HomeMy WebLinkAboutHearing re Big Quil and little Quil large file
BIG AND LITTLE QUILCENE RIVERS
COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT
PLAN
Prepared for June 2023
Jefferson County
BIG AND LITTLE QUILCENE RIVERS
COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT
PLAN
Prepared for June 2023
Jefferson County
Prepared by Environmental Science Associates
Cover Photo: Outlets of Little Quilcene River
and Donovan Creek at tidal marsh on Quilcene Bay October 2022. Photo by Environmental
Science Associates.
2801 Alaskan Way Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98121 206.789.9658 esassoc.com
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers i
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................. iii
Chapter 1, Plan Development .............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope .............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Plan Development Process .................................................................................. 1 1.3 Advisory Team Meetings ...................................................................................... 2 1.4 Public Involvement ................................................................................................ 2 1.5 Goals and Objectives for Flood Hazard Management .......................................... 3
Chapter 2, Existing Conditions ............................................................................................ 5 2.1 Watershed Description ......................................................................................... 5 2.2 Natural Features ................................................................................................. 11 2.3 Land Use Analysis .............................................................................................. 15 2.4 Infrastructure Analysis ........................................................................................ 21 2.5 Planning and Regulatory Context ....................................................................... 29 2.6 Demographics Analysis ...................................................................................... 32 2.7 River Reach Descriptions ................................................................................... 35
2.8 History of Flooding and Flood Hazard Analysis .................................................. 38
2.9 Potential Future Conditions ................................................................................ 45
2.10 Flood Management Activities .............................................................................. 48 2.11 Vulnerability Assessment .................................................................................... 52
Chapter 3, Determination of Need ..................................................................................... 57
Chapter 4, Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions ......... 61 4.1 Identification of Alternatives ................................................................................ 61 4.2 Evaluation of Alternatives ................................................................................... 61 4.3 Ongoing Programs .............................................................................................. 63 4.4 Description of Alternatives Recommended for Action ......................................... 63 4.5 Alternatives Evaluation Table ............................................................................. 80 4.6 Summary of High-Priority Actions ....................................................................... 82
Chapter 5, Implementation and Funding ........................................................................... 83 5.1 Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................. 83
5.2 Potential Funding Sources .................................................................................. 84
Chapter 6, Plan Review, Revision, Adoption, and Maintenance ..................................... 88 6.1 Plan Adoption ..................................................................................................... 88 6.2 Plan Evaluation and Updates ............................................................................. 88 6.3 Continued Public Involvement ............................................................................ 89 6.4 Adaptive Management ........................................................................................ 89
Chapter 7, References ........................................................................................................ 91
Table of Contents
Page
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers ii
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Figures
Figure 1. Big and Little Quilcene River Basins ........................................................................ 6
Figure 2. WRIA 17 and the CFHMP Study Area ..................................................................... 7
Figure 3. CFHMP Study Area and 1% Annual Chance Floodplain ......................................... 9 Figure 4. Land Cover in the Study Area. ............................................................................... 16 Figure 5. Jefferson County Zoning Districts in the Study Area (2019). .................................. 18 Figure 6. Infrastructure within the Study Area ....................................................................... 22 Figure 7. Census Areas, with Study Area in Red .................................................................. 33 Figure 8. Study Reaches in the Little Quilcene and Big Quilcene River Basins .................... 36 Figure 9. Active Stream Gages ............................................................................................. 40 Figure 10. Annual Peak Discharges on the Big Quilcene River ............................................ 43 Figure 11. Floodway and Channel Migration Zone................................................................ 44 Figure 12. Flood Risk Concerns and Flood Risk Management Projects ............................... 60
Tables
Table 1 Advisory Team Members for the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers CFHMP ................ 2 Table 2 Zoning within the Little Quilcene River Basin Portion of the Study Area ................ 17 Table 3 Zoning within the Little Quilcene River Basin Flood Risk Area .............................. 17 Table 4 Zoning within the Big Quilcene River Basin Portion of the Study Area .................. 20 Table 5 Zoning within the Big Quilcene Basin Flood Risk Area .......................................... 20 Table 6 Household Incomes in the Quilcene CDP (2020) .................................................. 34 Table 7 Flood Frequencies on the Little Quilcene River ..................................................... 39 Table 8 Flood Frequencies on the Big Quilcene River – Using 1982 Regional Regression ......................................................................................................... 42
Table 9 Steady-State Flows Modeled in Two Dimensions for the Lower Big Quilcene
River ................................................................................................................... 42 Table 10 Evaluation of Alternatives ...................................................................................... 80
Appendices
Appendix A. Advisory Team Meetings Appendix B. Public Outreach Appendix C. Factsheets
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers iii
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
2D two-dimensional
BDA beaver dam analog
BMPs best management practices
BOR Bureau of Reclamation
BPA Bonneville Power Administration
CAO Critical Areas Ordinance
CASP Critical Areas Stewardship Plan
CDP Census Designated Place
CFHMP Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan
cfs cubic feet per second
CIO Washington Office of the Chief Information Officer
CMZ Channel Migration Zone
CPF Coastal Protection Fund
CRS Community Rating System
DOH Department of Health
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit
FbD Floodplains by Design
FCAAP Flood Control Assistance Account Program
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FIS Flood Insurance Study
FWHCA Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area
gpm gallons per minute
HCSEG Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group
HMG Hazard Mitigation Grant
JCC Jefferson County Code
LLTK Long Live the Kings
LWD large woody debris
MP milepost
NBI National Bridge Inventory
NCRF National Coastal Resilience Fund
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OGWS Olympic Gravity Water System
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers iv
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
OHWM ordinary high-water mark
ONF Olympic National Forest
PA Public Assistance
PGG Pacific Groundwater Group
PUD Public Utility District
RCO Washington Recreation and Conservation Office
RCW Revised Code of Washington
RM River Mile
RV recreation vehicle
RVC Rural Village Center
SASSI Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory
SDP Substantial Development Permit
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area
SLR Sea Level Rise
SMP Shoreline Master Program
SRFB Salmon Recovery Funding Board
SRP Salmon Recovery Portal
USACE United Stated Army Corps of Engineers
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
WAC Washington Administrative Code
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 1
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
CHAPTER 1
Plan Development
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP) was developed by Jefferson
County and Environmental Science Associates. An Advisory Team and citizens of Jefferson
County, Washington provided input to guide the development of the CFHMP. The purpose of this
CFHMP is to evaluate flood risks along the lower reaches of the Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene
Rivers and recommend actions that Jefferson County can implement to reduce these risks.
The development of this CFHMP was funded by a grant from the Washington State Department
of Ecology (Ecology) through the Flood Control Assistance Account Program (FCAAP) authorized
under Chapter 86.26 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and Chapter 173-145 of the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC).
1.2 Plan Development Process
This CFHMP incorporates the elements required by WAC 173-145-040, which were developed
through the following steps:
• Organizing an Advisory Team: The Advisory Team is comprised of Jefferson County staff; consultants; Tribal representatives; staff of federal, state, and local agencies; members of the
public; and other stakeholders.
• Advisory Team and Public Meetings: Meetings were held to define goals and objectives, collect input on flood hazards and risks, discuss flood hazard management and risk reduction alternatives, and identify community needs for the CFHMP to address.
• Existing Conditions Assessment: A study area for the lower Big and Little Quilcene Rivers was conducted. The project team evaluated existing conditions and detailed them in the CFHMP, providing information on natural resources, land use, infrastructure, planning and regulations, demographics, the river basins, future conditions, flood management activities, flood history, and vulnerabilities.
• Determination of Need: From the assessment of existing conditions in the Big and Little
Quilcene River basins and engagement with stakeholders, needs for flood hazard management and risk reduction in the study area were determined.
• Identify Alternatives: The project team identified potential measures for flood risk reduction.
• Evaluate Alternatives and Recommend Actions: Flood risk reduction measures that were
identified as potential alternatives were assessed in the context of evaluation criteria,
Chapter 1. Plan Development
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 2
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
including consistency with CFHMP goals and objectives, complexity, costs, environmental benefits, funding sources, effectiveness, environmental impacts, and operation and
maintenance requirements. Alternatives that sufficiently met evaluation criteria and were supported for implementation by Jefferson County staff and the Advisory Team were advanced as recommended actions.
• Adoption and Implementation: Following selection of priority actions and review of the CFHMP, a final CFHMP will be sent to Ecology for approval, and Jefferson County will
adopt the CFHMP.
1.3 Advisory Team Meetings
The Advisory Team was organized to provide information and feedback on the development of
the CFHMP, with representatives from government and non-governmental entities who could
provide perspectives from a variety of resource management and emergency response interests
and jurisdictions (see Table 1). Five Advisory Team meetings were held over the duration of the
development of the CFHMP. Advisory Team meetings were used to refine goals and objectives
for the CFHMP, identify flood hazards, assess flood hazard management alternatives, select
evaluation criteria, and provide updates on the development of the CFHMP. Documentation of
Advisory Team meetings is provided in Appendix A.
TABLE 1 ADVISORY TEAM MEMBERS FOR THE BIG AND LITTLE QUILCENE RIVERS CFHMP
Name Affiliation
Susan Beall U.S. Forest Service
Lisa Belleveau Skokomish Tribe
Brent Butler Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Benjamin Cross U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Donna Frostholm Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Glenn Gately Jefferson County Conservation District
Matt Gerlach Washington State Department of Ecology
Gus Johnson Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group
Randy Johnson Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe
Tami Pokorny Jefferson County Public Health
Marla Powers Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
Robin Shoal U.S. Forest Service
Nam Siu Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Don Svetich Quilcene Fire Rescue
1.4 Public Involvement
Public involvement, especially engagement with underrepresented communities, is an important
component of the development of the CFHMP. Outreach using a variety of local and regional
media was utilized to raise awareness of the plan development process and encourage attendance
Chapter 1. Plan Development
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 3
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
at public meetings. Virtual public meetings were held in November 2022 and April 2023. The
November public meeting provided an opportunity for attendees to learn about the process of
developing the CFHMP, share their experiences with flood hazards, and discuss flood hazard
management alternatives. The project team presented information about the purpose and scope of
the project, summarized findings from the existing conditions assessment, discussed possible
flood hazard management and risk reduction alternatives, facilitated discussions with attendees,
and answered any questions. The April public meeting included a presentation of the contents of
the draft CFHMP, including proposed actions, and an opportunity for members of the public to
ask questions and share comments. Members of the public also attended Advisory Team meetings
and were able to provide feedback during those opportunities as well. Documentation of public
involvement is provided in Appendix B. Factsheets for use in future public involvement are
provided in Appendix C.
1.5 Goals and Objectives for Flood Hazard Management
Most years, the Quilcene community and surrounding areas experience flood risks, which
threaten vulnerable properties, utilities and infrastructure, and public health and safety, and
disrupt public services. Historical development and modifications within the floodplain have had
negative environmental impacts, but floodplain regulations in Jefferson County have been
designed to reduce flood hazards to human life and property and mitigate impacts of development
on the ecological functions of floodplains and critical areas.
Current best practices in flood hazard management emphasize the recognition of flooding as a
natural process, utilization of non-structural flood hazard management strategies, and reduction of
future risks and need for recovery. The goals and objectives of this CFHMP incorporate these
principles by prioritizing sustainable and cost-effective flood hazard management strategies that
minimize environmental impacts and future risks. The overarching intent of the following goals
and objectives is to inform the development of a CFHMP that provides resources to guide future
planning to protect life and property from flooding, in addition to supporting future efforts to fund
and implement the actions detailed in this plan.
Based on the Department of Ecology’s CFHMP 2021 guidebook, Comprehensive Planning for
Flood Hazard Management, and input from the project team, Advisory Team, and the public, the
following goals and objectives were identified for this CFHMP:
Goals
1. Implement projects that reduce the future risk of flood damages and hazards.
2. Reduce public expenditures to repair damaged areas.
3. Minimize, to the extent possible, the environmental impacts of flood hazard management.
4. Focus on non-structural alternatives and ecological restoration to address flood safety.
Chapter 1. Plan Development
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 4
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Objectives
1. Protect public health and safety.
2. Identify and prioritize projects that increase resilience to increasing flood risks due to climate change.
3. Identify and prioritize projects that promote equity and environmental justice in the floodplain.
4. Incorporate thoughtful consideration of Treaty rights and other Tribal rights into floodplain management actions.
5. Evaluate the risks to existing development in flood hazard areas and identify actions to reduce risks to life and property.
6. Regulate floodplain development to reduce building in the floodplain.
7. Minimize the need for emergency rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding, which are generally undertaken at the expense of the general public.
8. Minimize the expenditure of public money on costly flood control projects.
9. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone, streets and bridges located in areas of flood hazard.
10. Minimize prolonged business interruptions.
11. Acquire vulnerable properties, with a special emphasis on those that have been repeatedly damaged by floods, when acquisition opportunities arise.
12. Maintain, repair, or retrofit existing flood damage reduction facilities in a manner that addresses public safety, is cost-effective, and makes the facilities less susceptible to future damage.
13. Remove or retrofit existing river facilities or modify maintenance practices to protect, restore, or enhance riparian habitat and to support the recovery of state or federal species listed as threatened and endangered, while not increasing flood hazards.
14. Incorporate wetland and shoreline restoration, when possible, to support habitat, ecological functions, and water quality, while not increasing flood hazards.
15. Sponsor and support public outreach and education activities to improve awareness of flood
hazards, especially in underserved communities, and recommend actions that property owners can take to reduce risks to themselves and others.
16. Identify appropriate funding sources for implementing the recommended flood hazard
management activities, and pursue opportunities to use these funds in a timely and efficient manner.
17. Increase coordination across Jefferson County departments, U.S. government agencies, and
Tribes to address flood hazard management at a watershed scale.
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 5
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
CHAPTER 2
Existing Conditions
2.1 Watershed Description
The Big and Little Quilcene Rivers are both located in the Quilcene-Snow Water Resource
Inventory Area (WRIA) 17 in Jefferson County, Washington. These rivers flow generally east out
of the Olympic Mountains into Quilcene Bay and Hood Canal. The Olympic National Forest
(ONF), where the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers originate, is under federal jurisdiction, and
Jefferson County does not have primary regulatory authority within the forest (see Figure 1). The
portions of the watershed in the ONF are generally steep and heavily forested, with little human
development or infrastructure. Snowmelt from their high-elevation headwaters, above 7,000 feet
in the Buckhorn Wilderness, deliver cool, high flows during spring runoff and support base flows
in the summer. The mouths of both rivers are associated with large tidal, estuarine areas that
provide important habitat to a variety of species. However, the estuary is mostly unnatural due to
sediment accumulations linked to historical diking and other changes upriver, including land
development and logging.
Prior to European settlement in the mid to late 1800s, when homesteads, dikes, railroads, and the
logging industry were first established, Native American Tribes inhabited the area for millennia.
European settlement led to development that has degraded the ecological functions of large parts
of the lower watershed. Channel modifications and development in wetlands significantly
reduced habitat and the capacity for floodplain areas to store water, in addition to having
widespread impacts on surface hydrology, land cover, and sediment transport.
The diverse fish populations in the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers have helped to sustain Tribal
populations within the Pacific Northwest for thousands of years. Fishing is also a key part of the
Tribes’ connection to the land and cultural heritage. In the 1855 Point No Point Treaty, northern and
eastern Olympic Peninsula Tribes, including the Jamestown S’Klallam, Port Gamble S’Klallam,
and Skokomish Tribes, ceded their historical lands to the United States government, while retaining
rights to fishing, hunting, and extraction of other natural resources on these lands. The rights
associated with this Treaty encompass the watersheds of the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, as well
as spanning Hood Canal, Admiralty Inlet, the San Juan Islands, and Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 17 is located in northwest Washington on the
northeastern portion of the Olympic Peninsula, spanning eastern Jefferson County and eastern
Clallam County. It includes the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers and Snow and Salmon Creeks, to
the north, as well as various smaller tributaries on the Quimper, Bolton, and Toandos peninsulas
and in the Chimacum Valley area. Much of the western portion of the WRIA lies inside the
Olympic National Forest. The WRIA extends northeast up to Port Townsend (see Figure 2).
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 6
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Figure 1. Big and Little Quilcene River Basins
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 7
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Figure 2. WRIA 17 and the CFHMP Study Area
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 8
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Because of their location in the rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains, the lower portions of the
watershed (near sea level) rarely see any significant accumulation of snow. Mean annual
precipitation in the basins varies from over 80 inches in the upper reaches of the watershed to
51 inches in the town of Quilcene, near the rivers’ mouths. Approximately 70% of the annual
precipitation falls during the wet season, starting in November and ending in May.
CFHMP Study Area
The study area for the CFHMP encompasses the watersheds of both the Big and Little Quilcene
Rivers, excluding areas within the Olympic National Forest, as shown in Figure 2. The study area
focuses on the lower 2.4 miles of the Little Quilcene River and the lower 4.3 miles of the Big
Quilcene River, downstream of the ONF. The ONF is excluded from the study area because
Jefferson County, as the entity that developed and will implement this CFHMP, lacks jurisdiction
on federal lands. While the study area is limited to the area within Jefferson County’s jurisdiction,
the CFHMP also considers impacts from and potential actions in the ONF. Additionally, the project
team engaged stakeholders from the U.S. Forest Service with interests in the ONF throughout the
development of the CFHMP. Consideration of the ONF in this CFHMP is crucial to guiding a
watershed-scale approach flood hazard management, which enables coordination across jurisdictions
to address the hydrologic relationship between upstream conditions and downstream conditions.
Little Quilcene River
The Little Quilcene River is 12.2 miles long with a watershed encompassing 36.3 square miles.
Elevations within the basin range from sea level to 6,260 feet above sea level. Approximately
68% of the basin has canopy cover. The basin includes more than 120 miles of tributaries; major
tributaries to the Little Quilcene River include Leland Creek, Ripley Creek, Howe Creek, and
Deadfall Creek. The Little Quilcene River empties into Quilcene Bay at the far northern end of
the bay, where it has a prograding river delta, approximately 0.5-mile north of the mouth of the
Big Quilcene River. The lower portion of the Little Quilcene River is tidally influenced up to
approximately River Mile (RM) 0.8 (Wild Fish Conservancy 2008). The estuary supports an
extensive tidal marsh complex that can present challenges to migrating salmon.
Above RM 6.6, the river flows through the Olympic National Forest. This area is dominated by
coniferous forest that has been logged in the past, but otherwise has little to no other human
development and contains 16 square miles (or 44%) of the Little Quilcene River watershed.
Below RM 6.6, the Little Quilcene River flows through privately owned commercial forest,
including some areas of clearcuts harvested as recently as 2021. Around RM 2.4, the land
surrounding the river transitions from forest to primary residential developments with scattered
agricultural uses. The river passes through the northern end of the town of Quilcene, and is
spanned by a Highway 101 bridge at RM 1.9 and the Center Road bridge at RM 0.9.
The mapped Little Quilcene River 1% annual chance floodplain covers approximately 130 acres
of property, entirely within the study area (see Figure 3). The floodplain portions of the study
area are largely residential, with some agricultural and forestry land. The floodplain is narrow in
most places, but expands to include structures at isolated locations, as well as widening near its
outlet on Quilcene Bay.
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 9
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Figure 3. CFHMP Study Area and 1% Annual Chance Floodplain
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 10
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Leland Lake and Leland Creek
Leland Lake, located within the Little Quilcene River basin, is at an elevation of 191 feet above
sea level and covers approximately 107.8 acres. The lake shoreline has been altered by residential
development. The lake is shallow with large wetland complexes to the north and south (WDFW
2023a). Numerous home sites, recently logged areas, small farms, a music festival venue,
campground, and boat docks populate its shoreline and the adjacent landscape, and Leland Valley
Road runs along the eastern lake margin. Leland Creek, which is a tributary to the Little Quilcene
River, flows into Leland Lake at the northwestern end and out at the southern end.
Big Quilcene River
The Big Quilcene River is 19 miles long with a watershed encompassing 68.4 square miles.
Elevations within the basin range from sea level to 7,000 feet above sea level. The basin has a
canopy cover of approximately 75% and more than 270 miles of tributaries. Major tributaries to
the Big Quilcene River include Penny Creek, Elbo Creek, Mile and a Half Creek, Threemile
Creek, Tunnel Creek, and Townsend Creek. Like the Little Quilcene River, the Big Quilcene
River empties into Quilcene Bay in the northern portion of Quilcene Bay. The lower 1.1 miles of
the river are tidally influenced, and the estuary includes a tidal marsh complex and a prograding
river delta.
Above RM 4.3, the Big Quilcene River flows through the Olympic National Forest,
encompassing 61 square miles (or 89%) of its basin. This forested area is remote and rugged, with
gravel access roads and hiking trails. Aerial photographs indicate this area was logged in the past.
Below RM 4.3, the Big Quilcene River flows northeast, parallel to Highway 101, as it runs
through privately held commercial forest. The Hiddendale Drive community is a residential
development located along the river and immediately north of the federal land boundary at the
southern edge of the study area. Residential development density increases as the river flows
downgradient, where it discharges south of the town of Quilcene. The river is spanned by a bridge
on Linger Longer Road at RM 0.5 and by a Highway 101 bridge southeast of the town at RM 2.4.
The mapped Big Quilcene River 1% annual chance floodplain covers approximately 241 acres of
property, entirely within the study area (see Figure 3). The floodplain portions of the study area
are largely residential, with some agricultural and forestry land. The floodplain is expansive in
much of the lower sections of the Big Quilcene River, impacting numerous structures, especially
relatively dense residential areas.
Flooding in the Lower Big Quilcene River watershed was studied for a previous CFHMP: the
1998 Lower Big Quilcene River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan. The 1998
CFHMP has influenced the current conditions of the study area, recommending levee repair,
property acquisitions, sediment removal, and fish habitat restoration. While this plan had
advanced some environmentally beneficial actions that generally align with current floodplain
management best practices, other recommended actions reflect historical approaches to floodplain
management that involved environmentally impactful instream work. This Big and Little
Quilcene Rivers CFHMP will identify ways to address impacts of past human activity on the
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 11
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
watershed and floodplains, as well as identify effective means to continuing past floodplain
management activities that have worked with natural processes.
2.2 Natural Features
The Big and Little Quilcene Rivers are both steep rivers in the upper reaches of the watershed
that flow downgradient to the low-lying areas near Quilcene Bay. The rivers and estuarine areas
provide important habitat for multiple anadromous and resident salmonids as well as other
wildlife. However, the lower portions of the rivers and the estuary are generally deficient of large
woody debris (LWD) and habitat complexity. This CFHMP is intended to be consistent with the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Master Program, flood damage prevention
regulations, critical areas regulations, and with existing and planned restoration efforts in these
two river watersheds.
Salmonid species with a documented presence in the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers include
Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (O. kisutch), summer
and fall chum salmon (O. keta), pink salmon (O. gorbuscha), winter steelhead (O. mykiss), and
sea-run cutthroat trout (O. clarkii clarkii). Rainbow trout (O. mykiss) are also presumed present
within the Big Quilcene River (SWIFD 2023). The Hood Canal summer-run chum and Puget
Sound Chinook salmon and steelhead are listed as federally threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Further information on fish in the river basins is detailed below.
Both rivers, their tributaries, and their riparian areas offer valuable habitat resources for a variety
of species including bald eagles, turkey vultures, great blue heron, waterfowl, and common
nesting birds. The rivers also provide habitat for many mammalian species including deer, beaver,
raccoon, coyote, bear, and mountain lion. The vegetation and canopy cover of riparian areas
around the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers varies, with some areas dominated by conifers with
scattered deciduous vegetation throughout and some areas dominated by deciduous vegetation
with conifers dispersed throughout. The quality of riparian habitat along the Big and Little Quilcene
Rivers also varies, as some areas have been altered through past development and logging. Some
areas, including those around Leland Lake and Leland Creek, have historically had high levels of
invasive plant species, especially reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) (Correa 2002).
Little Quilcene River
There are no artificial fish passage barriers in the lower reaches of the Little Quilcene River.
Accessible fish habitat stretches from the mouth of the river to just above Penny Creek Road at
RM 7. Upstream of this, the river narrows and steepens as it enters the foothills of the Olympic
Mountains. Most coho salmon return to the river between mid-August and mid-November and
spawn mid-November through January. In the 1992 Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory
(SASSI), the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) reported the coho stocks in
Quilcene/Dabob Bays as depressed (WDFW 1993). As of 2011, coho stocks continue to be listed
as depressed in the Quilcene and Dabob Bay sub-basins. A depressed status is defined as “a stock
of fish whose production is below expected levels based on available habitat and natural
variations in survival rates, but above the level where permanent damage to the stock is likely”
(WDFW 1993).
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 12
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Hood Canal summer chum salmon spawn shortly after entering freshwater, typically in the lowest
1 to 2 miles of a river. Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon are currently
ESA-listed threatened species, but hatchery rearing programs and habitat restoration efforts
undertaken by the Hood Canal Coordinating Council and co-managers along with other partners,
beginning in the late 1990s, have contributed to an increase in population levels (Downen et al.
