quality potential and limitations" (see WAC 173-201A-OI0).
Under WAC 173-201A-130 and 140, DOE assigns each water body a classification indicating the
beneficial uses it is expected to support. Water quality parameters are defined for each
classification. Tested waters that meet the parameters for their classification are assumed to
support the identified uses. The testing parameters differ depending on the water type (fresh or
marine) and class of a particular water body.
Washington State recognizes five classes of water bodies. The classes include AA (extraordinary
quality), A (excellent), B (good), C (fair, marine waters only), and lake class. In Jefferson County,
Class AA waters include areas where extraordinary water quality would be expected, such as most
of Port Townsend Bay and the Big Quilcene River. Table G-l on the following page identifies a
number of major water bodies in Jefferson County and their state classification.
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
VOL
8
'15
I ~;r~
i- "',.-
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
A1 f'7' .1C)
l""" C'J
Table G-l Specific
Selected Fresh & M
Water Body
Big Quilcene River & Tributaries
Clearwater River
Dosewallips River & Tributaries
Duckabush River & Tributaries
Hoh River & Tributaries
Queets River & Tributaries
Quillayute River
Quinault River & Tributaries
Coastal Waters of Jefferson County
Hood Canal
Port Townsend Bay (west of line betwee
Hudson & Kala Pt.)
Port Townsend Bay (east ofline betwee
Hudson & Kala Pt.
Puget Sound through Admiralty Inlet &
(Source: WAC §§173-201A-130 and 173-201A-l
Consistent with §303( d) ofthe federal Cle
County to ensure compliance with the stan
DOE prepares a list of water body segment
standards after implementation of "techno I
or best management practices (BMPs) (i.e.
segment is placed on the §303(d) list, DO
parties to develop an adequate manageme
Puget Sound Water Quality Protection Act
In 1985, the state legislature established th
RCW, now repealed). The primary missio
Action Team, see Chapter 90.71 RCW, th
restore, protect, and preserve the environm
improve the waters of the Sound, the Auth
. Fonnulating and coordinating policy
plans, primarily by adopting and prom
. Identifying sources of funding availabl
involvement, and educational program
. Targeting technical assistance to local
. Coordinating inter-agency programs to
. Developing research priorities and hos
and
. Reporting and educating local gove
especially through the biennial "State
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
VOi-
--
Water Quality Classifications for
arine Waters in Jefferson County
State Water Quality Classification
AA
A
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
A
n Pt.
nPt.
AA
South
40)
AA
an Water Act, DOE monitors the waters of Jefferson
dards adopted in WAC 173-201A. Every two years
s that are not expected to meet the water quality
ogy-based controls" (i.e., for point sources of pollution)
, for nonpoint sources of pollution). Once a waterbody
E typically works with local government and interested
nt plan to remedy the water quality problem.
e Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (Chapter 90.70
n ofthe Authority (now superceded by the Puget Sound
e Puget Sound Water Quality Protection Act) is to
ental condition of the Sound. In fulfilling its charge to
ority employed six key tools:
and management goals through watershed management
oting a Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan;
e for local water quality management, public
s;
governments;
monitor water quality in the Sound;
ting forums through which to share research findings;
rnments and the public about water quality issues,
of the Sound" report.
9
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
" --
"/ ""' .. r~
f- tJ r,~,,:
1~.19
Of these tools, the first, the Puget Sound Plan, is the vehicle for incorporating a management
system for the Sound. The plan specifies among other things, guidelines, standards, and timetables
for protection and clean up activities and the establishment of priorities for major clean up
investments and nonpoint source management (see RCW 90.70.060).
State law requires every agency and local government, in conducting its planning, regulatory and
appeals functions to incorporate the provisions ofthe Puget Sound Plan, including the guidelines,
standards, and timetables contained in the Plan (see RCW 90.70.070(1)). Although compliance is
conditioned on the "availability of appropriate funds or funding sources," it is clear that local
governments are required to make a good faith effort to develop and implement a stormwater
management program that is consistent with the Puget Sound Plan. Under the Puget Sound Plan,
local jurisdictions, at a minimum, are required to adopt an ordinance to control runoff fÌom new
development and redevelopment, to maintain both public and private stormwater facilites, and to
adopt either DOE's Stonnwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin or one that is
"substantially equivalent" to the DOE manual for the construction of new drainage facilities. Local
governments were required to comply with the "basic" requirements of the Puget Sound Plan by
1995. Table G-2, on the following page, briefly describes the elements of basic stormwater
management programs under the Puget Sound Plan and the county's compliance status.
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
; VOL
10
'15 c r-
L r,;",:
1Z50
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
Plan Element Basic Program Requirements County Compliance Status
SW - 1.1 Minimum Requirements for Adopt ordinances that include: The county has adopted ordinances
Basic Stonnwater Programs . Control of off-site water quality that include thresholds & min:imum
& quantity requirements that meet or exceed
. Use of best management those in the DOE technical manual
practices (BMPs) for new or redevelopment. Basic
. Effective treatment of the "design requirements are met by the Jefferson
stonn" County Stonn Water Control
. Preference for the use of Ordinance (No. 10-1104-96 and the
infiltration Jefferson County Flood Damage
. Protection of stream channels, Prevention Ordinance (No. 18-1120-
aquatic habitat & wetlands 95).
. Erosion and sediment control
. Local enforcement
SW - 1.2 Operation & Maintenance Maintain records of public & private Jefferson County does not own or
Programs (O&M) systems. Adopt ordinances consistent operate any stonnwater management
with DOE's Model Operation & facilities as such, though it does
Maintenance Ordinance. maintain approach culverts & cross-
culverts along county roads. The
county has a partial inventory of these
culverts, & maintains records on all
private stonnwater facilities. The
county does not have a specific O&M
ordinance, though it is in the process
of developing a model stonnwater
maintenance agreement which will be
required as a condition of approval
for all private facilities.
SW - 1.3 Technical Manuals Adopt DOE's Stonnwater The county has adopted the DOE
Management Manual for the Puget Manual.
Sound Basin or its equivalent.
SW - 1.4 Education Programs Include education programs to infonn The county has participated in public
citizens & businesses about education activities, including the
stonnwater and its effects on water following:
quality, flooding, habitat, & . The Water Watchers program
discourage dumping of wastes. coordinated by the WSU
Cooperative Extension and
. Use of DOE photo ready
brochures on various stonnwater
issues available to development
applicants at the county Permit
Center.
SW - 1.5 Growth Management Incorporate the local stonnwater The provisions of this section of the
Planning & Interlocal Coordination program into its GMA comprehensive Land Use & Rural Element of the
plan. Plan are intended to meet this
requirement.
SW - 1.6 Compliance Monitoring Ecology shall monitor compliance County staff have met with DOE staff
with these requirements. to assist in their monitoring efforts.
Table G-2
1994 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Basic Program
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
11
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
1./01-
.-\ ,..-
r" . H~
'- 'J r,.,':
1... 51
,....
Watershed Action Plans
Under the authority of Chapters 90.70 RCW and 400-12 WAC, the state has also established
criteria and procedures for ranking watersheds and for developing and implementing "action plans"
for watersheds in need of corrective and/or preventive actions. The purpose of these action plans is
to reduce pollutant loading from nonpoint sources, prevent new sources from being created,
enhance water quality and protect beneficial uses. The watershed planning process established
under WAC 400-12 encourages collaborative problem solving among a diversity of local, state,
tribal, and federal interests, recognizing that political constituency building is necessary for
implementation. Jefferson County has developed a number of watershed action plans under this
scheme, as discussed under the "local framework" section, below.
Local Framework
Jefferson County Stann Water Management Ordinance
As noted in Table G-2 above, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners have fonnally adopted
a County stonnwater management ordinance to comply with the Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan (as amended) and to meet the applicable goals and requirements of the GMA.
Consistent with the Puget Sound Plan, the county's ordinance includes provisions relating to the
following:
. Control of off-site source water quality and quantity (as related to quality) impacts;
. Use of best management practices (BMPs) for source control and treatment;
. Use of the Stonnwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin (The Technical Manual)
and best management practices (BMPs) for the effective treatment ofthe stann size and
frequency (design stonn) for proposed development;
. Use of infiltration (i.e., downward movement of water from the surface to the subsoils), with
appropriate precautions, as the first consideration in stann water management;
. Protection of stream charmels and wetlands; and
. Erosion and sediment control for new development and redevelopment projects.
Jefferson County's Stonn Water Management Ordinance (No. 10-1104-96) fonnally adopts and
incorporates by reference the Department of Ecology Stonnwater Management Manual for the
Puget Sound Basin (current edition) as the stonn water manual, adopts thresholds for detennining
development requirements, and provides a means of regulating land disturbing activities on private
and public land and resulting stonnwater runoff. The Ordinance defines "stonnwater" as "[t]hat
portion of precipitation that does not naturally percolate into the ground or evaporate, but flows via
overland flow, intertlow, charmels or pipes into a defined surface water charmel, or a constructed
infiltration facility."
Jefferson County On-Site Sewage Code (J.c.c. Chapter 8.15)
In addition to the Stann Water Management Ordinance, the Jefferson County Environmental
Health Division also administers an "Onsite Sewage Code" (Jefferson County Code Chapter 8.15)
which regulates the design, construction and maintenance of onsite septic systems. The code is
designed to protect the public health and safety by requiring standards that will adequately treat
human sewage prior to recharge into ground water or discharge into surface waters.
