HomeMy WebLinkAbout056 06
~C'. jrl "]qlp)o~
\n.:~')
1::x: D
RESOLUTION NO. 56 -06
CHIMACUM WATERSHED AGRICULTURE, FISH &WILDLIFE PROTECTION
PLAN
THE CHIMACUM WATERSHED AGRICULTURE, FISH &WILDLIFE PROTECTION
PLAN provides a voluntary framework for landowners for the protection of fish and wildlife
habitat in a manner that conserves existing and ongoing agricultural operations in the watershed.
WHEREAS, Jefferson County asked the Jefferson County Conservation District to develop a
protection plan for fish and wildlife while conserving existing agriculture in order to meet the
requirements of a settlement agreement between Jefferson County and the Washington
Environmental Council; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Conservation District held a public meeting in July 2002 with
landowners in the Chimacum Creek watershed to brief them and solicit participation in a
committee of landowners (the Chimacum Watershed AglGMA Planning Committee) to assist in
plan development; and
WHEREAS, the Chimacum Watershed AglGMA Planning Committee, the Jefferson County
Conservation District and county staff worked on development of the Chimacum Watershed
Agriculture Fish & Wildlife Plan in a manner that met the goals set out for the plan to balance
the needs of landowners and protection of the fish and wildlife habitat; and
WHEREAS, the Chimacum Watershed Agriculture Fish & Wildlife Plan was presented in a
public meeting in the watershed on January 24th, 2005 and was met with approval of those
attending; and
WHEREAS, the Chimacum Watershed Agriculture Fish & Wildlife Plan is and was available to
the community for community comment and/or criticism for many months before the date of this
Resolution; and
WHEREAS, The Jefferson County Commissioners held a public hearing on September 5, 2006
to hear public comment on the Chimacum Watershed Agriculture Fish and Wildlife Protection
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson County Commissioners considered and weighed the oral and written
testimony provided to them by interested citizens, including the testimony of the staff person
from the Jefferson County Conservation District.
RESOLUTION NO. 56-06
Page 2
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Jefferson Board of County
Commissioners as follows:
The Chimacum Watershed Agriculture, Fish & Wildlife Plan as presented by the Jefferson County
Conservation District be and hereby is approved.
ADOPTED this 11 th day of September, 2006.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
..
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Dc!2~ ~ 9'/1 I ZaJ b
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
Jefferson County
"
CHIMACUM WATERSHED
AGRICULTURE, FISH & WILDLIFE
PROTECTION PLAN
Prepared by
Chimacum Watershed AG/GMA Committee
Jefferson Co. Conservation District
December, 2004
"
In March, 2002 Jefferson County and Washington En ironmental Council entered into an
agreement to address several environmental issues in he Unified Development Code (UDC)
(Ordinance 11-1218-00) in an effort to CQmply VV,'h the Washington State Growth
Management Act, RCW 36. 70A. One of the issues as Agricultural Exemptions in the
Unified Development Code exempting all agricultural ractices from the UDC that relate to
'environmentally sensitive areas'. Th County agreed to:
· Amend the UDC so that it would only apply to lands of'long-term agricultural significance",
which was later amended to 'Existing nd ongoing agriculture'.
· Commit staff and resources to collaborate wit other stakeholders to develop a
watershed-level plan for protection of fish and wildl' habitat on lands where 'existing and
ongoing' agriculture is being practiced. The first p ority for planning was the Chimacum
Creek Watersh d.
Jefferson County provided funding to the Jefferson Co nty Conservation District to work with
Chima cum Creek watershed agricultural stakeholders t develop a voluntary watershed-level
plan for protection of fish and wildlife habitat on 'existt g and ongoing' agricultural lands in
that watershed. In July, 2002 a letter was sent to all rmers in the Chimacum Watershed
inviting them to attend a meeting to review th$ terms f the settlement agreement between
Jefferson County and WEC, and to explore interest in articipating on a committee to draft a
voluntary plan. In September, 2002 a committee 0 agricultural landowners from the
Chimacum Cr. watershed was formed, staffed by Jeffe 'Son County Natural Resources Dept.
and Jefferson County Conservation District s~ff. Thi committee proceeded to look at the
issues affecting agriculture and fish & wildlife Ihabitat rotection and developed this plan to
address those issues Ion a vol ntary basis.
Acknowl
Jefferson County and Jefferson County Cons~rvation istrict offer deep appreciation to the
Chimacum Watershed Ag/GMA Planning Committee fi r their time and effort involved in the
creation of this plan. Committee members ineluded Li e & Kay Christian, Loring & Martha
Bemis, Michael Kitchen, Russ and Carol Laaser and L onard Sarin. Also to Jerry Gorsline
(WEC) for his support of the process and valu~d input. Staff assisting the committee were
Gabrielle LaRoche (Jefferson Co.) and AI Lattlam (Je rson County Conservation District).
Josh Peters (Jefferson Co.) reviewed the plan and hel d make it compatible with the various
sections of the Jefferson County Comprehensiwe Plan nd UDC. Thanks also to Skagit Co.
as some of this plans content was gleaned m their Ag/GMA process.
Prepar~d by:
AI Latham
Jefferson Co. Conservation District
205 W. Patison St.Pol1 Hadl WA 98339
December, 2004
2 Version 1/11/05
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface/acknowledgments. . . .. .. . .. . . .. .. .... ... .... . . .. .. . .. .. .. . ... ... .. .... ...... .. . ..... .. ........ ... 2
Table of Contents. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . 3
Map - Chimacum Watershed, Existing/ongoing Agriclture....................................... 4
Purpose and Intent ......................................................................................... 5
Applicability .. .. . . . . .. . . .. .. . .. .. . . .. . .. .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. .. . .. .. . . .. . .. .. 7
No Harm or Degradation Standard..................................................................... 8
Agricultural Practice Standards for Stream Protection .......................... ..... ............ 9
Resource Management System.......... ................ ..... ......................................... 11
Voluntary Compliance Habitat Improvements...................................................... 11
Habitat Improvements.................................................................................... 11
Funding.... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .... . .. ..... . . .. .... ... .. . .. .... . .... . .. . .. . ... . . . .. . .. . . .... . ... .. . .. . . .. ... .. . ... .. 12
Appendix A: WA Water Quality Standards. ......................... ......... ................. ....... 14
Appendix B: Reference List.............................................................................. 15
Appendix C: Best Management Practices References............................................ 16
Appendix D: Programs for Funding Habitat Protectionllmprovements......................... 16
Appendix E: Definitions..................................................................................... 17
Appendix F: Jeff. Co. Conservation District Water Quality Monitoring Program............. 20
Appendix G: Watershed Characterization ............................................................ 22
Appendix H: Stream Reach Descriptions.............................................................. 26
Appendix I: Riparian Management Guide (to be developed) .................................... 38
3
Version 1/11/05
~tiI'QlOngaifl(J "riGul~
C~mC.-.k W..rs1'1e(l
Jefl'et$onCo.~ WA
!",',"'.,', '"'..",,....011..,. "....,', 'c,~.,.,.",".'.&" ."..11, .,.._.."', 'lIf1ll1d.,",.,
.... "......~
~1.inIJs
.~~
..
o
,
1 Mife$
,
4
Version 1/11/05
Agriculture, Fish & Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan
"A scientifically credible strategy should be based on identifying what is possible, attainable and
sustainable. H Independent Science Panel, May 2000
(1) Purpose and Intent
Agriculture (ag), fish and wildlife are important components of the Chimacum Creek Watershed. This
plan provides a voluntary framework for the protection of fish and wildlife habitat in a manner that
conserves and protects existing and ongoing agricultural operations in the watershed.1 The plan will:
(1) Protect the existing functions and values of fish and wildlife habitat in and adjacent to streams on
land used for agriculture. For purposes of this Section, "existing functions and values" shall mean the
following:
(a) Water quality, as documented "Water Quality Screening Report, July 2001 - June 2003" by
the Jefferson County Conservation District
(b) The existing presence or absence of large woody debris within the stream as documented
in the "Salmon & Steelhead Habitat limiting Factors" for WRIA 17 (Nov. 2002 and WRIA 16 (June
2003)..
(c) The existing riparian buffer characteristics and width, including but not limited to the
existing amount of shade provided by the existing riparian buffer. as documented by 2000 DNR aerial
photography.
(d) The existing channel morphology as documented in the 2000 DNR Aerial Photography.
(2) Conserve and protect existing and ongoing agriculture that is conducted adjacent to streams.
Since many of the areas that are subject to this plan are located in the floodplains where substantial
drainage infrastructure has been constructed. this plan also must accommodate those
existing drainage functions. Agricultural operations on lands which are not included in the definition of
existing and ongoing agriculture are required to comply with standard stream and wetland buffers as
described in of Sections 3.6.8 and 3.6.9 of the UDC.
It is the goal of Jefferson County and agricultural landowners to implement the provisions of this plan
consistent with local. State and Federal programs to protect the health, welfare and safety of the
community; accommodate continued operation and maintenance of the drainage infrastructure; and to
protect existing and ongoing agriculture. fish and wildlife habitat and anadromous fisheries, as
mandated by the Growth Management Act (GMA). This plan is intended, to the maximum extent
possible. to rely on and coordinate with but not substitute for or duplicate, other State and Federal
programs that address agricultural activities in a manner that protects water quality and fish habitat.
See Appendix D for a list containing some of the above referenced programs.
Background:
Impacts on Fish & Wildlife Habitat by Agriculture:
The major impacts of agriculture on fish and wildlife habitat in the Chimacum Creek watershed have
been the channelization of the stream course, removal of riparian vegetation; draining of wetlands;
bank erosion due to livestock access. and introduction of reed canarygrass to the watershed. The
1 "Existing and ongoing agriculture" is defined as any agricultural activities conducted on an ongoing basis on
lands enrolled in the Open Space Tax Program for agriculture or designated as Agricultural lands of long-Term
Commercial Significance on the official map of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations, provided that
agricultural activities were conducted on those lands at anytime during the five-year period preceding April 28,
2003. Agricultural use ceases when the area on which it is conducted is converted to a nonagricultural use.
[Jefferson County Unified Development Code, Section 2 Definitions]
5
Version 1/11/05
majority of these impacts occurred from the late 18GO's thro h the 1960's. While detrimental to
salmon ids, the agricultural land use in the watershed has pr ided habitat for migrating trumpeter
swans and waterfowl, which utilize flooded pastures and ha lelds in winter.
Since the 1970's, efforts by individual landowners, a ncies and community groups have had
positive impacts on fish and wildlife habitat within the waters ed. Most streams and ditches have
been fenced to exclude livestock from the stream and strea banks; best management practices
such as roof water management systems, pasture manage nt, and livestock waste management
have been implemented in a way that improved wa~r quali ; over 3.5 miles of fish habitat
improvement projects have been implemented, and over 70 cres of riparian vegetation planted.
I
Impacts on Agriculture of Fish and Wildlife habitat prote 'on and improvements:
One component of both the GMA and Jefferson County Co rehensive Plan is the protection of
Agricultural Land of Long-Term Commercial SignifiQance (A 'cultural Lands). One criterion for
identifying Agricultural Lands is that the soils have been det ined to be "prime soils" by the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Most of
the soils within the areas affected by this plan are ptime "if dined and not flooded during the growing
season." To continue to be viable for agriculture it is essenti I to maintain the drainage on these soils.
Fish and wildlife habitat improvements that have negative im acts on drainage will reduce the
acreage of Agricultural Lands available for producti<lm. For e ample, fencing livestock out of the
stream, while improving water quality and riparian habitat, h s resulted in low gradient reaches being
clogged with reed canarygrass, causing problems f<l>r both a riculture and fish (low dissolved oxygen
levels, lack of habitat diversity). Planting extensive, "no touc "riparian buffers will also reduce the
amount of land available for agriculture. In addition, as trees within these buffers grow in height, the
shading effect on land adjacent to the buffer will decrease a productivity outside the buffer.