2018). Extensive recovery planning efforts are underway with dozens of federal, state, Tribal, and
local partners (NMFS 2022). According to WDFW’s online SalmonScape tool, summer chum
spawn in the lower reaches of the Little Quilcene River, below the Highway 101 bridge in
September through mid-October (WDFW 2022). The stock was almost extinct in the early 1990s,
with the 1992 SASSI reporting the stock status as critical due to low escapement numbers. The
latest National Marine Fisheries Service (NFMS) viability assessment summarizes that while
there have been gains since the 2015 status review, the overall population is not meeting viability
criteria, so it remains at “moderate” risk of extinction (Ford 2022). Despite not meeting viability
criteria, the populations that return to the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers to spawn show much
higher rates of survival and productivity than other ecological diversity groups in the Hood Canal
and Strait of Juan de Fuca, which is important for the overall population viability for the region.
Unlike summer chum, fall chum utilize higher fall and winter flows to travel farther upstream to
spawn. Hood Canal fall chum spawn in November through early January and have been
documented spawning as far upstream as the Howe Creek confluence with the Little Quilcene
River (WDFW 2022). Fall chum are not an ESA-listed species and their stock was listed as
healthy in the 1992 SASSI report. There is little information on the number of summer or fall
chum in the Little Quilcene River.
Winter steelhead spawn between mid-February and May, as far upstream as the Howe Creek
confluence on the Little Quilcene River. Currently, Puget Sound steelhead are listed as threatened
under the ESA. In 2019, an ESA recovery plan for the Puget Sound steelhead was finalized,
emphasizing strategies related to floodplain connectivity, maintaining instream flows, and climate
change mitigation, among other strategies (NMFS 2019). Long Live the Kings (LLTK) estimated
that fewer than 1,500 steelhead return to the Hood Canal annually, despite adequate habitat on
undammed rivers like the Little Quilcene River (LLTK 2017). Juvenile Hood Canal steelhead
face high mortality rates at the Hood Canal Bridge, which creates a passage barrier in the top
15 feet of surface water where they primarily migrate (Moore and Berejikian 2022). This barrier
makes them easy targets for predators, especially seals and sea lions. As of 2022, WDFW has
issued a statewide ban on coastal steelhead fishing due to indications of lower-than-expected
returns. The Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group (HCSEG) and LLTK’s Hood Canal
Steelhead Project have performed intensive monitoring efforts of winter steelhead in the Little
Quilcene River and other watersheds on Hood Canal. This work has involved annual monitoring
of juvenile steelhead outmigrants to compare against other rivers in Hood Canal that are
supplemented with adults and smolts using native stocks. HCSEG installed a fish trap on the
Little Quilcene River; smolts were then collected to estimate the total freshwater production
(HCSEG 2011).
Sea-run coastal cutthroat trout are a subspecies of cutthroat trout native to Washington. They
typically spawn in the late winter, between December and May, in rivers like the Little Quilcene,
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 13
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
River before moving to saltwater, like Quilcene Bay, in the summer. Although they typically stay
close to shore, during summer, they may move farther offshore to cooler waters. Because of great
variation in spawning time and general life history, the status of the West Hood Canal stock,
including trout in the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, is unknown and there is little information on
run sizes (WDFW 2000). WDFW has designated sea-run coastal cutthroat as a species of
concern, but it is not ESA-listed.
Puget Sound Chinook salmon are federally listed as threatened under the ESA (NOAA 2023) and
have been identified as Species of Greatest Conservation Need under the State Wildlife Action
Plan (WDFW 2023b). The Puget Sound Chinook salmon is an Evolutionarily Significant Unit
(ESU) of Chinook salmon native to Puget Sound. Fall run Chinook salmon have a documented
presence within the Little Quilcene River (SWIFD 2023) but are not found in abundant numbers
as spawners within WRIA 17 (Correa 2002). Summer and fall Chinook salmon are no longer
raised by the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery and are present in sparse numbers (GeoEngineers
1998). Additionally, SWIFD does not map summer Chinook as occurring within the Little
Quilcene River.
Big Quilcene River
The first artificial barrier to fish passage in the Big Quilcene River is the Quilcene National Fish
Hatchery’s concrete weir at RM 2.8, which adult fish can swim over at high flows or bypass via a
fish ladder. Additionally, a natural waterfall at RM 7.6 completely blocks upstream fish passage.
Like the Little Quilcene River, coho salmon return to the Big Quilcene River in mid-August
through mid-November. During this time, adult coho are redirected to the Quilcene National Fish
Hatchery by a second fish ladder downstream of the hatchery. Here, hatchery stock is separated
from wild stock, and placed in holding ponds until they are ready to spawn. The hatchery releases
400,000 salmon smolts into the river every spring. A number of adult coho salmon are tagged and
released to spawn upstream from November through mid-January. Coho are the only sport fishery
in the Big Quilcene River that WDFW allows anglers to keep.
Summer chum spawn in the lower reaches of the Big Quilcene River, primary below the
hatchery, from mid-September to mid-October. Summer chum are listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act, with extensive recovery planning being undertaken with dozens of
federal, state, Tribal, and local partners (NMFS 2022). Summer chum returns are greater in the
Big Quilcene River than the smaller Little Quilcene River (WDFW 2010a, 2010b). WDFW stock
estimates state that in 2010, the Little Quilcene River summer chum run size was 507, while the
Big Quilcene River run size was 1,608 (WDFW 2010a, 2010b). The latest NFMS viability
assessment summarizes that while there have been gains since the 2015 status review, the overall
population of summer chum is not meeting viability criteria, so it remains at “moderate” risk of
extinction (Ford 2022). Despite not meeting viability criteria, the populations that return to the
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers to spawn show much higher rates of survival and productivity than
other ecological diversity groups in the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca, which is
important for the overall population viability for the region.
Fall chum runs in Hood Canal are generally healthy, with spawning taking place November
through early January. In the 1990s, the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery supported fall chum
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 14
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
runs before switching to raising primarily coho. (More information on the hatchery is presented in
Section 2.4.)
Winter steelhead enter the river later than coho, and then spawn between mid-February and May.
The status is unknown as there has historically been a small number of these fish in the river. Sea-
run coastal cutthroat trout are also present in the river, but must be released if caught.
Coastal cutthroat have a documented presence within the Big Quilcene River (SWIFD 2023) and
are designated by WDFW as a species of concern. As mentioned above, coastal cutthroat
typically spawn in late winter in rivers before moving back to saltwater in the summer. The status
of the West Hood Canal stock is unknown, and there is little information on run size due to the
variation in spawning time and general life history (WDFW 2000).
As noted above, Puget Sound Chinook are federally listed as threatened under the ESA (NOAA
2023) and have been identified as Species of Greatest Conservation Need under the State Wildlife
Action Plan (WDFW 2023b). Fall Chinook salmon have documented spawning and rearing
presence within the Big Quilcene River (SWIFD 2023). However, within WRIA 17, Chinook
salmon are not found in abundant numbers as spawners. The Quilcene National Fish Hatchery on
the Big Quilcene River, operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), began a
Chinook program in 1980 that continued until 1994 (Correa 2002). This run has not been able to
sustain itself, and summer and fall run Chinook are only present in very sparse numbers
(GeoEngineers 1998).
Quilcene Bay
Both the Little Quilcene and Big Quilcene Rivers flow into an estuary complex and Quilcene
Bay. Several salmonid species rely on estuarine habitat during their life cycle for rearing and
growing prior to migration and holding during their return migration to spawn. In addition to
salmonids, Quilcene Bay offers habitat and vegetation for many other species, including shellfish
and waterfowl.
However, the estuary is substantially larger than in the late 1800s due to geomorphic changes and
sediment accumulation linked to past logging and land development practices. The bay and the
surrounding waters, including Dabob Bay and Hood Canal, are highly productive shellfish
growing areas. Just south of the mouth of the Big Quilcene River, along Linger Longer Road,
WDFW owns Quilcene Bay Tidelands, open for recreational and Tribal year-round clam, mussel,
and oyster harvesting. Manila clams, native littleneck clams, eastern softshell clams, butter clams,
Olympia oysters, and Pacific oysters live in the tidelands. The larger Pacific oysters were
introduced to the region for aquaculture in 1902. The smaller, native Olympia oyster experienced
a decline in abundance after overexploitation, especially between 1850 and 1900. The Olympia
oyster has also seen declines from commercial aquaculture favoring Pacific oysters and
artificially high salinity levels in proximity to rivers. Restoration efforts for oysters began in the
2000s, and Quilcene Bay is one of two primary restoration areas for Olympia oysters identified in
Hood Canal (WDFW 2012).
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 15
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Pacific Seafood (formerly Coast Seafood Co.) operates a commercial oyster hatchery at the end
of Linger Longer Road that is advertised as one of the world’s largest shellfish hatcheries and is
one of the largest employers in Jefferson County. Shellfish operations at Pacific Seafood are
impacted when Linger Longer Road is closed because of flooding on the Big Quilcene River or
when the Big Quilcene River breaches its levee to the south, reducing salinity levels over
shellfish beds containing Pacific oysters, which are particularly sensitive to lower salinity levels.
The public WDFW-operated Quilcene Boat Ramp, located directly north of the Pacific Seafood
facility in Quilcene, includes a parking lot, boat ramp, and small beach area. Herb Beck Marina, a
public boat launch, marina, and beach owned by the Port of Port Townsend, is also located at the
end of Linger Longer Road, south of Pacific Seafood.
2.3 Land Use Analysis
Development in the Big and Little Quilcene River watersheds is largely concentrated in and
around the Rural Village Center (RVC) of Quilcene (see Figure 4). RVCs are one of Jefferson
County’s classifications for Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development, being defined
as historically settled areas that serve the essential needs of a rural population with day-to-day
services through commercial, residential, and community services, and civic land uses. Quilcene
is one of two RVCs in Jefferson County (Jefferson County Department of Community
Development 2018).
To reduce sprawl, the town of Quilcene has prioritized infill development in the RVC for future
development. The Quilcene RVC includes 50.6 acres of developed land and 12.4 acres of
undeveloped land as of the completion of the 2018 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan
(Jefferson County Department of Community Development 2018). While additional development
increases the potential for stormwater runoff that can contribute to flooding, the RVC is largely
outside of the 1% annual chance floodplain and the channel migration zones (CMZs) of the Big
and Little Quilcene Rivers (see Table 2 and Table 3). Prioritizing development within the
existing RVC will minimize development in the areas of the lower basins at higher risk of
flooding. Furthermore, concentrating development in the RVC can reduce development in areas
with natural land cover, which provides the important function of infiltrating stormwater runoff.
Most of the real estate in the basins was developed prior to the adoption of the first Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan in 1979. From 1979 until 1996, one housing unit per acre was
permitted in Jefferson County. In 1996, land use codes were updated to establish maximum
densities of five units per acre in suburban areas, one unit per acre in rural areas, and one unit per
5 acres in resource production areas. These Land Use Code updates were reflected in the 1998
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (Jefferson County 1998). No subarea planning has been
conducted in Quilcene, with the 2018 Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Update reflecting
the most current land use policies for the area (Jefferson County Department of Community
Development 2018).
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 16
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Figure 4. Land Cover in the Study Area.
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 17
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
TABLE 2 ZONING WITHIN THE LITTLE QUILCENE RIVER BASIN PORTION OF THE STUDY AREA
Zone Acres Percent of Basin
Forestry Zones 8,092 64.2%
Commercial Forest 5,524 43.8%
Inholding Forest 1,064 8.4%
Rural Forest 1,504 11.9%
Residential Zones 4,194 33.3%
Rural Residential – 5 acres 1,944 15.4%
Rural Residential – 10 acres <1 acre <0.1%
Rural Residential – 20 acres 2,250 17.8%
Other Zones 325 2.6%
Commercial Agriculture 196 1.6%
Local Agriculture 121 1.0%
Parks, Preserves, and Recreation 2 <0.1%
Rural Village Center 6 0.1%
Total 12,611 100%
NOTE: Totals may not match due to rounding.
SOURCE: Jefferson County Department of Community Development (2019)
TABLE 3 ZONING WITHIN THE LITTLE QUILCENE RIVER BASIN FLOOD RISK AREA
Zone
1% Annual Chance Floodplain Channel Migration Zone (CMZ)
Acres Percent of Floodplain Acres Percent of CMZ
Rural Forest 3 3% 5 3%
Commercial Forest 1 1% 2 1%
Rural Residential – 5 acres 85 66% 63 35%
Rural Residential – 20 acres 18 14% 22 12%
Commercial Agriculture 17 13% 87 48%
Local Agriculture 5 4% 1 <1%
Rural Village Center 0 0% 2 1%
Total 130 100% 181 100%
NOTE: Totals may not match due to rounding.
SOURCE: Jefferson County Department of Community Development (2019)
The land uses in the Big and Little Quilcene River watersheds that are within Jefferson County
jurisdiction include commercial forestry, agriculture, light manufacturing and industrial, Rural
Village Center, and residential (see Figure 5). Residential districts include maximum densities of
one unit per 5 acres, one unit per 10 acres, and one unit per 20 acres, with the higher density
zoning districts being primarily located along major roads and the Quilcene RVC (Jefferson
County Department of Community Development 2018).
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 18
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Figure 5. Jefferson County Zoning Districts in the Study Area (2019).
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 19
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Little Quilcene River
The lower portion of the Little Quilcene River basin is primarily zoned for forestry and
residential uses. Residential uses are primarily zoned for one unit per 20 acres, with a district of
one unit per 5 acres established along the route of Highway 101 (see Tables 2 and 3). There is no
intense development presence in the basin, with the largest developed areas typically consisting
of concentrations of barns and accessory structures on agricultural properties. Roughly half of the
Little Quilcene River watershed falls under U.S. Forest Service jurisdiction and, as such, is not
regulated by the Jefferson County Land Use Code, nor is it within the study area of this plan.
The dominant disturbance in the basin has been timber harvesting and conversion of forest land to
agricultural and residential uses. Commercial forestry in the area has declined since the 1980s,
but retention of private forests to sustain the industry is still a major land use (Jefferson County
Department of Community Development 2018). The Little Quilcene River basin has a higher
proportion of forest clearing than the Big Quilcene River watershed, likely as a result of more of
the Little Quilcene River watershed being privately owned and zoned for forestry than the Big
Quilcene River watershed.
Clearing of forest land for development or agriculture alters the surface hydrology of the basin,
which can result in greater rates of erosion and runoff. Erosion and runoff can contribute to
sedimentation downstream, increased flood risk, and damage to infrastructure. While forest still
accounts for a large percentage of the land cover in the Little Quilcene River watershed, surface
hydrology will continue to be impacted and vary from natural runoff patterns as forestry activity
proceeds or changes. Impacts on surface hydrology can lead to wide range of impacts on fish
habitat and human environments.
Conversion of forested areas for residential development along Highway 101 has likely
negatively affected wetlands in the area, especially in the areas around Leland Lake and Leland
Creek, where significant clearing around waterbodies has occurred. Degradation of wetlands from
development and the resulting runoff can limit their many ecological functions, including
floodwater storage. Within the Leland Creek watershed, many wetlands and riparian areas have
large quantities of reed canarygrass, an invasive weed of concern in Jefferson County (Jefferson
County Noxious Weed Control Board 2023). Impacts from reed canarygrass include a reduction
in botanical and biological diversity by creating a homogenized habitat structure and reducing
environmental variability. Reed canarygrass can also impact hydrology by trapping silt and
sediments, creating constricted waterways that are more prone to flooding. Tree regeneration in
riparian areas can also be impacted by the presence of reed canarygrass as it can create shade and
crowd out seedlings (Wisconsin Reed Canary Grass Management Working Group 2009). The
presence of beavers (Castor canadensis) within the Leland Creek watershed has also created
flooding issues, affecting agriculture and infrastructure from water impoundments associated with
their dams.
Big Quilcene River
Most of the lower Big Quilcene River basin is zoned for commercial forestry and residential uses
at varying densities (see Tables 4 and 5). It also includes areas of agricultural, light industrial and
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 20
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
manufacturing, and Rural Village Center zoning where the basin enters the more intensively
developed area of Quilcene. A large majority of the Big Quilcene River basin falls under U.S.
Forest Service jurisdiction and, as such, is not regulated by the Jefferson County Land Use Code,
nor is it within the study area of this plan.
TABLE 4 ZONING WITHIN THE BIG QUILCENE RIVER BASIN PORTION OF THE STUDY AREA
Zone Acres Percent of Basin
Forestry Zones 2,750 69.9%
Commercial Forest 2,427 61.7%
Inholding Forest 58 1.5%
Rural Forest 266 6.8%
Residential Zones 985 25%
Rural Residential – 5 acres 451 11.5%
Rural Residential – 10 acres 162 4.1%
Rural Residential – 20 acres 372 9.5%
Other Zones 198 5%
Light Industrial/Agriculture 4 0.1%
Local Agriculture 170 4.3%
Parks, Preserves, and Recreation 6 0.2%
Rural Village Center 18 0.5%
Total 3,933 100%
NOTE: Totals may not match due to rounding.
SOURCE: Jefferson County Department of Community Development (2019)
TABLE 5 ZONING WITHIN THE BIG QUILCENE BASIN FLOOD RISK AREA
Zone
1% Annual Chance Floodplain Channel Migration Zone (CMZ)
Acres Percent of Floodplain Acres Percent of CMZ
Rural Forest 3 1% 2 <1%
Commercial Forest <1 <1% <1 <1%
Rural Residential – 5 acres 84 35% 121 36%
Rural Residential – 10 acres 30 13% 78 24%
Rural Residential – 20 acres 36 15% 47 14%
Local Agriculture 87 36% 80 24%
Parks, Preserves, and Recreation 1 <1% 1 <1%
Rural Village Center 1 <1% 3 1%
Total 241 100% 333 100%
NOTE: Totals may not match due to rounding.
SOURCE: Jefferson County Department of Community Development (2019)
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 21
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
There are no major residential developments in the basin, although densities of greater than one
unit per 5 acres occur along Highway 101 and near the Rural Village Center. Hiddendale Drive, a
20-unit subdivision, lines the waterfront of the Big Quilcene River off Highway 101 at the upper
end of Reach E (designated reaches of the rivers are defined and described in Section 2.7). Most
of the properties are at least partially within the 1% annual chance floodplain. A concentration of
homes also occurs in the southern portion of the 1% annual chance floodplain of Reach A. This
concentration of homes is less dense than those at Hiddendale Drive, but the area has been more
extensively cleared of forest and natural ground cover. Levees line the river through this low-
lying area to reduce riverine flooding, but the levees do not provide sufficient protection to
prevent inundation in the event of a 1% annual chance flood. Development and the restriction of
the river flow by the levees limits the potential for these former wetlands to act as flood storage.
Other developments in the study area include the Jefferson County Transfer Station, Penny Creek
Quarry, and the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery. In addition to clearing forest areas, these land
uses have increased impervious surface area, which can contribute to a higher rate of stormwater
runoff. Some agricultural land along the river east of Highway 101 is within the 1% annual
chance floodplain.
2.4 Infrastructure Analysis
The Big and Little Quilcene River watersheds have a relatively low population base, and therefore
relatively limited infrastructure development. The watersheds include the unincorporated
community of Quilcene (a census-designated place), consisting of several small businesses,
residences, and a public school campus, with an RVC designated by Jefferson County under the
Growth Management Act. The community of Quilcene has a population of 598. Major
infrastructure includes roads and their associated bridges or culvert crossings, water lines, septic
systems, and power lines, including transmission lines owned by the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) (see Figure 6). Penny Creek Quarry is located near the confluence of
Penny Creek and the Big Quilcene River. The Quilcene National Fish Hatchery and associated
hydraulic infrastructure are located on the Big Quilcene River, immediately upstream of the
Highway 101 bridge.
The properties of East Quilcene are located outside the Big or Little Quilcene River watershed,
approximately 1,000 feet east of the mouth of the Little Quilcene River. The houses and
infrastructure associated with East Quilcene are outside the 1% annual chance floodplain of the
Little Quilcene River.
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 22
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Figure 6. Infrastructure within the Study Area
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 23
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Roads and Bridges
North-south running Highway 101 is the largest road in both watersheds and is managed by the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). It crosses the Little Quilcene River at
RM 1.9 and milepost (MP) 293.5 and the Big Quilcene River at RM 2.7 and MP 296.6. Traffic on
the highway peaks during summer months, as tourists travel up and down Hood Canal. According
to the National Bridge Inventory (NBI), the two-lane bridge crossing the Little Quilcene River
(see Photo 1) was built in 1938 and has an average daily traffic count of 2,682 vehicles (USDOT
2016). The concrete cast-in-place bridge is 28 feet wide and 104 feet long and supported by
wooden timbers (WSDOT 2022). The WSDOT-owned bridge is number 101/254 and its overall
condition is rated as fair (WSDOT 2022). The two-way, two-lane bridge crossing the Big
Quilcene River (see Photo 2) was built in 1936 and has an average daily traffic count of 3,290
vehicles (USDOT 2016). The main span of the 244-foot long bridge is a 24-foot wide steel truss
with concrete approach spans (WSDOT 2022). The bridge is WSDOT number 101/256 and is
rated as being in fair condition (WSDOT 2022).
Photo by Environmental Science Associates 2022
Photo 1. Highway 101 bridge over the Little Quilcene River.
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 24
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Source: Holth 2014
Photo 2. Highway 101 bridge over the Big Quilcene River.
The Center Road bridge (see Photo 3) crosses the Little Quilcene River northeast of the town of
Quilcene at RM 0.9. This two-lane Jefferson County-owned bridge was built in 1955 and is
64 feet long and 26 feet wide (WSDOT 2022). The NBI gives its average daily traffic count as
2,504 vehicles (USDOT 2016). The concrete bridge consists of steel I-beams and steel side rails
on concrete footings. It is number 16E and is in overall fair condition (WSDOT 2022). However,
in 2021, Jefferson County approved the eventual replacement of the Center Road bridge over the
Little Quilcene River due to structural deficiencies (The Leader 2021). Just upstream of the
Center Road bridge is an abandoned concrete channel-spanning bridge. East Quilcene Road also
runs parallel to the first mile of the Little Quilcene River, downstream of the Center Road bridge,
along the left bank. Frank Beck Road runs parallel to the right bank of the Little Quilcene River,
also downstream of the Center Road bridge.
The Linger Longer Road bridge (see Photo 4) crosses the Big Quilcene River at RM 0.5
southeast of the town. Like the Center Road bridge, it is a two-lane concrete bridge with steel
I-beams, steel side rails, and concrete footings. The bridge, built in 1969, is Jefferson County
number 23E and is 81 feet long and 26 feet wide and is in fair overall condition (WSDOT 2022).
According to the NBI, it has an average daily traffic count of 752 vehicles (USDOT 2016).
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 25
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Photo by Environmental Science Associates 2022
Photo 3. Center Road bridge over the Little Quilcene River.
Photo by Environmental Science Associates 2022
Photo 4. Linger Longer Road bridge over the Big Quilcene River.
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 26
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Of these roads, Linger Longer Road, nearby Rodgers Street, Muncie Avenue, and East Quilcene
Road are in or directly adjacent to the 1% annual chance floodplain and are the most susceptible
to flooding from the Quilcene rivers, due to their proximity to Quilcene Bay. When precipitation
events coincide with high tide events, these roads may overtop. In 2014, it was reported that
Linger Longer Road flooded nearly every winter (Floodplains by Design 2014). However, in
recent years, flooding of Linger Longer Road has not occurred with the same frequency.
A newspaper article documents Linger Longer Road and Rodgers Street closed due to flooding in
a December 11, 2014 event (Sullivan 2014). This event corresponded with a peak flow of 5,170
cubic feet per second (cfs) on the Big Quilcene River, the largest since 1996, and a high tide of
12.1 feet at Quilcene Bay. Frank Beck Road, parallel to the Little Quilcene River, was also
flooded during this event. Linger Longer Road is the only access route for approximately 70
residences (as of 1998) as well as the Pacific Seafood hatchery and the Herb Beck Marina.
Additionally, in 2020, a historic house on Rodgers Street was moved out of the floodplain of the
Big Quilcene River (Kelly 2020). Flooding on Muncie Avenue is due to breaches of a small levee
built of loose soil on the south side of the river that runs perpendicular to its flow.
Water Systems
The Big and Little Quilcene watersheds are part of the larger Quilcene-Snow WRIA 17. There is
one publicly owned water system in the study area; Jefferson County Public Utility District
(PUD) #1 acquired the Quilcene Water System from the U.S. Forest Service in 2005 (BHC
Consultants 2020). The transfer was initiated to help alleviate groundwater quality problems,
primarily the presence of benzene, associated with private wells in the area (Ecology 2004). The
Quilcene Water System, given the Department of Health (DOH) number AB292N, is a Group A
system with 40 connections and provides water to residents in the center of Quilcene. Group A
systems have 15 or more service connections or regularly serve 25 or more people 60 or more
days per year, while smaller Group B systems serve 2 to 14 households or very small businesses.