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ORDER RESPONSE 12 AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
VOL
25
' . r-
r :",~
1~52
Jefferson County is unique in Washington State in that it requires all landowners that have received
a pennit for an alternative septic system since 1991 to complete a contract with the Jefferson
County Public Utility District regarding septic system inspection and maintenance. Revisions to
this Code are now underway which would require operations and maintenance agreements for all
septic systems.
Jefferson County Watershed Action Plans
Jefferson County has participated in watershed planning for nearly ten years through state and
federal programs. Jefferson County contributed stafftime and other in-kind resources in the
development of nonpoint pollution early watershed action plans through WAC 400-12.
The following WAC 400-12 plans have been developed in Jefferson County:
. Quilcene/Dabob Bay Watershed Action Plan (June 1991);
. Ludlow Watershed Action Plan (November 1993); and
. Discovery Bay Watershed Action Plan (March 1995).
Each of these plans assessed the potential for nonpoint pollution sources to affect freshwater and
marine water quality. Each plan contained action items to be implemented that would mitigate
impacts from nonpoint water quality pollution.
Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resource Management Plan
Though a pilot project under the 1990 "Chelan Agreement," rather than a watershed action plan
under WAC 400-12, the Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resource Management Plan (the DQ Plan)
represents the most comprehensive water resource planning document prepared to date for
Jefferson County. Representatives of state, local and tribal governments, and agricultural, business,
environmental, fisheries, and recreational interests participated through caucuses to gather and
evaluate infonnation which led to the final DQ Plan, dated June 30, 1994.
The DQ Plan provides regional strategies and recommendations to address a number of issues for
both the Dungeness and Quilcene watersheds (encompassing portions of DOE's Water Resource
Inventory Areas (WRIAs) 17 and 18).. Issues addressed include water use, management,
conservation, and related habitat issues for both the Dungeness and the Quilcene river watersheds.
A special recommendation for the region was to conduct a comprehensive hydrogeologic
investigation ofthe quantity and quality of surface and ground water. A work plan for a five-year
study was developed by the United States Geological Survey for the DQ project. An
accompanying recommendation included continuing water quality and quantity data monitoring
and management which is recognized as essential for ongoing water resource and land use planning
efforts.
Other watersheds in Jefferson County have not had the benefit of pilot planning efforts, and will
require coordination with other counties. Jefferson County watersheds in the Skokomish-
. Different scales have proven appropriate for different watershed planning efforts. One of the first attempts to establish distinct watershed
boundaries can be traced to DOE's efforts in the 1960s to delineate 62 "Water Resource Inventory Areas" (WRIAs). The state legislature elevated
the concept of WRIAs through the Water Resources Act of 1971, which called for a watershed approach to examining issues of water rights
allocations, and which prompted DOE to promulgate its WRIAs through regulation (see Chapters 90.54 RCW and 173-500 WAC). DOE continues
to employ these WRIAs as the conceptual foundation for examining impacts on water resources through a geographic perspective.
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ORDER RESPONSE 13 AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
VOL. 25 r~G~": 1 ~53
Dosewallips watershed (WRIA 16) along Hood Canal (including the Dosewallips and Duckabush
Rivers in Jefferson County), should be p1aDJ1ed under a cooperative process with Mason County
serving as lead agency. Jefferson County intends to participate in this process as an initiating
government. The county intends to work cooperatively with C1allam and Grays Harbor counties to
develop watershed planning units for the western portion of the County, where the Soleduck-Hoh
(WRIA 20) and the Queets-Quinault (WRIA 21) will be addressed. The watershed planning
process will require new coordination and organizational efforts across both watershed and
jurisdictional boundaries. .
Finally, in 1998 the State Legislature passed House Bill 2514, The Watershed Management Act, to
set a framework for addressing the state's water resource and water quality issues, as well as to
provide for salmon habitat needs. Although watershed planning is optional under the statute,
Jefferson County has recently received a $242,000 grant to address water quantity and quality,
habitat and instream flows in the Quilcene-Snow watershed (WRIA 17). As its name indicates,
WRIA 17 includes the Big and Little Quilcene rivers and a portion of Hood Canal, as well the
Discovery Bay and Snow Creek watersheds located in northeast Jefferson County. The map on the
following page depicts the approximate location and extent of all WRIAs affecting Jefferson
County.
Review of Drainage, Flooding, Stormwater & Existing Polluted Discharges
Drainage - Overview
Jefferson County comprises 1,808 square miles, with Olympic National Park and Olympic National
Forest bisecting the County into western and eastern portions. The eastern portion of Jefferson
County drains into Hood Canal, Admiralty Inlet and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and is home to 96
percent of the county's population.
Jefferson County's natural drainage system contains all or a portion of a number of significant
rivers, including the Duckabush, Dosewallips, and Quilcene rivers in eastern Jefferson County and
the Bogachiel, Hoh, Queets and Quinault rivers in western Jefferson County. A large number of
smaller streams and rivers also contribute to draining the county's landmass (i.e., many with flows
less than 50 cubic feet per second). A total of five major watersheds or "Water Resource Inventory
Areas" (WRIAs) lie wholly or partially within Jefferson County, including the following:
. Skokomish Dosewallips (WRIA 16, which includes a portion of southeast Jefferson County);
. Quilcene-Snow (WRlA 17, which includes most of east Jefferson County);
. Elwha-Dungeness (WRIA 18, which includes a small portion of north-central Jefferson County
which lies wholly within the National Forest Service Boundary);
. Soleduck-Hoh (WRIA 20, which includes a significant portion of northwest Jefferson County);
and
. Queets-Quinault (WRIA 21, which includes southwest Jefferson County).
Data developed by the Jefferson County Integrated Data Management System (IDMS) indicate that
approximately 367 linear miles of rivers and streams lie within Jefferson County, as well as
approximately 14 miles oflake shoreline. Wetlands are also an important component of the
county's natural drainage system. Approximately 116 square miles, or about 6.4 percent, of that
portion of eastern Jefferson County lying east of the U.S. Forest Service boundary have been
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE COMPREHENSNE PLAN
ORDER RESPONSE 14 AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
VOL 2 5 fAC~ - 1~54
.,
c:3
,--
[',J
Ul
-"
),.
'.'
OT ,
~
('J
C,;{
VI
WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREAS
OLYMPIC PENINSULA VICINITY
N
~E
S
LA PUSH
WRIAs IDENTIFIED ON
THIS MAP:
QUEETS
14 Kennedy - Goldsborough
15 Kitsap
16 Skokomish - DosewalHps
17 Quileene - Snow
18 Elwha - Dungeness
19 Lyre - Hoko
20 Sol Due - Hoh
21 Queets - Quinault
22 Lower Chehalis
PACIFIC
OCEAN
. OLYMPIA
40
0
40
80 Miles
Prepared by Jefferson County LO,M.S.
March 10, 1999
H: \As\J MIC\R M\wriavici n ity2. apr
Page 15
designated as wetlands. The map on the following page depicts the approximate location and
extent of known wetlands in eastern Jefferson County. No reliable geographic infonnation system
data regarding wetlands exist for western Jefferson County. In the eastern portion ofthe county the
geology ofthe landmass tends to consist of shallow soils overlying densely compacted glacial till
often resulting in perched water tables and shallow horizontal ground water flow. The topography
of the land is such that there are comparatively few areas of serious flooding, even during periods
of high rainfall and heavy run-off.
Because much ofthe east county lies in the rain shadow ofthe Olympic Mountains, low instream
flows are chronic during the summer months in many streams (i.e., WRIAs 16 and 17). These low
summer flows contribute to high water temperatures and depleted oxygen levels in many rivers and
streams in the eastern portion ofthe county. Consequently, salmonid habitat in these streams is
highly susceptible to degradation caused by poor land use practices. In the Quilcene River area,
and other parts of both the east and west county, flooding causes problems such as erosion, loss of
habitat, and possible ground water contamination.
Flooding
As noted above, Jefferson County has defined flood hazard areas to include those lands that have
been identified as likely to flood at least once every 100 years (i.e, subject to a one percent (1 %)
chance of flooding in any given year). Areas of higher elevation surrounding designated flood
hazard areas may also be at risk if development substantially increases stonnwater run-off, thereby
raising the potential for flooding by modifying the land's existing drainage patterns and stonnwater
storage capabilities. Known flood hazard areas occupy approximately 6.7 square miles or 2.2% of
the county's total land base lying east of the US. Forest Service Boundary (4,263 of 194,700 total
acres). No reliable geographic infonnation system data exist for western Jefferson County.
The map on page 18 depicts the approximate location and extent of known flood hazard areas in
eastern Jefferson County. The Flood Hazard Area Map reveals that in eastern Jefferson County,
designated riparian flood hazard areas occur principally along Snow, Leland and Chimacum
Creeks, and the Dosewallips, Duckabush and Big and Little Quilcene Rivers. In western Jefferson
County, riparian flood hazard areas occur primarily along portions of the Hoh, Queets, Quinault,
and Clearwater Rivers.