Maintainln Existln and On oin A riculture a d Prote tin Fish and Wildlife Habitat:
Maintaining existing agricultural capability and prot ing fish and wildlife habitat are
compatible if done correctly. Attempting to restore fish and i1dlife habitat to pre-European settlement
conditions throughout the watershed is not compatitl>le with aintaining existing and ongoing
agriculture, but improvements can be, and are beinm, imple nted.
The coho salmon stock utilizing the agricultural areas of Chlmacum Creek watershed are
considered healthy {SASSI 1992) and other wildlife ~pecies re not in jeopardy due to existing
agricultural operations. Though coho stocks are "healthy," th re is always room for improvement. The
status of steelhead and cutthrout trout has not beeni docume ted, but these species are present in the
watershed. Cutthroat are apparently abundant throughout watershed based on juvenile
abundance data collected and personal observations. The 0 e Endangered Species Act {ESA)-listed
salmon stock (summer chum salmon) utilizes the lower mile f the watershed, three miles
downstream of the agricultural area. This stock was extirpat in the mid 1980's due to a number of
reasons (ocean conditions, harvest, and failure of a 'road cui rt). Summer chum have been
reintroduced through the efforts of local volunteers and there are ongoing efforts to protect the
summer chum habitat.
The agricultural areas of the Chimacum Creek waters ed provide winter habitat for a growing
population of Trumpeter Swans, as well as other w~erfowl. xisting agricultural practices used for
hay/silage production and pasture support vegetation attracti e to Trumpeter swans. Current
management techniques result in a lush growth of this grass en the fields flood in winter. The
Swan Society and Jefferson Land Trust are workingl with Ian owners to develop conservation
easements focused on maintaining the current agriaultural pr ctices that provide excellent habitat for
swans.
6
Version 1/11105
Other wildlife utilizing the agricultural areas are coyote, blacktail deer, beaver, otter, numerous
species of birds and small rodents, and the occasional elk, bear, cougar and bobcat.
This plan will not answer the question "How much is enoughT but it will lay out a mechanism
for voluntary protection and improvements of fish and wildlife habitat on agricultural land compatible
with maintaining existing agricultural capability. Given the structural and biological impacts of
agriculture and other development in the Chimacum watershed, fish and wildlife habitat will have to be
actively maintained in perpetuity. For instance, large woody debris will have to be placed and
maintained in some locations rather than depending on natural recruitment that could lead to flooding
and drainage problems. Implementation of the plan will take place over the long term as funding,
technical assistance, and opportunities for protectionlimprovement are available.
This plan is "performance based" and utilizes best available science coupled with local
knowledge and monitoring data to determine what needs to be done. "Performance based" means
that protection/improvement of fish and wildlife habitat will utilize studies/assessments (existing and
future) and monitoring data to determine what, if anything, needs to be done in specific areas of the
watershed and whether or not such actions are producing desired results. A list of studies and
assessments relating to fish and wildlife habitat in the watershed is included in Appendix 3. Water
quality data, which reflect impacts of agricultural operations on in-stream habitat, have been collected
since 1988. Data collected since 1988 have shown improvements and trends towards improvement.
For example, at the monitoring station at the downstream end of the agricultural area fecal coliform
levels have fallen from a geometric mean value of 280 FC/100 mL in 1988 to 25 FC/100 mL in 2002
(0-50 FC/100mL is considered "Class AA extraordinary," changed to "Extraordinary Primary Contact
Recreation" in 2003). This improvement in water quality is directly related to the voluntary
implementation of best management practices (BMPs), including extensive fencing of streams and
ditches by landowners. An ultimate goal of the plan is to have all surface water in the watershed meet
the criteria for non-polluted water as specified in WAC chapter 173-201A, Water Quality Standards for
Surface Waters of the State of WashinQton (see Appendix A). It should be recognized that according
to this WAC surface water entering northern Puget Sound and Hood Canal must meet the highest
State standard for water quality to be in compliance with the water quality standard, an extremely high
standard that may be very difficult to meet in some areas. There are often instances when natural
conditions result in water quality not meeting this standard. There are often instances when natural
conditions result in water quality not meeting this standard. A more appropriate gauge for measuring
"how well we're doing" is to compare conditions to those documented since 1988. A realistic goal is to
maintain and improve the conditions documented in the Jefferson County Conservation District "2003
Water Quality Screening Report." Solutions to problems will be site-specific rather than one-size-fits-
all.
(2) Applicability
(a) All existing and ongoing agriculture in the Chimacum Creek watershed (including operation and
maintenance of agricultural drainage infrastructure) which is located within 150 feet of a stream or
which adversely impacts the existing functions and values of fish and wildlife habitat shall be subject
to the requirements of this plan. The operation and maintenance of agricultural drainage
infrastructure is included under the general descriptor "agriculture." However, isolated ditches that
have no channelized surface hydraulic connection or no piped hydraulic connection between the ditch
and any stream shall not be subject to the requirements of this plan. Drainage tile used to convey
groundwater shall not be considered a piped hydraulic connection.
(b) The provisions of this plan shall not be interpreted to permit expansion of existing and ongoing
agriculture (including agricultural drainage infrastructure) into areas on which existing and ongoing
agriculture, as defined in UDC Section 2 Defintions, was not occurring prior to April 28, 2003.
Proposals to expand agricultural operations shall require review under the UDC by the Jefferson
County Department of Community Development (DCD) and my require adherence to standard stream
and wetland buffers.
7
Version 1/11/05
(c) "Best management practices" (BMPs) is defined in Appen ix E, and specific applications are
included in subsection (4) of this plan.
(3) No Harm or Dearadation Standard.
(a) All existing agricultural activities shall be conducted so as not to cause harm or degradation to the
existing functional values of fish and wildlife habitat In agricul ural areas (the "no harm or degradation"
standard). For purposes of this Section the term "no harm or egradation" shall mean the following:
(i) Meeting, or improving on, water quality levels documented in "Water Quality Screening Report, July
2001 - June 2003" by Jefferson Co. Conservation District.an
(ii) Meeting, or working towards meeting, the requirdments 0 any total maximum daily load (TMDL)
requirements established by the Department of Ecology (EC ) pursuant to Chapter 90.48 RCW; and
(iii) Meeting all applicable requirements of Chapter 17.55 RC and Chapter 220-110 WAC
(Hydraulics Code); and
(iv) Meeting the specific stream protection measures for exist ng agriculture specified in Subsection
(4) of this Section; and
(v) No evidence of degradation to the existing fish habitat ch racteristics of the stream that can be
reasonably attributed to the agricultural activities that are des ribed in this plan.
(b) The references to Chapters 77.55 and 90.48 RCW, and hapters 173-201A and 220-
110 WAC contained in this Subsection shall not be ihterprete to replace Dept. of Ecology and the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) author' to implement and enforce these
State programs.
(c) Owners or operators subject to this plan shall conduct the r existing agricultural operations in a
manner sufficient to meet the "no harm or degradation" stand rd of Subsection (3)(a) of this Plan,
including, if necessary, developing and implementing BMPs t meet this standard. The owner or
operator may choose to, but is not required to consult with th Jefferson County Conservation District
(JCCD), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), an NRCS technical service provider, the
Washington State University Extension Service, or other qual fied expert to determine what
combination of BMPs is necessary to meet the "no harm or d gradation" standard. BMPs must be
designed for site-specific conditions and shall include pollutio prevention and control measures that
effectively address the following management areas:
(i) Livestock and dairy management;
(ii) Nutrient and farm chemical management;
(iii) Soil erosion and sediment control management;
(iv) Agricultural drainage infrastructure management.
(v) Fish & wildlife habitat management/improvements
Section 4 of the NRCS "Field Office Technical Guide" (FOTG contains a nonexclusive list of
conservation practices (BMPs) to guide implementation ofth requirements of this Subsection.
(d) An owner or operator is responsible only for those cond" ns caused by agricultural activities
conducted by the owner or operator and is not responsible fo conditions that do not meet the
requirements of this Subsection resulting from the actions of thers or from natural conditions not
related to the on-site agricultural operations. Conditions resul ing from unusual weather events (such
as a storm in excess of 25-year, 24-hour storm), or other ex ptional circumstances that are not the
product of obvious neglect are not the responsibility of the 0 er or operator.
8
Version 1/11105
(4) Aaricultural Practice Standards for Stream Protection for Existina Aariculture. The
following stream protection measures shall be required for existing and ongoing agriculture within 150
feet of a stream, except for isolated ditches that have no channelized surface hydraulic connection or
no piped hydraulic connection between the artificial stream and any natural or modified natural stream
or any salt water. Drainage tile used to convey groundwater shall not be considered a piped hydraulic
connection.
(a) Livestock and Dairy Management. Livestock and dairy operations shall be conducted
so as to minimize contributions of waste or sediments into a natural or modified natural streams and
strive to be in compliance with State water quality standards. Livestock and dairy operations shall
meet the following minimum stream protection measures:
(i) Livestock access to streams shall be managed consistent with this Subsection. Access to a stream
for livestock watering and/or stream crossings shall be limited to only the amount of time necessary
for watering and/or crossing a stream. Exceptions will be considered in situations where restricting
livestock access to streams will result in limiting wildlife access to agricultural lands. Livestock
watering facilities or access shall be constructed consistent with applicable NRCS conservation
practice standards or other appropriate designs, and shall not be constructed to provide access to
agricultural land that does not meet the definition of existing and ongoing agriculture unless that
agricultural land and the crossing can meet all requirements the UDC.
(ii) Dairy operations shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 90.64 RCW (Dairy Nutrient
Management Act).
(iii) Livestock pasture shall be managed so as to maintain as much vegetative cover as pOSSible to
minimize contributions of waste and sediment to a stream in accordance with State water quality
standards.
(iv) Any existing or new livestock confinement or concentration of livestock areas that is located up-
gradient from a stream which results in bare ground (such as around a watering trough or winter
sacrifice areas) shall be constructed and maintained to minimize sediment and/or nutrient runoff
contaminants from reaching a stream in accordance with State water quality standards.
(b) Nutrient and Farm Chemical Management.
(i) The owner or operator shall not place manure in a streams or in a location where such wastes are
likely to be carried into a stream by any means. Spreading of manure within 50 feet of any stream
and/or spreading of liquid manure on bare ground from October 31st to March 1st is prohibited; unless
otherwise permitted pursuant to:
(A) An approved and implemented dairy nutrient management plan (DNMP) as prescribed by Chapter
90.64 RCW; or
(B) An approved and implemented Conservation Plan prepared by NRCS, Conservation District or
qualified planner.
(ii) Agricultural operators shall apply crop nutrients at agronomic rates recommended for that
particular crop.
(iii) Farm chemicals shall be applied consistent with all requirements stated on the chemical container
labels and all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, such as Chapter 15.58 RCW
(Pesticide Control Act), Chapter 17.21 RCW (Pesticide Application Act), and 7 United States Code
(USC) 136 et seq. (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act).
(c) Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Management.
(i) Roads used for existing agricultural activities shall be designed such that road surfaces, fill and
associated structures are constructed and maintained to avoid contributing sediment to streams.
(ii) Agricultural equipment operation shall not cause stream bank sloughing or other failure due to
operation too close to the top of the bank.
(iii) Ditch construction and maintenance shall meet the requirements for drainage operation and
maintenance described under Subsection (4)(d) of this Section.
(iv) All ditching shall be constructed to drain into a stream that does not contain salmon ids , unless the
topography of the field is such that the only alternative to drain the field by gravity is to drain the ditch
into a stream that does contain salmonids. When draining a ditch into a stream that does contain
9
Version 1/11/05
salmonids, appropriate BMPs should be used to aV(i)id contri uting excess amounts of sediment to the
stream. For the purpose of determining whether a stream or itch contains salmonids, Dept. of
Natural Resources water type maps will be consulted.
(d) Operation and Maintenance of Public and Private Agricul ural Drainage Infrastructure.