There are multiple other privately owned Group A and Group B systems within the watershed
that provide water to local businesses and homes. The water system is fed by a 165-foot deep
groundwater well that supplies a 30,000-gallon steel elevated water tank, built in 1984. The old
tank is being replaced with a 105,000-gallon concrete water reservoir (BHC Consultants 2020).
The water tank is located outside of the 1% annual chance floodplain.
Residents in the watersheds also access water through private wells or surface water diversions.
A water right is required for many water uses, including stream diversions. The Quilcene – Snow
(WRIA 17) water management rule became effective in December 2009 (WAC 173-517). The
rule protects existing water rights, guides decisions on new water uses to stretch supplies as far as
possible, and establishes instream flows to protect streams and fish habitat. According to the 2011
Watershed Management Plan developed by the East Jefferson Watershed Council, wells within
WRIA 17 do not consistently produce large well yields, with large well yields defined as 200
gallons per minute (gpm) and above. This is due to a complex series of hydrogeologic conditions
related to periods of glacial advancement and retreat leaving laterally discontinuous aquifers of
sand and gravel and significant deposits of less-productive silt, clay, and glacial till (East
Jefferson Watershed Council 2011). In a mid-1990s study, Pacific Groundwater Group (PGG)
found that East Jefferson County wells have a mean yield of 40 gpm and a median yield of
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 27
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
20 gpm (East Jefferson Watershed Council 2011). Center Valley Road (from the Little Quilcene
River to Center) and along Highway 101 (Little Quilcene River crossing to Lake Leland) are
considered problematic areas for permit exempt wells. These areas have shallow basement rock
that commonly produces low quantity and low quality wells insufficient for a single home.
However, as of 2011, the East Jefferson Watershed Council had found that there is adequate
water supply to provide for 768 new residential wells in the Big Quilcene River watershed and
128 in the Little Quilcene River watershed (East Jefferson Watershed Council 2011).
While the Quilcene water system is the only municipal system in the basin, the Big and Little
Quilcene Rivers also supply the City of Port Townsend’s municipal water via the Olympic Gravity
Water System (OGWS). In 1926, a wooden diversion dam was built on the Big Quilcene River at
RM 9.5, with water diversion beginning in 1928. In 1995, the timber crib diversion was replaced
with a concrete diversion structure. On the Big Quilcene River, the primary source of water for Port
Townsend, the City can withdraw water at a rate of 30 cfs for a total of 19.4 million gallons per
day. In 1956, a timber diversion dam was constructed near RM 7 on the Little Quilcene River to
supplement the supply from the Big Quilcene River. The timber crib was replaced with a concrete
structure in 1995. The City of Port Townsend can divert a maximum of 9.56 cfs or 6.2 million
gallons per day from the Little Quilcene River. Water from both diversions is directed to Lords Lake
Reservoir and City Lake for later use. Up to 500 million gallons of water can be stored at Lords Lake
Reservoir for use when high turbidity or low flows prevent withdrawing water from the rivers.
Septic Systems
There are no public wastewater treatment systems in the study area. Most residents treat their
wastewater and sewage through individual septic systems. In 2017, the Port of Port Townsend
conducted a feasibility study on the cost of constructing a community septic system to serve the
Quilcene RVC, but no further action has been taken to date (Tetra Tech 2017).
Private septic systems take up space, with a single drainfield requiring 12,500 square feet of land
as well as certain setbacks from wells, buildings, and waterbodies. They require maintenance to
prevent failure and release of human fecal matter into the surrounding waterways. Septic fields
near the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers or within the 1% annual chance floodplain are prone to
failure if they become inundated due to flooding. Septic systems within the study area are
supposed to be inspected every 12 to 36 months based on the type of system, but according to the
online Jefferson County Septic Status viewer, most fields around Quilcene and the study area are
not up-to-date on their inspections.
Power
Transmission lines and electrical towers owned by BPA run through the eastern portion of the
study area, crossing both the Big and Little Quilcene River estuaries. Multiple support towers are
located within the 1% annual chance floodplain, primarily south of the Big Quilcene River. The
1998 Lower Big Quilcene River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan reported that a
1993 flood event breached a levee and almost reached the base of the BPA transmission lines
(GeoEngineers 1998). There is also a BPA substation just north of the Little Quilcene River,
outside of the 1% annual chance floodplain.
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 28
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Levees
There are two United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)-recognized levees on the Big
Quilcene River. The 2,000-foot long Old Quilcene River Levee (ID 2004000187) runs along the
south bank and is categorized as locally operated and maintained, although Jefferson County does
not appropriate funding for these activities. The Old Quilcene River Levee 2 (ID 2004000188) is
approximately the same length and runs along the north bank. There is no information on when
these levees were built, and neither is certified by the USACE. Both levees are centered around
the Linger Longer Road bridge and extend upstream to just below Rodgers Street and downstream
to the BPA transmission lines. The 1998 Lower Big Quilcene River CFHMP notes that a levee
runs along the south bank for a short distance upstream of Rodgers Street. Although there is no
mention of specific levees, in 2011, the Jefferson County Hazard Identification and Vulnerability
Assessment reported that the remaining levees near the mouth of the Big Quilcene River are the
same elevation as the channel bed (Jefferson County Department of Emergency Management 2011).
There are no USACE-recognized levees on the Little Quilcene River. However, during high-
water events, development along portions East Quilcene Road acts as a berm, reducing flow from
spreading northward up Donovan Creek. Additional discussion of existing levees and flooding
events is provided in Section 2.8.
Quilcene National Fish Hatchery
The Quilcene National Fish Hatchery is located with the CFHMP study area. The hatchery has a
water intake structure on Penny Creek, a few hundred feet upstream of the confluence with the
Big Quilcene River. The hatchery relies on several systems, including a functioning water intake
structure, pumping systems, and waste treatment systems to keep fish alive. Flooding events may
threaten these structures and the electricity that powers them. The USFWS considers increased
flood intensity and frequency to be the most threatening climate change impact for the
infrastructure at this facility. Flooding can damage fish passage facilities, deposit sediment, erode
water diversion structures, and inundate access roads (USFWS 2016).
Historically, the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery infrastructure has been affected by flooding in
late fall, winter, and spring. In 2009, the intake structure was damaged by a large flood event that
blew out upstream beaver dams and deposited large amounts of woody debris on the structure
(USFWS 2009). A new intake structure on the Big Quilcene River was added in 2013 and
modified to be National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)-compliant in 2014,
assigning the old intake structure to be an emergency backup. Flooding in late 2014 damaged the
new intake and caused it to clog, with the emergency backup intake also clogging from flood
impacts. Flood events also cause large amounts of sediment from Penny Creek to be deposited
upstream of the fish ladder, which occasionally needs to be removed. Riprap designed to protect
the facility is not equipped to handle high streamflow events and could pose risks to infrastructure
on-site and downstream. The Quilcene National Fish Hatchery: Climate Change Vulnerability
Assessment outlines potential adaptations for addressing these vulnerabilities and identifies a
need for further analysis to determine appropriate infrastructural adaptations (USFWS 2016).
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 29
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Public Facilities
Jefferson County’s Quilcene Riverside Park is adjacent to the Big Quilcene River at RM 0.6, near
the corner of Muncie Avenue and Rodgers Street. Riverside Park is 1 acre and is largely
undeveloped. The park provides access to the river and is used for fishing and picnics (Jefferson
County Parks and Recreation 2018). The park is located at the site of the former Rodgers Street
bridge and several properties that were purchased from willing sellers and protected as open
space. The park’s amenities consist of dumpsters and portable toilets provided during the fishing
season to protect water quality for shellfish resources in Quilcene Bay.
Other parks in the study area include the Quilcene Park and Campground, the Quilcene boat
ramp, and Herb Beck Marina. Both the boat ramp and marina are far enough away from the
rivers’ mouths to escape fluvial impacts. Quilcene Park and Campground, an 8-acre park with 12
campsites, picnic areas, a playground, sport courts, and restrooms, is located in the Quilcene
RVC, outside of the floodplain (Jefferson County Parks and Recreation 2018). There are several
remote trails, trailheads, and campsites in the western portion of the study area, but most are
outside of mapped floodplains. A well-used trail runs from the Highway 101 bridge down the
north shoreline of the Big Quilcene River on a WDFW trail easement.
There is a single K-12 school, located in the center of Quilcene, outside the floodplains of either
river. The Jefferson County Transfer Station is located west of Quilcene but is separated from the
Big Quilcene River by Highway 101.
2.5 Planning and Regulatory Context
Land use activity within the Big and Little Quilcene River watersheds is guided by the goals and
policies in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and is regulated under the Jefferson County
Code (JCC). In accordance with Washington’s Growth Management Act, the Comprehensive Plan
outlines priority land uses and sets the zoning for the jurisdiction. The JCC includes the codification
of the zoning in the Comprehensive Plan and establishes other applicable development regulations.
The JCC has maintained regulations for floodplain management since 1982, with multiple
updates since the adoption of the original ordinance. JCC Chapter 15.15 Flood Damage
Prevention regulates activities in the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), which are delineated
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). To mitigate and prevent flood damage,
the Flood Damage Prevention Code limits development in areas at risk of flooding, sets building
requirements for structures in the floodplain, provides for oversight of construction activities, and
regulates alterations to the landscape that could impact floodwater management. Variances from
the conditions of the Flood Damage Prevention regulations may be granted only under limited
circumstances and with strong justification from the proponent.
Construction permitted under the Flood Damage Prevention regulations must use materials that
are resistant to flood damage. Electrical, heating, ventilation, and other indoor utility equipment is
strongly encouraged to be sited above the base flood elevation. Sewage systems must be designed
to minimize infiltration of floodwater and discharges from the system. Wells are required to be
sited on high ground outside of the floodway.
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 30
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Residential structures must have their lowest floor at least 1 foot above the base flood elevation.
New structures should be anchored to prevent flotation or movement of the structure that could be
caused by floodwater. Manufactured homes and mobile homes, including vehicles, are also
required to meet the Flood Damage Prevention standards for new residential construction.
In accordance with Washington’s Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 18.25 JCC (Shoreline
Master Program [SMP]) establishes policies and regulations for the use and protection of freshwater
and coastal shorelines. The standards in the SMP aim to preserve critical natural resources,
support public access, and allow for water-dependent or other appropriate shoreline land use
activities. All land uses and development affecting the shoreline area must comply with the SMP.
Land uses and development proposed within the shoreline jurisdiction must obtain all applicable
shoreline permits prior to beginning the activity. Some activities may be exempt from the
Substantial Development Permit (SDP) process. These include, but are not limited to, activities
with a fair market value of $8,504 (as of July 2022) or less (Washington Governor’s Office for
Regulatory Innovation and Assistance 2022), construction of single-family homes, maintenance
and repair of lawfully established structures, natural resource improvement, and emergency
actions. Regardless of the applicability of SDPs, all uses in the shoreline area must comply with
the regulations of the SMP, and conditions may be set to mitigate impacts on the shoreline.
The SMP regulates shoreline land uses and development to minimize adverse impacts on natural
resources and ensure alignment with the goals of the SMP. Preferred shoreline uses include those
that provide long-term benefits, preserve aesthetic qualities, are water-dependent, do not deplete
natural resources, provide public access, or support recreation, tourism, and economic
development. Provisions outlined in the SMP to advance its goals include:
• Any use that causes a net loss of ecological functions and processes is prohibited.
• Dredging, filling, construction of structural shoreline armoring, and installation of numerous types of utility transmission and distribution lines may not be conducted in shoreline areas
unless other alternatives are infeasible.
• Preservation of native shoreline vegetation is strongly encouraged and must comply with
buffer zone protections and follow prescribed management techniques.
• An additional 10-foot setback landward on top of existing critical area setbacks.
• All development proposals must demonstrate compliance with the no net loss provisions.
Shoreline environmental designations have been mapped along all County shorelines, and these
designations provide a system for regulating development relative to existing environmental
conditions. The Priority Aquatic and Aquatic designations are assigned to land waterward of the
ordinary high-water mark (OHWM). Development in these areas is limited and some activities may
be prohibited. Above (or landward of) the OHWM, there are four shoreline designations, with the
Natural environmental designation requiring the most protection. The Natural environmental
designation is for undeveloped and largely intact natural resource areas, with the intent of continued
protection from development. Conservancy areas are designated for areas that are intended for low-
intensity development only and aim to protect ecological functions. Shoreline Residential areas are
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 31
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
assigned to environments that are within an Urban Growth Area or are primarily high-density
residential development. High Intensity areas are designated for areas that have current or future
commercial or industrial uses that would be inappropriate for more sensitive environments.
Jefferson County’s current SMP was enacted in February 2014 and is in the process of being
updated, which may result in changes in the regulations detailed above.
In accordance with the Growth Management Act, Jefferson County has established a Critical
Areas Ordinance (CAO) JCC that protects ecologically significant and sensitive environments
(Chapter 18.22 JCC). The CAO regulates activities within the following critical areas and their
designated buffers: Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, Frequently Flooded Areas, Geologically
Hazardous Areas, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA), and Wetlands.
Each critical area designation has established protection standards and restrictions specific to
various land use types and activities. These regulations protect the functions and resources of
critical areas, typically through minimizing runoff, contamination, pollution, or direct disturbance
of the resources within the area. The CAO utilizes an adaptive management approach, offering
numerous options for flexibility and conditional uses in permitting, allowing for monitoring
various protection strategies, and adjusting regulatory approaches based on findings.
The CAO regulations for Frequently Flooded Areas apply to any development within the 1%
annual chance floodplain or that may be subject to flooding due to high groundwater, except for
land use activities exempted under Chapter 15.15 JCC (Flood Damage Prevention). In addition to
compliance with the Flood Damage Prevention regulations, developments within Frequently
Flooded Areas are required to provide a habitat assessment, and they must ensure that there will
be no impacts on protected listed fish and wildlife habitat as required by the National Marine
Fisheries Service September 22, 2008 Final Biological Opinion under the Endangered Species
Act on the National Flood Insurance Program in Puget Sound (NMFS 2008).
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas are regulated under the CAO to minimize impacts on drinking
water from land-disturbing activities (such as development), saltwater intrusion, wastewater, and
stormwater runoff. As floodwaters have a high potential for carrying contaminants, mitigating the
potential for floodwaters to enter Critical Aquifer Recharge Area is important for maintaining
drinking water quality.
Geologically Hazardous Areas are identified as areas with environmental conditions that would
make them susceptible to landslides, erosion, earthquakes, river avulsion, and tsunamis. The
protection standards in Geologically Hazardous Areas limit the extent of clearing, grading, and
vegetation removal; require stormwater plans to control stormwater runoff; and encourage
development outside of the hazardous area.
FWHCAs are intended to protect fish, wildlife, and their habitats, through regulating activities
within the FWHCA and buffer. Bank stabilization, forestry and vegetation management, changes
in hydrology, and stream crossings are all regulated within FWHCAs, due to potential impacts on
habitat. Activities that have the potential to impact FWHCAs or buffers require mitigation.
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 32
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Wetlands are regulated to protect ecological functions, with protection standards applying to both
wetlands and wetland buffers. Activities that have the potential to impact the wetland or the
buffer require mitigation. Vegetation removal, alteration of wetland hydrology, placement of fill,
and excavation are examples of development that would be regulated.
Critical areas regulations prioritize avoidance. However, if avoidance is not possible, impacts on
critical areas and associated buffers are to be minimized and compensatory mitigation is required.
Property owners conducting activities under the CAO within FWHCAs and wetlands may elect to
develop a site-specific Critical Areas Stewardship Plan (CASP), if certain permitting and physical
property conditions apply. A CASP is a detailed mitigation and natural resource management
plan that is intended to provide an equal or higher level of protection to critical areas as
prescribed by CAO standards. A CASP may be pursued when the CAO’s prescribed standards are
infeasible or burdensome, or the proposed land use requires special mitigation. If the CASP
protection standards cannot be met, a Reasonable Economic Use Variance is available that allows
development to be permitted if the variance standards are met. Agricultural land uses, as a vital
resource to Jefferson County, may also use performance-based standards for mitigating impacts
on critical areas, as opposed to the prescribed standards. Performance-based standards vary by
agricultural activities, but typically include a management plan that addresses stormwater runoff,
drainage, erosion and sedimentation, and natural vegetation management.
2.6 Demographics Analysis
Demographics data were collected from the 2020 Decennial Census and the 2020 American
Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. The Quilcene Census Designated Place (CDP) was
selected for the demographics study area because it encompasses a majority of the 1% annual
chance floodplain and the CMZs of the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, without including
significant areas that are outside of the basins that would be represented in Census Block Groups
and Tracts. Small portions of the 1% annual chance floodplain and CMZs fall outside of the
Quilcene CDP, where the Big Quilcene River extends upstream west of Highway 101 and where
the Little Quilcene River extends downstream east of Highway 101, although only the floodplains
on the north side of the Little Quilcene River are outside of the CDP (see Figure 7).
The CDP had a population of 598 across 299 housing units in 2020, with 40 of those houses
being vacant (U.S. Census Bureau 2021). Notably, this is a decrease in the number of households
from 312 in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). An estimated 23% of the population are under 18
years of age, and 19% are 60 years and over, with a median age of 35.4 years of age. The median
household income was $55,547 (see Table 6), with 10.8% of the population living below the
poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau 2022). The poverty rate in Quilcene is high relative to other
localities in Washington State and can be an indicator of heightened vulnerability to
environmental health risks and hazards, such as flooding. The DOH ranks the vulnerability of
populations to environmental health risks based on poverty as a seven out of 10 and an eight out
of 10 for hazards (DOH 2022).
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 33
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Figure 7. Census Areas, with Study Area in Red
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 34
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
TABLE 6 HOUSEHOLD INCOMES IN THE QUILCENE CDP (2020)
Income Percent Number of Households
Less than $10,000 2.0% 5
$10,000 to $14,999 6.0% 16
$15,000 to $24,999 22.1% 57
$25,000 to $34,999 4.4% 11
$35,000 to $49,999 12.4% 32
$50,000 to $74,999 16.9% 44
$75,000 to $99,999 26.5% 69
$100,000 to $149,999 9.6% 25
$150,000 or more 0.0% 0
Total 259
The population is 89.1% White, 0.3% Black, 1.3% American Indian or Alaska Native, 1% Asian,
2.5% other, and 5.7% two or more races. None of the population were identified as Hispanic or
Latino (U.S. Census Bureau 2021). While 1.8% of the population speak a language other than
English, no households were identified as having an occupant that speaks English less than “very
well” (U.S. Census Bureau 2022).
Of the 299 households, 16.9% are occupied by someone living alone (U.S. Census Bureau 2021).
An estimated 28.1% of householders are 65 years or older. Non-permanent, non-stationary
housing, such as mobile homes, tents, recreation vehicles (RVs), vans, or boats account for 25.3%
of the total housing units. There is at least one occupant with a disability in 28.5% of households
in the area. Among all households, 84.7% have internet service and 96.8% have phone service.
All households were estimated to have a car or other personalized motor vehicle (U.S. Census
Bureau 2022). The percentage of the population with a disability and the percentage of homes that
are mobile homes are key indicators of social vulnerability to hazards. The DOH ranked Quilcene’s
percentage of population with a disability as a seven out of 10 for indicating vulnerability to hazards
and the percentage of mobile homes as a nine out of 10. Very few people over 65 years old live
alone, which makes that a low indicator of vulnerability for Quilcene (DOH 2022).
Demographic data can be a useful indicator for identifying heightened vulnerabilities to disaster
and other emergencies among the population. For example, senior populations or people with
physical disabilities may have a reduced ability to evacuate their homes or withstand the impacts
of certain disasters. Similarly, people who live alone may lack the assistance needed during a
disaster event, and factors such as age and physical disabilities can increase their sensitivity to
disaster. The percentage of mobile homes is relatively significant and could function as an
indicator for a higher risk of property damage from floods or other disasters. Quilcene’s
demographic characteristics do not indicate a high potential for communication issues during an
emergency, due to high levels of English fluency and access to communications technologies.
With the high rates of access to communications technology, Jefferson County has a significant
opportunity to share information with and alert vulnerable populations to potential hazards.
Beyond identifying the populations in the area that are vulnerable, establishing networks and
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 35
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
methods for engaging with these populations is critical for ensuring equitable protection from
flood hazards and management of those flood hazards.
2.7 River Reach Descriptions
In September 2004, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation completed a
CMZ study for Jefferson County (BOR 2004). This study focused on defining flood hazard zones
along four rivers in the County: the Duckabush, the Dosewallips, the Big Quilcene, and the Little
Quilcene. To facilitate development and planning around the rivers, the study defined the
historical CMZs and identified areas of potential lateral migration or avulsion.
Study reaches extend from the mouth of each river to the U.S. Forest Service boundary for the
Olympic National Forest. While this plan has been prepared for approximately 6.6 river miles
(the full length included within the study area), the CMZ study area for the Little Quilcene River
ends upstream of the Highway 101 bridge, near RM 2.8, at a point where the channel narrows,
preventing mapping of historical channel locations. The study area for the Big Quilcene River
terminates at the Olympic National Forest boundary, near RM 4. It is assumed that conditions
have not changed too substantially to preclude the reaches developed in the CMZ study from
being appropriate for use in this CFHMP. Detailed descriptions of the study reaches for the Big
and Little Quilcene Rivers are provided below.
Little Quilcene River
The lower Little Quilcene River can be split into four reaches, as defined in the 2004 CMZ Study.
• Reach A – RM 0.0 to RM 0.9
• Reach B – RM 0.9 to RM 1.6
• Reach C – RM 1.6 to RM 1.9
• Reach D – RM 1.9 to RM 2.4
See Figure 8 for locations of these reaches.
Reach A
Reach A extends from the mouth of the river at Quilcene Bay to the Center Road bridge, at
approximately RM 0.9. This reach is the most extensively leveed portion of the river and has been
artificially straightened to limit channel migration into the surrounding agricultural fields.
Restoration efforts have been conducted within this stream reach.
Reach B
Reach B extends upstream from the Center Road bridge to RM 1.6, approximately 1,500 feet
below the Highway 101 bridge. There are fewer revetments in this section and the channel varies
between wide and narrow, as it flows through a low, vegetated floodplain. In fall of 2011, the
Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group completed the Brush Plant Road Reach Restoration
project, installing five log jams and 1,000 native plants in between the Center Road bridge and
Highway 101. This stream reach flows through areas that have been developed for rural
residential uses and much of the forested vegetation along the river has been cleared.
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 36
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Figure 8. Study Reaches in the Little Quilcene and Big Quilcene River Basins
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 37
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Reach C
Reach C is centered around the Highway 101 bridge, extending 1,500 feet upstream and
downstream of the bridge to RM 1.9. Within this reach, the channel is narrow and confined by
high banks and bedrock bluffs. There has been little historical lateral migration in this reach.
Residential development in the vicinity of the bridge has reduced the amount of forested vegetation.
Farther northwest, a greater proportion of the floodplain is vegetated, which provides better
connectivity to other habitat types and decreases the potential for erosion during peak flow events.
Reach D
Reach D starts 1,500 feet upstream of the Highway 101 bridge. The reach ends where the channel
becomes too narrow to accurately map historic channel location, near RM 2.4. The west side is
unconfined, while the east bank is constrained by high banks. The channel is sinuous and
alternates between wide and narrow, and there is more large wood than other reaches. This stream
reach flows through relatively larger parcels where the development generally occurs farther from
the floodplain, resulting in more intact vegetation along the river.
Big Quilcene River
The lower Big Quilcene River can be divided into six reaches, as defined in the 2004 CMZ study.
• Reach A - RM 0.0 to RM 0.6
• Reach B – RM 0.6 to RM 1.3
• Reach C – RM 1.3 to RM 2.2
• Reach D – RM 2.2 to RM 2.8
• Reach E – RM 2.8 to RM 3.7
• Reach F – RM 3.7 to RM 4.3
See Figure 8 for locations of these reaches.
Reach A
Reach A extends from the mouth of the river at Quilcene Bay to Rodgers Street at RM 0.6. This
reach is the most extensively leveed portion of the river and has been artificially straightened to
limit lateral migration. The Linger Longer Road bridge and the BPA transmission lines cross the
river downstream of Rodgers Street. This river reach flows through relatively small parcels, some
of which are in rural residential use. Development in the vicinity of the floodplain has resulted in
the loss of forested vegetation that could reduce flow velocities and decrease the potential for
erosion during peak flow events.
Reach B
Reach B extends 3,800 feet upstream from Rodgers Street to RM 1.3. The channel in the
downstream portion of the reach is narrow and straight, constrained by a levee on the south bank
of the river that extends into Reach A. Upstream, the channel is more meandering and has
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 38
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
historically experienced lateral migration. Parcel size in this stream reach generally allows for
development outside the floodplain. The reach consists of native and non-native woody vegetation.
Reach C
Reach C extends from RM 1.3, 4,500 feet upstream to RM 2.2. This expansion reach contains
abundant large wood, gravel bars, and multiple channels. According to the Salmon Recovery
Portal (SRP), two engineered log jams have been constructed within this reach. Much of the
floodplain has some native trees and shrubs along the floodplain to serve as a wildlife corridor
and to reduce the potential for erosion during peak flow events.