Significant areas of flood hazard potential are also identified along Jefferson County's marine
shorelines. These marine flood hazard areas are subject to hazards associated with the effects of
wind and water loading caused by stonn surges, as well as flood levels in stream outflows coupled
with high tides. These areas are typically low-bank:, or at the base of steep bluffs eroded by past
wind arid wave action. Areas of Brinn on, Quilcene, Port Ludlow and Port Townsend typify these
areas of coastal flood hazard.
In addition to the riparian and coastal flood hazards identified above, many areas ofthe County are
characterized by shallow soils with perched water tables which experience reCUlTent localized
drainage problems during periods of wet weather. Examples of these areas include the wetlands
and peat bogs along Chimacum and Snow Creeks.
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
1/01-
16
25 rAr.>
,,"
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
1~56
'...."., "u.',..".'..-..'
,._-"'---,."'"... -":':"----""---'
."-"--"c_",,,,.----- """^-'~"U",-,,
N ì£ dIHSNM.O.1
N at: dIHSNM.O.1
N 62 dIHSNM.O.L
N 92 dIHSNlAO.L
""
......
0
riJ
0
Z
...:
Ç<;
~
......
0
~
0
z
...:
Ç<;
~
f5
~
~
...:
p::
I I
I I 1
I 1
---./----+----
I 1 I
I"'" I I I
- , I
I I I I. 1
---L I I I
I ----!----f------....- --+----
I 1 1 I I
I I, I ,I I
---L---_l ~ ; I
I I ---I ---¡-- -..L---
I , I . I I I 1
I I: r-.-.ï.-A- I .
_._...!-_..J.__...J_-_..I '"' ï.-."".
-"'m,...,
I I.J.
..L._o_.L._-..L.-.-
I . 1 1-
--_..L-..J.....:-..-..
~+- 0 '-' C\2 OJ "'i" LO COrn
Q)
,.--,
.-
3: 1 'if J S ~
VOi- 25 rY,;: 1r-r-7
.(""J
D
<ULLüI '"
-. - -. -., -.. -. - - ro. -.- -.- ---
-<
=
,-
['oJ
CJl
]~
c,-'
, <,
~..
tj
C;r-
fIJ..
I11III FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
z
l'-
N
p...
@
(I]
Z
is:
a
E:-<
z
CD
N
p...
@
(fJ
Z
is:
0
E:-<
INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
CRITICAL AREAS - FREQUENTLY
FLOODED AREAS
NO WARRANTY IS MADE AS TO THE
EXACTNESS OF BOUNDARIES AND AREAS.
JeffersQ~ I.D.M.S.
EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY
REVISED: Februapy 21. 1995
RANGE 02 W
RANGE 01 W
J?a~e 18
RANGE 01 E
N "It; dIHSNM.OJ.
N DE: dIHSNM.OJ.
N 62 dIHSNM.O.L
N 92 dIHSNM.O.L
C:cJ
,....,
0
C:cJ
'"
z
«:
p::
i:=o
,....,
0
C:cJ
d
Z
«:
p::
~
N
0
C:cJ
'"
z
«:
0:::
~
I £-
_L. ._.~_.~:'_.~
I . I I'
-- -...L.. -....L- .~ ~.~
~Z~
~r: _5
' I '" r;
\01- >-' 1",-
~
LD
c.Drn
Q)
,....-;
.,....¡
::g
a
.,.--<
N
OJ
'd
-'_._-----'~-~ã..--'-'._--
-c:
=
,--
f'.J
CJ\
J',
--,
"I
~.
t)"
C,:)
0--
-
WETLANDS
INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
CRITICAL AREAS - WETLANDS
NO WARRANTY IS MADE AS TD THE
EXACTNESS OF BOUNDARIES AND AREAS.
--T---
~~
I
.T---~--
I
I "-
u.k,-. fA-".
...... In
EASTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY
Jefferson I.!J.t-!.S.
REVISE[}: February 21. 1995
RANGE 01 E
RANGE 02 W
RANGE 01 W
J?a,g~ 17
Z
r--
C\1
P-.
@
UJ
Z
i:!=
0
E-<
z
cD
N
P-.
@
UJ
Z
i:!=
0
E-<
The hydraulic capacity of the natural drainage system in several areas of Jefferson County is
particularly inadequate to convey flows, resulting in recurrent flooding during periods of heavy
rainfall. Areas with significant stonnwater run-off, drainage, or flooding problems include the
following:
. The lower reaches of the Duckabush and Dosewallips rivers in WRIA 16;
. The Big Quilcene river lying east of Quilcene in WRIA 17;
. Snow Creek from Crocker Lake to Discovery Bay in WRIA 17;
. Chimacum Creek, along both Center and Beaver Valleys, as well as portions of Chimacum
Creek flowing through the Tri-Area Subarea to Port Townsend Bay in WRIA 17;
. Leland Creek in WRIA 17;
. Portions of the Hoh River in WRIA 20; and
. Portions of the Clearwater, Queets and Quinault rivers in WRIA 21.
The most severe recurrent flooding episodes occur along the lower reaches ofthe Dosewallips and
Big Quilcene rivers, where unstable channel conditions have resulted in an increasing frequency of
over bank flows, channel blockages, adverse impacts to fish habitat and damage to shellfish beds.
Along the Dosewallips River at Brinnon, routine channel changes have eroded platted lots in the
Lazy C development. Additionally, aggradation along the lower Dosewallips has the potential to
result in frequent overland flows and possibly radical channel changes. However, it should be
noted that the realignment ofD.S. Highway 101 and construction of a new significantly wider span
bridge over the Dosewallips River at Brinnon (in progress at this writing) is expected to increase
the conveyance capacity of the floodway and, as a result, reduce flood hazards along the lower
reach ofthe river. Moreover, FEMA reviewed this area in 1996, and amended the maps to more
accurately depict the location and extent of both the floodway and the floodplain. The corrected
maps locate the floodway south of the community of Brinn on (i.e., prior maps mistakenly depicted
the floodway passing through the town). No flooding was observed in this area during the heavy
rains ofthe "La Nina" winter of 1998.
Along the lower reaches ofthe Big Quilcene River, dikes have confined the river. This has lead to
the aggradation of the bed, which is now at a higher elevation than the surrounding area. Annual
high water flows often cause the river to top the dikes. This has had adverse impacts on local
residents and shellfish and fish resources.
Recently, the Department of Ecology awarded a grant to the County to prepare a Comprehensive
Flood Management Plan for the Big Quilcene River. In July 1998, the Lower Big Quilcene River
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan was fonnally adopted by Jefferson County. The
Capital Facilities Element of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan anticipates that significant
facilities and projects will be required in order to implement this Flood Management Plan (i.e.,
approximately 2.24 million dollars over the first six years in both capacity and non-capacity
projects).
Storm water
Presently, the county lacks a comprehensive countywide surface water management plan that
identifies specific needs, requirements, and projects. As noted in Table G-2, above, the county
neither owns nor operates stonnwater management facilities with the exception of stonnwater
VOL
19
')/""'"
¿;J í";r,>
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
1~51
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
collection and conveyance systems designed to control runoff from County roads (i.e., approach
culverts and cross-culverts). A partial inventory of county approach culverts and cross-culverts has
been completed by the Department of Public Works.
Though the county does not own or operate facilities, throughout the county there exist private
stonnwater management facilities designed to serve private development projects. Often, these
facilities were developed as a condition of development approval (e.g., historically under the
authority of the state Subdivision Act, Chapter 58.17 RCW and more recently under the authority
of the Stonnwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin). These private systems include
collection, conveyance, and detention facilities, and are typically operated and maintained by
private parties or homeowner associations.
As explained in the Capital Facilities Element of this plan, the county has not adopted quantified
level of service standards for stonnwater management facilities and instead relies on the
development specific standards contained in DOE's Technical Manual. In subsequent iterations of
the Capital Facilities Element ofthis plan, the county may seek to develop quantified level of
service options for stonnwater management/flood control facilities.
Finally, it should be noted that the County's 1999 budget allocates approximately $34,000 for the
preparation of an outline and scope of services for a Comprehensive Surface Water Management
Plan. It is anticipated that development of this plan will begin in earnest during the year 2000.
Existing Polluted Discharges
Development, agriculture, industry, and timber harvesting have adversely affected the quality and
quantity of surface waters of Jefferson County. In Jefferson County, the Department of Ecology
has listed the water bodies identified in Table G-3, on page 21, as "water quality impaired" under
Section 303(d) ofthe federal Clean Water Act.
The table suggests that most of the listings relate to the cumulative effects afforest practices and
water withdrawals (i.e., listings for temperature, habitat, and in-stream flow) rather than "existing
polluting discharges" (i.e., fecal colifonn, PCBs, etc.). The detailed drainage infonnation set forth
in the following section reinforces the conclusion that many ofthe activities contributing to these
303( d) listings are outside of Jefferson County's authority or ability to control, including the
following:
. Logging practices on state and private lands managed by the Washington State Department of
Natural Resources;
. Logging practices on federal lands managed by the United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service;
. Water withdrawals pennitted by the state under state law; and
. Farming practices regulated by DOE and the state Department of Agriculture.