The following practices shall apply to any stream that is part f drainage infrastructure:
(i) Regularly scheduled agricultural drainage infrastructure m intenance that includes dredging or
removal of accumulated sediments in any ditch or ditched str am shall be conducted between June
15th and October 31st. If an approved WDFW Hydraulic Proj ct Approval (HPA) provides for a
different work window, those requirements shall control. If pr sence of fall or over-winter crops
prevents regularly scheduled maintenance during this time riOO, then the maintenance may be
conducted outside this work window; provided, that the pers n or entity proposing to conduct the
maintenance outside the work window can demonstate that he presence of crops prevents
maintenance within the work window and provided the maint nance is conducted using BMPs to
minimize sediment or other impacts to water quality;
(ii) Unless there is no feasible alternative, regularly~schedul
removal of accumulated sediments in any stream should be
no or minimal water flow in the stream being maintained to
sediments to salmonid-bearing waters. .
(iii) Excavation spoils shall be placed so as not to ~use ban failures and so that drainage from such
spoils will not contribute sediment to the stream.
(iv) Mowing or cutting of vegetation located within a stream t at is part of drainage infrastructure may
be conducted according to the provisions of the WOFW pam hlet Aauatic Plants and Fish
(htto:/Iwdfw.wa.aov/hab/aauaolnt.htm). Stream bank vegeta on shall be preserved or planted as
soon as practicable after drainage construction and !mainten nce are completed to stabilize earthen
ditch banks.
maintenance that indudes dredging or
nducted at those times when there is
nimize potential for distributing
(e) Riparian Management
(i) Existing riparian vegetation will be managed to contin e to provide soil and streambank
stability, shade, filtration, and habitat for fish land wild I e in such a manner that it does not
impact existing agricultural operations.
(ii) Landowners are encouraged to plant riparian vegetati n to improve fish and wildlife habitat by
providing shade, cover, and organic debris, and helpi g to control reed canarygrass and other
problematic aquatic vegetation. Programs that can a ist with planting and maintenance of
riparian vegetation are listed in Appendix D. . The Con ervation District and Natural Resources
Conservation Service can provide technical CIlssistan and help locate funding for riparian
planting.
(iii) Reed canarygrass can be problematic in 10wI gradient reaches of the watershed, where it can
fiU in the stream channel. An introduced speCies, it pr< vides poor habitat for wildlife andean
impact fish by causing passage problems and low lev Is of dissolved oxygen in the water. A
long-term, watershed-wide reed canarygrass control Ian is needed to address these
concerns. As trees/shrubs are planted along streamb nks to improve fish/wildlife habitat, the
ability to control reed canarygrass in the stream chan el by mechanical methods is eliminated.
In these areas the only alternative left for reed canary rass control is use of an herbicide
registered for aquatic use applied by licensed appliea rs. An annual program of spot spraying
will be needed to keep the channel open until such ti e as adequate shade develops that
controls reed canarygrass (20-25 years after planting).
(iv) It is important that funding be available to aS$ist with t is riparian planting and maintenance.
Revegetating riparian areas is difficult, time Qonsumin ,expensive, and in most instances is
beyond the means of landowners to accomp~ish on th ir own.
10
Version 1/11/05
(v) A "Riparian Management Guide" should be developed that provides information on watershed-
based management objectives and techniques derived from landowners' experience.
<ID Resource Manaaement Svstem CRMS) Plan/Conservation Proaram Participation.
(a) This plan does not require landowners or operators to obtain an approved RMS Plan from the
JCCD or the USDA NRCS. However, lands upon which owners or operators have sought and
implemented an approved RMS Plan or landowners or operators who, since April 28, 2003, have
implemented one or more of the local, State or Federal programs to protect critical areas and promote
environmental stewardship listed in Appendix C, shall be entitled to a presumption of compliance with
the "no harm or degradation" standards described in Subsection (3) above for that portion of the land
or farm operation that has been enrolled and/or included in the Dairy Nutrient Management Plan or
RMS Plan.
(6) Voluntary Compliance
1. Water quality will be monitored by the Conservation District Water Quality Monitoring Program
(dependent on funding) using existing stations. Additional stations will be added as needed if
funding is available. See Appendix F for details of the JCCD Water Quality Monitoring Program.
2. The purpose of the monitoring efforts will be to detect a trend or condition occurring in anyone or
more of the reaches that is considered detrimental to fish and wildlife.
3. In the event such a condition is detected in any reach or reaches, the Conservation District shall
contact all property owners along the involved reach or reaches. The purpose of contacting the
property owners will be to arrange a meeting where the detected problem can be identified to the
property owners.
4. Once the problem has been identified it shall become the responsibility of the property owners to
work together to eliminate the problem. Some of the ways that property owners can work together
and with the JCCD and the County to solve a detected problem are as follows:
4A. Additional monitoring stations within the reach to further isolate the problem.
4B. Property owners that have had experience with the cause of the problem will share ideas with
those who haven't. The JCCD or the County will arrange for outside help with relevant expertise
to assist the landowners with this process as requested.
4C. All property owners involved may need to be reminded by the JCCD and the County that for
this plan to work and protect agriculture, they must work together to avoid harming fish and wildlife
habitat with agricultural activities, or potentially be subject to additional regulation.
5. The County and Conservation District will help identify funding sources to assist landowners in
addressing problems that are identified.
6.. Non-compliance with this plan resulting in degradation of existing fish and wildlife habitat may
result in the loss of the exemption from standard stream and wetland buffers found in Sections
3.6.8 and 3.6.9 of the Jefferson County Unified Development Code (UDC). The County will revisit
its critical area protections, including the exemption from standard stream and wetland buffers for
existing and ongoing agriculture, during the period review process mandated by RCW 36.70.130.
If the County finds through evaluation of best available science that the voluntary implementation
of agricultural BMPs is failing to protect wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat areas from impacts
related to agriculture in any given watershed or specific areas within a given watershed, this
exemption will be modified or eliminated for that watershed or particular sites within that
watershed.
11
Version 1/11/05
(7) Habitat Imorovements
Over the last 20 years numerous improvements to fish and i1dlife habitat have been implemented
throughout the Chimacum Creek watershed. landowners, mmunity groups and agencies are
actively involved in the planning, funding and implementatio of additional habitat improvement
projects, primarily focused on salmonids and trumpeter swa . landowner participation in these
programs continues to be on a voluntary basis, and the level of participation is excellent. Since 1985:
· 30 agricultural landowners have worked with local agen 'es and community groups to implement
improvements to fish and wildlife habitat on their prope ,not including stream fencing and
undocumented work done by other landowners on their wn.
· 70+ acres of riparian area have been planted With trees
· 185 riparian acres have been protected in the ~gricultur I area through conservation easements
and enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Erihancem nt Program.
· 13.5+ miles of streambank have been fenced through va 'ous programs, not including
undocumented fencing done at landowner expense.
· Over 3.5 miles of salmon habitat improvement Jllrojects h ve been implemented.
Community groups and agencies working on fish and wil life habitat issues have a backlog of fish
habitat improvement projects in various stages of planning in the Chimacum watershed. The main
impediment to additional improvements is lack of fu~ding for abitat protection, project planning and
implementation. Projects that can be implemented"depende t on adequate funding, are:
· Planting and maintenance of trees and shrubs in riparian reas to improve water temperature.
· Streambank and channel reconfiguration to add !habitat plexity
· Addition of large woody debris and spawning gravels.
. Reed canarygrass control.
. Additional riparian fencing.
(8) Fundina:
Implementation of this plan will depend on v~luntary rticipation from landowners, and
funding available for habitat improvements, conservj:ltion eas ments and best management
implementation on private land. Since there is not jliJst on rce of funds dedicated to plan
implementation it will require that landowners, agencies and mmunity groups work together with a
variety of funding sources. Funding is the biggest uhknown nd impediment to habitat improvement.
1. Elements needing funding:
· Habitat improvement projects: Existing projects planned ut not funded: $250,000
· Habitat protection through conservation easemehts and a uisition. Existing projects planned but
not funded: $50,000
· Riparian vegetation site prep and planting. $3,OOO/acre
· long term maintenance of riparian plantings. $3,OOO/acr in first 5 years.
· A long term reed canarygrass control program. $25,0001 r.
· Conservation Plan preparation. $45,0001 yr. (Additional onservation Dist. staff)
· BMP cost-share funding. $5,000 - $20,000/yr.
· Development of a Riparian Management Guide providing nformation on watershed-based
management objectives and techniques derived from Ian owner's experience. $10,000
12
Version 1111105
>>,,<<
2. Funding Sources
There are a number of State, Federal and private programs that provide funding for
implementation of fish & wildlife habitat protection/improvement projects and BMP implementation.
It is important to note that although these programs exist they are often underfunded, or
unavailable in the Chimacum Creek watershed due to statewide or regional prioritization
processes.
. Existing sources include:
· North Olympic Salmon Coalition (a Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group). Funds salmon
habitat improvement projects through grants.
· WA Salmon Recovery Funding Board: Provides grants for salmon habitat
improvement/protection projects.
· National Fish & Wildlife Foundation. Provides grants for salmon habitat
improvement/protection projects.
· USDA Farm Bill Programs (EQIP, WHIP, WRP, CREP): Provides funding for BMP
implementation and fish/wildlife habitat protection/improvement projects.
· Jefferson County Conservation Futures Program: Funding for acquisition or conservation
easements for locally important fish/wildlife habitat.
· Jefferson County funding for Conservation District Programs: Provides funding for the
continuation of Conservation District programs assisting landowners with fish/wildlife habitat
protection/improvement and water quality monitoring.
.. WA Conservation Commission grants to Conservation Districts: Provides funding for
Conservation District programs assisting landovvners with fish/wildlife habitat
protection/improvement and water quality monitoring.
. Potential Funding Sources include:
· Chimacum Creek Drainage District: Currently inoperative. Has assessment potential. Could
provide funding for reed canarygrass control.
· Jefferson County Surface Water Mgmt. Program: Development of a surface water
management plan is in process. Potential funding for water quality protection/improvement will
depend on how implementation of the plan is funded.
· Conservation District Special Assessment (RCW 89.08.400). Provides for a special
assessment to fund conservation of natural resources. Not implemented to date.
· Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board. Potential assistance with reed canarygrass
control.
13
Version 1/11/05
APPENDIX A
WASHINGTON STATE WATER QUALITY STAN ARDS FOR SURFACE WATERS
From Chapter 173-201 WAC
Aquatic life TEMPERATURE criteria. Except where noted, water temperature is measured by the 7-
day average of the daily maximum temperatures (7~DADMa ). Table 200 (1 )(c) lists the temperature
criteria for each of the aquatic life use categories.
Table 200 (1)(c) Aquatic Life Temperature Criteria in Fre h Water, Category Highest 7-
DADMax
· Salmon and Trout Spawning, Core Rearing, and Migrati n 160C (60.80F)
Aquatic life DISSOLVED OXYGEN (D.O.) criteria. The D. . criteria are measured in milligrams per
liter (mg/L). Table 200 (1)(d) lists the 1-day minimum D.O. f each of the aquatic life use categories.
Table 200 (1)(d) Aquatic Life Dissolved OxygeniCriteria n Fresh Water, Category Lowest 1-
Day Minimum
· Salmon and Trout Spawning, Core Rearing, an(l Migrati n 9.5 mglL
Aquatic life TURBIDITY criteria. Turbidity is measured in" ephelometric turbidity units" or "NTUs."
Table 200 (1 )(e) lists the maximum turbidity criteria Ifor each f the aquatic life use categories.
Table 200 (1 lee) Aquatic Life Turbidity Criteria irl1 Fresh ater, Category NTUs
· Salmon and Trout Spawning, Core Rearing, and Migrati n Same as above.
Aquatic life a!! criteria. Measurement of pH is expressed a the negative logarithm of the hydrogen
ion concentration. Table 200 (1 )(g) lists the pH levels for ea of the aquatic fife use categories.
Table 200 (1) (g) Aquatic Life pH Criteria in Fresh Water se Category pH Units
· Salmon and Trout Spawning, Core Rearing, an(jf Migraf ,pH shall be within the range of 6.5 to
8.5, with human-caused variation within the above range of less than 0.2 units.
Water contact recreation BACTERIA criteria. Table 200 ( )(b) lists the bacteria criteria to protect
water contact recreation in fresh waters. .