Reach D
Reach D is incised, steep, and narrow with revetments along both banks. The revetments protect
the Highway 101 bridge, the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery, and private residences. There is
limited lateral migration upstream of the Highway 101 bridge, but some historical meanders
downstream of the bridge that were last active in the 1950s.
Reach E
Reach E begins at the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery at RM 2.8 and extends to the Hiddendale
Drive community at RM 3.7, along the right bank of the river. In this reach, the river is wide and
sinuous, with plentiful gravel bars, large wood, and multiple channels. A channel-spanning
diversion in the middle of the reach diverts water to the fish hatchery. Riprap has been placed
upstream of the diversion along the right bank to direct flow toward the left bank. According to
the 2004 CMZ study, flows frequently overtop the riprap, leading to aggradation behind the
revetment and the formation of a new channel at the same elevation as the riprap. Aerial
photographs from 2021 show that this area has developed into an active side channel that
bypasses the hatchery intake structure. As there are no nearby structures other than the intake
structure, this does not pose a flooding issue. Reach E displays extensive historical lateral
migration and parallels Highway 101 a few hundred feet to the east.
Reach F
Reach F begins at the Hiddendale Drive community along the right bank of the river at RM 3.7
and extends until the Olympic National Forest boundary at RM 4.3. Several riprap barbs along
the bank provide bank protection for the community, which is almost entirely within the 1%
annual chance floodplain. The upstream portion of the reach narrows to approximately 30 feet,
confined by high terraces and bedrock. This reach runs parallel to Highway 101, approximately
800 feet to the east.
2.8 History of Flooding and Flood Hazard Analysis
Little Quilcene River
The Little Quilcene River runs approximately 12.2 miles from Mount Townsend to Quilcene Bay.
Elevations range from 6,300 feet at the peak of Mount Townsend to sea level at Quilcene Bay.
The river is free flowing until a diversion dam near RM 7.0 directs drinking water to Lords Lake
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 39
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Reservoir and eventually Port Townsend. With no other structures controlling flow, the river
frequently floods during the winter rainy season from October through March after periods of
prolonged rain. In the spring, rapidly melting snowpack from the Olympic Mountains in the upper
reaches of the watershed also contributes to flooding. Flooding can also occur at the river mouth
when these high flow events coincide with coastal storm surges or high spring tides that hold
back floodwaters from the river.
Leland Lake has a delineated Special Flood Hazard Area that covers small areas around the
perimeter of the lake and in wetland areas just upstream and downstream of the lake. Only one
residential structure appears to be within the 1% annual chance floodplain. Anecdotes of
basement flooding in houses around Leland Lake were described during data collection, but no
documented instances of flooding were identified. Instances of flooding in the area could
potentially be attributed to beavers, which have historically been active upstream and downstream
of the Leland Lake (Wild Fish Conservancy 2008).
There are currently no active U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) streamflow gages on the Little
Quilcene River. Former USGS gage 12052000, located at the Highway 101 crossing over the
Little Quilcene River, has mean daily discharge for a period of record between September 1926
and January 1957. A second gage in the upper watershed, directly below the diversion dam,
recorded mean daily discharge between April 1994 and July 1994. Ecology operates active gage
17D060 at the Center Road bridge, with discharge measurements at 15-minute intervals spanning
from August 2002 to the present. See Figure 9 for the location of the gage.
FEMA calculated flood frequencies for the Little Quilcene River in its 1982 Jefferson County
Flood Insurance Study (FIS). Because gage data at the time of their study were inadequate,
FEMA used the USGS regional method to calculate flood-frequency returns, listed in Table 7
below. Discharges were calculated for two locations: at the river’s mouth and at its confluence
with Leland Creek, at RM 1.8. FEMA published a second FIS for Jefferson County, effective
June 7, 2019, but did not update any of the flood frequencies for the Little Quilcene River. There
is little recorded information on flood events on the Little Quilcene River, although flooding
likely occurs at the same time as for the Big Quilcene, described below. Jefferson County reports
that between 1974 and 1982, the Little Quilcene River flooded seven times.
TABLE 7 FLOOD FREQUENCIES ON THE LITTLE QUILCENE RIVER
Recurrence Period Peak Discharge at Mouth (cfs) Peak Discharge at Confluence with Leland Creek (cfs)
10-Year 1,370 990
50-Year 1,960 1,410
100-Year 2,210 1,590
500-Year 2,880 2,060
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 40
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Figure 9. Active Stream Gages
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 41
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Big Quilcene River
The Big Quilcene River watershed is approximately 69 square miles located on the east side of
the Olympic Mountains, directly southwest of the Little Quilcene River basin. Its headwaters
flow out of the Buckhorn Wilderness (where elevations in the southwestern portion of the basin
exceed 7,000 feet) into Quilcene Bay at sea level. The highest peak in the watershed is Mount
Constance, at 7,750 feet. The mean annual precipitation in the basin is 64.3 inches, with annual
rainfall at the town of Quilcene, near the river’s mouth, averaging 51 inches, and rainfall in the
upper reaches of the watershed averaging 76 inches (USGS 2023). Most of the basin is forested
with coniferous trees and steep, with extensive areas in the upper watershed being prone to mass
wasting (GeoEngineers 1998).
The Big Quilcene River is a 30-mile long, free-flowing river until RM 9.5, where a small dam
diverts water to the City of Port Townsend. Downstream, there is an additional diversion dam
associated with the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery, as well as a fish ladder that redirects fish to
the hatchery. However, neither dam is designed to act as a flood control structure and they do not
regulate the flow of the river.
Historical streamflow data are limited for the Big Quilcene River. Active USGS stream gage
12052210, which sits at RM 9.5 directly below the diversion dam, has recorded the mean daily
discharge from January 1994 to present day for a drainage area of 49.4 square miles. The NOAA-
operated gage NWSBQCW1 is a few hundred feet below the USGS gage and also records stage
and discharge. Inactive gages include USGS gage 12052500 at the Highway 101 crossing of the
Big Quilcene River at RM 2.7, which kept mean daily discharge records for a period of 1 year
from August 1971 to August 1972, and USGS gage 12052200 at RM 9.5, directly above the
diversion dam, which recorded mean daily discharge from May 1993 to November 1993. Another
USGS gage, Station 12042400, recorded streamflow and water quality data from February 1949
to January 1968 on Penny Creek immediately above its confluence with the Big Quilcene River
near the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery. An inactive Ecology gage also recorded flows on the
Big Quilcene from 2000 to 2014 at the Linger Longer Road bridge. The Linger Longer Ecology
gage did not appear to accurately record peak flow rates above approximately 3,000 cfs.
USGS staff collect streamflow data manually from two sites near the Quilcene National Fish
Hatchery at irregular intervals, although data are typically collected 2 to 3 months apart. The
measurement sites are USGS 12052390 Big Quilcene River Above Penny Creek Near Quilcene,
which has data from June 1993 to the present, and USGS 12052398 Penny Creek Above
Hatchery Near Quilcene, which has data from August 2015 to the present (USGS 2023). The
measurement locations are both below water intakes at the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery and
may be used to inform or validate seasonal water right withdrawal limits, which are based on
maintaining minimum flow volumes in the Big Quilcene River and Penny Creek (Magneson 2014).
FEMA calculated flood frequencies for the Big Quilcene River in its 1982 Jefferson County
Flood Insurance Study (FIS). Because gage data at the time of the study were inadequate, FEMA
used the USGS regional method to calculate flood-frequency returns, listed in Table 8. Discharges
were calculated for two locations: at the river’s mouth and at its confluence with Penny Creek,
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 42
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
near the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery at RM 2.8. FEMA published a second FIS, effective
June 7, 2019, but did not update any of the flood frequencies for the Big Quilcene River.
TABLE 8 FLOOD FREQUENCIES ON THE BIG QUILCENE RIVER – USING 1982 REGIONAL REGRESSION
Recurrence Period Peak Discharge at Mouth (cfs) Peak Discharge at Confluence with Penny Creek (cfs)
10-Year 3,580 3,130
50-Year 5,200 4,540
100-Year 5,900 5,140
500-Year 7,800 6,780
In 2018 and 2020, Anchor QEA published a Preliminary Design Report and 30% Design Report
for the Lower Big Quilcene River Restoration Project (Lower One Mile Project), respectively.
The peak discharges in their reports generally match FEMA’s flows. In their 2020 30%
Conceptual Design Report for the Moon Valley Restoration Project, Cardno modeled five
recurrence flows in the vicinity of Moon Valley, just below the Highway 101 bridge crossing of
the Big Quilcene River. These flows are higher, but likely more accurate, than those calculated by
FEMA using regression equations. Results are shown in Table 9 below. Additional details on
these two restoration projects are described in Section 2.10.
TABLE 9 STEADY-STATE FLOWS MODELED IN TWO DIMENSIONS
FOR THE LOWER BIG QUILCENE RIVER
Recurrence Period Modeled Flow (cfs)
6-Month 1,552
2-Year 2,622
5-Year 4,078
25-Year 6,478
50-Year 7,523
Source: Cardno (2020)
The 1998 Lower Big Quilcene Flood Plan documented major flood events occurring in the
following months and years:
• December 1926
• November 1951
• February 1954
• January 1959
• January 1960
• December 1966
• January 1968
• March 1971
• December 1979
• November 1986
• November/December 1990, 1993
• November/December 1995
• December 1996
• January 1997
• March 1997
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 43
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
In the 1993 event, the river breached the Old Quilcene River levee downstream of Linger Longer
Road and formed a new channel until repairs were made on the levee. During the March 1997
event, a landslide on the south bank of the Big Quilcene River at RM 1.8 directed flow toward the
north bank, destroying a recently completed log barb bank protection. The USGS gage at RM 9.5
documented flow of 5,620 cfs associated with the December 1995 event and 4,990 cfs with the
March 1997 event. Since then, flows have only exceeded 4,000 cfs in December 2014 (5,170 cfs)
and October 2016 (4,200 cfs).
The greatest recorded peak daily discharge is 5,620 cfs on December 12, 1995 at gage 12052210
(see Figure 10). This gage is located 6.7 miles upstream of the Big Quilcene River’s confluence
with Penny Creek and drains only 49.4 square miles compared to 66.5 square miles at Penny
Creek. The gage is unable to make accurate high-flow discharge measurements, and any flows
greater than 900 cfs are rated as having poor accuracy (USGS 2022). The December 2014 flood
event reportedly closed the Linger Longer Road bridge and Rodgers Street, adjacent to the Big
Quilcene River, and Frank Beck Road along the Little Quilcene River (Sullivan 2014). According
to FEMA’s 1982 FIS for Jefferson County, residents reported floods on the Big Quilcene River in
January 1960, December 1966, and January 1968.
Figure 10. Annual Peak Discharges on the Big Quilcene River
Figure 11 shows the Special Flood Hazard Area and floodway area (as mapped by FEMA) and
the channel migration zone (as mapped by Jefferson County).
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 44
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Figure 11. Floodway and Channel Migration Zone.
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 45
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
2.9 Potential Future Conditions
Climate is a key factor for flood frequency and intensity, with changes to the climate having the
potential to impact watershed ecosystems and topography. Shifts in precipitation patterns on the
Olympic Peninsula are expected to affect the frequency and intensity of heavy flows in the Big
and Little Quilcene Rivers that could potentially worsen flood hazards. As a result, the developed
areas of Quilcene in the low-lying reaches of the two rivers may experience increased inundation,
deposition of debris and sediment, property damage and disruption, and overall exposure to
flooding over time.
Changes in Hydrology
The Big and Little Quilcene Rivers are largely fed by precipitation falling on the Olympic
Mountains in their upper watersheds and by high elevation snowpack melting through the warmer
months of the year. Historically, the rivers have had relatively stable streamflow throughout the
year from gradual snowmelt. However, increases in temperature can result in shifts in the timing
of precipitation as well as faster snowmelt, or rain-on-snow events, leading to less stable
streamflow that is more significantly influenced by precipitation events. Historically,
precipitation volumes vary substantially from year-to-year in Puget Sound, which presents
challenges in accurately estimating climate change’s effect on total precipitation to-date.
However, precipitation patterns have shifted toward less frequent but higher volume heavy rain
events, which increases the potential for hazardous flooding (Mauger et al. 2015).
The northwest United States has experienced an average temperature increase of 2 degrees
Fahrenheit since 1900 (May et al. 2018). Warming temperatures have contributed to reduced
snowpack in the Olympic Mountains, with an estimated 20% reduction in average snowpack
since 1950 (EPA 2016). Increased temperatures also result in more precipitation falling as rain in
high elevations (as opposed to snow), including in winter months. The impacts of warmer winters
have year-round implications, as high elevation snowpack has been melting faster, resulting in
less stable streamflows throughout the year. As a result of faster snowmelt, some snowmelt-
influenced rivers in the Puget Sound region saw average peak flow dates shift up to 20 days earlier
from 1948 to 2002, although some rivers experienced no substantial change (Stewart et al. 2005).
Climate change projections vary considerably by the source of the information and the scientific
model used to make the projections. Estimates of future climate conditions may be best
understood through a range of possible future greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, ranging from a
low greenhouse gas emissions scenario, which would result in less significant climate impacts, to
a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario, which would result in more significant climate
impacts. Projections for each scenario are averaged from estimates produced by multiple models.
In a low-emissions scenario, the average annual temperature in Puget Sound is projected to
increase 4.5°F by the end of the century, in contrast to a projected 8.5°F for a high-emissions
scenario (Mauger et al. 2015). These increased temperatures will have significant effects on
precipitation patterns, snowpack, and streamflow as well as soils and vegetation. The total
precipitation in fall, winter, and spring may increase by 2% in a low-emissions scenario or by up
to 11% in a high emissions scenario by the 2050s (relative to 1970 to 1999) (Mote et al. 2015). In
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 46
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
their 2020 Hydrodynamic Modeling Report for the Big Quilcene River Restoration Project,
Anchor QEA evaluated the effect of increased precipitation and sea level rise (SLR) on
hydrologic flows in the vicinity of Linger Longer Road. Using projected 2050 SLR values, the
100-year flood was estimated to be 6,900 cfs. This is a 1,000 cfs increase from FEMA’s current
estimates of the 100-year flood (5,900 cfs).
While the increases in total precipitation during the wet months are smaller than historical year-
to-year variability in precipitation, the increases in extreme precipitation events are projected to
be more substantial. By the 2080s, the heaviest 24-hour rainfall events in winter (often caused by
“atmospheric river” events) will increase in volume by 22% on average (relative to the period
from 1970 to 1999), with these events projected to occur on average seven times per year
(Warner et al. 2015). Atmospheric rivers are columns of water vapor that move with the weather,
often carrying an amount of water vapor that is equivalent to the average flow of water at the
mouth of the Mississippi River. They are especially common in the western United States.
Atmospheric rivers can create extreme rainfall events and cause floods, often stalling over
watersheds that are already vulnerable to flooding. These events can induce mudslides, disrupt
travel, and cause catastrophic damage to life and property from flood events (NOAA 2017).
Across Puget Sound watersheds, peak flow volumes during the 1% annual chance flood event
under a moderate-emissions scenario are projected to increase by an average of 18% to 42% by
the end of the century (Mauger et al. 2015).
Hydrology can also be impacted by wildfires, which are expected to increase in frequency and
severity with climate change. Changes in precipitation and hydrology are expected to increase
drought conditions in summer months. Snowpack on April 1st (typically the peak time for
snowpack) is projected to decrease by 42% in a low-emissions scenario or 55% in a moderate
emissions scenario, when compared with snowpack at the end of the 20th century. Under the same
conditions, the volume of the 10-year 7-day low flow extreme would decrease anywhere from
16% to 55% (Mauger et al. 2015). Drought conditions potentially increase the risk of wildfires,
which can destabilize the landscape from a loss of vegetation and increase the potential for flood
conditions to cause erosion and debris flows (May et al. 2018). Wildfires can make soils less
permeable to water, which can enable flash floods from increased runoff (Mauger and Vogel 2020).
The impacts of these climate changes will include greater variability in streamflow and flood
events, defined by more intense extremes. Quilcene, as a developed area in the lowest reaches of
the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, will experience the impacts of these rain and flood events
with the addition of debris from upriver and potential increases in speed from downhill flows.
This will make floods more damaging through movement of debris, such as large wood, which
could impact structures or block roads. Debris may also include sediment that can cover
floodplains, impacting the viability of agriculture in the lower reaches of the Big and Little
Quilcene Rivers. While the sediment deposited by historic floods has led to high quality
agricultural soils, sediment deposits from current flooding tend to negatively affect agricultural
operations due to debris, contamination, and impacts on livestock. Faster, higher volume floods
will have a greater potential for eroding the landscape and causing avulsion or channel migration.
Similarly, the increased volume of the flood events will inundate larger areas, which could be
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 47
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
quite extensive due to the relatively flat topography of the land in the lowest elevation reaches of
both the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers (Reach A for each river).
The year-round impacts of these climate change effects can be understood in the context of
Washington’s 2015 drought season. In the 2014-2015 winter, precipitation totals were normal
relative to historic climate data, but warmer weather led to precipitation falling as rain, leading to
a record low snowpack, which would normally be relied on for downstream water resources in
spring and summer months. While the rain created high streamflows in the spring, the snowpack
deficit in combination with higher summer temperatures enabled a historic drought and the state’s
largest wildfire season on record, in terms of acres burned (Anderson et al. 2016). These
conditions can enable a feedback loop where drought and wildfire can enable potentially more
significant impacts from the flood season, while the rapid snowmelt creates more significant
drought conditions. Without adaptation to improve resilience or variations in the climate to
reduce these impacts, the feedback loop can continue and worsen.
Sea Level Rise
From 1907 to 2007, Puget Sound has risen 0.7 foot on the Seattle shoreline, which likely varies
from Quilcene Bay, but is a useful indicator of the pattern of sea level rise across the region
(Raymond et al. 2018). The effects of sea level rise on coastal flooding in Puget Sound have been
minor to-date, with less than five documented high tide flooding days each in Seattle and Port
Townsend in 2000, reaching seven and six high tide flooding days in 2021, respectively. Both
cities are estimated to have nine to 10 annual high tide flood days by 2050. Flat coastal areas on
Quilcene Bay, especially around the mouth of the Big Quilcene River, are estimated to experience
similar exposure to high tide flooding in the future (Sweet et al. 2022). Sea level rise in Puget
Sound is projected to range from 1.2 feet in a low-emissions scenario to 4.5 feet in a high-
emissions scenario by the end of the century (Mauger et al. 2015), but will vary by location based
on geologic factors.
Sea level rise not only contributes to coastal flooding, but it can also cause backups in rivers that
empty into coastal waters, resulting in inland flooding, referred to as the coastal squeeze effect.
The combination of sea level rise with higher streamflow and more extreme floods in the future
could cause riverine flooding to be more extensive and damaging in the future. For example, the
combined effects of sea level rise and increased peak flows are expected to increase the flood area
of the snowmelt-fed Skagit River by 74% during a 1% annual chance flood by the 2080s (relative
to 1970-1999) (Hamman 2012; Hamman et al. 2015). The coastal squeeze can affect
groundwater, in addition to surface water, and may contribute to higher groundwater levels,
which can destabilize soils, making them more susceptible to erosion and impacting their ability
to store surface floodwater.
In Quilcene, sea level rise is likely to inundate low-elevation areas near Quilcene Bay and may
extend to areas that historically had the capacity for floodwater storage. The coastal squeeze
effect will increase the potential of floods to overtop levees, especially those in the Reach A areas
of both the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, putting the surrounding low-lying neighborhoods at
increased risk. While sea level rise alone is not projected to inundate significant portions of
developed areas in the near future, as a chronic impact combined with seasonal concentrations of
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 48
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
high streamflow, there is potential for areas in Quilcene to experience extended periods of flood
impacts, as opposed to separate flood events. King tides and coastal storm events should be
accounted for when considering potential riverine flood impacts, as the coastal squeeze effect
could cause backups in lower reaches even when precipitation or streamflow volumes upstream
are not significant enough to cause flooding on their own.
2.10 Flood Management Activities
Historic Flood Management Activities
The study area was first inhabited by the native Quil-ceed-a-bish people, which means “salt water
people.” The Quil-ceed-a-bish people are one of the three bands of the Twanas and inhabited the
western shores of Hood Canal. They were often found in small groups connected by a common
language and located near the mouths of salmon-bearing streams and rivers. The Twana had at
least one permanent winter village and several neighboring campsites near where the current
town of Quilcene is located (Correa 2002). European settlers arrived in the area in the second half
of the 19th century, and the first homestead in Quilcene was established in 1860. The railroad and
lumber industries began expanding into the area in the 1880s, coinciding with the beginning of
flood management activities on the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers. There is limited information
about these early flood management activities prior to modern permitting requirements.
Levees were first constructed along the lower half mile of the Big Quilcene River beginning
sometime in the late 1800s. Levees, referred to as the Old Quilcene River Levee 1 and 2, run
along both banks from Rodgers Street down to the mouth of the river, channelizing and
straightening its channel. These levees were likely first built to protect agricultural fields from the
saltwater estuary by preventing channel migration. The existing levees along the Big Quilcene
River protect residential areas from floods with low to moderate flows, but today, these levees
overtop during floods with 2- or 3-year recurrence. The Little Quilcene River has also been
channelized by levees as it enters the north end of Quilcene Bay, but there is little information on
the origin of these levees.
Historical dredging in the Big Quilcene took place downstream of Rodgers Street, although there
is no documentation on the frequency of dredging. In 1992 and 1993, the lowermost section of
the river, between the BPA transmission line crossing and the mouth of the river, was dredged,
removing 3 to 6 feet of sediment from the channel bottom (GeoEngineers 1998). However, the
channel refilled with sediment during the next major storm event. Between 1994 and 1998,
relatively small gravel traps were excavated along the river. These gravel traps are typically less
than 2,000 cubic yards. Material has also been removed from gravel bars that lie above the water
surface (GeoEngineers 1998).
Modern Flood Management Activities
Floodplain Reconnection
In more recent years, several efforts have been made to reconnect floodplain areas to the river to
increase flood storage and restore habitat. Efforts to remove levees on the Big Quilcene River
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 49
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
began in the early 1990s. In 1998 and 1999, the Hood Canal Coordinating Council Lead Entity
and Jefferson County Public Works led the Big Quilcene Lower Mainstem Levee Removal Phase
1 project (SRP 2022). Between 2002 and 2006, the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group led
the Big Quilcene Lower Mainstem Levee Removal Phase 2 project, removing 1,100 feet of levee
along the north bank of the river along with the placement of LWD (SRP 2022).
In 2008, HCSEG led the removal of 3,000 feet of the Schinke Levee on the Big Quilcene River.
A section of levee just south of the mouth of the Big Quilcene River was removed as part of
efforts to restore 38 acres of estuarine marsh (HCSEG 2022a). Also in 2008, HCSEG led the
removal of 2,200 feet of levee on the Little Quilcene River. Levees along the mouth of the river
were removed and 800 feet of river channel was reconfigured, restoring 25 acres of estuarine
habitat (HCSEG 2022b). The large number of restoration projects on the Big and Little Quilcene
Rivers and Quilcene Bay have helped protect vital estuarine habitat. Compared to many major
estuaries in Puget Sound, Quilcene Bay has experienced relatively little loss. It is reported that
Quilcene Bay historically had approximately 126 hectares of historical vegetated tidal wetlands
and currently has around 110 hectares (Arthur 2020), although it should be noted that currently
the estuary is prograding, which is negatively impacting salmon species.
Two major ongoing projects are underway in the Big Quilcene River watershed that will have
significant impacts on flood management in the basin. These projects are the Lower One Mile
Project, focusing the lowest 1-mile stretch of the Big Quilcene River, and the Moon Valley
Restoration Project, located downstream of the Highway 101 bridge crossing of the Big Quilcene
River.
Lower One Mile
The Lower One Mile Project is being led by HCSEG. This project has multiple goals: reducing
flood risk, restoring salmon habitat, and ensuring compatibility with shellfish resources in
Quilcene Bay. In 2023, 60% design documents were finalized that depict the plan to replace the
Linger Longer Road bridge with a slightly realigned, floodplain-spanning bridge. The levee on
the north bank of the river would be removed and a new diversion point and mainstem channel
would be excavated north of the river, beginning east of Rodgers Street and extending east
through what is currently Linger Longer Road. Levee improvements would be made to the levee
on the south bank and several log jams would be installed. Project objectives are to:
• Remove approximately 1,500 linear feet of hard-armored levee embankment on the north side
of the river.
• Remove the existing Linger Longer bridge and install a full-floodplain-spanning vehicle and
pedestrian bridge over the river, wide and high enough to pass flood waters and LWD.
• Restore natural sediment transport processes and allow the river to meander dynamically over
time, creating diverse, high-quality habitat within as much of the historical floodplain as allowable.
• Restore approximately 5 acres (2.6 river miles) of river riparian buffers using native trees and shrubs.
• Restore instream habitat conditions by placing LWD in the lower river and restored estuary.