Whatever the principle reasons for these 303(d) listings, Jefferson County is committed to fully
cooperating with the Department of Ecology in developing watershed management plans to reduce
or eliminate the sources of water quality impainnent.
VOL
20
()5 .
L rM,~
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
1" C'. --- "Þ
roe;..Q""
Water Quality Concerns/or Sub-Watersheds, Marine Waters & Lakes in WRIAs 16 & 17
This section provides more detailed infonnation and an evaluation ofthe water quality issues
affecting selected "sub-watersheds" and marine waters located in WRlAs 16 and 17 of east
Jefferson County. More detailed infonnation and issue identification has been completed for these
areas because they include the most developed and populated areas of the county and also include
critical habitats for salmonid species recently listed under the federal Endangered Species Act. As
depicted by Table G-4 on page 22, the sub-watershed areas assessed in this section include most of
the land in east Jefferson County, as well as portions ofClallam and Mason counties.
Water Resource Inventory Name of Water Body with Water Quality Concern
Area (WRlA) One or More Impaired
Segments
WRlA 17 Big Quicene River . Fish Habitat
(Qui1cene-Snow) . In-stream Flow
Little Quilcene River . Temperature
Dabob and Qui1cene Bays . Fecal Colifonn
Chimacum Creek . Temperature
. Fecal Colifonn
Leland Creek . Temperature
Tarboo Creek . Temperature
Thorndyke Creek . Temperature
WRIA 16 Hood Canal . Fecal Colifonn
(Skokomish- Dosewallips) (south @ Dosewallips)
Hood Canal . Fecal Colifonn
(south @ Duckabush)
WRlA 18 (all lands within Jefferson N/A
(Elwa- Dungeness) County are in USFS
jurisidiction)
WRIA 20 Alder Creek . Temperature
(Soleduck - Hoh)
Anderson Creek . Temperature
Bogacheil River . Temperature
. Dissolved Oxygen
WRlA21 Kalaloch Creek . Temperature
(Queets-Quinalt )
Table G-3
Water Bodies with "Water Quality Impaired Segments" in Jefferson County
(1998303 (d) List)
VOL
25 rAG:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
1~33
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
Sub- Total Acreage Acreage in Acreage in Acreage in
Watershed Jefferson Clallam Mason
Name & County County County
Location
Dosewallips 74,412 74,412 N/A 0
River
(WRIA 16)
Duckabush 49,970 49,970 N/A 0
River
(WRIA 16)
Chimacum 22,347 22,347 0 N/A
Creek
(WRIÀ 17)
Salmon Creek 15,150 6,879 8,271 N/A
(WRIA 17)
Snow Creek 14,395 9,274 5,121 N/A
(WRIA 17)
Little Quilcene 22,512 14,386 8,126 N/A
River
(WRIA 1 7)
Big Quilcene 44,786 44,589 197 N/A
River
(WRIA 1 7
Table G-4
Acreages in Selected Sub-Watersheds in Eastern Jefferson County
(Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) 16 & 17)
(Source: Jefferson County IDMS, 1999).
Dosewallips River Sub-Watershed (WRIA 16)
The Dosewallips River flows into the Hood Canal from the Olympic Mountains. The Dosewallips
has a sub-watershed area of approximately 74,412 acres (approximately 116 square miles) and an
average annual discharge of 446 cubic feet per second at river mile 7.1.
The largest landowners in this sub-watershed are the Olympic National Park (47,231 acres) and the
Olympic National Forest (22,028 acres), which, together, comprise 93% of the total land area. A
significant portion of the National Forest land is protected as wilderness area. The remaining 7%
of the National Forest land is divided between privately held forestlands, rural residential, park land
and commercial uses. There are 34 acres of commercial zoning in the sub-watershed, which is
concentrated along the lower reaches of the river at the community of Brinn on. The predominant
residential zoning density in this sub-watershed (678 acres) is one residence per 20 acres.
The Department of Ecology recently completed a water quality Needs Assessment for the Eastern
Olympic Water Quality Management Area (DOE publication WQ-98-20, June 1998), which
. N/A indicates that no portion of the WRIA lies within the jurisdiction.
.. 0 indicates that no portion of the specific watershed lies within the jurisdiction, though the WRIA does include portions of the jurisdiction.
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ORDER RESPONSE 22 AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
VOL
25 rAŒ
1~s4
identified water quality issues for a number of water bodies in WRIAs 16 and 17. The principal
water quality issues identified in the needs assessment for the Dosewallips River included the
following:
. A lack of large woody debris and side channels (i.e., fish habitat);
. Adverse effects from flood control activities (i.e., changing flow velocities and resulting in
aggradation ofthe riverbed);
. Adverse effects from forest practices (i.e., sedimentation and temperature rise from vegetation
removal); and
. A potential for fecal colifonn contamination from failing septic systems and small farms.
Duckabush River Sub-Watershed (WRIA 16)
The Duckabush River runs along the southern boundary of Jefferson County with Mason County.
The sub-watershed comprises approximately 49,970 acres (about 78 square miles). The annual
average discharge is 411 cubic feet per second at river mile 4.9.
Land use in the Duckabush River sub-watershed is similar to that of the Dosewallips River sub-
watershed. Approximately 28,875 acres are within Olympic National Park and 15,681 acres are
within Olympic National Forest, together comprising 89% of the total land area. The remaining
area is zoned for privately held forestlands (3,725 acres), rural residential land use (1,414 acres),
and parks (134 acres). There is no commercial or industrial-zoned land in the Duckabush River
sub-watershed. The predominant residential zoning density in this sub-watershed (863 acres) is
one residence per five acres.
The water quality issues identified by the DOE needs assessment for the Duckabush River were
identical to those identified for the Dosewallips River.
Salmon Creek Sub-Watershed (WRIA 17)
Salmon Creek flows from the north slopes of Mount Zion into Discovery Bay at the eastern edge of
the Strait of Juan de Fuca, adjacent to Snow Creek. This sub-watershed comprises a total of
approximately 15,150 acres (nearly 24 square miles).
Land use within this sub-watershed is primarily Olympic National Forest (9,230 acres) and
privately held forest lands (5,052 acres). There is a mixture of agriculture (219 acres) and rural
residential (613 acres) land uses in the lower reaches of the sub-watershed, with approximately 10
acres of land zoned for commercial uses located at the mouths of Snow and Salmon creeks along
the marine shoreline of Discovery Bay. The predominant residential zoning density (593 acres) is
one residence per 20 acres.
Landslides from road building and land clearing on steep slopes are a significant problem in this
sub-watershed. Salmon stocks in the creek have been impacted by siltation from forest practices,
channelization and agricultural activities.
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
23
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
, VOi-
2.....-
, 'r'-
,;) r;;lJ~
"""""'S
l¡(".ù
Snow Creek Sub- Watershed (WRIA 17)
Snow Creek flows from the northeast and east slopes of Mount Zion into Discovery Bay at the
eastern edge of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. This sub-watershed comprises approximately 14,395
acres (about 22.5 square miles).
Land use within the Snow Creek Sub-watershed is similar to the Salmon Creek Sub-watershed,
with additional rural residential land use in the lower watershed. Olympic National Forest
comprises 5,502 acres (38% of the watershed), and privately held forestlands comprise 7,280 (51 %
of the watershed). Rural residential uses comprise 1,120 acres of the Snow Creek Sub-watershed,
with 191 acres of land zoned primarily for agricultural uses. There are approximately 10 acres of
land zoned for commercial use located at the mouths of Snow and Salmon creeks along the
shoreline of Discovery Bay. The predominant residential zoning density in this sub-watershed (650
acres) is one residence per 20 acres.
As is the case in the Salmon Creek sub-watershed, siltation from forest practices, channelization
and agricultural activities have negatively impacted water quality and salmon habitat in the Snow
Creek sub-watershed.
Chimacum Creek Sub- Watershed (WRIA 17)
Chimacum Creek drains into Port Townsend Bay at the northwestern portion of Admiralty Inlet,
approximately 5 miles south ofthe City of Port Townsend. The Chimacum Creek sub-watershed
encompasses approximately 22,347 acres (about 35 square miles), draining the majority ofthe
Quimper Peninsula.
The upper Chimacum Creek sub-watershed is dominated by agricultural, forestry, and rural
residential land uses. Overall, there are 3,046 acres zoned primarily for agricultural use in the
Chimacum Creek sub-watershed, representing about 14% ofthe total land area (note: there are 5
active dairies in this sub-watershed). Toward its lower reaches, Chimacum Creek flows through
areas zoned primarily for residential and commercial land uses. Rural residential zoning is found
on approximately 8,528 acres (38% ofthe sub-watershed). A total of 152 acres ofland is zoned
commercial in this sub-watershed (0.7% ofthe total). The predominant residential zoning density
(4,112 acres) is one residence per 20 acres.
The lower reaches ofthe Chimacwn Creek sub-watershed are influenced by residential and
commercial land use in the Tri-Area (Irondale, Port Hadlock, Chimacum). At the time of this
writing, Jefferson County is in the process of studying the Tri-Area to evaluate its potential as a
designated Urban Growth Area. If approved as an Urban Growth Area (UGA), growth will be
directed to the Tri-Area to protect rural residential areas from urban sprawl. UGA designation
would require the provision of drainage and stonnwater facilities at an urban level of service
standard which could assist in mitigating potential adverse stonnwater run-off and water quality
impacts to Chimacum Creek.