Table 200 (2)(b) Water Contact Recreation Bacteria Crite .a in Fresh Water
Category Bacteria Indicator I
· Extraordinary Primary Contact Recreation: Fecal coin rm organism levels must not exceed a
geometric mean value of 50 colonies/100 mL, with not m re than 10 percent of all samples (or any
single sample when less than ten sample pointsl exist) ob ained for calculating the geometric mean
value exceeding 100 colonies/100 mL.
14
Version 1/11/05
APPENDIX B: Reference List
Ames, James and Bucknell, Patrick 1981. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization.
Washington State Department of Fisheries.
Ames, Jim et al. 2000. Summer Chum Salmon Conservation Initiative. Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife and Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes.
Bahls, Peter and Rubin, Judith 1996. chimacum Watershed Coho Salmon Restoration Assessment.
Correa, Ginna, 2002, Salmon & Steel head Habitat Limiting Factors, WRIA 17
Gately, Glenn 2001, 2003. Water Quality Screening Report. Washington Conservation Commission.
Labbe, Ted, Bahls, Peter, and Bemthal, Carol 2002. Patterns of summer stream temperature maxima
in north Hood Canal, Washington, 1992-2001. No. 02-A.
Lichatowich, Jim 1993. The Status of Anadromous Fish Stocks in the Streams of Eastem Jefferson
County, Washington. Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Dungeness-Quilcene Pilot Project.
May, Christopher & Peterson, Gretchen, 2003, Landscape Assessment and Conservation
Prioritization of Freshwater and Nearshore Salmonid Habitat in E. Jefferson County.
Parametrix, Inc, Pacific Groundwater Group, Inc, Montgomery Water Group, Inc., and Caldwell and
Assoc. 2000. Stage 1 Technical Assessment as of February 2000 Water Resource Inventory Area 17.
Parametrix, Inc 2000. Fish Habitat and Salmonid Stock Data Summary, WRIA 17.
Seiter, Ann, Newberry, Linda, Young, Cindy, Clark, Linn, and Kovach, Nancy 1994. The DQ Plan:
The Dungeness-Quilcene Water Resources Management Plan. Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe.
Simmons, Donna and Hood Canal Technical Work Group 1995. Shellfish and Finfish, Resources at
Risk in the Hood Canal Watershed. Hood Canal Coordinating Council; Washington Dept of Ecology.
Skagit County, Draft Ag/Critical Areas Ordinance 2/12/03
Stumbaugh, Darcy, Dyba, Suzanne, and Joehnk, Lisa. Chimacum Creek Project Report, East Fork.
2001.
Till, Laura, Soncarty, Chris, and Barber, Mike 2000. Jefferson County Barrier Culvert Inventory and
Prioritization. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Watson, Jay 2001. Salmon Habitat Recovery Strategy for the Hood Canal and the Eastem Strait of
Juan de Fuca.
Washington Dept. of Ecology, 2003, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of
Washington, Chapter 173-201A WAC
Washington Dept. of Fish & Wildlife; Aquatic Plants and Fish Pamphlet
15
Version 1/11/05
APPENDIX C: BMP (Best Management Practices) R FERENCES
1. "Guidelines for Northwest Washington Conservation Plan ," October 2002
Draft (or future approved versions) prepared by the 'Agricultu e Fish and Water Forum. (" AFW
Guidelines"). These AFW Guidelines are being considered r adoption by Natural Resource
Conservation Service as new Conservation Practice Standa s for the Field Office Technical Guides
(FOTG's) to guide development of Farm Managem$nt Plans
2. "Field Office Technical Guide", Natural Resources Conse
3. Mana in Non int Pollution - An Action Plan andbook for Pu et Sound Watersheds. Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority, June, 1989
4. Manure Mana ement - Guidelines for Westem ashin t n. WA State Univ. et al. April 1995
5. Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Procedures. Watershed Rest ration Technical Circular No. 9.
Watershed Restoration Program, British Columbia 1997
6. Inteorated Streambank Protection Guidelines 2003. Wa hington State Aquatic Habitat Guidelines
Program, 2002
7. A uatic Plants and Fish Pam hlet. Washin ton De t. of
htto:/Iwdfw .wa.qovlhab/aQuaolntlaQuaolnt.htm
APPENDIX D: PROGRAMS FUNDING HABlliA T IMP OVEMENT AND PROTECTION
1. US Dept. of Agriculture
A. Wetland Reserve Program (WRP)
B. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
C. Conservation Reserve Program (cRP)
D. Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP)
E. Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP)
2. Jefferson County
A. Conservation Futures Program
B. Conservation District Program Support
3. State of Washington
A. Salmon Recovery Funding Board
B. lAC
C. WRP
D. ALEA
E. Landowner Incentive Program (WDFW)
F. Dairy Nutrient Management Cost Share (Conservation C mmission)
G. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (Conserva' n Commission)
4. OTHER
A. North Olympic Salmon Coalition
B. Jefferson Land Trust
16
Version 1/11/05
APPENDIX E: Definitions
Artificial stream: ditches and other water conveyance systems, not constructed from natural
streams, which are artificially constructed and actively maintained for irrigation and drainage. Artificial
streams include lateral field ditches used to drain farmland where the ditch did not replace a natural
stream.
Agriculture. The science, art, and business of producing crops, or raising livestock; farming.
Agricultural Activities. Land preparation for agricultural purposes, such as clearing, grading,
contouring, ditching, fencing, plowing, tilling, planting, cultivating, fertilizing, weed pest and disease
control, spraying, pruning, trimming, harvesting, processing, packing, sales, and construction of farm
and stock ponds, irrigation ditches and systems; livestock management, such as breeding, birthing,
feeding and care of animals, birds, honey bees, and fish; the repair maintenance and incidental
construction of equipment, structures, or machinery used to perform agricultural or husbandry
operations; and the storage of agricultural products and machinery.
Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs). Methods by which the adverse impacts of
agriculture are controlled through their application. BMPs are defined as: Schedules of activities,
prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or
reduce pollution of waters or degradation of wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat areas. Specific
"BMP's" related to agriculture are found in Section 4 of the NRcS "Field Office Technical Guide
(FOTG)".
Agricultural Lands. Designated as either Prime Agricultural Land (AP-20) or Agricultural Land of
Local Importance (AL-20) on the official map of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations.
Agricultural Lands of Long-Term Commercial Significance is a category of Resource Lands under the
State Growth Management Act and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
Conservation plan: a site-specific plan designed to conserve and/or productively utilize available
resources while reducing adverse impacts to critical areas or their buffers caused by agricultural
activities. Development of conservation plans typically includes inventory and analysis of available
resources, and plans must specify the BMPs necessary to achieve the objectives of Section 4 of the
NRCS "Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG)".
Diking and drainage system: any lawfully constructed combination of dike, levee, and drainage
which actually does or is designed to prevent inundation and facilitate drainage of land upland of the
Ordinary High Water mark.
Existing and Ongoing Agriculture. Any agricultural activities conducted on an ongoing basis on
lands enrolled in the Open Space Tax Program for agriculture or designated as Agricultural Lands of
Long-Term Commercial Significance on the official map of Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designations, provided that agricultural activities were conducted on those lands at anytime during the
five-year period preceding April 28, 2003. Agricultural use ceases when the area on which it is
conducted is converted to a non-agricultural use.
Farm operation: conditions or activities which occur on a farm in connection with the commercial
production of land-based farm products, and includes, but is not limited to, market produce at
roadside stands or farm markets; preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market, or to
carriers for transportation to market; transportation of equipment; noise, dust, fumes, operation of
machinery and irrigation pumps; ground and aerial seeding or spraying; application of chemical and
organic fertilizers, conditioners, insecticides, pesticides and herbicides and associated drift of such
materials; and the employment and use of labor.
17
Version 1/11/05
."
Functional values: means those functions which are highly beneficial to the maintenance of the
aquatic system and surrounding environment. As used in thi Chapter, "functional values" for
wetlands, streams and buffers are limited to the following el ents:
(a) Streams: Fish and wildlife habitat, water quality maintena ce, water supply and water conveyance.
(b) Wetlands: Fish and wildlife habitat, water quality mainten nce, pollution assimilation, shore
stabilization, sediment retention, runoff and floodwater stora e and conveyance, runoff control, stream
base-flow maintenance, and groundwater discharge/recharg .
(c) Buffers: Fish and wildlife habitat, runoff absorpti()n, polluf n assimilation, streambank stabilization,
sediment entrapment, water quality maintenance including s ading for maintenance of temperature,
noise and visual screening, upland flood protection, recreati n, and provision of nutrients and woody
debris for streams.
Growing season: the portion of the year when soil Itemperat res are above biologic zero (41 degrees
Fahrenheit) as defined by the Washington State Wetlands Id ntification and Delineation Manual,
Washington State Department of Ecology publication #96-94
Large woody debris (LWD) recruitment: standing timber
of natural events, to contribute organic materials to the strea
and in-stream habitat. LWD includes woody material (logs, r
centimeters in diameter and 1 meter or greater in letlgth.
Modified natural stream: that segment of a natural stream t at has been modified and is maintained
by landowner/operator
Natural stream: any stream in existence prior to settlement at originated from a natural source. An
example of a natural stream is a stream that originates in the foothills, flows through agricultural
and/or urban land, and empties into a saltwater bayior anoth r stream.
ich has the potential, during the course
, thus providing stream bank protection
twads, etc.) that are greater than 10
New agriculture. Agricultural activities proposed ot conduct after April 28, 2003 and that do not
meet the definition of "existing and ongoing agricultLilre."
Open Space Tax Program. County program associated w' property taxation. Land being used for
agriculture may be enrolled in the Tax Program through the ounty Assessor. The Tax Program is
independent of land use designation (Le., zoning) and these velopment regulations, except in the
context of identifying "existing and ongoing agriculture," as d fined in this code and exempted from
standard stream and wetland buffers
Operation and maintenance of diking and drain~e syste s: the clearing of vegetation, the
planting and maintenance of sod covering, the use (jIf rock a or, floodwalls, sandbags, and other
flood fighting materials to prevent inundation, and the making of necessary repairs to restore existing
structures and facilities, such as dikes, levees, ditch~s, drain ,and pump stations.
Ordinary high water mark (OHWM): the mark on ttile shore of all water which is found by examining
the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and ction of waters are so common and
usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, a$ to mark upon the soil a charactef distinct from
that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation; provided hat, in any area where the ordinary
high-water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high-water ma adjoining saltwater shall be the line of
mean highest high tide and the ordinary high-water mark adj ining freshwater shall be the line of
mean high-water. (WAC 173-22-030)
Perennial stream: means a stream, the natural flow of which is normally continuous at any given
location.
Resource Management System Conservation Plan. A Re ource Management System
Conservation Plan (RMS Plan) is a plan that has been prepa in consultation with the SeD Of
NRCS and includes resource management objectives determ ned appropriate to protect fish and
wildlife habitat and water quality concerns, consistent with th NRCS Field Office Technical Guide.
18
Version 1/11/05
Riparian or riparian area: the portion of habitat extending from the ordinary high-water mark
(OHWM) of a stream (Le., a flowing body of water) to that part of the upland influenced by elevated
water tables or flooding and beyond, to include the area that directly influences the aquatic
ecosystem (e.g. providing temperature moderation, sediment and pollutant filtration, Iitterfall and
nutrient input, bank stabilization and erosion control [Le., to maintain intact stream banks and keep
eroded soil out of the stream), shading, large woody debris [e.g., trees falling in streams which create
pools and riffles vital to salmon survival and protection from predators) and instream habitat [including
habitat for insects and other species that provide food for salmon and smaller fish upon which salmon
prey); provided, that riparian areas associated with an existing system of dikes and levees shall not
extend beyond the toe of the slope on the landward side of the dike or levee structure.
Riparian vegetation: means vegetation that tolerates and/or requires moist conditions and periodic
free flowing water, thus creating a transitional zone which provides shade and food sources of aquatic
and terrestrial insects for fish. Riparian vegetation and their root systems stabilize river and stream
banks, attenuate high water flows, and provide limbs and other natural debris which, in turn, stabilize
river and stream beds. The benefits of vegetation cover and food sources and the availability of water
in riparian corridors mean that they are likely to be preferentially used by wildlife and enable wildlife
movement between wetlands and along streams, rivers and lakes.