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 50
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
• Address public safety issues associated with pedestrian and vehicle access, sediment, and flooding.
• Enhance environmental education opportunities, including providing recreational features such as trails with interpretive signage, and obtain support from local Quilcene middle and
high school students and teachers.
• Address ESA-listed Hood Canal summer chum salmon habitat limitations.
Moon Valley
The Moon Valley Restoration Project is being led by HCSEG and the Jamestown S’Klallam
Tribe and consists of 12 low-lying parcels in Moon Valley, which is located immediately east of
the Highway 101 bridge crossing of the Big Quilcene River and extends 1.2 miles downstream.
Conceptual 30% design plans prepared by Cardno in 2020 include re-meandering of the Big
Quilcene River into the floodplain terrace primarily north of the existing channel. The project will
also include floodplain grading and the addition of large wood to the river corridor. The project
objectives are to decrease channel slope, encourage aggradation of spawning-sized gravels in
previously incised areas of the river, and increase habitat quantity and diversity. HCSEG has
completed much of the property acquisition necessary for the project, in part utilizing the
Jefferson County Conservation Futures Fund, and the project will be advancing to preliminary
design and construction in the coming years.
Open Space Land Acquisition, Protection, and Restoration
Jefferson County has demonstrated that it values access and preservation of open space through a
variety of planning and programs. Implementation of open space priorities in the study area has
frequently been pursued in conjunction with flood hazard management and habitat restoration
initiatives. Jefferson County participates in the Conservation Futures Program (Chapter 84.34
RCW and Chapter 3.08 JCC), which uses a tax levy to fund open space projects, primarily
through fee simple acquisition and the purchase of conservation easements. The County has
funded projects through Conservation Futures annually since 2003, including contributing funds
to acquisitions for the Moon Valley Restoration and Lower Big Quilcene River Riparian
Protection projects (Jefferson County 2023). The Conservation Futures Program has largely been
used to supplement larger grants from the Salmon Recovery Funding Board for acquisition along
the Big Quilcene River. Salmon Recovery Funding Board grants have also been used to acquire
developed properties in the floodplain (SRP 2022).
Jefferson County’s open space and recreation priorities are established in its 2015 update to the
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. Open space priorities in the study area are focused on
protecting habitat on the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, as well as tributaries, such as Leland
Creek. The Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan also emphasizes protecting land in proximity
to urban areas and Rural Village Centers, such as Quilcene, to enable access to open space,
protect natural resources, and minimize sprawl (Jefferson County 2015).
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 51
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Jefferson County Floodplain Management Regulations
On July 19, 1982, FEMA published a Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and accompanying Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for Jefferson County. This allowed the County to become eligible
for FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Participation in the NFIP required that
Jefferson County adopt a floodplain regulation ordinance (Chapter 15.15 JCC), which provides
regulatory requirements for development in the floodplain. The purpose of this code is to promote
public health, safety, and welfare; reduce the annual cost of flood insurance; and minimize public
and private loss due to flood conditions. FEMA FIRM panels map much of the study area
adjacent to the Big or Little Quilcene Rivers as floodplain. Development within the floodplain,
with the exception of select maintenance activities, requires a flood development permit. Some of
the key provisions in this ordinance are:
• A development permit is required for all construction or development in the mapped
floodplain.
• New construction or substantial improvement of residential construction shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated 1 foot or more above the base flood elevation.
• New construction or substantial improvement of non-residential construction shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated 1 foot or more above the base flood elevation or shall be flood-proofed to at or above this elevation.
• New construction or substantial improvement of residential structures is generally prohibited
within the floodway.
By enforcing the regulations established in Chapter 15.15 JCC, Jefferson County is managing the
amount of damage associated with flooding. A new FIS and set of FIRMs for Jefferson County
was adopted on June 7, 2019.
Other Flood Hazard Management Activities
Jefferson County has also been active in the following types of flood hazard management
activities:
• Mapping floodplains.
• Studying floodplain hydrology, channel migration, and natural resources.
• Developing and implementing floodplain management policies and regulations.
• Developing flood hazard management plans, including the development of this CFHMP.
• Designing and constructing flood hazard mitigation projects.
• Purchasing or contributing to the purchase of properties that support implementation of the Lower One Mile and Moon Valley Projects.
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 52
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
2.11 Vulnerability Assessment
Vulnerability–The extent to which resources or people are susceptible to and unable to
cope with the adverse effects of flooding, including increased flooding due to climate
change. Vulnerability is a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity.
Exposure–The degree of flooding that occurs or is likely to occur (e.g., extent/depth of inundation from flooding).
Sensitivity–The degree to which a resource is affected by a given amount of exposure.
Adaptive capacity–The degree to which a resource is able to respond to or recover from impacts.
Exposure
The study area has a documented history of flooding from the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers,
which presents hazards to people, the built environment, natural resources, and industry in the
area. Major flood events have been recorded at intervals of less than 10 years since the 1950s.
Flooding has overtopped dams, inundated roads, and affected homes in the floodplain. Four flood
events between 1995 and 2016 had streamflow volumes at RM 9.5 that exceeded the 10% chance
annual flood event streamflow estimates for the mouth of the river, which could indicate a future
pattern of more frequent, more intense flood events.
Climate change will increase the intensity of extreme precipitation events, which will be
compounded by more rapid snowmelt from increased temperatures. These factors will result in
increased exposure to flood hazards both through an increase in the frequency of flood events and
an expansion of the area that will be inundated during flood events. As a result, the 1% annual
chance floodplain, delineated by FEMA, has a greater likelihood of being inundated than a 1%
chance each year. Flatter areas, such as those in the floodplains of Reach A for both rivers, will
see greater expansions of the area inundated. The 0.2% annual chance flood area will be a useful
reference when planning for future flood hazard extremes, as the probability of a 1% annual
chance flood increases over time.
Sensitivity
The Quilcene CDP’s population of 598 people includes populations that may be more sensitive to
flood impacts (U.S. Census Bureau 2021). The 28.5% of households that have an occupant with a
disability may face greater challenges related to evacuation or have cost burdens that limit their
capacity to incorporate resilience measures into their homes. The 28.1% of householders who are
65 years or older may face similar mobility and financial challenges (U.S. Census Bureau 2022).
While the percentages of households in poverty or with a householder living alone are not
significant, these are also indicators of potential vulnerability that should be considered in
proactive and reactive flood hazard management activities.
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 53
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
In the lower reaches of both rivers, as well as concentrated areas upriver like the Hiddendale
Drive community, houses are located within the floodplain. Many of these houses are older, pre-
dating the County’s Flood Damage Prevention regulations. Older homes that have not been
renovated to be more resilient may be more significantly impacted by flooding and flood damage
including the growth of mold and mildew, but age alone is not a reliable measure of sensitivity.
However, the high percentage of mobile homes in the study area provides a strong indication of
the sensitivity of the housing stock, as mobile homes have lesser structural integrity and may be
more easily swept up by floodwaters.
There are 290 residential parcels, 35 agricultural or resource extraction parcels, and 29
commercial or manufacturing parcels that are at least partially within the 1% annual chance
floodplain or CMZ. An additional 353 undeveloped parcels are at least partially within the 1%
annual chance floodplain or CMZ. Insufficient data are available to evaluate the exact value of
property at-risk of loss to flooding. The total assessed value of developed properties at least
partially within the floodplain or the CMZ is $38,412,467 in land value and $59,419,173 in
building value, for a total of $97,831,640 (CIO 2022). While these numbers are higher than the
value of property that is currently at-risk of loss to flooding, this value does offer insights into the
extremes of potential of losses, if current property uses became unviable under future conditions.
All properties in the study area use on-site wastewater treatment, primarily septic systems, which
can face issues during flood events, as inundation can disrupt their functionality or disrupt the soil
they reside in. Most of the properties in the study area draw water from permit-exempt wells.
While Jefferson County’s Flood Damage Prevention regulations aim to minimize illicit
discharges from wastewater systems and require that wells be placed above the floodplain, most
of the properties in Quilcene were developed prior to the adoption of these regulations in 1982.
Additionally, the potential future increases in flood volume and extents could affect wells that
were historically unaffected by floods. Further investigation of wastewater infrastructure
locations in relation to well locations and future flood hazards extents would help to identify
potential risks posed to the drinking water supply during flood events.
There are four bridges in the Quilcene area, two crossing the Big Quilcene River (Highway 101
and Linger Longer Road) and two crossing the Little Quilcene River (Center Road and Highway
101). The Federal Highway Administration rates all four of the bridges as being in fair condition,
using a rating system of good, fair, and poor (Federal Highway Administration 2022). Jefferson
County plans to replace the Center Road bridge due to structural deficiencies. Jefferson County
stakeholders also offered anecdotal evidence of significant scouring under the Highway 101
bridge over the Big Quilcene River. The Linger Longer Road bridge appears most affected by
flooding, being overtopped every 2 or 3 years in recent history. Overtopping of the Linger Longer
Road bridge in the future due to the coastal squeeze effect could make the area inaccessible
during emergencies, eliminating a potential evacuation route for approximately 70 people. The
bridge inspection data do not indicate a high level of sensitivity for the structural integrity of the
bridges, which makes bridge failure less likely. However, if the Highway 101 bridge over the
Little Quilcene River were overtopped or damaged either at the same time as the Center Road
bridge or while the Center Road bridge was being replaced, this could present significant
emergency service access or evacuation challenges. These two bridges over the Little Quilcene
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 54
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
offer a key access route to areas north and east of Quilcene, such as the County seat of Port
Townsend, as well as locations of state and federal agencies that provide emergency services.
The Big and Little Quilcene River watersheds rely on Quilcene Fire Rescue, the volunteer fire
department for Jefferson County Fire District 2. Calls to the fire department have significantly
increased in recent years. As a volunteer fire department, there is potential for emergency
scenarios that affect large areas, such as floods, to overwhelm the department. Supporting
services from adjacent fire districts or other emergency management departments could be
impacted by road blockages due to flooding or other hazards. Similarly, volunteers for the fire
department may reside in affected areas or be unable to access Quilcene due to road blockages.
Increasing education around flood resilience and at-home safety during flood events could help to
mitigate the demand on the fire department during emergencies. The current high demand on the
department could be identified as a supporting reason to pursue grants or other funding that could
increase the capacity of the department.
Most of Quilcene’s civic buildings are in the RVC, outside of the floodplain. Notable community
use properties in the RVC include the fire department, Jefferson County offices, Quilcene
Community Center, Quilcene Public Schools, and public open space areas. This allows for the
provision of shelter and public services during emergency scenarios, helping to minimize
vulnerabilities to government flood hazard responses. Barring the Highway 101 bridges or other
portions of the road becoming impassable, these community buildings should be accessible via
Highway 101 during flood events.
Adaptive Capacity
Jefferson County has adopted regulatory measures that will minimize risk to the community,
including those who reside in the vicinity of the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers. The 2018
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan prioritizes infill development in the RVC for new
development, discouraging sprawl. Jefferson County has the capacity to further prioritize or
incentivize development in the RVC or other developed areas outside of the floodplain through
reduced regulatory standards for development. While Jefferson County lacks the ability to change
state laws that establish sewer and drinking water standards, the County can work with developers,
property owners, and utility providers to identify community solutions to sewer and water needs.
Environmental regulations in the JCC also aim to prevent the creation of new flood risks through
discouraging new development in the floodplain and other critical areas that support natural flood
hazard management. However, new development in the area has been negligible in recent years.
The greatest risks in the area are to existing properties and their residents, especially those in the
floodplains of the lower reaches of both rivers. In these areas, acquiring flood-prone properties
and supporting environmental restoration in the floodplain have been important efforts in
enabling a more resilient floodplain.
Reflecting the benefits of information collected from outreach, having data on flood hazards is
critical to adaptive capacity. This CFHMP provides information on flood hazards that affect
people, property, and environment of the Big and Little Quilcene River watersheds. However, the
ability to address future conditions under climate change will partly rely on the availability and
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 55
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
utilization of data that provide reliable projections of future conditions and environmental
monitoring of the current conditions. While informative climate projection data are publicly
available, not all flood hazard information accounts for projected changes under climate change,
for example, FEMA flood maps. Flood hazard and climate data specific to a locality can be
especially useful. The lack of active gages in the lower reaches of the Big and Little Quilcene
Rivers, as well as the inaccuracy of gage 12052210 at Big Quilcene RM 6.7, limit the ability of
Jefferson County to anticipate and adapt to high streamflow events. As high streamflow events
will increasingly be influenced by rapid snowmelt, it will be critical to have informative
streamflow data, in addition to precipitation forecasts.
The ability of households to recover from frequent flooding requires financial resources to pay for
recovery activities (such as replacing damaged belongings or repairing a flooded home). As
described in Section 2.6, the poverty rate in the Quilcene CDP is high relative to other areas of
Washington State, which could point to lower adaptive capacity to recover from flood events.
Flood insurance is another important tool for adaptive capacity. Because Jefferson County is in
the NFIP, all residents of the County can purchase a flood insurance policy from the federal
government.
Vulnerability
The residential areas in Reach A of the Big Quilcene River, Reaches A and B of the Little
Quilcene River, and the Hiddendale Drive community on the Big Quilcene River are some of the
areas with the most vulnerable people and private property. These areas include high
concentrations of residential properties within the 1% annual chance floodplain. Numerous
properties in the lower reaches of both rivers serve residential and agricultural functions, which
present the potential for economic losses to residents’ livelihoods, in addition to losses from
property damage. The vulnerability of agriculture in the floodplain will likely increase over time
as climate change affects the timing of flood season and the growing season and increases flood
the frequency and severity of flood inundation.
The lower reaches have the broadest CMZs, spanning more than 1 mile from north to south,
where the rivers’ CMZs overlap at their mouths. CMZs present the potential for the rivers and the
floodplain to shift closer to properties and could result in increased property losses over time
without adaptation to the changing environment. The channel migration zones in the upper
reaches of the rivers are less significant, but a small number of the Hiddendale Drive properties
are within the channel migration zone, as well.
Infrastructure in the study area is moderately vulnerable. Many roads are outside of the floodplain
and channel migration area. The roads in the lower reaches, especially Linger Longer Road and
surrounding roads, East Quilcene Road, and Center Road have heightened vulnerabilities due to
their presence in, or proximity to, the floodplain and CMZs. The potential for the Linger Longer
Road and the Center Road bridge to overtop during major flood events increases the vulnerability
of this infrastructure and the people who depend on it for evacuation. The significance of the
Linger Longer Road’s vulnerability is most notable, as 70 properties rely on this road as the lone
access route to areas outside of the floodplain.
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 56
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Emergency operations during flood events have a low vulnerability for the most part. Many
public buildings and spaces are outside of the floodplain, which can support shelter, public
services, and staging areas for emergency operations.
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 57
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
CHAPTER 3
Determination of Need
The information collected for Chapter 2, Existing Conditions, of this CFHMP was used to evaluate
the current conditions in relation to flooding in the Big and Little Quilcene River basins. Through
the inventory and analysis of existing conditions, flood hazards that present risks to people and
property were identified in the study area. The findings of the existing conditions assessment
have informed the determination of need for flood hazard management planning and projects in
the CFHMP study area to reduce both the current and future risks posed by flood hazards.
Both the Big and Little Quilcene River basins originate in Olympic National Forest, with the
rivers flowing generally east. Both rivers pass under Highway 101 near the Quilcene RVC and
terminate within 1 mile of each other in estuaries near the northern tip of Quilcene Bay. The Little
Quilcene River basin has more developed land, agriculture, and forestry in its study area than the
Big Quilcene River basin, which has most of its land area in Olympic National Forest outside of
the study area. Both rivers provide critical habitat for numerous salmonid species and drain areas
that are important for forestry and agriculture in the region.
Flood risks in both basins are largely concentrated in the lower reaches as the river basins are
largely undeveloped upriver from the study area. Flood risks in the study area are typically
influenced by heavy rain from late fall through winter and into spring, with snowmelt from the
Olympic Mountain Range contributing to higher streamflows, especially in the spring. Flooding
and flood impacts in the basins have been exacerbated by development, past river and floodplain
management activities, and climate change. Documentation of historical flooding is inconsistent,
as the locations and operations of stream gages have changed over time and other observational
records are limited. The lack of consistent and accurate streamflow data for both rivers over the
years presents challenges in comparatively understanding and preparing for major flood events.
Historically, flooding has been most impactful in the lower reaches of the Big and Little Quilcene
River basins. For both basins, the areas below RM 1.5 are more densely developed than in the
upper reaches, with houses along the riverfront and groupings of houses on floodplains and
historical wetland areas. Dozens of homes in these areas are flood-prone. Linger Longer Road,
which is the sole access route for a neighborhood along the lower half-mile of the Big Quilcene
River, floods every few years during major flood events, making sections of the study area
impassable and putting local populations at-risk of further flood impacts. In addition to restricting
access, flooding in the Linger Longer Road neighborhood causes direct flood damage to a
number of homes and properties. There is limited documentation of flood impacts along the lower
Little Quilcene River, but concentrations of homes within the 1% annual chance floodplain in
Reaches A and B are exposed to flooding. In particular, properties north of East Quilcene Road
have been reported to flood from high flows in the Little Quilcene River. East Quilcene Road, in
Chapter 3. Determination of Need
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 58
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
the lower reaches of the Little Quilcene River, is reported to become impassable during major
flooding events.
Many fewer properties are at-risk in upper sections of the basins within the study area. However,
in Reach E of the Big Quilcene River, flooding can occasionally disrupt activities at the Quilcene
National Fish Hatchery, posing threats to operations and the terminal fishery they support. In
Reach F of the Big Quilcene River, numerous houses on Hiddendale Drive are concentrated along
the riverfront and have been repeatedly impacted by flooding over the years.
The projected future increases in frequency and intensity of rain events during the fall, winter,
and early spring months will result in higher volume flood events, as will earlier snowmelt in the
spring. Alternatively, spring runoff may be diminished over time by reduced snow accumulation.
Higher volume floods will increase the potential for erosion and transit of debris downriver,
which can increase the damage caused by flooding. Larger floods will exacerbate flooding in
historically affected areas, as well as increase the extent of inundation, leading to a greater
number of people and structures being affected by flooding. Projected sea level rise will
contribute to increased impacts from riverine flooding, as heightened sea levels will backwater
water surface elevations in the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers during flood events. These effects
from sea level rise will result in longer periods of floodwater inundation and deeper flood depths
in affected areas, increasing the potential for damage to buildings and infrastructure in the
floodplain.
Flooding in the study area has previously caused disruptions to utility services and damaged
infrastructure from inundation. The BPA transmission line corridor along with several access
roads run through portions of the floodplain and estuary. As flooding becomes more intense in the
future, flood risks to infrastructure and the services in the floodplain (including the BPA
transmission line) become greater. The transmission line towers could be damaged or access
needed for maintenance could be impaired due to flooded roadways.
Future floods will produce higher flood elevations and more extensive inundation due to both sea
level rise and changes in hydrology (Mauger et al. 2015). Higher elevations and increased
inundation could impact infrastructure that was historically above flood elevations, such as
bridges and utility infrastructure as well as on-site septic systems. Infrastructure designed to
manage flooding, such as levees on the lower Big Quilcene River or riprap near the fish hatchery
and Hiddendale Drive, may not be equipped to mitigate impacts from the higher intensity floods
of the future. Erosion worsened by higher intensity floods will increase the potential to expose
and destabilize structures, such as building foundations and underground utilities. Exposure to
erosion risks will be higher in the lower Big and Little Quilcene River basins where there is a
relatively high density of residential properties and high potential for channel migration. The
relatively high number of seniors, disabled people, and households in poverty heighten the social
vulnerability of exposed populations in the Quilcene area, which affects the ability of the
population to recover from these flood hazards for financial, health, or other reasons. The overall
impacts and limited ability of current infrastructure to mitigate future flood hazards necessitate
further examination of strategies to reduce flood risks.
Chapter 3. Determination of Need
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 59
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Jefferson County maintains environmental and land use regulations that mitigate the intensity of
development in floodplains, establish requirements for flood-resilient design of structures and
utilities, and preserve the ecological functions of critical environmental areas (see Section 2.5). In
the last two decades, flood hazard management activities on the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers
have focused on ecological restoration, habitat protection, minimizing environmental impacts of
flood hazard management, and reducing future risks of flood damage through cost-effective
means. This work has included levee removal, channel and floodplain restoration, acquisition of
flood-prone properties, and designing more resilient infrastructure for the future, such as a new
Linger Longer bridge. While these efforts have reduced development in areas at risk of flooding,
improved resilience of at-risk structures, and restored natural flood management capacity to the
floodplain, some people and properties continue to face flood risks. A visual assessment of the
study area provided an estimated 60 residential structures within the 1% annual chance floodplain
and 50 residential structures within the high-risk CMZs for the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers.
Based on average household size in Quilcene, an estimated 120 people live on properties within
the 1% annual chance flood area, and 100 people live on properties in the CMZs. Projected
climate changes will increase the number of people and properties exposed to flood risks.
Figure 12 shows the location of flood hazards in the study area as well as the project areas for
ongoing restoration projects.
a:
. C .1l 8
Area/Location of Flood Risk
Legend
Cr* Cr Area/Location of *Substantial Flood Risk
� - -Proposed ProjectL____)1- ,,,. Affecting Flood RiskCr Completed Project Affecting Flood Risk
Drainage/Diversion Ditch Ditch diverting some flow from Little Quilcene. Was observed flowing bankfull under dry conditions and could cause localized flooding.
Moon Valley Project Area -HCSEG Approximate extents of the restoration project, currently in 30% design. RM 2.8 to 1.8. Properties within project
area have been acquired by HCSEG. Restoration activities
will benefit natural channel processes and habitat
formation. Will reduce flood risk downstream by
increasing off-channel flood storage and acting as a
depositional area for suspended sediments.
{'� ........
Quilcene National Fish Hatchery
Portions of hatchery facilities are disrupted by flooding on an annual
basis. Additional flood planning
provided in the hatchery's Climate
Plan Document.
Hiddendale Community
Low-lying neighborhood consisting of approximately 21 parcels within the 100-year floodplain. Neighborhood is located between the Big Quilcene and a steep hillslope. The river in this stretch has a levee and a revetment.
ittle Quilcene Bridge
-rise bridge on abandoned road
ntly support traffic. Likely at risnd
Linger Longer Neighborhood
Low-elevation community that experiences
fluvial flooding on an annual basis. Property
acquisitions are underway for most vulnerable
properties. Majority of properties are south of
river, a number remain north of river.
Lower One Mile Project Area -HCSEG
Approximate extents of flood reduction and restoration project
currently in 30% design. Includes parcel acquisition, removal
of the north river levee, construction of new river channel in
north floodplain, reinforcement of the south river levee, replacement of Linger Longer Road with floodplain spanning bridge, and removal of portions of Quilcene Ave, Fremont Ave, Rodgers Street, and Linger Longer Rd (depending on selected alternative). Flood risk reduction is a primary project objective.
E Quilcene Rd and Adjacent Residences
Portions of E Quilcene Rd and properties north .-�-�i.i�!!i
of roadway flooded following restoration on lower Little Quilcene. County installed low berm on south side of the road in 2017, which has prevented flooding since install. May be at future risk with sea level rise.
Estuarine Levee Removals
Levee removal and floodplain restoration in years
2004 through 2009 reduced upstream flood
levels. Portions of the Big Quilcene mainstem
levee were removed as early as 1998.
Linger Longer Rd Bridge Vulnerable bridge that provides sole access to businesses and dozens of residents
Quilcene Flood Plan
Figure 12
Flood Risk Concerns and
Flood Risk Management Projects
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 61
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
CHAPTER 4
Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and
Recommended Actions
4.1 Identification of Alternatives
Through the inventory of existing conditions in the study area, the project team identified
numerous flood hazards that pose risks to public health and safety. The flood hazards identified in
the Big and Little Quilcene River basins informed the development of a list of flood risk
reduction and flood control alternatives. These alternatives also serve to advance the planning and
natural resource management initiatives being pursued by Jefferson County, Tribal governments,
nonprofits, and other entities working in the study area.
Flood hazard management activities are categorized as either structural or non-structural
alternatives, based on definitions outlined in the Department of Ecology’s Comprehensive Flood
Hazard Management Planning: A Guidebook:
• Structural alternatives: Actions that physically modify river processes to reduce flood risk.
• Non-structural alternatives: Actions that prevent the creation of new flood risks, remove people and property from harm’s way, or promote land uses that are compatible with flooding in flood hazard areas.
The Ecology Guidebook states that “comprehensive flood hazard management requires a focus
on non-structural alternatives and ecological restoration.” As noted in Chapter 1, the goals of
this CFHMP also emphasize non-structural alternatives and ecological restoration.
4.2 Evaluation of Alternatives
Alternatives were evaluated based on a list of criteria that were selected to determine the
appropriateness of alternatives for recommended future action and prioritize them. Evaluation
criteria were developed for this CFHMP by the project team, with input from Jefferson County
staff and the Advisory Team. The final list of evaluation criteria aligns with the goals and
objectives of the flood plan and the guidelines established for CFHMPs by Ecology. All
evaluation criteria are ranked qualitatively with the categories of low, medium, or high.