Chimacum Creek experiences a number of water quality problems related mainly to agricultural
practices, including the following:
. Channelization;
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
\/01-
24
,)~
/" '"' ". r -
i--oJ r.;,;c.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
1~36
. Lack of cover;
. Low dissolved oxygen levels;
. Elevated fecal coliform levels;
. Sedimentation;
. High nutrient levels;
. Temperature increases; and
. Invasive reed canary grass.
Of DOE's ambient water quality monitoring stations located in the Eastern Olympic Water Quality
Management Area (i.e. WRIAs 13, 14 and 16-19), fecal coliform criteria were exceeded most
fì-equently at the Chimacum station. Chronic fecal coliform contamination occurred during both
wet and dry seasons. Temperature and dissolved oxygen violations coincided with low flow
periods.
Little Qui/cene River Sub-Watershed (WRIA 17)
The Little Quilcene River sub-watershed drains into Quilcene Bay near the Big Quilcene River.
The sub-watershed comprises 22,512 acres (about 35 square miles) in the northeastern comer of the
Olympic Mountains and adjacent lowlands.
Land use in the Little Quilcene sub-watershed is less protected than many other Hood Canal rivers.
None ofthe watershed is located within Olympic National Park, although major portions of the
sub-watershed are located within the Olympic National Forest. Approximately 9,872 acres (44%
of the total sub-watershed) is within the Olympic National Forest, and another 8,224 acres (36% of
the total land) is zoned as privately held forestland. Some 3,840 acres ofland are zoned for rural
residential uses, 180 acres are zoned primarily for agricultural use, and five (5) acres are zoned for
commercial use. The predominant residential zoning density in this sub-watershed (2,263 acres) is
one residence per 20 acres.
This sub-watershed has depressed fish stocks, insufficient flow during the dry season, and flooding
during the wet season. The Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife has expressed
concern about the effects that dikes and other constrictions (e.g. road cross-culverts), as well as the
lack of large woody debris have had on fish habitat.
Big Qui/cene River Sub- Watershed & Qui/cene & Dabob Bays (WRIA 17)
The Big Quilcene River drains into Quilcene Bay, located in the northwest portion of Hood Canal.
The Big Quilcene River has a sub-watershed area of approximately 44,786 acres (about 70 square
miles). Eighty-five percent (85%) of the sub-watershed is under federal ownership in national
forest management. The Buckhorn Wilderness Area occupies about 30% ofthis sub-watershed.
The rural community of Quilcene is located in and adjacent to the 1O0-year floodplain of the Big
Quilcene River. As of 1996, Quilcene had 1,308 residents. Rural residential zoning occupies
approximately 4% ofthe sub-watershed. Commercial zoning occupies a total of 48 acres (0.1 % of
the sub-watershed). There are 22 acres of light industrial zoned land located just outside and to the
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
25
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
VOI-
') ¡a..- 1"' ..........,
/ :-' r" r;:- .-"'-' <J ..
'-' 'J "",
south of the core of the community. The predominant residential zoning density in this sub-
watershed (979 acres) is one residence per five acres.
The Big Quilcene River has water quality issues nearly identical to those identified for the Little
Quilcene River. Channel constrictions have adversely affected channel stability, have exacerbated
flooding and have degraded fish and shellfish habitat in the marine waters of Quilcene and Dabob
Bays. Additionally, DOE has expressed concern that the comparatively high density of septic
systems in the town of Quilcene may adversely effect water quality.
Tarboo & Thorndyke Creek Sub- Watersheds (WRIA 17)
Tarboo and Thorndyke Creeks are located on peninsulas draining into Quilcene/Dabob Bay.
Tarboo Creek begins about 5 miles north ofthe head of Tarboo Bay and 4 miles south of
Discovery Bay. The mapped stream begins at about 600 ft. elevation. One branch begins
about 1/4 mile from, and perhaps 30 ft. lower than Tarboo Lake, which has no mapped inlet
or outlet.
The main stem of Thorndyke Creek begins at Sandy Shore Lake (1/2 mile south of Highway 104,
about 3 miles southeast of the Chimacum/Quilcene West-Valley Road off ramp) and flows mostly
south for 6+ miles. Perennial and intennittent tributaries add another 7+ miles of stream length.
The land uses in the Thorndyke Creek and Tarboo Creek sub-watersheds have not been analyzed in
detail. The majority ofthe land use is within commercial forestry, rural forestry, and inholding
forestry land use zones. There are no forestlands under federal ownership in these two sub-
watersheds. The predominant residential zoning density within these sub-watersheds is one
dwelling unit per twenty acres.
DOE ambient water quality monitoring data for Tarboo Creek, as well as anecdotal infonnation for
Thorndyke Creek, suggest that water quality in these water bodies has been impaired by forest
practices (i.e., siltation, lack of vegetative cover).
Discovery Bay (WRIA 17)
In recent years there have been serious, unexplained declines in herring, shrimp, crab, coho, chum,
auklets, and eelgrass in Discovery Bay. While tightline stonnwater drains from bluffs may be
preventing erosion, there is a possibility that some are acting as conduits for nonpoint source
pollution to the Diamond Point shoreline. Area residents have also expressed concern over a
proposal to place an Atlantic Salmon net pen in the Bay.
Port Townsend Bay (WRIA 17)
The chief water quality concerns for this marine water body are posed by stonnwater runoff from
the City of Port Townsend, and effluent discharges from the Port Townsend Paper Company kraft
mill.
The City of Port Townsend is attempting to finalize a Stonnwater Management Plan, with financial
assistance from the Department of Ecology. While significant progress has been made in treating
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ORDER RESPONSE 26 AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
. \ '~:
? r::. :- - -
~'~3S
stonnwater and protecting wetlands, stonnwater from the oldest, most urbanized part ofthe city
flows into Port Townsend Bay untreated and unmonitored.
The Port Townsend Paper Company and kraft mill, which includes a de-ink facility and a sanitary
wastewater treatment plant, is located in unincorporated Jefferson County adjacent to the city
limits. The mill has a primary clarifier and an aerated stabilization basin. The facility's average
discharge is about 14 million gallons per day. No bleaching is used, so no chlorinated organic
materials are discharged. The most recent water quality violation for the facility was a penalty in
1993 for exceeding state standards for biological oxygen demand. An order was issued by DOE in
1997 to evaluate the sewer line between the main pump station and the primary clarifier, after
effluent from a break in the sewer line entered Port Townsend Bay.
Lake Leland (WRiA 17)
Lake Leland is rich in dissolved nutrients and seasonally deficient in dissolved oxygen (i.e.,
eutrophic). The lake is infested with Egeria dens a (Brazilian Elodea), and DOE is helping to fund
an aquatic vegetation management plan to control this weed.
Success Stories - Efforts Already Taken by the County to Improve Watershed Health
While the primary purpose of this appendix is to examine drainage, flooding, and stonnwater fUD-
off with an eye towards correction or criticism, it is also appropriate to acknowledge the many
successful steps already taken in Jefferson County to restore and protect water quality and fish
habitat, and reduce flood hazards. Many of the efforts outlined in this section have involved
cooperation with the Jefferson County Conservation District, nonprofit environmental and
conservation groups, and Tribes. Though not intended to be exhaustive, this section highlights a
number of steps undertaken directly, or supported, by the county to improve the overall health of
the county's watersheds.
Conservation Easements/Land Acquisitions
Jefferson County has worked cooperatively with conservation groups (e.g., the Jefferson Land
Trust) to obtain conservation easements on properties important to the health ofthe county's
watersheds. Using salmon recovery monies, the county has also been involved by directly
acquiring a number of properties. While most of the acquisitions have been motivated by concerns
about current and potential future development in flood hazard areas, they also will reduce the
potential for nonpoint source pollutants entering the water column during flood events, and are
important to the protection and restoration of fish habitat. To date, Jefferson County has purchased
some 30 acres in the lower Big Quilcene River floodplain, which in turn, has allowed the removal
of some 800 feet of dike in the lower floodplain to restore natural river functions. As funding
becomes available, the county intends to purchase additional properties along the Big and Little
Quilcene Rivers and Chimacum Creek. Additional dikes will likely be removed with the purchase
of key properties.
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
27
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
VOL
")5
/"! r' 'r~
'-' """
1~39
-
Funding Support for WSU Cooperative Extension
Through its financial support, Jefferson County has assisted the Washington State University
Cooperative Extension in carrying out various activities and programs intended to improve water
quality. Particularly noteworthy is the "Water Watchers" program initiated by the cooperative
extension. Water Watchers volunteers receive an eight-week training course and donate over 1,000
hours annually in addressing a range of water quality-related topics, including: water quality
monitoring; stream restoration; riparian monitoring; forest stewardship; shellfish monitoring; and
community education.