Stream: Any stream, types 1-5, indicated on the Water Type Maps maintained by Dept. of Natural
Resources.
V-ditching: the practice of cutting ditches into a field after the crop has been harvested in the fall
where necessary to drain surface and ground water from the field during the winter months. This
practice is necessary to allow sufficient time in the spring for the fields to dry out before planting and
to prevent the inundation of overwinteringcrops. V-ditches are then plowed under when the field is
planted in the spring.
19
Version 1/11/05
,J
APPENDIX F: Jefferson County Conservation Dist ict Surface Water Quality
Monitoring Program.
Jefferson County Conservation District (JCCD) will icontinue o monitor the trends or conditions of
water quality through their existing water quality monitoring f rogram, dependent on available funding.
Data are collected for a 12 month period every other year.
(a)This monitoring program shall monitor:
(1) bacteria
(2) nutrients (nitrate-nitrogen and total phosphorous)
(3) sediments (total suspended solids and/or turbidity)
(4) dissolved oxygen
(5) temperature
(6) conductivity
(7) pH
(b) JCCD shall conduct water quality monitoring aqcording t D the protocols established for their
existing water quality monitoring program. (c)
JCCD shall expand the total number of monitoring locations as needed, depending on funding.
(d) JCCD will coordinate its monitoring efforts under this see ion with monitoring efforts of other
government agencies, Tribal entities, community groups and volunteers conducting water quality
monitoring.
(e) JCCD's existing core monitoring program [(a) 1-7 above] s conducted every other year for a 12
month period (Oct 1. - Sept 30).
(f) JCCD shall prepare a biannual report of its monitoring effi rts and submit the report to the Jefferson
County Commissioners for their information, with copies mac e available to other interested parties.
The annual report shall include any recommendations regart ing any additions or revisions to the
monitoring locations deemed appropriate to better assess We ter quality if the monitoring data supports
the need to collect additional information from a specific strel ~m or drainage basin.
Sample Locations for Jefferson County Conservation Di trict Water Quality Monitoring
Program - Chimacum Cr. Watershed (Type code: T=Tempe ature; WQ= Water Quality)
Waterbody Name Station 10 Type W aterbody Name StationlO Type
Chimacum Creek (17-0203) CH/0.1 T Naylors Cre ek (17-0208) NAIO.1 WQ
Chimacum Creek CH/1.1 T,WQ Naylors Cre ~ NAIO.2 T
Chimacum Creek CH/3.4 WQ Naylors Cre ~ NNO.7 T,WQ
Chimacum Creek CH/3.9 T, Putaansuu I reek PUIO.O T,WQ
Chimacum Creek CH/5.3 T,WQ Putaansuu ( reek PUIO.4 WQ
Chimacum Creek CH/6.1 T Putaansuu ( reek PUlO.5 T
Chimacum Creek CHI6.7 T,WQ E;ast Chim~ :um Creek (17-0205) ECH/O.1 T
Chimacum Creek CHI7.0 T east Chima :um Creek ECHIO.2 WQ
Chimacum Creek CHI7 .8 WQ East Chima um Creek ECH/1.0 T,WQ
Chimacum Creek CH/8.8 WQ East Chima ~m Creek ECH/1.2 T
Chimacum Creek CHI9.0 T East Chim~ ~mCreek ECHI2.8 T
Chimacum Creek CH/9.3 WQ east Chirnal urn Creek ECHI3.3 T,WQ
Chimacum Creek CHI9.4 T East Chimal ~rn Creek ECH/4.8 WQ
S. Fork Chimacum Cr. BH/O.O T East Chimal ~m Creek ECH/5.3 WQ
(17-0213)("Walsh" Cr.
li"Barnhouse" Cr.)
S. Fort Chimacum Cr. BHI1.0 T Eiast Chima :urn Creek ECH/5.4 T
(17-2013) ("Walsh" Cr.
(Barnhouse" Cr.)
20 Version 1/11/05
._-
,
-~. , .-. -
Data From Water Quality Screening Report, July 2001-2003
by Jefferson Co. Conservation District
r Average
Dissolved Water
Fecal Coliform 12 Oxygen Temperature Average Average Total
month GMV % saturation; Hours N03~N Phosphorous
Station FC/100 mL June-Sept 02 ExceedinQ 16C m!VL maIL
-
CHAJ.1 No data no data 267 no data no data
CH/1.1 28 87 507 0.43 0.1
CHI2.3 No data no data 437 no data no data
CHI3.4 27 71 1400 0.32 0.12
-
CHI5.3 17 103 764 0.3 no data
CHIE.1 NOd~ no data B5 no data no data
CHIE.7 69 0 0.3 no data
CHI7 .0 No data no data 143 no data no data
CHn.8 35 87 No data 0.3 no data
CHI8.8 22 102 No data 0.3 no data
CH/9.0 No data no data 3 no data no data
CHJ9.3 6 98 0 0.51 0.1
~ECH/O.2 25 88 155 0.57 0.1
~CHl1.0 30 84 290 0.6 no data
ECHI3.3 ! 31 82 0 0.68 no data
I~g~~ -l - -
28 81 No data 0.57. no data
5 96 0 0.53 0.06
~~1 I --~ 86 4 0.42j no data
0.531 -
NMJ.7 15! 92 0 no data
rOO~ I ---~ 94 318 0.51l no data
96 0 0.53 no data
.PUJ1J.4 _~L
There are many variables affecting water quality data so it is problematic to use one years set of
data as a definitive baseline. The most effective way to use this data is to monitor trends over time
using data from several years. For the purposes of this plan the data from 2002 is being used as the
baseline from which to monitor changes in water quality in future years.
Fecal Coliform: Table above lists the geometric mean value (GMV) for samples taken over a 12
month period, January - December 2002. 50 FC/1oomL and lower is the "Extraordinary Primary
Contact Recreation" standard that applies to Chimacum Cr. Fecal coliform numbers are quite variable
due to a number of factors so the overall trend in numbers over several years is a better indicator than
the GMV for one year.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO): % saturation is a measure of oxygen dissolved in water compared to it's
maximum potential. The avg. is based on data from June-Sept. 2002, the months representing worst
case conditions. DO readings vary considerably depending on time of day/time of year that data is
collected.
Surfac& Water Temperature: Table above lists hours that water temperature exceeded the state
standard of 16C in 2002.
Nitrate-Nitrogen (N03-N): Table above lists the monthly average concentration of nitrate-nitrogen
(N03-N) in water samples collected in 2002. There is no state standard for N03-N concentration but
it is used here to monitor potential increases due to agricultural inputs.
Total Phosphorous: Table above lists the monthly average concentration of Total Phosphorous
in water samples collected in 2002. There is no state standard for total phosphorous but it is used
here to monitor potential increases due to agricultural inputs.
TurbiditylTotal Suspended Solids: Variable depending on storm events. Consult report for
data.
21
Version 1/11/05
Appendix G: Watershed Characterization
Chimacum Creek - WRIA 17.0203 (Note: Italiciz d sections from WRIA 17 Salmon &
Steelhead Habitat Limitino Factors)
"Chimacum Creek originates in a number of spring. fed trib aries and lakes in the forested hills of east
Jefferson County on the northeast side of the Olympic Pen! sula. The mouth of the stream enters
Admiralty Inlet approximately five miles south of the City of ort Townsend. The Chimacum Cr.
divides into two forks at approximately river mile 2.9. The e st fork continues southeast for 6.5 miles
through Beaver Valley and the west fork continues southwe t and then west at Eaglemount Road for
11.3 miles through Center Valley (Ames and Bucknell 1981 . The Chimacum watershed is
approximately 33 square miles in area, with a combined st am length of about 30 miles (Ames et al
2000).
Chimacum Creek flows into two glacially carved lowland val eys dominated by pastureland with peat
and muck soils. The surrounding hills are used for rural resi ences and logging of second and third
growth timber and the lowland valleys are dominated by ag cultural use, primarily pastureland. Near
the confluence of the east and west forks of Chimacum Cre kat RM 2.9, are the towns of Chima cum,
Port Hadlock, and Ironda/e with rapidly growing reSidential nd commercial development. The
Chimacum Cr. enters a moderately confined and forested Ii vine below RM 1.3. At RM 0.2, the
stream continues through a comparatively unimpacted estu rine lagoon, salt marsh and relatively
deep inlet of Port Townsend Bay to the open saltwater of A miralty Inlet. The creek empties into a
short, partially forested tidal floodplain but has no distinct tid I delta (Ames et al 2000).
In the rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains, the watersh generally receives from 35 inches of rain
in its headwaters to less than 22 inches at the moL1th (Ames et al 2000). Jefferson County
Conservation District measured high flows ranging from 21 to 250 cfs in January and February of
1998 and 1999; in 2000 the highest flow was 125 afs meas ed in January. Low flows for the three
years occurred in July and August. The lowest flows record d for 1999 and 2000 were 4.22 cfs and
0.32 cfs respectively (Gately, G.2001)
Land use in the upper Chima cum watershed is forestry, bot public and private, while the middle
section is characterized by agriculture, rural residences, co mercial enterprise, industry and parks.
Commercial zoned lands comprise 41.7 percent of the wate hed while 39.9 percent is zoned rural
residential, 14 percent agriculture, 3.6 percent parks and O. percent commercial (Jeff Miller,
unpublished data, 2002).
While much of the habitat in the lower mile is public owners ip or protected by conservation
easements through the Jefferson Land Trust, habittJt in the pper Chimacum watershed has
decreased dramatically both in quantity and quality'over the ast 145 years. Removal of beaver
ponds, wetlands and channel meanders by extensive ditchi to create farmland has eliminated over
90% of the coho juvenile rearing habitat from the watershed. Since European settlement in the
1850s, an estimated 6% of summer rearing habitat,! 3% of w nter rearing habitat and 8lJO'" of spawning
habitat remains. Of this remaining habitat, most hBrs been fl rther degraded in terms of low oxygen
and elevated stream temperatures associated with ~ack of fo ested riparian zones, heavy siltation of
spawning and rearing areas and loss of channel complexity nd structure, particularly the loss of large
woody debris (Bahls and Rubin 1996). Approximately 1.5 to 1.75 miles of stream have been
rehabilitated since 1998. "
(From Salmon & Steel head Habitat Limiting Factors (LFA), 'RIA 17, Correa, 2002)
Agricultural practices have had a large impact on salmonid h bitat in the Chimacum Creek watershed.
The major impacts by agriculture occurred from the late 18 's through the 1960's when the creek
was channelized, wetlands drained, beaver dams were re ved, reed canarygrass was introduced,
irrigation instituted and riparian vegetation removed. Since t e mid 1980's voluntary efforts by the
2~ Version 1/11/05
landowners, government agencies, and community groups have improved and protected water quality
and salmon habitat throughout the watershed.
HISTORY:
Farming has been practiced in the rich bottomland along Chimacum Creek since the late
1800's. Through the years landowners cleared the forested sections, burned and pulled stumps and
drained the wetland soils. To facilitate drainage the creek was straightened and deepened throughout
most of the agricultural land. By the late 1950's most of the agricultural development and related
impacts on fish and wildlife habitat had occurred, including the introduction of reed canarygrass. Over
the years agriculture transitioned from numerous small commercial farms (mostly beef and dairy) to
the 2002 situation of 5 dairies, a few commercial beef operations, a small number of market garden
operations but mostly part-time beef, sheep and horse farms on small acreages. Throughout this
period of agricultural development the salmonid stocks remained in a viable, self sustaining condition
until the mid 1980's. In the 1980's the culmulative effects of habitat loss, ocean conditions, harvest,
farming, logging, and other factors decreased many salmon populations to critically low levels, with
the Chimacum summer chum disappearing in the mid 1980's.
In the Chimacum Creek watershed the coho, steel head and cutthroat trout populations that
utilize habitat in the APD maintained themselves at sustainable levels through this period and have
been on the upswing in recent years. The summer chum stock (which does not utilize habitat in the
APD) disappeared in the mid 1980's but summer chum have been re-introduced by a Wild Olympic
Salmon project.