The following criteria were considered in the evaluation and prioritization of alternatives:
• Environmental benefits – This evaluation criterion indicates the positive environmental effects of a particular alternative for both the natural and built environment, including
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 62
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
benefits for habitat, fish resources, wildlife resources, aesthetics, historic resources, navigation, transportation, water quality, hydrology, and recreation.
• Environmental impacts – This criterion indicates the severity of any negative environmental impacts from a particular alternative to the natural and built environment, including habitat,
fish resources, wildlife resources, aesthetics, historic resources, navigation, transportation, water quality, hydrology, and existing recreation.
• Consistency with CFHMP goals and objectives – This criterion indicates the extent to which a particular alternative would support the goals and objectives outlined in Section 1.5 of this CFHMP, including goals and objectives related to climate change, ecosystem restoration, and equity.
• Permitting complexity – This evaluation criterion considers the time and resource requirements for meeting regulatory standards, producing materials, and obtaining needed approvals for implementation of a particular alternative.
• Cost – This evaluation criterion indicates the estimated relative cost of implementation of a
particular alternative relative to other alternatives.
• Effectiveness – This evaluation criterion describes the capacity of a particular alternative to
reduce flood risks, with consideration to the resources and inputs required to fully implement the alternative.
• Operation needs (ongoing inspection, maintenance, and repair requirements) – This evaluation criterion describes the monetary costs and resources needed to operate and maintain functionality of an alternative throughout its operational life.
Each alternative was also assessed based on the timeframe needed for implementation, and was
qualitatively determined to be short-, medium-, or long-term in duration. If a potential funding
source is applicable, this has been noted.
These evaluation criteria are applied to each of the identified alternatives at the end of Section 4.4.
This evaluation details an array of flood hazard management alternatives that were considered for
potential implementation in the future to protect people, property, and infrastructure from
flooding. Alternatives that have exceptionally substantial benefits, ranking highly among the
evaluation criteria, were supported by County staff and the Advisory Team, and/or address a
pressing flood risk issue are recommended as high-priority actions in Section 4.6.
Alternatives Considered but Not Recommended
Most of the alternatives considered in this CFHMP were determined to be worth including based
on the evaluation criteria listed above. However, other structural alternatives were considered in
the process but were not carried forward. A structural approach to reducing flood risk in the
Hiddendale Drive community (such as a levee or flood wall) was considered, but would likely
have significant adverse impacts on the environment, would be difficult (if not impossible) to
permit due to the location of the Hiddendale Drive community in the floodway; would be very
costly; would not be successful in meeting a benefit-cost analysis to receive funding; and would
have limited effectiveness, again due to the location of the community in the floodway. Structural
alternatives to flood control (new levees or enhanced levees) in other problem areas (see
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 63
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Figure 12) were briefly considered but also not carried forward for similar reasons (e.g.,
environmental impact and difficulty to permit and fund). Overall, these structural alternatives are
not consistent with the CFHMP goals and objectives described in Section 1.5. As this CFHMP
focuses on non-structural alternatives and ecological restoration, all proposed actions that would
involve instream work are primarily focused on restoration of natural processes (while also
providing flood hazard reduction benefits).
4.3 Ongoing Programs
Jefferson County has been a leader and supporting partner for numerous ongoing programs that
could reduce flood risks, in addition to providing multiple benefits to the ecology of the Big and
Little Quilcene River basins.
• Jefferson County is performing a Sea Level Rise (SLR) Study, which will assess risks to people, property, and the natural environment from sea level rise, as well as provide recommendations for future planning and climate adaptation. This study, along with a
planning report, will be completed by June 2023. The results of this study will guide future floodplain and natural resource management.
• Ecological restoration efforts on the lower Big Quilcene River have been ongoing for years, with the Lower One Mile project design recently being undertaken as a collaboration between the HCSEG, Jefferson County, and their partners. Final designs for the channel and
floodplain restoration have not been established yet, but the intended project outcomes will improve and expand salmon habitat, restore ecological functions, and protect properties in the Linger Longer Road neighborhood from flooding, particularly those along Muncie Avenue
and Leadville Avenue. The implementation of this project will have substantial flood resilience benefits and is part of the recommended priority actions.
• The Moon Valley Restoration Project, also on the lower Big Quilcene River, is an acquisition, ecological restoration, and flood resilience project being led by the HCSEG. The implementation of this project will have numerous benefits, including increasing floodwater
storage capacity, and, as such, is included in the recommended priority actions described in this chapter.
4.4 Description of Alternatives Recommended for Action
The following describes 25 flood hazard management and risk reduction alternatives. Each
alternative was evaluated by the project team and supported for inclusion in this CFHMP by
Jefferson County staff and the Advisory Team. Evaluation criteria for each alternative are
summarized in Table 10 (presented in Section 4.5).
1. Develop a community-based emergency flood response plan for the Hiddendale Drive community
Location: Hiddendale Drive community.
Description: Many of the homes on Hiddendale Drive are within the regulatory floodway, which
indicates a very high level of flood risk. Development of a community-based emergency flood
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 64
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
response plan for the Hiddendale Drive community would bring the community together to better
understand and plan for flood risks. The plan could address emergency warning, evacuation, and
recovery following a flood. Developing a flood response plan could be an initial step toward
long-term planning for flood risk reduction solutions in this community, which will likely see an
increase in recurring flood impacts as climate change worsens. Future flood hazard management
solutions in the Hiddendale Drive community (such as property acquisition) would be necessary
to reduce risks to property and public safety, but a preferred solution should be reached through
engagement and consensus-building with the community.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: Completing this action would increase the ability of the
Hiddendale Drive community to respond to a flood event, thereby lowering their sensitivity to
flooding. The process of developing the plan would also increase awareness of flood risk.
However, this action would not reduce the community’s exposure to flooding.
Environmental Considerations: This action would not have any negative impacts on the natural or
built environment.
Implementation Considerations: This action would not require permitting, design, construction, or
maintenance. The planning process would need to be funded and would require buy-in from
members of the community. Future initiatives that may arise out of this planning process, such as
property acquisitions, would require more substantial funding.
2. Develop a flood warning system for the Linger Longer Road neighborhood
Location: Linger Longer Road neighborhood
Description: The Linger Longer Road neighborhood represents the highest concentration of
residences within the floodplain, which is especially vulnerable because it has only one access
road. Jefferson County should determine the flood stage at which Linger Longer Road overtops
or becomes unsafe to navigate, in order to guide projections for when the flood warning system
should be triggered. A flood warning system could be established using Jefferson County’s
existing alert system, which could be set up to allow subscribers to opt into flood alerts for
particular basins or areas. If Jefferson County does not adopt its own flood alert system,
providing the public with information on the National Weather Service’s flood warning system
could be used to initiate a dialogue around specific actions for developing a flood warning system.
The Lower One Mile Project will reduce flood risks to property and public safety in the Linger
Longer Road neighborhood, especially south of the Big Quilcene River. The floodplain
reconnections, enhancement of the south levee, and improvements to the Linger Longer Road
bridge will also reduce flood exposure for some people and structures. While the risk of flooding
in residential areas will be reduced, a flood warning system would be beneficial, as residual flood
risk will remain and flood conditions will appear different after completion of the project.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: Completing this action would increase the ability of the
Linger Longer Road neighborhood to prepare for and withstand flood events, thereby reducing
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 65
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
potential risks to health and safety. Alerting residents to upcoming or current flood conditions
should limit exposure to flood impacts.
Environmental Considerations: This action would not have any negative impacts on the natural or
built environment.
Implementation Considerations: This action would not require permitting, design, construction, or
maintenance. This action could require additional funding to implement and would require
outreach to the neighborhood.
3. Provide training and education for County staff about flood hazard
management
Location: Study area or Countywide.
Description: Resource constraints are a significant limitation on emergency services in the study
area, especially as emergency management service calls have increased in recent years.
Identifying funding opportunities to provide additional training will be critical to implementing
this action and supporting emergency response to flooding into the future.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: Training for current and future flood risks will aid continued
success in emergency response, flood hazard planning, and resilience efforts. This action will
reduce the risks to people and property in preparation for, during, and after flood events.
Environmental Considerations: This action would not have any negative impacts on the natural or
built environment.
Implementation Considerations: Most training and educational opportunities will require funding,
although this is a relatively low-cost action. Training and education may be best focused on topics
and skills that could be applied with Jefferson County’s current staff and time resources.
4. Explore opportunities for Little Quilcene River wetland and side channel restoration
Location: Lower Little Quilcene River basin, Leland Creek, unnamed tributaries.
Description: Ecological restoration of wetlands and side channels would increase hydrologic
connectivity and provide opportunities for increasing floodwater storage and slowing
floodwaters. There are numerous tributaries and adjacent wetlands along Reaches A, B, and C
(river reaches are described in Section 2.7) of the Little Quilcene River, which would be strong
candidates for ecological restoration and process-based solutions for flood hazard management.
Low-tech, process-based restoration techniques, such as the installation of beaver dam analogs
(BDAs), brush mattresses, or stabilizing bank plantings may be completed without heavy
equipment or extensive grading. Tributaries include Leland Creek, which joins the Little Quilcene
River directly below the Highway 101 bridge, and multiple unnamed tributaries upstream of the
bridge. Sections of Reach A where the channel has been modified may benefit from restoration,
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 66
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
especially as sea level rise worsens; however, there are opportunities to reestablish historic
channels and associated habitat benefits, which may reduce flood risks to East Quilcene Road.
In 2023, WSDOT will remove barriers to fish passage in the study area on Leland Creek and two
unnamed tributaries north of the Highway 101 bridge. These projects will provide access to a
total of 18 miles of upstream salmonid habitat. While larger culverts will improve flow capacity
and fish passage, these projects do not have the same flood resilience benefits that wetland and
side channel restoration would have. As such, areas along Leland Creek remain an option for this
alternative, in addition to the Little Quilcene River and other tributaries.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: Floodplains and tributaries along the Little Quilcene River
have been restricted by development and the presence of Highway 101, which can limit
floodwater storage and other ecological functions. Restoring wetlands and historic channels
would enhance natural functions of the floodplain, increasing floodwater storage capacity and
potentially slowing streamflow and runoff.
Environmental Considerations: This action would be beneficial to the natural environment. It
could have impacts on land use, such as property acquisition and demolition of existing structures.
Implementation Considerations: This action would likely require permitting, construction or land-
disturbing activity, and funding, although small-scale restoration efforts (such as native plant
installation) may be simpler to implement.
5. Full habitat restoration in Frank Beck Road and Hiddendale Drive areas
Location: Little Quilcene River floodplain near Frank Beck Road and Big Quilcene River
floodplain near Hiddendale Drive.
Description: Previous restoration work has been completed near the mouth of the Little Quilcene
River. Restoration at Frank Beck Road would extend these efforts upstream to return the river
channel to its historical locations. The Little Quilcene River is currently confined by East
Quilcene Road to the north and Frank Beck Road to the south. Property acquisition along Frank
Beck Road could be combined with the creation of side channels and large wood installation to
reestablish a natural floodplain, increase habitat complexity, and increase flood storage.
Development along Hiddendale Drive has led to the construction of various forms of bank
protection along the Big Quilcene River, including riprap barbs. Removing these forms of
artificial bank stabilization and conducting selective grading in the floodplain to create side
channels would widen the floodplain and increase flood storage within the reach. This restoration
would need to be pursued in combination with property acquisitions, as the floodplain mostly
extends onto the developed east side of the Big Quilcene River, although exploration of more
limited restoration efforts without property acquisition may be appropriate. Projects in the
Hiddendale Drive area should be informed by long-term flood planning dialogue with this
community (see Action 5).
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 67
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: Along both Frank Beck Road and Hiddendale Drive,
homes are concentrated within or close to the 1% annual chance floodplain, which puts people
and property at risk and reflects past development in critical floodplain habitats. Large-scale
habitat restoration could entail property acquisitions and substantial increases in habitat and
floodwater storage capacity, in addition to reducing the number of people and properties in the
floodplain. Small-scale habitat restorations could increase habitat and focus on resilience for
existing development. Small-scale habitat restoration may be insufficient to provide significant
flood resilience benefits to developed parcels in the floodplain, but it has the benefit of habitat
improvement.
Environmental Considerations: This action would be beneficial for the natural environment. It
could have impacts on land use, such as property acquisition and demolition of existing
structures. By allowing space for natural floodplain processes to reestablish, upstream flood risk
may be lessened as hydraulic constrictions are reduced or removed.
Implementation Considerations: This action would require willing landowners to implement.
Engaging with Hiddendale Drive residents during the process of developing a flood response plan
under Action 1 would provide opportunities to discuss long-term flood vulnerability and
resilience in the Hiddendale Drive community.
6. Provide funding to low-income households for making resiliency
improvements to their homes or support their relocation outside of
the floodplain
Location: Study area or Countywide.
Description: Providing low-income residents with funding or resources would aid in increasing
the resilience of homes that are affected by flooding occupied by residents with heightened
vulnerabilities to flooding. Flood-resilient improvements could include elevating houses,
elevating utility equipment, or adding flood-resilient building materials. Establishing flood risk
thresholds that prioritize houses in the floodplain that are at a low risk of recurring flood impacts
would reduce the number of people and properties at risk of flood impacts. Pursuing funding
opportunities (such as FEMA Hazard Mitigation grants) or increasing permitting fees for certain
land use activities that increase flood risks could help fund this program. A methodology should
be used to prioritize structures that are at low risk and would not require significant
improvements to reduce flood risk. Structures at higher risk should be acquired and removed (if
landowners are willing), not improved (see Action 18). Because housing outside of the floodplain
tends to be more expensive, programmatic options to support the relocation of low-income
households to safer locations should be identified or developed. If a choice exists between on-site
resilience or relocation, relocation should be the preferred option.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: Low-income residents often have a heightened sensitivity
to flooding and other hazards, which can result from financial or other barriers to adapting to
flooding, recovering from flooding, or relocating outside of the floodplain. This strategy reduces
risks to people and property, but it does not discourage people from building or living in the
floodplain.
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 68
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Environmental Considerations: This action could involve construction in critical areas, including
the floodplain.
Implementation Considerations: The outreach portion of this action would not require permitting,
design, construction, or maintenance by Jefferson County. Staff time would be needed to develop
the program(s), apply for grant funding, and conduct outreach to low-income residents. If
implementation of the program resulted in funds being used for construction of residential
improvements, permitting would be required. As with most development within a floodplain, a
number of other reviews would be required (such as shoreline, stormwater, and critical areas),
and funding would have to cover the costs of preparing permitting documents.
7. Work with regional utility providers to ensure that assets are protected in a way that is compatible with CFHMP objectives
Location: Entire study area.
Description: Establishing a dialogue with BPA about channel migration, flood risks, climate
adaptation, and recovery planning could improve coordination on asset protection in the future.
Jefferson County could share findings from this CFHMP and the upcoming SLR Study.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: Reducing damage to utilities and business disruptions are
objectives of this CFHMP. Although flooding has not damaged critical utility infrastructure in the
past in the study area, the proximity of the BPA transmission lines and East Quilcene Road
substation to the floodplain could present future vulnerabilities to the power grid. Coordinating
with utility providers is a key first step toward addressing vulnerabilities in utility infrastructure
and starting a dialogue about future resilience needs due to climate change.
Environmental Considerations: This action would not have any negative consequences to the
natural environment.
Implementation Considerations: This action would not require permitting, design, construction, or
maintenance by Jefferson County. This action would not require funding or substantial staff
resources.
8. Conduct a study to evaluate flood risks to properties on Leland Lake and surrounding areas of Leland Creek
Location: Leland Lake and Leland Creek.
Description: Leland Lake is located within the delineated 1% annual chance floodplain, which
extends onto more than a dozen residential properties, although the floodplain does not appear to
directly affect any residential structures. Beaver dams and the widespread infestation of invasive
reed canarygrass in Leland Creek, which drains the lake and drains into the Little Quilcene River,
can exacerbate flood conditions, but recent data are limited on flooding on Leland Lake and
Leland Creek. Further analysis of the localized impacts near Leland Lake and Leland Creek, with
more targeted outreach to residents in these areas, could provide additional insight into flood risks
in the area. Actions to address flood issues in the area would be determined based on results of
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 69
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
the analysis, but could include restoration, instream invasive species management in Leland
Creek, and actions to address impacts from beavers (such as installation of beaver deceivers and
beaver relocation).
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: This study could provide recommendations for mitigating
localized flood issues and potential opportunities for improving floodplain management around
water resources that drain into the Little Quilcene River.
Environmental Considerations: This action on its own would not have any negative consequences
to the natural environment.
Implementation Considerations: This action would require additional funding and the
commitment of time from existing County staff. Responsive engagement from Leland Lake
residents would be critical to effectively completing a study of flood risks in the area. This action
would not require permitting, design, construction, or maintenance, although they could be
required for future actions identified through the study.
9. Proactive landowner outreach and communication about flood risks and strategies
Location: Entire study area.
Description: Increasing awareness of flood risks can help to mitigate vulnerabilities and guide
property owners toward adopting flood resilience measures. Balancing the interests and welfare of property owners with allowing natural flood processes to occur can be difficult, which makes establishing a dialogue with stakeholders a critical component of having productive discussions
about flood safety and floodplain management. Outreach could include providing information to new homeowners, sending mailers to residents prior to flood season, digital education campaigns, tabling at public events, and/or direct invitations to participate in engagement activities.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: Increasing awareness of flood risks can help to mitigate
vulnerabilities, guide property owners toward adopting flood resilience measures, and encourage
residents to engage with Jefferson County flood planning.
Environmental Considerations: This action would not have any negative impacts on the
environment.
Implementation Considerations: Increasing outreach beyond existing efforts would require
additional funding and County staff time. This action does not require any permitting and
operating costs, and would be limited to updating or developing new communications materials.
10. Conduct survey of drainage ditches and tributaries to understand flow pathways and connections
Location: Entire study area, with attention to particular issues noted in the Little Quilcene River
basin.
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 70
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Description: Hiring a consultant or utilizing Jefferson County staff to conduct field investigations
and property record research would provide insights into the conditions of drainage infrastructure
in the study area. This survey could be used to identify maintenance needs, drainage inputs, illicit
connections to drainage systems and streams, and opportunities for ecological restoration. A two-
dimensional (2D) hydraulic model could be developed to evaluate flood patterns and flood
damage reduction strategies. The survey should also identify culverts that may be undersized,
particularly for expected increased flows with climate change. If issues are identified with
drainage ditches or infrastructure (such as culverts), actions to address those issues could be
undertaken by Jefferson County. Identification of actions to address drainage issues could be part
of adaptive management of the plan (see Section 6.4).
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: Research into the conditions of hydrological systems that
drain into the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, including the extent of invasive species that affect
hydrology, can be used to inform floodplain management. This action would be a first step
toward policy, enforcement, or floodplain restoration actions that could improve the functions of
critical areas and drainage infrastructure during flood events.
Environmental Considerations: This action would not have any negative impacts on the
environment.
Implementation Considerations: The survey process would likely require funding to hire a
consultant or involve significant County staff time and resources. This action requires landowner
permission to access private property, and obtaining access to a number of parcels would be
essential for getting reliable survey results. This action would not require permitting, design,
construction, or maintenance.
11. Improve monitoring and documentation of flood events and
impacts
Location: Entire study area.
Description: A lack of reliable and consistent data from stream gages produces challenges for
flood planning in the Big and Little Quilcene River basins. Streamflow data are useful for
evaluating patterns in flooding, setting benchmarks, and hydrological modeling, which are used
for FEMA flood mapping and insurance studies. Installing stream gages that can accurately
measure high streamflow events below major tributary confluences on the Big and Little
Quilcene Rivers would help to maintain data that reflect the volumes of water flowing through
the most populous portions of the basins. Stream gages that upload data online in real time could
be used to supplement a flood warning system and indicate when a river has entered a flood stage.
Adding these new gages to the Northwest River Forecast Center will provide forecasting
capabilities, aiding in flood fight activities and evacuations.
In conjunction with improving streamflow monitoring, creating opportunities for the public to
report on flood conditions in the study area would provide supplemental qualitative data on flood
risks and increase public engagement with flood issues. Establishing a form on the Jefferson
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 71
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
County website or email address for people to submit flood observations would be a low-cost
strategy for data collection.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: Accurate and current streamflow data would help Jefferson
County plan for future flooding and improve its ability to warn residents about flooding. The
overall effect of this action is improving adaptation to flooding and resilience in the long term.
Environmental Considerations: This action would not have any negative impacts on the
environment.
Implementation Considerations: Adding stream gages would require funding for the cost of the
equipment and maintenance costs. Funding support may be available from federal or state
entities. This action would not require detailed designs or significant construction, but may
require permitting if new gages are installed.
12. Evaluate and raise awareness of risks that septic systems pose to public health and safety during flood events
Location: Entire study area.
Description: Septic systems may fail or discharge untreated waste when a septic field is inundated by flooding, presenting public health and safety risks, in addition to potential environmental
impacts. Jefferson County’s online inspections data indicate that most of the septic systems in the study area are past due for inspections. Determining the accuracy of these data and need for septic inspections will be critical for evaluating the risk posed by septic systems in the floodplain and
study area. Outreach to property owners with septic systems in violation can be used both to schedule inspections and educate property owners on flood risks and proper septic system maintenance.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: Addressing septic system risks could improve flood
resilience among property owners and reduce public health risks from septic system failures. The
overall effect of raising awareness of risks to septic systems and maintenance needs would be
reduced septic system failures and backups during flood events.
Environmental Considerations: This action would not have any negative impacts on the
environment.
Implementation Considerations: This action would require County staff resources and could
involve minor costs related to outreach. This action would not require permitting, design, or
significant construction.
13. Adopt higher regulatory standards for development, resource
management, and other land use activities to align with the
objectives of the CFHMP
Location: Entire study area.
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 72
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Description: Updating regulatory standards that affect the floodplain can reduce the creation of
new flood risks. Evaluating outcomes of land use permitting within floodplains in recent history,
with a focus on whether land use activity aligns with the goals of this CFHMP, would help to
determine the need for adopting higher regulatory standards.
Examples of higher standards that could be implemented include:
• Increasing fee structures for permitting in SFHAs to cover review costs for additional application review time.
• Require higher standards for mitigation or resilience in those segments of the shoreline designated as natural or conservancy.
• Increasing required freeboard above the base flood elevation.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: Jefferson County maintains high regulatory standards
related to reducing development in the floodplain, protecting critical areas, and mitigating
impacts from land use activities. While development activity in the study area is low, updating
regulations for potential future changes in development activity and accounting for redevelopment
of flood-impacted properties will further prevent future flood risks. Adoption of stricter
regulations by Jefferson County could also prevent flood risks in other parts of the County.
Environmental Considerations: This action would not have any negative impacts on the
environment.
Implementation Considerations: This action would require County staff resources, some minor
public engagement, and undergoing code update and adoption processes. This action would not
require design or construction, but would trigger review under the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA) and require local legislative approval (with Ecology approval for any revisions to
shoreline regulations).
14. Utilize climate change projections to incorporate future risk considerations into the County Code
Location: Entire study area or Jefferson County as a whole
Description: This action would involve incorporating consideration of future climate change
impacts or using reliable climate change projections to define risks and geographic areas in the
Jefferson County Code or other regulations. This action could be pursued in coordination with
Actions 13 and 16. Climate change projections could be used to establish boundaries for future
risk with comparable regulations to existing SFHAs, account for higher volume precipitation in
stormwater management standards, or inform decision-making for permitters and project
proponents without additional requirements.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: This action would address future flood risks, largely for
new development, redevelopment, or expansion of existing structures. Accounting for the
projected increases in intensity for extreme precipitation and flood events will help to maintain
flood resilience in the study area for the long-term.
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 73
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Environmental Considerations: This action would not have any negative impacts on the
environment.
Implementation Considerations: This action would require County staff resources, public
engagement, and undergoing code update and adoption processes. Additional funding may be
required for climate change modeling or writing the code updates. This action would not require
design or construction, but would trigger SEPA and local legislative approval.
15. Update FEMA Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Maps
Location: Entire study area and Countywide.
Description: This action would involve pursuing a new FEMA Flood Insurance Study to inform
the development of new Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The most recent 2019 FEMA FIS Study has
not updated the flood frequency flows (100-year, 50-year, etc.) since the original 1982 FEMA
FIS was published, when regional regression equations were used to calculate the flood
frequencies. Accurate flood frequency flows are essential for assessing when a historical flood
event has occurred and analyzing how the frequency of flood events may be changing. A new FIS
should be conducted using what gage records exist. If additional streamflow gages are installed,
the data collected may also be used in the study.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: Updating flood maps to more accurately depict flood
hazard areas would enable better-informed land use decisions and floodplain management
activities.
Environmental Considerations: This action would not have any negative impacts on the
environment. It could affect land use if the mapped floodplain area changes; however, while some
parcels would come under different regulations, this would reflect a more accurate understanding
of flood risk and would reduce future damages on those parcels.