Funding Support for the Jefferson County Conservation District
Jefferson County has consistently supported the water quality monitoring and enhancement efforts
of the Jefferson County Conservation District through annual awards of grant monies. With the
county's financial support, the Conservation District has undertaken extensive stream fencing
efforts in WRIA 17 to prevent livestock intrusion and reduce fecal colifonn contamination. More
than 17 miles of fencing has been erected in WRIA 17, principally along the following water
courses: Tarboo Creek; Donovan Creek; Johnson Creek; Chimacum Creek; Snow Creek; Salmon
Creek; and Andrews Creek. The stream buffers provided through these fencing efforts have
resulted in substantial improvements in water quality and salmon habitat.
The Jefferson County Conservation District also maintains an active water quality monitoring
program for northeastern Jefferson County. Data collection and monitoring efforts have
concentrated on streams and rivers in agricultural production areas where Jefferson County earlier
conducted its own ambient water quality monitoring in the late 1980s through the early 1990s. The
Conservation District cooperates with landowners to obtain pennission to enter onto private
property to monitor water quality. In instances where water quality parameters are exceeded, the
District works with landowners to identify and implement "best management practices" (BMPs) to
improve conditions. These agricultural BMPs have typically focussed on roof water management
systems, animal waste slabs, planting oftrees and vegetation in riparian areas, and the development
and implementation of farm management plans.
Fish Passage Barrier Mitigation
Another example ofthe county's efforts to improve watershed health and salmon habitat is the
county's ongoing involvement in fish passage barrier mitigation. The county is culTently in
partnership with the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife and the Point No Point
Treaty Council to remedy fish passage barriers caused by county road and culverts. Under a
Memorandum of Agreement with the Tribes, the county is obligated to match funds totaling
$500,000 for barrier mitigation. A specific project example ofthis work is the replacement of a
culvert across Barnhouse Creek, a tributary of Chimacum Creek. Nearly complete, the total cost of
the project is some $350,000, including funding from the State Department of Transportation,
North Olympic Salmon Coalition, Wild Olympic Salmon and Jefferson County. The county's
share ofthe cost will be approximately $217,000.
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
28
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
\"'.'
1 i.; '-
0')5
i r'- ~ r ~
'- ""-
1"'-'/0
""I
Bank Stabilization Efforts
Jefferson County has directly or indirectly assisted in improving watershed health through bank
stabilization projects for a number of years. These projects help to reduce sedimentation of
watercourses, help to filter contaminants, and improve habitat values. An example of these efforts
is the extensive bank stabilization project along the Big Quilcene River which was completed in
1995. With partial grant funding from the u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Jefferson County,
this work was performed by a crew under the auspices of the Department of Natural Resources'
"Jobs for the Environment" program and administered by Wild Olympic Salmon.
Noxious Weed Board
An advisory body to the Board of Commissioners, the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Board
manages volunteer community education programs designed to reduce the application of chemicals
in Jefferson County's watersheds and to encourage effective volunteer management of exotic and
noxious vegetation (e.g., reed canary grass). Results ofthis Board's efforts include improved water
quality due to reduced herbicide use, improved habitat quality, and increased environmental
awareness.
Quilcene/Snow Watershed Management Plan
As noted on page 14, above, the County is currently serving as the lead agency in administering the
terms of a $242,000 grant awarded under the Watershed Management Act of 1998 (HB2514).
Awarded in June of 1998, the grant will fund the preparation of the "Quilcene/Snow Watershed
Management Plan," intended to address water quality and quantity, instream flows, and fish habitat
in WRIA 17 (see page 14, above).
Watershed Action Plans
As discussed on pages 12 and 13, above, Jefferson County has adopted and partially implemented
three watershed action plans in the 1990s. Implementation of these plans is successfully reducing
nonpoint source pollution in Jefferson County.
Lower Big Quilcene River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan
Discussed briefly on page 6, above, this plan was developed by the Big Quilcene River Interagency
Team and adopted by the county in 1998. The plan approaches flood management with an
emphasis on restoring natural river and estuary functions and is very "fish friendly."
Summary of the Key Drainage, Flooding, Stormwater Runoff & Water Quality Issues Facing
Jefferson County
The foregoing review and analysis of existing conditions as well as a review of published studies
and reports pertaining to Jefferson County reveals the following:
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
, VOL
29
2 5 rAC~
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
1~71
1.
Existing water quality infonnation for Jefferson County's watersheds is somewhat limited,
particularly regarding water quality criteria other than fecal colifonn levels. The collection
of additional data would be beneficial to the county in assessing overall watershed health
(e.g., data regarding fisheries habitat, erosion and sedimentation rates, septic system
failures, and wetlands, etc.).
2.
Fecal colifonn contamination, temperature increase and sedimentation are the most
prevalent water quality concerns in the county's watersheds.
3.
Headwaters and stream reaches in the upper portions of the county's watersheds are largely
in forestlands (both private and public) and generally meet state water quality standards for
fecal colifonn, but may be impacted by temperature increases and sedimentation related to
forest practices.
4.
Extensive logging on steep slopes in the county's watersheds has increased the sediment
loading in a number of creeks and rivers. In turn, these increases in sedimentation have
tended to exacerbate flooding and impacts to fish habitat (particularly in the lower portions
of watersheds in eastern Jefferson County).
5.
Areas with chronic water quality problems (i.e., mainly fecal colifonn and temperature
increases) exist in the middle reaches of the Chimacum Creek watershed, which flows
through existing agricultural and residential areas. Poor agricultural practices and on-site
sewage disposal systems appear to be the primary sources of fecal colifonn contamination.
6.
Several ofthe river floodplains in eastern Jefferson County experience recurrent winter
flooding which introduces a number of nonpoint pollutants into the water column (i.e.,
discharges of fecal colifonn caused by inundation of septic drainfields and pastures,
pollution from inundated roadways, etc.).
7.
Commercial shellfish activities along Quilcene and Dabob Bays are sensitive to changes in
water quality, including fecal colifonn contamination, sedimentation and temperature
mcrease.
8.
While essentially in compliance with the "stonnwater basic" program required of
jurisdictions under the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, the county could take
additional steps to more fully implement the Puget Sound Water Quality Management,
which could include the following:
. Adoption of a comprehensive surface/stonnwater management plan;
. Adoption of an operation and maintenance ordinance for stonnwater facilities;
. Implementation of additional public education efforts regarding nonpoint source
pollution and stonnwater management;
. Completion of a more thorough inventory of county owned and operated facilities (i.e.,
cross-culverts and approach culverts); and
. Adoption of a clearing and grading ordinance to provide a pennit trigger for compliance
with stonnwater standards at the time of lot clearing.
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
30
25 rM,~
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
1~72
VOi-
9.
Though Jefferson County has adopted a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance which largely
prohibits development within floodways and requires flood-proofing of structures in
floodplains, the county could take additional steps to reduce flood losses, facilitate more
accurate insurance ratings, and promote the awareness of flood insurance (i.e., through the
Community Rating System or "CRS."
10.
Due to Jefferson County's patchwork quilt ofland ownership, it does not have the land use
authority to control many ofthe factors that affect stormwater, drainage, flooding and water
quality of waters of the state. Timber harvesting on much of the forest lands in Jefferson
County is under the authority of state (Department of Natural Resources) and federal
(USDA Forest Service) agencies. Likewise, farming activities are regulated by the State
Department of Agriculture and Department of Ecology (for implementing compliance with
the Clean Water Act). Jefferson County also does not have authority over water
withdrawals, which can have an effect on flooding and water quality.
Selected References
Lower Big Quilcene River Coml'rehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan, Jefferson County
Department of Public Works (March 1998).
The Hood Canal Watershed: A Demographic and Economic Profile, Rhine and Doane (June
1995).
Watershed Approach to Water Quality Management ~ Needs Assessment for the Eastern Olyml'ic
Water Quality Management Area (Final Draft), Department of Ecology (April 1998).
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Management Plan, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
(May 1994).
Ludlow Watershed Action Plan, Ludlow Watershed Management Committee (November 1993).
QuilcenelDabob Bays Watershed Action Plan, QuilcenelDabob Bays Watershed Management
Committee (June 1991).
Ludlow Watershed Characterization and Water Quality Assessment, Ludlow Watershed
Management Committee (December 1991).
Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Mana,gement Plan, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe (June 1994).
Proposal to National Marine Fisheries Service: Jefferson County Response to the Endangered
Species Act Listing of Hood Canal Summer Chum Salmon (Working Draft), Jefferson County
(June 1999).
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Jefferson County
(February 24, 1997).
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
31
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
YOI-
i)-
G~ rY;~
1 ~73
SECTION 2: INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL NARRATIVE TEXT WITHIN THE LAND
USE & RURAL ELEMENT. Chapter 3, "Land Use & Rural Element," ofthe Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to include a new narrative section entitled, "Review of
Surface Water Conditions and Existing Polluted Discharges" to be inserted on page 3-35
immediately following the existing naITative section entitled, "Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map." The new naITative section shall read as follows:
REVIEW OF SURFACE WATER CONDITIONS & EXISTING POLLUTED
DISCHARGES
The GMA requires that the land use element of each comprehensive plan include a review of
drainage, flooding and stonnwater runoff within the affected planning area and nearby
jurisdictions. (RCW 36.70AO70(1)). The language of the statute reflects the fact that drainage,
flooding, and stann water runoff issues are watershed basin concerns not confined by political or
planning boundaries.