Since the mid 1980's private landowners, government agencies and community groups have
worked together to improve and protect salmon habitat on ag lands of the Chimacum Creek
watershed. Key agencies have been the Jefferson County Conservation District, US Dept of
Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service and Farm Service Agency, Washington Dept. of
Fish and Wildlife, WSU Cooperative Extension, Jefferson County and the Port Gamble S'Klallam
Tribe. Key community groups have been Wild Olympic Salmon, North Olympic Salmon Coalition and
Jefferson Land Trust. These voluntary efforts have resulted to date (12/03) in:
· 30 agricultural landowners have worked with local agencies and community groups to implement
improvements to fish & wildlife habitat on their property, not including stream fencing and
undocumented work done by other landowners.
· 445 riparian acres have been protected in the in the watershed through conservation easements
and enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.
· 13.5+ miles of stream bank have been fenced through various programs, not including
undocumented fencing done at landowner expense.
· 3.6 miles of salmon habitat improvement projects have been implemented
These efforts to protect and improve salmon habitat are an existing process. As successful projects
are implemented additional opportunities occur. The most difficult parts of the process are obtaining
project funding and permits.
Salmon utilization: Chimacum Watershed
Salmonids utilizing the Chimacum Creek watershed include summer chum, fall chum, and
coho salmon; steel head and cutthroat trout. Summer chum salmon are ESA listed as "threatened",
the coho stock is considered "healthy" and there is no documentation of the status of fall chum,
steelhead and cutthroat trout.
Summer chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) utilize the lower mile of the watershed from RM 0
to RM 1. The Ag area begins at RM 3. They spawn in early September through mid-October, and the
fry move into the saltwater the following spring. In the mid-1980's the summer chum stock in
23
Version 1/11/05
Chimacum Creek was extirpated due to a combination of fa tors including ocean conditions, harvest
and habitat degradation due to a road culvert and fill failing. Up until that point, through 80+ years of
agricultural practices in the ag areas, the stock wa$ viable. n 1996 Wild Olympic Salmon volunteers
began a reintroduction of summer chum utilizing eggs from e Salmon Creek stock. liThe first
returning adult summer chum were observed in 1999 when total of 38 fish returned. In 2000, 52
adults returned and, in 2001, 903 adults retumed. ft is likely that the majority of the returning adults
are from the Chimacum Creek project with some straying fj m Salmon Creek. Otolith analysis will
help determine adult origin beginning in brood yean 2002. til otolith examination detennines adult
origin, it cannot be assumed that a naturally-produting popu ation is established in the stream (Thom
Johnson, personal communication 2002). Rather, they are onsidered a range extension of the
Discovery Bay summer chum stock. Consequently Chimac m Creek summer chum status is still
considered Extinct (Ames et a120oo; Thom Johnsdn, SaSI ntribution in review 2002). n
Impacts on summer chum by agriculture are minimal High water temperatures that can be
attributed to lack of riparian cover upstream do occur in the ummer chum reach, though
temperatures are within AA (extraordinary) water driteria du ing the time of summer chum utilization.
Impacts of water withdrawal for irrigation is not known. The ain limiting factor for summer chum in
this watershed is a high level of fines in the spawnilllg gravel how much of this is due to agriculture is
difficult to determine. Parent material in the lower reach of t e creek is characterized by a high level
of fines. The fact that the majority of the ag area is in organ soils, hay fields and pasture with stable
grass covered banks indicates that the amount of fihe materi I introduced to the summer chum reach
by agriculture practices is not great.
Coho
SASSI lists Chimacum Creek coho as a separate s(ock of m ed origin and composite production with
a status rating of Healthy (WDFWand WWTribes 1994). Th index season-cumulative redd count
. experi nced an increasing trend in the mid to
late 19 Os time period, so the stock has again
been halthy. This is a provisional rating, as
there a e concerns regarding the overall health
of the oho population in the basin that the
index ata may not adequately represent, given
the su ey index is likely representative of only
the be er quality coho spawning habitat in the
stream basin (Thom Johnson, SaSI contribution
in revi w, 2002). Escapement has remained
steady hroughout the past twenty fIVe years
(see Fi ure 1). WDFW montitors cumulative
redd c unts at two index sites, river mile 8.3 to
9.2 an river mile 9.4 to 10.2. Beginning in the
, year 2 00, the lower index area was shortened
to river mile 8.9 to 9.2. An additional population
statistic available for this stock is stratified random sampling ased estimates of total adult coho
escapement for the Chimacum Creek for the 1998 to 2000 Ii urn years (1998 = 550 coho, 1999= 711
and 2000= 1,054). These estimates are based on a selectio of survey areas stratified by geographic
region and habitat type (Randy Cooper, personal communica ion, 2002).
Figure 1. Chimacum Coho Cumulative Redd Counts,
1984 to 2001. Data provided by Randy Cooper,
WDFW
ChimacumHigh School initiated a small hatchery on Chimac m Creek in 1971 and began incubating
and rearing coho using Quilcene stock. The project ended in the late 1980s, the last three years of
which used Dungeness stock (Ray Lowry, personal communi ation 2002). Wild Olympic Salmon
collected eggs from local broodstock for two years in the earl 1990s and observed an extended run
time possibly due to the infiltration of the early Qui/cene stoe and the later run Dungeness stock.
McHenry and Lichatowich (1996) speculate that the ,early ret rning fish probably could not survive the
low flow conditions in Chimacum Creek during mostlyears. 1 fish captured at the Wild Olympic
Salmon weir were wild in origin (Wild Olympic Sa/m~n, unpu ished data 1994). n
24
Version 1/11105
Coho and Fall Chum Salmon, Steelhead and cutthroat trout utilize the entire watershed that is
accessible to them. Much of the ag production District is comprised of organic soils (mucks and
peats) which are not utilized for spawning but are utilized for juvenile rearing. Factors in the ag
production District affecting these species are lack of riparian vegetation and associated high water
temperature in the summer; lack of L WD and channel complexity, periods of low levels of dissolved
oxygen, reed canary grass and reduced juvenile rearing habitat (from historic levels). Despite these
problems the populations of these species are healthy in this watershed. Impacts due to agricultural
practices have been stable for many years and have been improving in recent years, except for the
negative impacts of reed canary grass. Given this stability and the improvements that have been
made to water quality and habitat the biggest threats to the stability of the salmonid stocks comes
from reed canary grass impacting reaches in the APD, and factors outside the ag production District -
forest practices and development in violation of current regulations, ocean conditions and harvest.
25
Version 1/11/05
"
Appendix H
Stream ReaCh Descriptions
Chimacum Cr.
Watershed
^/ . oads
.....-.", "" ....... Reach
'/\/Reach
C ChJmacu Cr. Watershed
CJ Section nes
~::~:~i~ existing Ongoing Agriculture
o
I
1 Miles
I
+
2$
Version 1/11/05
Appendix H: Stream Reach descriptions/habitat improvement recommendations.
Following are descriptions of different reaches in the agricultural areas of Chimacum Creek
and major tributaries, plus recommendations for fish and wildlife habitat protection and
improvement.
Chimacum Cr.. RM 2.3 - 3.4
Description: This reach is low gradient and was channelized many years ago. Some meander has
formed. Stream flow is south to north. It is utilized by coho salmon and cutthroat trout for spawning
and rearing. Some fall chum salmon may utilize the reach. Agriculture in this reach depends on good
field drainage and any flow restrictions cause negative effects to farm operations, especially in the
reach RM2.3-2.7. The stream is fenced through fields being used for pasture. Reed canarygrass is
problematic in the very low gradient sections of this reach.
Salmon Habitat evaluation and recommendations:
· Fish passage: no culverts causing fish passage problems associated with this reach. Reed
Canarygrass taking over segments of the channel could create fish passage problems if not
controlled.
· Habitat structure: There is very little LWD present in this reach. LWD placement has to be done
carefully so it doesn't backup water and raise the water table in adjacent fields or increase
flooding.
· Poots: There are some pools in this reach. Additional LWD would help with pool development.
· Bank Stability: Good. Livestock exclusion fencing has kept livestock off streambanks.
· Riparian condition: 40% poor to moderate due to lack of shading/cover, though streambanks are
grassed and stable. 60% moderate to good forest cover.
· Temperature: Poor in summer months due to upstream influences. Measures listed in Riparian
condition above will improve temperature conditions.
. Dissolved Oxygen: moderate
Efforts to date:
Livestock exclusion fencing has been constructed where livestock are present. Landowners
considering L WD placement, tree planting and engineered livestock crossings.
Potential Salmon Habitat Improvements
1. Improve water temperature by additional plantings of trees and shrubs to provide shade. The
main temperature problem comes from direct sunlight on the water in this reach.
2. Develop and fund a channel maintenance plan to control reed canarygrass where banks have
been planted with trees/shrubs. Existing reed canarygrass control depends on the ability to
remove it using tracked excavators or spray it with appropriate herbicides. Once trees/shrubs are
planted on the banks it is difficult to use the excavator option and control may have to rely on
herbicide applications. This will be most crucial during the 10 -15 years after planting, before the
shade from trees reduces canarygrass growth. Without a canarygrass maintenance program the
creek channel will be clogged with canarygrass causing problems for salmon, landowners and
drowning out trees/shrubs.
3. Improve structural fish habitat. In appropriate areas LWD can be added in conjunction with other
structural changes such as re-meandering the channel. This must be done in a way that does
not reduce flow/channel capacity that impacts the drainage of ag land.
FundinG: Funding should be found to cover the cost of salmon habitat improvement. Federal
programs such as CREP, EQIP, WRP and WHIP may be useful for different components of habitat
improvement and protection.
27
Version 1/11/05
Chimacum Cr' RM 3.4 - 5.8
Description: This reach is extremely low gradient and chan elized through hydric soils. Stream flow
is south to north. It is utilized by salmon for transport to-and rom upstream spawning areas, and for
juvenile rearing. There is no spawning habitat in this reach s the soils are predominantly muck type
with no gravel and not enough gradient to support pools and riffles. Agriculture in this reach depends
on good field drainage and any flow restrictions causes neg ive effects tofarm operations. Most of
the reach has been fenced voluntarily by landowners. The d wnstream end of this reach experiences
the highest water temperatures during the summer tnonths. t would be the only reach in the
watershed not in compliance with the proposed changes in t e DOE temperature criteria for
freshwater. In the late 1970's this reach was clogged with re d canarygrass to the point that it was
difficult to identify the channel, and there was virtually no op n water. It was problematic for both
juvenile and adult fish passage and probably experienced p r DO levels associated with decaying
vegetation. The canarygrass was cleaned out of the chann I in the early 1980's. Since then a
maintenance program conducted by local farmers has kept e channel open. If this maintenance
program is discontinued the creek channel will become clog ed with reed canarygrass within 10
years. This will increase flooding, reduce agricultural produ ion, reduce DO levels, and causing
passage problems for salmonids.
Salmon Habitat evaluation and recommendations:
· Fish passage: no culverts causing fish passage proble s associated with this reach. Reed
Canarygrass taking over extensive segments of the cha nel could create fish passage problems
if not controlled.
. Habitat structure: There is very little LWD present in thi
habitat but is not needed to affect geomorphic processe
carefully so it doesn't backup water and raise the water
flooding. Existing bridges and culverts are heavily utiliz
structures spanning the stream would be beneficial.
. Pools: Most of reach is one long pool. Gradient/soils n t conducive to pool/riffle complexes.
Pools do form beneath the bridges in this reach so full-s anning structures are beneficial.
· Bank Stability: Good. Livestock exclusion fending has k pt livestock off streambanks.
· Riparian condition: Poor due to lack of shadingVcover. treambanks are grassed and stable.
Three sites have trees/shrubs on both banks (10% of re ch) with canopy shading stream, and
three sites have trees/shrubs planted on one side of cre k (20% of reach)..
· Temperature: Poor in summer months. Measures listed in Riparian condition above will improve
temperature conditions.