Implementation Considerations: This action would require funding for the Flood Insurance Study,
as well as County staff resources to support the study. Minor updates to the Jefferson County
Code may be needed to reflect the updated flood maps. This action would not require permitting,
design, or construction, but would require local legislative action to incorporate revisions into the
Jefferson County Code.
16. Monitor Highway 101 abutment scour and coordinate with
WSDOT on bridge maintenance or improvement activities
Location: Highway 101 bridge, Big Quilcene River RM 2.4.
Description: WSDOT’s latest Bridge Inspection Report (available online) states the following key
findings: “Bridge is scour critical; bridge foundations determined to be unstable for calculated
scour conditions: 1) Scour within limits of footings or piles. 2) Scour below spread-footing base
or pile tips.” Communicating with WSDOT about scour issues would initiate a dialogue around
resilience of Highway 101 infrastructure. Periodically observing the scour at the Highway 101
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 74
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
bridge or investigating its condition after flood events will allow for documentation of the
progress of scour, which can be communicated to WSDOT to inform them of increased
vulnerability of critical infrastructure.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: Scour is a significant risk for bridges and can contribute to
bridge failure. Debris hitting the bridge in a high volume streamflow could exacerbate the issue.
Taking early steps to assess and discuss the issue with the appropriate authorities could drive the
adoption of flood resilience measures and avoid disruptive construction or damage to the bridge.
Environmental Considerations: This action would not have any negative impacts on the
environment.
Implementation Considerations: This action would not require permitting, design, or construction.
County resources applied toward this issue would be minimal, unless substantial follow-up
activity is needed. Hiring a consultant may be necessary to obtain a reliable evaluation of
scouring.
17. Acquire properties and remove houses in the floodplain
Location: Big and Little Quilcene River floodplains.
Description: Grants and other funds have been used to acquire numerous repetitive loss and at-
risk properties in the floodplain over the years, especially in the areas around Linger Longer
Road. The practice of acquiring repetitive loss or substantially damaged properties in the
floodplain should continue where the benefits of acquisition appropriately outweigh the costs.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: Acquiring residential properties from willing property
owners in the floodplain is one of the most effective strategies for reducing flood risk without
negative environmental and equity impacts. This action also has the benefit of reducing strain on
public emergency response resources.
Environmental Considerations: This action would not have any negative impacts on the natural
environment. Property acquisition would be a land use impact, but properties would only be
acquired from willing sellers.
Implementation Considerations: This action would require funding for acquisition and
demolition, removal, or relocation of development on the property. Demolition or relocation of
on-site structures would require permits and hiring contractors.
18. Raise elevations of homes at present or future risk of flooding, which are not being considered for acquisition
Location: Big and Little Quilcene River floodplains.
Description: Under this action, Jefferson County would provide support for residential structures
at-risk of flooding to be elevated at least 1 foot above base flood elevation. This action should
prioritize elevating homes that are not being considered for acquisition. Support for elevating
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 75
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
homes could entail financial support, raising awareness of this flood resilience strategy, or
providing permitting assistance. Implementing this action may become more relevant as sea
levels rise and peak flows increase.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: This action would reduce direct risks to public health and
safety for those occupying the floodplain; however, flooding may still impact other components
of the property or limit access to the property.
Environmental Considerations: This action would have only minor environmental impacts related
to construction and the continued occupation of floodplain areas.
Implementation Considerations: This action could require funding or staff resources from
Jefferson County.
19. Install engineered log jams and bioengineered revetments where appropriate
Location: High-risk erosion areas and priority salmon habitat in the Big Quilcene and Little
Quilcene Rivers.
Description: Engineered log jams and bioengineered revetments should be installed where they
would be most effective in protecting river banks from erosion or channel migration. Engineered
log jams may be also installed where the river is lacking LWD. Installation of these structures
should be coordinated with Tribes with treaty rights in the area, HCSEG, The Nature
Conservancy, and other groups with interests in fish habitat conservation to identify mutually
beneficial locations.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: Engineered log jams and other forms of LWD can be
strategically placed to direct flow away banks, increase bank stability, stabilize the channel, and
reduce channel incision. LWD also adds channel roughness and slows streamflow velocities
during floods. Together, these actions reduce erosion. However, engineered log jams and
bioengineered revetments are not flood control infrastructure and do not generally mitigate the
risks of inundation from flooding.
Environmental Considerations: This action would not have negative long-term impacts on the
environment, but would have construction-related impacts that would need to be mitigated. Best
management practices (BMPs) would need to be implemented to mitigate disturbances to critical
areas and manage runoff from construction areas.
Implementation Considerations: This action would require permitting, design, construction, and
funding.
20. Complete Moon Valley Restoration Project
Location: Big Quilcene River RM 1.2 to 2.4.
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 76
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Description: This action entails continued coordination with the HCSEG and Jamestown S’Klallam
Tribe by Jefferson County and other stakeholders on the final design phase, permitting, and
construction of the Moon Valley Restoration Project. This project involves restoring the river
channel to a meandering path, regrading channel slopes and floodplain areas, and installing large
wood.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: The Moon Valley Restoration Project is designed to reduce
the excessive erosion and incision seen in this project reach and promote aggradation of sediment.
It will also restore and activate large areas of the floodplain, effectively slowing streamflow
velocities in areas of the Big Quilcene River upstream of more densely populated floodplain areas.
Environmental Considerations: This action would not have any negative impacts on the
environment beyond potential minor construction impacts, which could be mitigated with BMPs.
Property acquisition would impact land use, but property acquisitions for this project are already
under way.
Implementation Considerations: This action would require permitting, design, construction, and
funding.
21. Explore flood resilience improvements to the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Location: Quilcene National Fish Hatchery.
Description: Coordinate with the USFWS to implement recommended flood resilience
improvements at Quilcene National Fish Hatchery and identify opportunities for improvements
with upstream and downstream flood resilience benefits. A vulnerability assessment conducted by
USFWS (2016) identified opportunities to re-engineer riprap, replace the electric weir (which is
no longer electrified as of 2014), and improve water intake to be more resilient to high-volume
floods in the future. Downstream impacts should be considered for re-engineering riprap and
replacing the electric weir. An Obermeyer spillway gate, sometimes called inflatable or
removable dams, could also be considered for replacing the electric weir. This would allow a
portion of the dam to be removed/lowered during flood season, improving sediment transport
downstream.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: The current riprap arrangement at the hatchery may divert
debris toward the center of the channel, creating threats from debris to areas downstream, such as
the Highway 101 bridge. The existing electric weir, which is no longer operated to open and
close, is likely holding back upstream sediment and potentially contributing to increased
upstream aggradation and the associated increase in flood levels. Improving or replacing the weir
with an Obermeyer spillway gate would improve sediment transport in the reach.
Environmental Considerations: This action may involve minor negative impacts on the natural
environment related to construction activity and the continued use of a barrier on the river, but
could be designed to reduce the severity of environmental impacts relative to existing conditions.
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 77
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Implementation Considerations: This action would require permitting, design, construction, and
funding.
22. Complete Lower One Mile Project
Location: Big Quilcene River RM 0 to 1.2.
Description: The Lower One Mile Project is an ongoing project described earlier in this chapter
and in more detail in Section 2.10. This project would involve floodplain reconnection via
removal of portions of the Big Quilcene River north levee, developing pilot channels, removing
portions of multiple roads in the floodplain, riparian buffer restoration, and replacement of the
Linger Longer Road bridge with a floodplain-spanning bridge. Continued coordination between
Jefferson County and HCSEG will be critical to the success of this project, as it enters later
design phases, permitting, and construction.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: This project will substantially increase the potential for
floodwater storage in the floodplain of the lower Big Quilcene River, protect properties to the
south of the river, and improve resilience of critical transportation infrastructure to floods.
Environmental Considerations: This project may result in temporary disruptions to the built
environment and surrounding natural environments, but the outcome of the project will have
substantial benefits to the natural environment.
Implementation Considerations: This action would require significant permitting, design,
construction, and funding. Design for this project is currently at 60%.
23. Evaluate joining the Community Rating System (CRS)
Location: Countywide.
Description: Jefferson County is not currently a member of the Community Rating System
(CRS). CRS is a program within the NFIP under which “communities can be rewarded for doing
more than simply regulating construction of new buildings to the minimum national standards”
(FEMA 2017). Flood insurance policy holders within jurisdictions that participate in CRS receive
a discount on their flood insurance premiums; the higher the community’s classification within
CRS, the higher the discount, up to 45%. Communities receive credit for public information
activities, mapping and regulations, flood damage reduction activities, and warning and response.
If Jefferson County joined CRS, it would provide financial benefits to floodplain residents (in the
form of reduced premiums) and would encourage the County to maintain and increase BMPs for
the floodplain. However, CRS also requires a substantial investment of staff time in documenting
and tracking CRS activities and participating in verification visits from FEMA. Therefore,
Jefferson County should evaluate the costs and benefits of joining CRS, determine what CRS
class the community would be based on current activities, and evaluate what additional activities
could be undertaken to receive increased CRS credit.
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 78
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: Participating in CRS could potentially increase the number
of residents and landowners in the study area who purchase flood insurance policies by lowering
the cost. Participation in CRS would also encourage maintaining County activities that reduce
flood risk and adopting new activities that promote best practices for floodplain management.
Environmental Considerations: Participation in CRS would not negatively impact the
environment. CRS provides credit for (and therefore encourages) actions that preserve open space
and protect natural floodplain functions.
Implementation Considerations: This action would require substantial staff time to document
CRS activities and participate in verification visits from FEMA.
24. Coordinate with Public Works on transportation projects
Location: Study area, Center Road.
Description: Jefferson County Public Works’ Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program
includes a project to replace the Little Quilcene River Bridge on Center Road (MP 14.55 to
14.70). The 64-foot bridge, built in 1955, has structural deficiencies, and Public Works will
replace the bridge with a bridge program grant from the Federal Highway Administration. The
Jefferson County Department of Community Development should coordinate with Public Works
as the project moves forward to ensure that the new bridge is designed to be flood resilient, taking
climate change into account, and that it is otherwise aligned with the goals and objectives in this
plan. Future transportation projects in the study area should also be reviewed for flood resilience.
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: Replacement of a bridge over the Little Quilcene River
provides an opportunity to increase flood resilience of the bridge.
Environmental Considerations: While bridge replacement can have negative environmental
impacts (which will be addressed by Public Works), coordinating to ensure the new bridge design
is flood resilient would be beneficial to the environment.
Implementation Considerations: This action would require staff time to coordinate across
departments.
25. Support improvements to Port Townsend dam as necessary
Location: Little Quilcene River near RM 7 and Lords Lake Reservoir.
Description: The City of Port Townsend owns and maintains a diversion dam near RM 7 on the
Little Quilcene River, which diverts water to Lords Lake Reservoir for water supply. Port
Townsend has secured FEMA funds to investigate the stability of the dam. Depending on the
results, a dam retrofit project may be recommended. Support of retrofits or improvements to the
dam, as recommended, would be consistent with the goals and objectives of this CFHMP.
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 79
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Flood Risks Addressed/Effectiveness: Dam failure, while unlikely, would cause flooding impacts
on downstream areas on the Little Quilcene River, so any recommended retrofits or other
improvements to the dam should be implemented to reduce this risk.
Environmental Considerations: Environmental considerations would depend on the specific
recommendations of the study of dam stability. Retrofits would likely have some environmental
impacts, which could be mitigated with BMPs.
Implementation Considerations: Any retrofits to the dam would be implemented by Port
Townsend, not Jefferson County, but supporting retrofits (if needed) would be consistent with the
goals and objectives of this CFHMP.
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 80
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
4.5 Alternatives Evaluation Table
TABLE 10 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
No. Location Action Consistency with Goals and Objectives Effectiveness Environmental Benefits Environmental Impacts Cost Permitting Complexity Operating Needs Timeframe Potential Grant Funding Sources
1 Hiddendale Drive community Develop a community-based emergency flood response plan for the Hiddendale Drive community
Medium Medium Low Low Low Low Low Short-term FCAAP
2 Linger Longer Road neighborhood Develop a flood warning system for the Linger Longer Road neighborhood Medium Medium Low Low Low Low Medium Short-term
3 Whole study area Provide training and education for County staff about flood hazard management
Medium Medium Low Low Low Low Low Short-term
4 Lower Little Quilcene River basin Explore opportunities for Little Quilcene River wetland and side channel restoration
High Medium High Low Medium Medium to High Low Medium-term FbD, SRFB, SR, CPF
5 Frank Beck Road, Hiddendale Drive Full habitat restoration in Frank Beck Road and Hiddendale Drive areas High Medium High Low High Medium to High Low Long-term FbD, SRFB, SR, CPF, NCRF
6 Whole study area Provide funding to low-income households for making resiliency improvements to their homes
High Medium Low Low Low Medium Low Short-term HMG
7 Whole study area Work with utility providers to ensure that assets are protected in a way that is compatible with CFHMP objectives
Medium Medium Low Low Low Low Low Short-term
8 Leland Lake and Leland Creek areas Conduct a study to evaluate flood risks to properties on Leland Lake and surrounding areas of Leland Creek
Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Low Low Medium-term FCAAP
9 Whole study area Proactive landowner outreach and communication about flood risks and risk reduction strategies
High Medium Low Low Low Low Low Short-term
10 Whole study area Conduct survey of drainage ditches and tributaries to understand flow pathways and connections
Medium Medium Low Low Medium Low Low Medium-term
11 Whole study area Improve monitoring and documentation of flood events and impacts Medium Medium Low Low Medium Low Medium Short-term SR
12 Whole study area Evaluate and raise awareness of risks that septic systems pose to public health and safety during flood events
Medium Medium Medium Low Low Low Low Short-term
13 Whole study area Adopt higher regulatory standards for development, resource management, and other land use activities
High Medium High Low Medium High Low Medium-term
14 Whole study area Utilize climate change projections to incorporate future risk considerations into Jefferson County Code
Medium Medium Medium Low Medium High Low Medium-term
15 Whole study area Update FEMA Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Maps Medium Medium Low Low Medium High Low Medium-term
16 Big Quilcene River RM 2.4, Highway 101 bridge
Monitor Highway 101 abutment scour and coordinate with WSDOT on bridge maintenance or improvement activities
Medium Medium Low Low Low Low Medium Short-term
17 Big and Little Quilcene River Floodplains Acquire properties and remove houses in the floodplain High High High Low High Medium Medium Long-term FbD, SRFB, HMG
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 81
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
TABLE 10 (CONTINUED) EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
No. Location Action Consistency with Goals and Objectives Effectiveness Environmental Benefits Environmental Impacts Cost Permitting Complexity Operating Needs Timeframe Potential Grant Funding Sources
18 Big and Little Quilcene River Floodplains Raise elevations of homes at present or future risk of flooding, which are not being considered for acquisition
High High Low Low High Medium Low Medium-term HMG
19 High-risk erosion areas and priority salmon habitat
Install engineered log jams and bioengineered revetments where appropriate
High Medium Medium Low High High Low Medium-term FbD, SRFB, SR, CFP
20 Big Quilcene River RM 1.2 to 2.4 Complete Moon Valley Restoration Project High High High Low High High Medium Long-term FbD, SRFB
21 Quilcene National Fish Hatchery Explore flood resilience improvements to the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery High High Low Low High High Medium Medium-term
22 Big Quilcene River RM 0 to 1.2 Complete Lower One Mile Project High High High Low High High Medium Long-term FbD, SRFB, HMG, NCRF
23 Countywide Evaluate joining CRS High Medium Medium Low Medium Low Medium Medium-term
24 Study area, Center Road Coordinate with Public Works on transportation projects High Medium Medium Low Low Low Low Short-term
25 Little Quilcene River at RM 7 Support improvements to Port Townsend dam as necessary High High Low Medium TBD TBD Low TBD HMG, PA
Funding Abbreviations: Floodplains by Design (FbD); Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB); FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants (HMG); Flood Control Assistance Account Program (FCAAP); Streamflow Restoration grants (SR); FEMA Public Assistance (PA); Coastal Protection Fund (CPF); National Coastal Resilience Fund (NCRF).
Chapter 4. Flood Hazard Management Alternatives and Recommended Actions
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 82
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
4.6 Summary of High-Priority Actions
While all of the actions described in Section 4.4 (and in Table 10 in Section 4.5) are
recommended actions, some actions should be considered high-priority because they would
achieve the highest benefit and/or would address the most severe or urgent flood risks. While not
all of the high-priority actions are short-term actions, it is recommended that all be initiated and
advanced in the near term. High-priority actions are:
• #1: Develop a community-based emergency flood response plan for the Hiddendale Drive
community.
– Note: This action is high-priority because of the high risk to the Hiddendale Drive community, which is located within the floodway. However, pursuing this as a high-
priority action is contingent on community interest in participating.
• #9: Proactive landowner outreach and communication about flood risks and risk reduction
strategies.
• #11: Improve monitoring and documentation of flood events and impacts.
• #17: Acquire properties and remove houses in the floodplain.
• #20: Complete Moon Valley Restoration Project.
• #22: Complete Lower One Mile Project.
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 83
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
CHAPTER 5
Implementation and Funding
This CFHMP identifies priority flood hazard management actions that Jefferson County could
implement as funding and other resources become available. Many of these actions would not be
feasible within the limited resources and time available to Jefferson County staff. Additional
funding and partnerships with outside organizations will be necessary to successfully implement
the vision for flood hazard management that has been outlined in this plan.
5.1 Roles and Responsibilities
Jefferson County has jurisdictional authority over the study area, although large portions of the
upstream Big and Little Quilcene River basins are within U.S. Forest Service jurisdiction.
Jefferson County provides services and manages some public facilities and parks in the study
area, while some infrastructure and facilities are operated by state entities (such as Highway 101)
and federal entities (such as the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery).
Jefferson County is responsible for the development of local regulations and for permitting
development based on these regulations. The County has regulatory oversight of activities that
could impact public health and safety, including development and land-disturbing activities. This
oversight includes potential off-site impacts from these activities, such as controlling sediments
and pollutants transported in stormwater runoff. The County helps to sustain the ecological
functions of floodplain areas and the public’s safety around floodplains through regulations and
plans that include:
• Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
• Comprehensive Plan
• Shoreline Master Program
• Critical Areas Ordinance
• Unified Development Code
Numerous alternatives that are recommended for priority action depend on Jefferson County’s
ability to update the County Code. Climate change, state and federal laws, and the capacity for
river avulsion to alter existing environmental conditions will necessitate adaptive management,
which may entail updates to the Jefferson County Code. Revisions to the code are intended to
maintain natural processes and to protect public health and safety.
Chapter 5. Implementation and Funding
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 84
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Coordination with government and non-governmental partners will be critical for implementing
recommended actions where Jefferson County lacks capacity or jurisdiction, as well as for
projects where interests overlap. Continuing to work with partners, such as the HCSEG, state
agencies, and tribes, can help to increase capacity and resources, provide outcomes with multiple
benefits, and improve engagement with issues related to flooding. Tribes, conservation
nonprofits, and other organizations with related interests will continue to be crucial partners for
implementing recommended actions, such as floodplain restoration projects at future property
acquisition sites and bioengineering opportunities, in addition to ongoing lower Big Quilcene
River restoration projects.
5.2 Potential Funding Sources
Floodplains by Design
Floodplains by Design (FbD) is Washington’s major integrated floodplain management grant
program, which is administered by Ecology. The program supports a multi-benefit approach to
living in flood-resilient communities, while restoring habitat and natural floodplain functions.
Floodplains by Design grants can be used for a wide range of flood hazard reduction projects with
an ecological restoration component, including studies, design, construction, and land acquisition.
FbD is currently funding restoration efforts being developed within the lower 1 mile of the Big
Quilcene River (i.e., the Lower One Mile Project).
Funding for the program is administered on the state’s biennial legislative cycle. During the
program’s limited history, pre-applications have been due at the beginning of the year preceding
the award year, applicants present their projects to evaluators shortly thereafter, full applications
are submitted in the spring, and funding is administered after the biennial budget is adopted.
Salmon Recovery Funding Board
The Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) provides salmon habitat grants administered by the
Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). The SRFB prioritizes protecting
existing salmonid habitat, expanding fish passage, and restoring natural habitat-forming
processes, although the restoration of habitat and ecological functions can have flood risk
reduction benefits, as demonstrated by the many SRFB-funded projects on the lower Big
Quilcene River.
Jefferson County’s continued collaboration with HCSEG to achieve multiple objectives through
SRFB-funded projects is recommended to successfully complete the Lower One Mile and Moon
Valley projects. SRFB grants typically involve a project application early in the year, followed by
site visits in the spring, and revised applications based on input submitted in later summer. There
are no limits on the amount of funding that can be requested (except for design-only projects), but
the project award cannot exceed the regional allocation, and applicants are normally required to
provide a 15% match.
Chapter 5. Implementation and Funding
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 85
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Conservation Futures Program
Conservation Futures is a funding program adopted by Jefferson County, which uses a tax levy
to generate funds to support the protection of open space, agriculture, forests, and habitat.
Conservation Futures would be particularly applicable to the recommended actions in this
CFHMP that focus on property acquisition and habitat restoration. Specifics of the program
vary by year, including availability of funds, maximum funding, and match requirements.
Funding has historically been available annually, and applications are typically due in the first
quarter of the year.
FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants
Hazard Mitigation Grants (HMGs) are made available to affected areas under a Major Disaster
Declaration by the governor or president. For funds to become available, a state agency or
federally recognized tribe must submit a grant application to FEMA. Eligible projects include
acquisition of flood-prone properties, hazard mitigation planning, code enforcement, retrofitting,
reconstruction, drainage improvement, and flood protection facility development.
Jefferson County (or eligible governmental entities working with Jefferson County) would need
to submit sub-applicant materials that detail planned hazard mitigation efforts. The Hazard
Mitigation Grants have a 25% match requirement, which may be paid by the state or the sub-
applicant. Eligible funding amounts are based on percentages of estimated total damage under the
Major Disaster Declaration.
Flood Control Assistance Account Program
The Flood Control Assistance Account Program (FCAAP), administered by Ecology, provides
grants for floodplain management planning and implementation of projects, including for
CFHMPs, feasibility studies, federal project matching funds, flood control maintenance projects,
and emergency projects.
FCAAP grant applications are accepted on a biennial basis, with applications typically due the
year that Washington’s biennial budget is adopted (applications for the 2023-2025 cycle were due
in March 2023). Emergency project applications have a different timeline, and funding is
available on a non-competitive basis until all funds are awarded. A 25% match is required for
planning projects and 20% is required for emergency projects.
Development of this CFHMP was funded with an FCAAP grant awarded in 2021.
National Coastal Resilience Fund
The National Coastal Resilience Fund (NCRF) is a public-private partnership funding source
provided through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which provides grants to coastal
communities for climate change and other hazard resilience. Funding can be used for a wide
variety of costs through planning, assessment, design, permitting, and implementation stages of a
project. All projects must address nature-based solutions, community resilience, and fish and
wildlife benefits.
Chapter 5. Implementation and Funding
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 86
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Funding has been available annually since 2018. Pre-applications are typically due in early or
mid-spring, with full applications due in the summer. There are no maximum funding requests or
match requirements.
Streamflow Restoration Competitive Grants
Streamflow restoration grants are administered by Ecology for projects, studies, and monitoring
that support enhanced watershed management and ecological functions. Floodplain management
is not the primary intent of these grants, but coordination with interested parties on water and
aquatic resources projects could help to enhance flood risk reduction outcomes or serve other
functions. For example, riparian restoration and streamflow monitoring would both be eligible
projects and help to advance actions recommended by this plan.
Application schedules have varied. Applications for the 2022 funding round opened in November
2021 with submissions due in February 2022, and awards were granted in October 2022. Funding
is made available based on the biennial state budget, but funding cycles may occur annually, if
additional funds are available. Funding is prioritized for watersheds listed under Chapter 90.94
RCW. The Quilcene-Snow Watershed (WRIA 17) is not listed under this code, but projects in
this watershed are still eligible for funding.
FEMA Public Assistance Grant Program
Public Assistance Grants are FEMA grants that can be administered to state or Tribal
governments after a Major Disaster Declaration, which can be administered to subrecipients, such
as county and local governments. As opposed to Hazard Mitigation Grants, which support
projects that mitigate future risks, Public Assistance Grants support recovery efforts, such as
debris removal, emergency protective measures, and infrastructure or utility repair.
Coastal Protection Fund
The Coastal Protection Fund, administered by Ecology, provides small grants for direct costs for
watershed projects that enhance fish and wildlife habitat. Eligible projects include riparian
restoration, wetland restoration, and stream bank stabilization.
Funding availability and application timelines vary, as funds are not appropriated through a state
budget but are generated from fines. The maximum grant amount is $50,000 with no required
match.
Funding Support for Residents
Notifying homeowners in the floodplain of funding available directly to them could also be
helpful in implementing recommended actions and increasing awareness of flood hazards. For
example, Jefferson County Public Health has historically received funding from Washington’s
Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which has been used to share costs for septic system repairs.