In addition to containing a "review," the land use element must provide guidance for coITective
actions to mitigate or cleanse those discharges that pollute waters ofthe state, including Puget
Sound or waters entering Puget Sound. (RCW 36.70A.070(1)). Jefferson County has conducted
this required review which is set forth in Appendix G to this Plan and incorporated within the Land
Use and Rural Element by this reference.
Before highlighting the significant issues identified through this review, it should be observed that
Jefferson County's patchwork quilt of land ownership tends to reduce the county's overall
authority and ability to control many ofthe factors affecting stonnwater, drainage, flooding and
water quality. Timber harvesting on much of the forestland in the county is under the authority of
State Department of Natural Resources and the United States Department of Agriculture Forest
Service. Farming activities are largely regulated by the State Departments of Agriculture and
Ecology (i.e., for federal Clean Water Act compliance). Similarly, Jefferson County does not have
authority over water withdrawals, which can substantially effect instream flows, and therefore,
water quality. In sum, effective surface water management requires that these issues be addressed
comprehensively. Thus, inteIjurisdictional coordination, cooperation and planning must be a
component in Jefferson County's efforts to improve surface water quality.
The county's review and analysis of drainage, flooding, stonnwater runoff and water quality
conditions and regulations revealed the following concerns warranting policy guidance within this
element:
1.
Existing water quality infonnation for Jefferson County's watersheds is somewhat limited,
particularly regarding water quality criteria other than fecal colifonn levels. The collection
of additional data would be beneficial to the county in assessing overall watershed health
(e.g., data regarding fisheries habitat, erosion and sedimentation rates, septic system
failures, and wetlands, etc.).
2.
Fecal colifonn contamination, temperature increase and sedimentation are the primary
water quality problems observed in the county's watersheds.
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
\10:-
32
'>5
[" r~G~
COMPREHENSNEPLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
1~74
3.
Headwaters and stream reaches in the upper portions ofthe county's watersheds are largely
in forestlands (both private and public) and generally meet state water quality standards for
fecal colifonn, but may be impacted by temperature increases and sedimentation related to
forest practices.
4.
Extensive logging on steep slopes in the county's watersheds has increased the sediment
loading in a number of creeks and rivers. In turn, these increases in sedimentation have
tended to exacerbate flooding and impacts to fish habitat (particularly in the lower portions
of watersheds in eastern Jefferson County).
5.
Areas with chronic water quality problems (i.e., mainly fecal colifonn and temperature
increases) exist in the middle reaches of the Chimacum Creek watershed, which flows
through existing agricultural and residential areas. Poor agricultural practices and on-site
sewage disposal systems appear to be the primary sources of fecal colifonn contamination.
6.
Several of the river floodplains in eastern Jefferson County experience recurrent winter
flooding which introduces a number of non point pollutants into the water column (i.e.,
discharges of fecal colifonn caused by inundation of septic drainfields and pastures,
pollution from inundated roadways, etc.).
7.
Commercial shellfish activities along Qui1cene and Dabob Bays are sensitive to changes in
water quality, including fecal colifonn contamination, sedimentation and temperature
mcrease.
8.
While essentially in compliance with the "stonnwater basic" program required of
jurisdictions under the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, the county could take
additional steps to more fully implement the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan,
including the following:
. Adoption of a comprehensive surface/stonnwater management plan;
. Adoption of an operation and maintenance ordinance for stonnwater facilities;
. Implementation of additional public education efforts regarding nonpoint source
pollution and stonnwater management;
. Completion of a more thorough inventory of county owned and operated facilities (i.e.,
cross-culverts and approach culverts); and
. Adoption of a clearing and grading ordinance to provide a pennit trigger for compliance
with stonnwater standards at the time of lot clearing.
9.
Though Jefferson County has adopted a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance which largely
prohibits development within floodways and requires flood-proofing of structures in
floodplains, the county could take additional steps to reduce flood losses, facilitate more
accurate insurance ratings, and promote the awareness of flood insurance (i.e., through the
Community Rating System or "CRS" discussed in Appendix G).
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
33
'>5
' 'r-
e r~,,~
1~'75
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
VOf-
SECTION 3: INCLUSION OF A NEW GOAL AND POLICY SECTION WITHIN THE
LAND USE & RURAL ELEMENT. Chapter 3, "Land Use & Rural Element" of the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to include a new goal and policy section entitled
"Drainage, Flooding, Stormwater Management & Polluted Discharges" to be inserted on page 3-93
immediately following existing policy LNP 25.2. The new goal and policy section shall read as
follows:
DRAINAGE, FLOODING, STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT & POLLUTED
DISCHARGES
GOAL:
LNG 26.0
POLICIES:
LNP 26.1
LNP 26.2
LNP 26.3
LNP 26.4
LNP 26.5
LNP 26.6
To manage stormwater to improve drainage, control stormwater quality and
quantity, protect shellfish beds, fish habitat and other natural resources and to
reduce nonpoint sources of pollution.
Require new development and redevelopment to comply with the standards of the
latest edition of the Department of Ecology's Stormwater Manual for the Puget
Sound Basin.
Encourage the preservation of natural drainage systems.
Periodically review, revise and update the Jefferson County Storm Water
Management Ordinance to incorporate current best management practices (BMPs)
and to ensure consistency with the Puget Sound Water Quality Plan, as may be
amended.
As a condition of project approval, require operation and maintenance agreements
for all privately operated stormwater facilities as a means of ensuring long-term
compliance with the standards and requirements of the Jefferson County Storm
Water Management Ordinance and the Puget Sound Water Quality Plan.
As appropriate funds, funding sources and staff resources become available, develop
and implement an operation and maintenance program for public and private
stormwater control facilities. Ensure that the program includes provisions for
ongoing monitoring and inspection of stormwater facilities, as well as effective
compliance and enforcement measures.
Consider adopting stormwater system development charges (as authorized by RCW
36.94) that may be assessed against new development in order to provide an
adequate funding source for stormwater facility development, operation and
maintenance, and monitoring and enforcement.
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
34
'>5
L, rM,Ç
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
1""'-16
¡(.,.- .
\ I'"~
, : :1-
GOAL:
LNG 27.0
POLICIES:
LNP 27.1
LNP 27.2
LNP 27.3
LNP 27.4
LNP 27.5
GOAL:
LNG 28.0
POLICIES:
LNP 28.1
LNP 28.2
LNP 28.3
Protect life and property from flood hazards and retain the flood storage
capacity of rivers and streams.
Minimize hazards to life and property within designated flood hazard areas by
giving priority to the following uses: forestry; agriculture; public recreation; and
water dependent uses. Ensure that other development allowed in flood hazard areas
is of low density and intensity and constructed to avoid damage from floods.
Prohibit encroachment in floodways except for the purpose of stabilizing channels
against erosion in order to protect public roads and bridges, existing public or
private structures or assist in habitat enhancement efforts.
Periodically review, and if necessary, update the Jefferson County Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance to reflect changes in federal, state and local legislation.
Encourage community-based flood hazard management planning through
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program's "Community Rating
System" (CRS).
Collaborate with FEMA as a Cooperating Technical Community and enter into
Mapping Activity Agreements in order to update and maintain accurate flood hazard
area data and maps.
To improve the base of information on the uses, existing conditions, and
vulnerability of surface waters in the county.
As funding and staff resources become available, work to establish a local water
resource data collection program to acquire, store, retrieve, and evaluate water
resource infonnation collected locally or by other agencies.
Establish and maintain long-tenn ambient water quality monitoring sites to facilitate
the collection of reliable water quality data.
Focus water resource data collection efforts upon suspected water quality problem
areas where little or no current data exist.
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
VOL
~ 'U,r
CJ r",,~
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1 ~f77 AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
GOAL:
LNG 29.0
County.
POLICIES:
LNP 29.1
LNP 29.2
LNP 29.3
LNP 29.4
LNP 29.5
LNP 29.6
LNP 29.7
To protect and enhance the water quality of surface waters in Jefferson
Work to improve water quality in areas with identified problems.
Ensure that county water quality programs are designed to complement related
programs developed and implemented by other local as well as state and federal
agencies. For ease of administration and enforcement. reference related programs
implemented by other agencies within relevant county plans and regulations.
As appropriate funds, funding sources and staff resources become available,
implement the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan in order to protect
shellfish beds, fish habitat, and other natural resources, prevent contamination of
sediments ITom urban runoff, and achieve standards for water and sediment quality
by reducing. and eventually eliminating. polluted discharges from stonnwater
throughout Jefferson County.
Adopt and implement agricultural best management practices (BMPs) to control and
reduce harmful discharges to surface waters.
Require that animal feeding and watering operations. retention and storage ponds,
feed lot storage and manure storage facilities be located to prevent contamination to
water bodies.
As appropriate funds, funding sources and staff resources become available,
implement the action items recommended in the Quilcene-Dabob, Discovery Bay.
and Ludlow watershed action plans.
In coordination with adjacent jurisdictions and as funding sources become available,
seek to develop, adopt and implement watershed and basin plans to reduce nonpoint
sources pollution.