. Dissolved Oxygen: Variable
reach. It would be useful for cover and
. LWD placement has to be done
ble in adjacent fields or increase
by fish for cover. Additionallog/wood
Efforts to date:
Landowners, agencies and community groups have en working on water quality protection
and salmon habitat improvements for many years. livestock exclusion fencing has been constructed
throughout this reach. Trees and shrubs have been planted n the streambanks to provide shade,
cover and reed canarygrass control in several sectk>ns, with ixed results.
Potential Salmon Habitat Improvements
4. Improve water temperature through reach by additional lantings of trees and shrubs to provide
shade. The main temperature problem comes from dire t sunlight on the water in this slow
moving, low gradient reach.
5. Develop and fund a channel maintenance plan to control reed canarygrass where banks have
been planted with trees/shrubs. Existing reed danarygra s control depends on the ability to
remove it using tracked excavators or spray it with appro riate herbicides. Once trees/shrubs are
28
Version 1/11/05
planted on the banks it is difficult to use the excavator option and control may have to rely on
herbicide applications. This will be most crucial during the 10 - 15 years after planting, before the
shade from trees reduces canarygrass growth. Without a canary9rass maintenance program the
creek channel will be clogged with canarygrass causing problems for salmon, landowners and
drowning out trees/shrubs.
6. Improve structural fish habitat. In appropriate areas L WD can be added in conjunction with other
structural changes such as re-meandering the channel. This must be done in a way that does
not reduce flow/channel capacity that impacts the drainage of ag land.
FundinG:
Funding should be found to cover the cost of salmon habitat improvement. Federal programs
such as CREP, EQIP, WRP and WHIP may be useful for different components of habitat
improvement, protection.
Chimacum Cr.. RM 5.8 -6.2
Description: This reach was channelized for agricultural purposes but has been the subject of recent
salmon habitat improvement projects. It is utilized by coho salmon for spawning and rearing. In 1997
a 600 foot reach was the subject of habitat improvements that included changing the bank
configuration to promote meandering, and anchoring in Large woody debris (LWD). At that time a
buffer was planted that ranged from 25' to 100' which is now being expanded to 180' on each side
through the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). In 2002 the remainder of the
reach was improved for salmon habitat, including channel re-meandering, replacement of a cement
box culvert with a bridge. addition of LWD, pools and spawning gravels. A buffer ranging from 25' to
180' was planted in winter 2002-2003.'
Salmoo Habitat evaluation and recommendations:
· Fish Passage: no fish passage problems are associated with this reach.
· Habitat structure: Habitat structure has been improved through the salmon habitat improvement
projects.
· Pools: Pools and riffles have been added through the improvement projects.
. Bank Stability: Good
· Riparian condition: Poor at present but will improve as buffer plantings grow.
· Temperature: Fair to Poor for short periods in summer. This problem is being addressed by
buffer planting.
· Dissolved Oxygen: Good.
Efforts to date: Entire reach has been improved for salmon habitat.
Potential Salmon Habitat Improvements
1. Entire reach has been improved for salmon habitat. Monitor these projects to determine if
additional work is necessary, and applaud landowners participation.
2. Develop and fund a channel maintenance plan to control reed canarygrass where banks have
been planted with trees/shrubs. Existing reed canarygrass control depends on the ability to
remove it using tracked excavators or spray it with appropriate herbicides. Once trees/shrubs are
planted on the banks it is difficult to use the excavator option and control may have to rely on
herbicide applications. This will be most crucial during the 10 - 15 years after planting, before the
shade from trees reduces canarygrass growth. Without a canarygrass maintenance program the
creek channel will be clogged with canarygrass causing problems for salmon, landowners and
drowning out trees/shrubs.
29
Version 1/11105
..
Chimacum Ct. RM 6. - 6.9
Description: This reach was channelized for agriculture. Trees and shrubs have been allowed to
grow along the creek so it is well shaded. Thbugh ch nnelized many years ago meander has
developed in some locations, and pools and riffles have formed. It is utilized by salmon ids for
spawning and rearing. This reach has some of the best Ish habitat in the agricultural production
District.
Salmon habitat evaluation and recommendations:
· Fish Passage: Fish passage could be improved at the Center Rd. crossing (RM 6.7). It is not a
major problem and should be addressed wheh the exi ting culverts are replaced as part of the
county road maintenance plans.
. Habitat structure: Generally good. Additional LWD wou d be beneficial but only if it can be added
without comprimising the good riparian condition.
. Pools: Pool composition and freqency is fair.
. Bank stability: good
. Riparian condition: good
. Temperature: good
. Dissolved oxygen: good
Efforts to date: This reach has not been imtensivel used for agriculture for many years.
Landowners have maintained a good riparian zone Ithat is b neficial to fish and wildlife.
Potential Salmon Habitat Improvements
1. Maintain as is letting natural events improve habitat.
2. Thank the landowners for maintaining this reactil in such ood condition.
Chimacum CI1. RM 6. - 8.2
Description: This reach is very low gradient and channeliz d through hydric soils - similar to RM 3.4
to 5.8. It is utilized by salmon for transport to-and-ftom upstr am spawning areas, and for juvenile
rearing. There may be some spawning habitat in the uppe ost stream segment. Agriculture in this
reach depends on good field drainage and any flow restrictio s causes negative effects to farm
operations. The entire reach has been fenced voluntarily by landowners. In the late 1970's this reach
was clogged with reed canarygrass to the point that it was d. Icult to identify the channel, and there
was virtually no open water. It was problematic for both juve i1e and adult fish passage and probably
experienced poor DO levels associated with decaying vege tion. The canarygrass was cleaned out
of the channel in the early 1980's. Since then little channel aintenance has been done and the
channel is becoming clogged with reed canarygras$, increas ng flooding, reducing agricultural
production, affecting DO levels and potentially cau~ing pass ge problems for salmonids.
Salmon Habitat evaluation and recommendations:
. Fish passage: no fish passage problems asso~iated wit this reach.
. Habitat structure: There is very little L WD present in thi reach. It would be useful for cover and
habitat but is not needed to affect geomorphic II>rocesse . L WD placement has .to be done
carefully so it doesn't backup water and raise the water ble in adjacent fields or increase
flooding. Existing bridges and culverts are utilized by fis for cover. Additionalloglwood
structures spanning the stream would be beneficial.
. Pools: Most of reach is one long pool. Gradiel1lt/soils n t conducive to pool/riffle complexes. Dug
pools tend to fill in as there is not enough flow to keep m open.
30
Version 1/11105
. Bank Stability: Good. Livestock exclusion fencing has kept livestock off streambanks.
. Riparian condition: Poor due to lack of shading/cover. Streambanks are grassed and stable.
. Temperature: Poor in summer months. Measures listed in Riparian condition above will improve
temperature conditions.
. Dissolved Oxygen: Variable
Efforts to date:
Landowners, agencies and community groups have been working on water quality protection
and salmon habitat improvements for many years. Livestock exclusion fencing has been constructed
throughout this reach.
Potential Salmon Habitat Improvements
1. Improve water temperature by additional plantings of trees and shrubs to provide shade. The
main temperature problem comes from direct sunlight on the water in this slow moving, low
gradient reach.
2. Develop and fund a channel maintenance plan to control reed canarygrass where banks have
been planted with trees/shrubs. Existing reed canarygrass control depends on the ability to
remove it using tracked excavators or spray it with appropriate herbicides. Once trees/shrubs are
planted on the banks it is difficult to use the excavator option and control may have to rely on
herbicide applications. This will be most crucial during the 10 -15 years after planting, before the
shade from trees reduces canarygrass growth. Without a canarygrass maintenance program the
creek channel will be clogged with canarygrass causing problems for salmon, landowners and
drowning out trees/shrubs.
3. Improve structural fish habitat. In appropriate areas LWD can be added in conjunction with other
structural changes such as re-meandering the channel. This must be done in a way that does
not reduce flow/channel capacity that impacts the drainage of ag land.
Fundina:
Funding should be found to cover the cost of salmon habitat improvement. Federal programs
such as CREP, EQIP, WRP and WHIP may be useful for different components of habitat
improvement, protection.
Chimacum Cr.. RM 8.2-8.8
Description: This reach is low-medium gradient and passes through a predominately forested
riparian area. It is utilized by salmon for spawning and for juvenile rearing, and contains important
spawning habitat. The reach has been fenced voluntarily by landowners where livestock are being
raised.
Salmon Habitat evaluation and recommendations:
· Fish passage: no fish passage problems associated with this reach.
· Habitat structure: There is some LWD present in this reach, with some pools and riffles.
Additionallog/wood structures would be beneficial.
. Pools: Good pool/riffle complexes.
· Bank Stability: Good. Livestock exclusion fencing has kept livestock off streambanks.
· Riparian condition: Good - reach passes through a predominately forested riparian area.
. Temperature: Good
· Dissolved Oxygen: Good.
31
Version 1/11/05
Efforts to date:
Livestock exclusion fencing has been constructed th ughout this reach where needed.
Reach is in relatively good shape habitat wise and has not b en the focus of habitat improvements.
1. Reach is in good enough shape that it is considered a I priority for habitat improvement.
2. Protect the existing riparian vegetation through; conserv tion easements with willing landowners.
Potential Salmon Habitat Improvements
FundinG:
Funding would need to be found to cover cOst of con ervation easement purchase.
Chimacum C~ RM 8. - 9.4
Description: This reach is low gradient and channelized th ugh mineral soils. It is utilized by
salmon for spawning and juvenile rearing. The entire reach as been fenced voluntarily by
landowners.
Salmon Habitat evaluation and recommendations:
· Fish passage: no fish passage problems assotiated wit this reach.
· Habitat structure: There is very little LWD present in thi reach. It would be useful for cover and
habitat. LWD placement has to be done carefully so it d sn't backup water increase flooding.
Additional log/wood structures would be benefitial.
· Pools: Reach is mostly riffle with scattered poqIs.
. Bank Stability: Good. Livestock exclusion fenCing has
· Riparian condition: Poor due to lack of shading/cover.
· Temperature: Fair. Would benefit from more shade on
. Dissolved Oxygen: Good
ept livestock off streambanks.
treambanks are grassed and stable.
reek.
Efforts to date:
Landowners, agencies and community groups have
and salmon habitat improvements for many years. Livestoc
throughout this reach, a sediment basin was constl1iJcted to
failures, and some riparian planting has been done.
en working on water quality protection
exclusion fencing has been constructed
al with the effects of upstream slope
Potential Salmon Habitat.lmprovements
1. Improve water temperature through reach by additional lantings of trees and shrubs to provide
shade.
2. Improve channel conflQuration by remeanderin~ betwee Eaglemount Rd. and sediment basin.
3. Improve structural fish habitat. In appropriate areas LW can be added in conjunction with other
structural changes such as re-meandering the ~nnel
FundinG:
Funding should be found to cover the cost of salmon abitat improvement. Federal programs
such as CREP, EQIP, WRP and WHIP may be useful for diff rent components of habitat
improvement, protection.
Chimacum Cr~ RM 9. - 12
Description: This reach is not agricultural, passing thr ugh private forestland and contains
the most extensive salmon spawning habitat in the wat rshed.
32
Version 1/11/05
Chimacum Cr., RM 12-13
Description: This reach is very low gradient and channelized through hydric soils - similar to RM 3.4
to 5.8. It is utilized by salmon for juvenile rearing from June through July. There may be some
spawning habitat in the uppermost stream segment. Agriculture in this reach depends on good field
drainage and any flow restrictions causes negative effects to farm operations. The reach usually
dries up by early summer.
Salmon Habitat evaluation and recommendations:
. Fish passage: Upstream juvenile passage during summer is blocked by Eaglemount Rd. culvert,
but habitat upstream of culvert is connected to Delanty lake which has largemouth bass in it.
· Habitat structure: There is no LWD present in this reach. It would be useful for cover and habitat
but is not needed to affect geomorphic processes. LWD placement has to be done carefully so it
doesn't backup water and raise the water table in adjacent fields or increase flooding
· Pools: Most of reach is one long pool. Gradient/soils not conducive to pool/riffle complexes. Dug
pools result in stranded fish as reach dries up.