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
36
()5
F 'u-
'- r ""~
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
1~'7S
VOI-
SECTION 4: INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL NARRATIVE TEXT AND TABLE WITHIN
THE CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT. Chapter 12, "Capital Facilities Element" of the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to include the following narrative text
and tables in a new section entitled, "20-Year Capital Facilities Projections" to be inserted on page
12-14 following the existing narrative which accompanies Table 12-9. The new narrative text and
tables shall read as follows:
20- YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECTIONS
In response to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB)
Amended Final Decision & Order, Case No. 98-2-0017, this section includes 20-year forecasts of
future facilities needs, as well as proposed locations and capacities of these facilities, as required
under RCW 36.70A.070(3).
As a preface, it should be noted that Jefferson County did include several 20-year capital facilities
projections using different Level of Service Standards and financial analyses within the documents
supporting the initial adoption of this Comprehensive Plan (August 28, 1998) (see page 12-2,
"Support Documents"). This data was updated in early 1998 in anticipation that it would be
necessary for subsequent updates ofthe Comprehensive Plan, but intentionally omitted from the
text of the CFE because it was erroneously believed that only a six-year Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) was required under the GMA. This section includes more up to date facilities forecasts based
upon the Levels of Service adopted in this element.
Using the Level of Service (LOS) standards adopted under CFP 1.1 of the CFE and the Population
Growth Assumptions in Table 12-2, Table 12-10, "Summary Twenty Year Infrastructure Needs and
Capacity Projection 1998-2018"calculates facility needs based on population and the LOS
standards contained in the CFE (in accordance with 36.70A.070(12)(b) and indicates the capacity
(reserve/deficit) for the various facilities (in accordance with 36.70A.070(12)(c) after the
completion of the projects contained in the 6 Year Capital Facilities Plan of the CFE in accordance
with 36. 70A.070(12)( d). Table 12-10 uses the same fonnulas described under Question #1 on page
12-4 of the CFE to calculate the "Need/Capacity" for each six-year period (2003, 2009, and 2015)
and for 2018. Table 10-12 also contains the 2003 fiscal year "Capacity Status" that includes
additional capacities generated through the six-year CIP contained in the CFE. The additional
capacity is added to the "Existing Inventory" to calculate the remaining years "Need/Capacity"
quantities.
With regard to the location ofprojected capacity-related facilities, Jefferson County is in the
process of developing the siting analysis for a proposed new Justice Facility. The county has
narrowed the potential location of this future facility to three possible sites, with a site situated in
southwest portion ofthe City of Port Townsend currently identified as "preferred." Although
considerable additional work remains before finalizing the location for this non-essential public
facility, the potentiallocation(s) have been defined. Any potential new "capacity" projects, such as
a community center, would be located in proximity to the County's principal population centers
(e.g., the Tn-Area, Quilcene, or Brinnon). All other "capacity" projects are anticipated to involve
expansions to existing facilities and will therefore not require a complex site selection and
acquisition process.
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
VOi-
37
í)-
/ :-' I'" ; r ~
-U """.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
1~79
Printed 11/9/99
',':C'.
Tabl,
ION: 1998-:
1996 LOS
BENCHMARK
LOS C or better
LOS D or better
, "
79
1,621
1.57
558
789
1,619
1,828
0.24
1.30
18.00
0.38
1.90
1.70
3.99
Pending
JEFFERSON COUNTY WASHINGTON
CAPITAL FA CILITIES PLAN
SUMlVIARY 'n\lENTY-YEAR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND CAPACITY PROJECT
'" " '
, .
Categories of Public Capital Facilit:lès" ",'
'CapaCity Analysis "
LOS UNiT OF MEASURE
€ATEGORYA: CONCURRENTWITHDEVELOPMENT:'
A.I Rural Road Facilities
A.2 UGA & Desi nated Tourist Road Facilities
,',',.
'".,,',
Sq.Ft./I,OOO Population
Sq.FL/I,OOO Population
2,313
39,083
Beds/I,OOO Population
Sq.Ft./I,OOO Population
58
9,451
Sq.Ft./I,OOO Population
Sq.Ft./1.000 Population
Sq.Ft./I,OOO Population
Acres/I 000 Population
Acres/IOOO Population
Acre~/IOOO Population
Miles/IOOO Population
Acres/IOOO Population
Acres/IOOO Population
Pound~/Per¡;on/Day
Based on Stormwater Ord.
20,367
41,777
42,962
5.50
30.90
422.80
15.00
45.80
40.70
3.99
Plan in Progre~s
2015
38.698
2018
40.761
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
VD:-
) C)'.. "',_.
>- r I.~:"
~ '--""0.
, '.....~.,
,
79
1,450
2.08
656
1.310
1.860
1,738
0.14
0.51
1150
0.52
1.52
1-30
3.99
Pending
12-10
)18
'\~ ~"""...." i":::,.::':"::,,:::',, , ';',,/<' '"'",,, "",:",., ":" ";:"::::'\:?' ;,.,.,,:\;=,~,~~ (':i":-":i"":,,,,, 'i" >""',,, ':, "':",:::"> , "",:-::: ~,-"""
",'
":,,,:" ,,' ",',c,,' ..""..:" """::',, "'" /"", "., ..'; -",,'; ::-'",,:c,' ...:,," ",,: ,," """" ,
rEED/CAPACITY 1998 NEED/CAPACITY 2003 FY 2003: CAPACITY STATUS NEED/CAPACITY 20M NEED/CAPACITY 2015 NEED/CAPACITY 2108
Reservc/(Delicil) Reservc/(Ddicil) W/ SIX-YEAR crp Reserve/( Detïcil) Reserve/( Deticit) Reservel(Dehcin
",", "" :'," "":":::':",-":"",:,:":,'/i,,,,,,,,:,,,,"'7,,;:',~"::,,;:"~"i:",; ", ,,' ,:"",,:--; :",;'-j,',:;::::':c:'; ", :, ,:"-:,:;,:"":",,,,;,,,,",,--,:'), '"':/'"::""',,'!,,,,, ';"""i "::i;~:,:',:"77',;,,,,"
.. .,-- ",,"'" .... ,"
No Capacity Deficiency No Capacity Deficiency No Capacity Deficiency No Capacity Deficiency No Capacity Deficiency No Capacity Deficiency
No Capacity Deficiency No Capaciry Deficiency No Capacity Deficiency No Capacity Deficiency No Capacity Deficiency No Capacity Deficiency
"::':',:":',",",...":':::' "t",;':;;", ",' """":,,1 ..,.:,..,":,:,,:,,"" -- "" >,,:':,;\ """;.,":; ""'-"'..: "'" I:'"",",',':""""'" "",,, ""'",, '--::c= ""'::::"""/"":';';"..i"",;",:",
' , .""",,','" "',,"~'" >" "",',""
189 (58) (58) (387) (744) (907)
98 (4,434) (1,285) (7,321) (13,880) (16,871)
2 (4) 0 (9) (18) (22)
(8,186) (10,237) (181) (2,912) (5,879) (7,232)
(14,854) (18,949) 684 (4,770) (10,695) (13.397)
(8,231) (14,045) (14,045) (21,789) (30,20r) (34,038)
(3.766) (9,199) (1,959) (9,194) (17,055) (20,641 )
1.74 1.30 1.30 0.81 0.08 (0.21)
17.19 15.59 15.59 13.83 11.16 10,11
113,61 77.66 77.66 29,79 (22.23) (45,95)
1.02 (0,61) (0,61) (2,77) (5.12) (6,20)
4.93 0.18 0.18 (6.15) (13.02) (16,16)
5,75 1.68 1.68 (3.73) (9,61) (12.29)
3,99 3,99 3.99 3.99 3,99 3.99
Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending Pending
8
'101-
'-") P"'"
""J
/ ' '" r ..
....... , 1;" '
"1""""--'1
..L"'" '-"
RESOLUTION NO, 92-99
NOVEMBER 4,1999
SECTION 5: TRANSMITTAL TO DCTED. The Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
shall transmit a copy ofthis resolution to the State Department of Community, Trade and
Economic Development (DCTED) within ten (10) days of adoption ofthis resolution.
SECTION 6: PREPARATION OF REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COPIES. Copies
of a Revised Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, incorporating the changes to the plan
narrative, goals and policies, tables and appendices set forth in this resolution shall be prepared by
Jefferson County Department of Community Development staff and shall be available for public
inspection within sixty (60) days of the adoption of this ordinance.
SECTION 7: EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments set forth in this resolution shall take effect
and be in force 5 days following the publication of notice of adoption of this resolution in the
manner provided by law.
SECTION 8: SEVERABILITY. In the event anyone or more ofthe provisions of this resolution
shall for any reason be held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect or invalidate nay other
provision of this resolution, but this resolution shall be construed and enforced as if such invalid
provision had not been contained therein; PROVIDED, that any provision which shall for any
reason be held by reason of its extent to be invalid shall be deemed to be in effect to the extent
permitted by law.
Adopted by the Board of Commissioners for Jefferson County, Washington, at a regular
meeting thereof, held this 1.)-- day of November 1999.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
39
")~
L;:) r,J(;
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION
1~32
vni
ATTEST:
d 0JhJ &{ . D~ t:V\~~
Lorna Delaney
Clerk of the Board /
WWGMHB COMPLIANCE
ORDER RESPONSE
40
')5
I r' ~r~
'- ~,'
VCi-
t~33
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS RESOLUTION