. Bank Stability: Good.
· Riparian condition: Poor due to lack of shading/cover. Streambanks are grassed and stable.
· Temperature: Little or no water in reach during warm summer months.
. Dissolved Oxygen: Variable
Efforts to date:
Test pools have been excavated and water quality (DO) monitored.
Potential Salmon Habitat Improvements
Since the existing hydrology results in the channel drying up in the summer there is limited potential
for improving salmon habitat.
Navlor's Cr. RM 0.0 - 0.7 & Putaansuu Cr. RM 0.0 - 0.4
Description: These tributaries are low gradient, have year-round water and are predominately
channelized. They are utilized by salmon for spawning and for juvenile rearing. Livestock exclusion
fencing has been constructed along most of the streambanks.
Salmon Habitat evaluation and recommendations:
· Fish passage: no fish passage problems associated with this reach.
· Habitat structure: There is very little LWD present in this reach. It would be useful for cover and
habitat could affect geomorphic processes in some locations. L WD placement has to be done
carefully so it doesn't backup water and raise the water table in adjacent fields or increase
flooding. Additional log/wood structures would be beneficial.
. Pools: Fair.
· Bank Stability: Good except for areas where livestock have access.
· Riparian condition: Mostly poor due to lack of shading/cover. Streambanks are grassed.
· Temperature: Good in Naylors, poor in lower reach of Putaansuu
· Dissolved Oxygen: Variable
Efforts to date:
Landowners, agencies and community groups have been working on water quality protection
and salmon habitat improvements for many years. Livestock exclusion fencing has been constructed
throughout this reach where needed. Trees/shrubs have been planted along both creeks in several
areas. Three Instream habitat improvement projects have been done.
33
Version 1/11/05
Potential Salmon Habitat Imorovements
1. Improve water temperature through reach by additional lantings of trees and shrubs to provide
shade. The main temperature problem in Putaansuu C . comes from direct sunlight on the
rearing pond upstream of W. Valley Rd.
2. Improve structural fish habitat. In appropriate areas LW can be added in conjunction with other
structural changes such as re-meandering the channel. This must be done in a way that does
not reduce flow/channel capacity that impacts 1he drain ge of ag land.
s. Fork of Chimacum Cr.
Fundino:
Funding should be found to cover the cost df salmon habitat improvement. Federal programs
such as CREP, EQIP, WRP and WHIP may be useful for d' rent components of habitat
improvement, protection.
Description: This reach is low gradient and channelized. It s utilized by salmon for spawning and
juvenile rearing. Agriculture in this reach depends on good eld drainage and any flow restrictions
causes negative effects to farm operations. Most of the rea has been fenced voluntarily by
landowners where needed. The lower reach tends to get cl ged with canarygrass, and the upper
part of this reach is in beaver pond habitat. Old maps show his as Walsh Cr., though it was
inadvertently called "Barnhouse Cr." by salmon res~ration ~ Iks in the late 1980's.
Salmon Habitat evaluation and recommendations:
· Fish passage: no fish passage problems associated wit this reach.
· Habitat structure: There is very little LWD present in thi reach. It would be useful for cover and
habitat but is not needed to affect geomorphic processe . L WD placement has to be done
carefully so it doesn't backup water and raise the water ble in adjacent fields or increase
flooding. Additionalloglwood structures spannR1g the seam would be beneficial.
· Pools: Some scattered pools.
· Bank Stability: Good. Livestock exclusion fending hask pt livestock off most streambanks.
· Riparian condition: Poor due to lack of shadingVcover. treambanks are grassed and stable.
· Temperature: Good in upper reach, poor in lower.
· Dissolved Oxygen: Variable
Efforts to date:
Landowners, agencies and community groups have n working on water quality protection
and salmon habitat improvements for many years. Livestock exclusion fencing has been constructed
throughout most of this reach.
Potential Salmon Habitat Imorovements
1. Improve water temperature through reach by additional lantings of trees and shrubs to provide
shade. The main temperature problem comes .rom dire sunlight on the water in this slow
moving, low gradient reach.
2. Develop and fund a channel maintenance plan to control reed canarygrass where banks have
been planted with trees/shrubs. Existing reed canarygra s control depends on the ability to
remove it using tracked excavators or spray it with appro riate herbicides. Once trees/shrubs are
planted on the banks it is difficult to use the excavator 0 'on and control may have to rely on
herbicide applications. This will be most crucialiduring 10 -15 years after planting, before the
shade from trees reduces canarygrass growth. iWithout canarygrass maintenance program the
34
Version 1/11/05
creek channel will be clogged with canarygrass causing problems for salmon, landowners and
drowning out trees/shrubs.
3. Improve structural fish habitat. In appropriate areas LWD can be added in conjunction with other
structural changes such as re-meandering the channel. This must be done in a way that does
not reduce flow/channel capacity that impacts the drainage of ag land.
FundinQ:
Funding should be found to cover the cost of salmon habitat improvement. Federal programs
such as CREP, EQIP, WRP and WHIP may be useful for different components of habitat
improvement, protection.
South Fork of Chimacum Cr.lWalsh/Barnhouse Cr.) RM 0.7 -1.0
Description: This reach has some gradient and has been the subject of a habitat restoration project
that re-meandered the channel and planted a riparian buffer. It is utilized by salmon for spawning and
juvenile rearing. The entire reach has been fenced and placed in a Conservation Easement.
Salmon Habitat evaluation and recommendations:
. Fish passage: no fish passage problems associated with this reach.
· Habitat structure: Good after completion of the habitat restoration project.
. Pools: Good.
· Bank Stability: Good. Livestock exclusion fencing has kept livestock off banks.
· Riparian condition: Improving due to riparian planting and buffers.
. Temperature: Good
. Dissolved Oxygen: Good
Efforts to date:
Entire reach was subject to habitat restoration project in late 1990's.
E. Chimacum Cr. RM 0.0 -1.2
Description: This reach is low-to very-low gradient and channelized It is utilized by salmon for
spawning and juvenile rearing. Fencing has been installed where appropriate. Reach was subject to
habitat restoration projects in 1999 and 2003, which included instream improvements, re-meandering,
riparian fencing and planting. 65% of reach is either enrolled in CREP or protected by a Conservation
Easement.
Salmon Habitat evaluation and recommendations:
· Fish passage: no fish passage problems associated with this reach.
· Habitat structure: LWD has been added.
· Pools: Much of reach is pool, with scattered riffles.
· Bank Stability: Good. Livestock exclusion fencing has kept livestock off streambanks.
· Riparian condition: Medium to poor but improving as trees and shrubs planted in last few years
grow. .Streambanks are grassed and stable.
· Temperature: Poor in summer months. Measures listed in Riparian condition above will improve
temperature conditions.
· Dissolved Oxygen: Variable
Efforts to date:
Landowners, agencies and community groups have been working on water quality protection
and salmon habitat improvements for many years. Livestock exclusion fencing has been constructed
throughout this reach.
35
Version 1/11/05
"
Potential Salmon Habitat ImDrovements
1. Improve water temperature through reach by additional plantings of trees and shrubs to provide
shade. The main temperature problem comes from dir ct sunlight on the water in this slow
moving, low gradient reach.
2. Develop and fund a channel maintenance plan to contr I reed canarygrass where banks have
been planted with trees/shrubs. Existing reed ;canarygr ss control depends on the ability to
remove it using tracked excavators or spray it with appr priate herbicides. Once trees/shrubs are
planted on the banks it is difficult to use the e~vator ption and control may have to rely on
herbicide applications. This will be most crucial during e 10 -15 years after planting, before the
shade from trees reduces canarygrass growth~ Withou a canarygrass maintenance program the
creek channel will be clogged with canarygrass causing problems for salmon, landowners and
drowning out trees/shrubs.
3 Improve structural fish habitat. In appropriate areas L 0 can be added in conjunction with other
structural changes such as re-meandering the ichannel. This must be done in a way that does
not reduce flow/channel capacity that impacts the drain ge of ag land.
Fundina:
Funding should be found to cover the cost (j>f salmon habitat improvement. Federal programs
such as CREP, EQIP, WRP and WHIP may be useful for d' erent components of habitat
improvement, protection.
Description: This reach is low-to very-low gradient and ch nnelized. It is utilized by salmon for
juvenile rearing with very little spawning habitat. Fencing h been installed where appropriate. Parts
of reach have been subject to habitat restoration pnojects in 2 & 2003, which included instream
improvements, re-meandering, riparian fencing and planting Several sections are in CREP. Some
areas have problems with reed canarygrass c10ggiltlg the nnel.
Salmon Habitat evaluation and recommendations:
· Fish passage: no fish passage problems asso~iated wit this reach.
· Habitat structure: LWD has been added to several sites but is generally lacking.
· Pools: Much of reach is pool, with scattered rifllles.
· Bank Stability: Good. Livestock exclusion fencing has k pt livestock off streambanks.
· Riparian condition: Medium to poor but improving as tre s and shrubs planted in last few years
grow. .Streambanks are grassed and stable.
· Temperature: fair in summer months. Measures listed i Riparian condition above will improve
temperature conditions.
· Dissolved Oxygen: Variable
Efforts to date:
Several habitat improvement projects have been und rtaken in this reach and several
properties have enrolled in CREP. Livestock exclusion fenci g has been constructed throughout this
reach.
Potential Salmon Habitat ImDrovements
1. Improve water temperature through reach by ~ditional antings of trees and shrubs to provide
shade. The main temperature problem comes 'rom dir sunlight on the water in this slow
moving, low gradient reach.
36
V6fSion 1/11105
2. Develop and fund a channel maintenance plan to control reed canarygrass where banks have
been planted with trees/shrubs. Existing reed canarygrass control depends on the ability to
remove it using tracked excavators or spray it with appropriate herbicides. Once trees/shrubs are
planted on the banks it is difficult to use the excavator option and control may have to rely on
herbicide applications. This will be most crucial during the 10 - 15 years after planting, before the
shade from trees reduces canarygrass growth. Without a canarygrass maintenance program the
creek channel will be clogged with canarygrass causing problems for salmon, landowners and
drowning out trees/shrubs.
3. Improve structural fish habitat. In appropriate areas LWD can be added in conjunction with other
structural changes such as re-meandering the channel. This must be done in a way that does
not reduce flow/channel capacity that impacts the drainage of ag land.
Funding:
Funding should be found to cover the cost of salmon habitat improvement. Federal programs
such as CREP, EQIP, WRP and WHIP may be useful for different components of habitat
improvement, protection.
E. Chimacum Cr. RM 4.8 - 5.3
Description: This reach is medium to low gradient and channelized. It is utilized by salmon for
spawning and juvenile rearing. Fencing has been installed where appropriate.
Salmon Habitat evaluation and recommendations:
. Fish passage: no fish passage problems associated with this reach.
. Habitat structure: Poor, lacking LWD.
. Pools: Scattered pools and riffles..
. Bank Stability: Good. Livestock exclusion fencing has kept livestock off streambanks.
. Riparian condition: Goof to poor.
. Temperature: Good. Measures listed in Riparian condition above will improve temperature
conditions.
. Dissolved Oxygen: Good
Efforts to date:
Livestock exclusion fencing has been constructed throughout this reach. Livestock crossings
and altemative sources of livestock drinking water have been constructed.
Potential Salmon Habitat Improvements
1. Improve water temperature through reach by additional plantings of trees and shrubs to provide
shade. The main temperature problem comes from direct sunlight on the water in this slow
moving, low gradient reach.
2. Improve structural fish habitat. In appropriate areas LWD can be added in conjunction with other
structural changes such as re-meandering the channel. This must be done in a way that does
not reduce flow/channel capacity that impacts the drainage of ag land.
Funding:
Funding should be found to cover the cost of salmon habitat improvement. Federal programs
such as CREP, EQIP, WRP and WHIP may be useful for different components of habitat
improvement, protection.
37
Version 1/11/05
...
.
Appendix I: Riparian Management Guide: To be d eloped.
A Riparian Management Guide will be develope that provides information on
watershed -based management objectives and' techniq es derived from local agricultural
landowner's experience.
38
Version 1/11/05