While Jefferson County is responsible for outreach to raise awareness of flood hazards, providing
opportunities for property owners to make flood-resilient improvements enables site-scale
Chapter 5. Implementation and Funding
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 87
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
implementation of actions, as well as aiding low-income and environmental justice communities.
FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants may also be used to fund flood-resilient home improvements.
General Obligation Bonds
Jefferson County may issue general obligation bonds to fund long-term capital projects that are
not expected to generate new revenue, such as property acquisition or infrastructure
improvements. Limited tax general obligation bonds may be issued through a vote of the
legislative authority, which only allows debt service to be paid from the general fund without new
tax levies. An unlimited tax general obligation bond requires 60% of the district voters to approve
a property tax levy to make debt service payments.
Washington State Legislature Appropriations
The study area is within the Washington Legislature’s State District 24. Outreach to legislators
can occur at any time, but dialogue about funding requests with legislators should be performed
early in the budgeting season, if not prior to the budgeting season. Washington State House
Democrats maintain a Member Requested Local Community Project Information form for
requesting legislative funding or further communications to discuss legislative funding for
community projects. Submission of this form was required by mid-February in 2023 for the 2023-
2025 biennial budgeting session. Washington State House Republicans do not have an established
process for project funding request intake, but may similarly be reached by Jefferson County staff
or other stakeholders to advocate for projects.
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 88
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
CHAPTER 6
Plan Review, Revision, Adoption, and
Maintenance
6.1 Plan Adoption
The final version of this CFHMP will be submitted to the Washington State Department of
Ecology for review. Ecology will review the plan to determine whether the CFHMP sufficiently
addresses comments, abides by state statutes, and meets the requirements of the FCAAP grant
agreement. The CFHMP will then be presented to the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners for adoption.
6.2 Plan Evaluation and Updates
Jefferson County staff will serve in the lead role for maintaining, evaluating, and updating this
CFHMP. Jefferson County will direct available staff time and funding toward plan implementation
and will seek additional funding for flood risk reduction actions described in Chapter 4. Other
partners in the study area (such as those represented on the Advisory Team; see Section 1.3) will
also implement actions described in the plan. Implementation actions include monitoring baseline
conditions in the study area and conditions after implementation of recommended actions as well
as communicating findings with staff, elected leadership, and stakeholders.
Recommended actions of this CFHMP should be considered in conjunction with existing
Jefferson County programs and policies, in order to identify synergies and opportunities for
implementation. Opportunities to incorporate recommendations from this plan into other planning
initiatives may arise during updates to the County’s Comprehensive Plan, Hazard Mitigation
Plan, Critical Areas Ordinance, and Shoreline Master Program. Incorporating elements of this
CFHMP into other planning initiatives will establish a consistent narrative of commitment to
these efforts, which can be utilized to support grant applications or other requests for support in
floodplain management. Engagement and collaboration with state, federal, Tribal, and nonprofit
entities will also play an important role in implementing and reinforcing floodplain management
best practices in the study area.
Updates to this CFHMP should be informed by the implementation of actions, monitoring of
results, and decision-making based on an evaluation of these findings. This CFHMP incorporated
thorough evaluations of existing conditions and use of the best available science to project future
conditions within the scope. This information provides a strong basis for the recommended
actions in this plan, which are expected to be accepted and effective means of flood risk reduction
through the life of the plan. Reviews and updates to CFHMPs typically occur on a 5-year cycle,
Chapter 6. Plan Review, Revision, Adoption, and Maintenance
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 89
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
but the actual need for updates varies based on watershed conditions, implementation schedules,
and available resources. Updates to the plan that may be necessary could include supplemental
studies or addenda based on unpredictable changes or new information.
6.3 Continued Public Involvement
Jefferson County will continue its work to engage the public in flood hazard management
planning, including the incorporation of integrated floodplain management into other planning
initiatives. Multiple recommended actions in this CFHMP would require public engagement to be
advanced, in addition to the actions that primarily consist of engagement, outreach, and
education. The public will be notified of the implementation of any major flood hazard
management actions, as well as informed of opportunities to participate. Jefferson County social
media and the County website may be used to provide informal updates on flood hazard
management activity and educational materials about flood hazards to raise awareness and
increase engagement with flood hazard management issues. Jefferson County staff will work to
establish a dialogue and connections in the community, especially for neighborhood-based
planning initiatives, to build consensus on the specifics for implementation of recommended
flood hazard management actions or the development of new flood hazard management initiatives.
Advisory Team members and relevant Jefferson County staff will collaborate, where appropriate,
to implement and monitor results of the CFHMP. Continuing coordination amongst Advisory
Team members and with non-Advisory Team stakeholders will ensure an approach to flood
hazard management that spans jurisdictional boundaries and is considerate of diverse interests in
the community.
6.4 Adaptive Management
Adaptive management is an iterative approach to decision-making with emphasis on the
uncertainty of the outcomes of management actions and the value of reducing that uncertainty to
improve management. Through this approach, decision-making around management actions is
structured to improve results over time, in order to effectively meet goals and objectives. This is
achieved through learning from past and ongoing efforts by allowing involved parties to move
forward with actions and respond to changed conditions accordingly. An adaptive management
approach to using this CFHMP will enable adjustments to implementation that account for
changes in flood conditions, challenges with past actions, and new information.
It is recommended that partners in the Quilcene watersheds (ideally including the members of the
Advisory Team for this CFHMP; see Section 1.3) should meet once a year to discuss the
advancement of projects, challenges that have prevented advancement, and results of in-progress
or completed actions. It is further recommended that a more extensive collaboration among
involved parties occur every 2 years. The more extensive biennial meeting may be best scheduled
during even-numbered years to support collaborative organizing around funding requests for
grants that will be appropriated in Washington’s biennial budget of the following year. These
meetings should focus on discussions among partners to identify new and adjust current funding
Chapter 6. Plan Review, Revision, Adoption, and Maintenance
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 90
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
sources, identify new actions according to changes in conditions or outcomes of completed work,
and adjust strategies where appropriate.
Adaptive management for this CFHMP is recommended for all actions, but the approach should
especially be adhered to for the high-priority actions listed in Section 4.6, as they should be
implemented or advanced in the near term and their completion may lead to additional follow-up
actions. These actions should be continuously discussed with the purpose of advancing their
implementation and identifying barriers to that advancement. Adaptive management is also
highly recommended for those actions that involve studies and surveys, such as #8 (conduct a
study to evaluate flood risks to properties on Leland Lake and surrounding areas of Leland
Creek), #10 (conduct survey of drainage ditches and tributaries to understand flow pathways and
connections), and #25 (support improvements to Port Townsend dam as necessary).
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 91
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
CHAPTER 7
References
Anchor QEA. 2018. Lower Big Quilcene River Preliminary Design Project: Preliminary Design Report RCO No. 13-1209. Prepared for Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding
Board.
Anchor QEA. 2020. Phase 3 – 30% Design and Permitting Hydrodynamic Modeling Report.
Anderson, B., C. Anderson, D. Christensen, R. Inman, and J. Marti. 2016. 2015 Drought Summary Report. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington.
Arthur, Ashley. 2020. Current and Historical Estuary Extent in Major River Deltas of the Puget Sound: A Comparison of Estimates. WWU Honors Program Senior Projects. 389. URL: https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwu_honors/389.
BHC Consultants. 2020. Jefferson PUD Quilcene Water Tank Project. URL:
https://jeffpud.diligent.community/document/e6127c9c-48b9-4283-8247-a7923d8e6320/.
BOR (Bureau of Reclamation). 2004. Channel Migration Zone Study, Jefferson County, Washington. U.S. Department of the Interior.
Cardno. 2020. Draft 30% Conceptual Design Report: Moon Valley Restoration Project.
CIO (Washington Office of the Chief Information Officer). 2022. Current Parcels. URL: https://geo.wa.gov/datasets/wa-geoservices::current-parcels/about.
Correa, G. 2002. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors, Water Resource Inventory Area 17 Quilcene-Snow Basin, Washington State Conservation State Conservation Commission Final Report, November 2002. URL: https://salishsearestoration.org/images/b/ba/Correa_
2002_WRIA_17_quilcene_snow-salmon_limiting_factors_salmon.pdf.
DOH (Washington State Department of Health). 2022. Washington Tracking Network Information by Location Tool. URL: https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/wtn/WTNIBL/.
Downen, M., T. Johnson, L. Lestelle, and N. Sands. 2018. Recovery Goal Review and Updated Guidance for the Hood Canal Summer Chum Salmon ESU. URL: https://hccc.wa.gov/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/HC%20Summer%20Chum%20Recovery%20Goal%20Guidance_08312018%20FINAL_0.pdf.
East Jefferson Watershed Council. 2011. Watershed Management Plan and Detailed Implementation Plan for the Quilcene-Snow Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 17).
Chapter 7. References
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 92
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2004. Report of Examination for Change to Appropriate Public Waters of the State of Washington. URL: https://appswr.ecology.wa.gov/
docs/WaterRights/ScanToWRTS/HQ7/pdf/HQ70000255C.pdf.
Ecology. 2021. Comprehensive Planning for Flood Hazard Management: A Guidebook. URL: https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/documents/2106019.pdf.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. “What Climate Change Means for Washington.” (web). URL: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-wa.pdf.
Federal Highway Administration. 2022. LTBP InfoBridge: Data. URL: https://infobridge.fhwa.dot.gov/Data.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1982. Flood Insurance Study: Jefferson County, Washington Unincorporated Areas.
FEMA. 2017. National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System Coordinator’s Manual. FIA-15/2017. OMB No. 1660-0022.
FEMA. 2019. Flood Insurance Study: Jefferson County, Washington Unincorporated Areas.
Floodplains by Design. 2014. Lower Big Quilcene. URL: https://www.floodplainsbydesign.org/
wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Big-Quil-FY15-17-Request-One-Pager-020915.pdf.
Ford, M. J., editor. 2022. Biological Viability Assessment Update for Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Listed Under the Endangered Species Act: Pacific Northwest. U.S. Department
of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-171.
GeoEngineers Inc. 1998. Lower Big Quilcene River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan. URL: https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WeblinkExternal/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=
1112997&page=1&cr=1.
Hamman, J. 2012. Effects of Projected Twenty-First Century Sea Level Rise, Storm Surge, and River Flooding on Water Levels in Puget Sound Floodplains and Estuaries. Master’s
Thesis, University of Washington.
Hamman, J., A. Hamlet, E. Grossman, and R. Fuller. 2015. Effects of Projected Twenty-First Century Sea Level Rise, Storm Surge, and River Flooding on Water Levels in the Skagit
River Floodplain. Northwest Science.
HCSEG (Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group). 2011. Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 Public Law 110-343 Title II Project Submission Form USDA Forest Service, Little Quilcene River Juvenile Salmon Trap. URL: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5299847.pdf.
HCSEG. 2022a. Big Quilcene – Quilcene Estuarine Wetlands Restoration – Schinke Property. URL: https://www.pnwsalmoncenter.org/restoration/past-habitat-projects/big-quilcene-quilcene-estuarine-wetlands-restoration-schinke-property/.
Chapter 7. References
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 93
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
HCSEG. 2022b. Little Quilcene and Quilcene Bay River Mouth Restoration. URL: https://www.pnwsalmoncenter.org/restoration/past-habitat-projects/little-quilcene-and-
quilcene-bay-river-mouth-restoration/.
Holth, N. 2014. US-101 Big Quilcene River Bridge. URL: https://historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/?bridgebrowser=washington/us101bigquilceneriverbridge/.
Jefferson County. 1998. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan: A Policy Guide for Growth and Development.
Jefferson County. 2015. Jefferson County Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan 2015 Update.
Jefferson County Department of Public Works. Port Townsend, Washington.
Jefferson County. 2023. Conservation Futures Program. Jefferson County Environmental Public Health Division. URL: https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/560/Conservation-Futures-Program.
Jefferson County Board of Commissioners. Jefferson County Code (JCC). URL: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/JeffersonCounty.
Jefferson County Department of Community Development. 2018. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan.
Jefferson County Department of Community Development. 2019. Jefferson County Zoning 2019
[GIS data].
Jefferson County Department of Emergency Management. 2011. Hazard Identification and Vulnerability Assessment. Port Hadlock, Washington. URL:
https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/3294/Hazard-Identification-and-Vulnerability-Assessment-for-JeffCo?bidId=.
Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board. 2023. 2023 Weed List - Draft. URL:
https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/DocumentCenter/View/15658/JCNWCB-2023-noxious-weed-list.
Jefferson County Parks and Recreation. 2018. Welcome to Jefferson County’s Parks &
Campground. URL: https://jeffersoncountywa.myrec.com/forms/6272_2018_brochure.pdf.
Kelly, B. 2020. Quilcene home to be moved from flood zone. The Leader. URL: https://www.ptleader.com/stories/quilcene-home-to-be-moved-from-flood-zone,70870.
LLTK (Long Live the Kings). 2017. Hood Canal Steelhead Project. URL: https://lltk.org/project/hood-canal-steelhead-project/.
Magneson, D. 2014. Baseline Information and Data for Quilcene National Fish Hatchery. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Quilcene National Fish Hatchery. Quilcene, WA.
Mauger, G., and J. Vogel. 2020. Puget Sound Partnership Climate Literature Review: A tailored review of climate change science to inform recovery. University of Washington Climate Impacts Group. Seattle, Washington.
Chapter 7. References
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 94
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Mauger, G.S., J.H. Casola, H.A. Morgan, R.L. Strauch, B. Jones, B. Curry, T.M. Busch Isaksen, L. Whitely Binder, M.B. Krosby, and A.K. Snover. 2015. State of Knowledge: Climate
Change in Puget Sound. Report prepared for the Puget Sound Partnership and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle. doi:10.7915/CIG93777D.
May, C., C. Luce, J. Casola, M. Chang, J. Cuhaciyan, M. Dalton, S. Lowe, G. Morishima, P. Mote, A. Petersen, G. Roesch-McNally, and E. York. 2018. “Northwest.” In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume
II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 1036–1100. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH24.
Moore, Megan E. and Barry A. Berejikian. 2022. Coastal infrastructure alters behavior and increases predation mortality of threatened Puget Sound steelhead smolts. Ecosphere: An ESA Open Access Journal. April 26, 2022.
Mote, P.W., D.E. Rupp, J.T. Abatzoglou, K.C. Hegewisch, B. Nijssen, D.P. Lettenmaier, M. Stumbaugh, S.-Y. Lee, and D. Bachelet. 2015. Integrated Scenarios for the Future
Northwest Environment. Version 2.0. USGS ScienceBase.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation Final Biological Opinion And Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation: Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington Phase One Document – Puget Sound Region. Seattle, WA. URL: https://ecology.wa.gov/DOE/files/56/56d82d6b-5a68-411e-
97d5-5a432aec30c1.pdf.
NMFS. 2019. ESA Recovery Plan for the Puget Sound Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Office of Protected Resources and West Coast Region National
Marine Fisheries Service. Seattle, WA. URL: https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/final_puget_sound_steelhead_recovery_plan.pdf.
NMFS. 2022. Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon. URL: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
west-coast/endangered-species-conservation/hood-canal-summer-run-chum-salmon. Accessed October 2022.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2017. What are atmospheric rivers? URL: https://www.noaa.gov/stories/what-are-atmospheric-rivers.
NOAA. 2023. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon. URL: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/endangered-species-conservation/puget-sound-chinook-salmon.
Raymond, C., L. Conway-Cranos, H. Morgan, N. Faghin, D. Spilsbury Pucci, J. Krienitz, I. Miller, E. Grossman, and G. Mauger. 2018. Sea level rise considerations for nearshore
restoration projects in Puget Sound. A report prepared for the Washington Coastal Resilience Project.
SRP (Salmon Recovery Portal). 2022. SRP Home page. URL: https://srp.rco.wa.gov/home.
Accessed October 2022.
Chapter 7. References
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 95
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Stewart, I.T., D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger. 2005. Changes toward earlier streamflow timing across western North America. Journal of Climate 18: 1136-1155.
Sullivan, P. 2014. Major flooding over, damage assessment begins. The Leader. URL: https://www.ptleader.com/stories/major-flooding-over-damage-assessment-begins,40462.
Sweet, W.V., B.D. Hamlington, R.E. Kopp, C.P. Weaver, P.L. Barnard, D. Bekaert, W. Brooks,
M. Craghan, G. Dusek, T. Frederikse, G. Garner, A.S. Genz, J.P. Krasting, E. Larour, D. Marcy, J.J. Marra, J. Obeysekera, M. Osler, M. Pendleton, D. Roman, L. Schmied, W. Veatch, K.D. White, and C. Zuzak. 2022. Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios
for the United States: Updated Mean Projections and Extreme Water Level Probabilities Along U.S. Coastlines. NOAA Technical Report NOS 01. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD.
SWIFD (Statewide Integrated Fish Distribution). 2023. SWIFD Webmap. URL: https://geo.nwifc.org/SWIFD/.
Tetra Tech. 2017. Quilcene Wastewater Feasibility Study. Prepared for Port of Port Townsend. URL: https://portofpt.com/wp-content/uploads/FINAL_Quilcene_Final-Report_12082017.pdf#:~:text=The%20Quilcene%20Wastewater%20Feasibility%20Studyassesses%20
the%20feasibility%20of,Rural%20Village%20Center%20%28RVC%29%20in%20unincorporated%20Jefferson%20County.
The Leader. 2021. Jefferson County approves bridge replacement on Little Quilcene River. The
Leader. URL: https://www.ptleader.com/stories/jefferson-county-approves-bridge-replacement-onlittle-quilcene-river,77576.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. “2010 Decennial Census.” URL:
https://data.census.gov/all?q=2010+Decennial+Census.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. “2020 Decennial Census.” URL: https://data.census.gov/all?q=2020+Decennial+Census.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2022. “2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” URL: https://data.census.gov/all?q=2020+American+Community+Survey+5-Year+Estimates.
USDOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2016. National Bridge Inventory - National
Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) Bridges.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009. Penny Creek water intake Flood November 20, 2009. USFWS Pacific Region. November 2009. URL: https://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwspacific/5666729130/.
USFWS. 2016. Quilcene National Fish Hatchery: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, Final Report, December 2016. Environmental Risk Assessment Team for National Fish Hatcheries, Pacific Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2022. USGS 12052210 Big Quilcene River Below Diversion
NR Quilcene, WA. URL: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/monitoring-location/12052210/#parameterCode=00065&period=P7D.
Chapter 7. References
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers 96
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
USGS. 2023. The StreamStats program. URL: https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/.
Warner, M., E. Mass, and E. Salathe. 2015. Changes in Winter Atmospheric Rivers along the
North American West Coast in CMIP5 Climate Models. Journal of Hydrometor, 16. 118-128.
Washington Governor’s Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance. 2022. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. URL: https://apps.oria.wa.gov/permithandbook/
permitdetail/38.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1993. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. URL: https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/
00194/wdfw00194.pdf.
WDFW. 2000. Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory, Coastal Cutthroat Trout. URL: https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/00192/wdfw00192.pdf.
WDFW. 2010a. Big Quilcene River Summer Chum Stock Data 1974-2010.
WDFW. 2010b. Little Quilcene River Summer Chum Stock Data 1974-2010.
WDFW. 2012. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Plan for Rebuilding Olympia Oyster (Ostrea lurida) Populations in Puget Sound with a Historical and Contemporary Overview. URL: https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-07/olympia_oyster_restoration_
plan_final.pdf.
WDFW. 2022. SalmonScape. URL: https://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html.
WDFW. 2023a. Leland Lake. URL: https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/locations/lowland-lakes/leland-
lake.
WDFW. 2023b. Chinook salmon (Puget Sound ESU) (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha pop. 15). URL: https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/species/oncorhynchus-tshawytscha-pop-15#
conservation.
Wild Fish Conservancy. 2008. Little Quilcene-Leland Watershed Rapid Habitat Assessment and Prioritized Restoration Framework. Pacific Ecological Institute. Seattle, Washington.
Wisconsin Reed Canary Grass Management Working Group. 2009. Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) Management Guide: Recommendations for Landowners and Restoration Professionals. URL: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Reed%20
Canary%20Grass%20Management%20Guide_0.pdf.
WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2022. WSDOT All Bridge and Tunnel Inventory. URL: https://geo.wa.gov/datasets/WSDOT::wsdot-all-bridge-and-tunnel-inventory-state-local/about. Accessed October 2022.
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Appendix A.
Advisory Team Meetings
This appendix includes the following documents:
• Advisory Team Meeting Minutes – October 6, 2022
• Advisory Team Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2022
• Advisory Team Meeting Minutes – January 5, 2023
• Advisory Team Meeting Minutes – March 2, 2023
• Advisory Team Meeting Minutes – April 20, 2023
ADVISORY TEAM MEETING MINUTES
FLOOD PLAN FOR BIG QUILCENE AND LITTLE QUILCENE RIVERS
OCTOBER 6, 2022
Attendees:
Brent Butler, Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Donna Frostholm, Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Spencer Easton, ESA (Consultant)
Dan Beckley, ESA (Consultant)
Tami Pokorny, Jefferson County Environmental Health
Denise Hawkins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Nam Siu, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Don Svetich, Quilcene Fire Rescue
Susan Beall, Olympic National Forest
Robin Shoal, Olympic National Forest
Gus Johnson, Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group
Glenn Gately, Jefferson County Conservation District
Randy Johnson, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe
Lisa Belleveau, Skokomish Tribe
No members of the public were present for meeting.
Minutes (Virtual Meeting, Recorded):
Introduction
Attendees introduced themselves using Zoom chat. It was noted that Matt Gerlach, the Washington
State Department of Ecology Project Manager for this Flood Control Assistance Account Program
(FCAAP) grant, was unable to attend the meeting but is also part of the advisory team. The meeting was
led by Spencer Easton.
Outline scope and timeline
Donna Frostholm stated that Jefferson County Department of Community Development (DCD) was
interested in the FCAAP grant as a way to fund preparation of a Comprehensive Flood Hazard
A-1
Management Plan (CFHMP) for the Big- and Little Quilcene Rivers. The CFHMP is part of a
comprehensive land use assessment that DCD needs for making land use decisions.
Using a Power Point presentation, Spencer showed a figure depicting the CFHMP project area, a figure
outlining the process of preparing a CFHMP, and a figure showing the schedule for finalizing the plan by
the end of June 2023. He summarized the work done to date on the CFHMP for the Big- and Little
Quilcene Rivers, and provided an update on new guidance (2021) for items to be included in a CFHMP.
Goals and Objectives
Draft CFHMP goals and objectives were sent out to the advisory team prior to the meeting. Spencer
reviewed the four drafted goals and all were accepted by the advisory team as is. Advisory team input
included:
• Relevance of the CFHMP to Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps
and Flood Insurance Study, both of which were updated in June 2019.
• Clarification on the role of the advisory team in developing strategies for the plan. The advisory
team is providing input but is not recommending or endorsing the strategies included in the
plan.
• Clarification that advisory team input will be used to identify potential strategies and actions
that could be grant funded in the future.
• Discussion of whether engineered log jams are structural or non-structural. This is a ‘gray area’
that depends on how the log jams are designed and if that design alters how water moves.
Discussion included using arrays of engineered log jams or placement of large woody debris to
alter stream flows for fish enhancement.
• Rock barbs were installed about 20 years ago in the Big Quilcene River to deflect water and
protect residential community.
Spencer also reviewed the 17 objectives and the advisory team discussed the following:
• What the strategies and actions incorporated into the CFHMP mean to those who reside in the
project area. The process includes public meetings so local residents can ask questions of and
give comments to the county. The intent of the plan is to develop strategies and actions that
reduce flood risk. If the plan includes a policy recommendation, the county could discuss the
ramifications of this with Quilcene residents.
• The importance of reducing buildings in the floodplain to minimize impacts to water quality and
fish.
• Water quality should be specifically called out as an objective.
• Ways to reduce building in the floodplain include public education and purchasing land.
It was decided that objective #6 needed to be built up (to reduce building in the floodplain, relative to
current FEMA standards) and that a new water quality objective should be added (or incorporate water
quality into #14). Working at the watershed boundaries could be incorporated into #17.
A-2
Flood Problems
ESA is currently working on the existing conditions and would like to hear about flood problems within
these two river basins. Spencer also noted that ESA and the county will be making a site visit soon and
asked if there were any areas that should be looked at. The advisory team discussed:
• For homes in the Hiddendale community, the rock barbs direct floodwaters away from the
shoreline but are insufficient for a large flood.
• Potential loss of salmon productivity during peak flood events in the Big Quilcene River. Fish
eggs get washed into the river, which impacts a tribal resource.
• Potential problems of clear cutting higher in the watershed (National Forest confirmed the
Forest Service does not log federal land in these two river basins).
• Issues for Linger Longer Road (flooding) and Highway 101 bridge (scouring) on Big Quilcene
River.
• Tidal surge along the Little Quilcene River (and some scour).
• Emergency service calls have increased in the last 20 years.
• Emergency vehicles may have difficulty getting through if a major flood event occurs.
• Flooding can affect hatchery operations.
• Penny Creek culvert is undersized.
Denise Hawkins said the hatchery has a climate change vulnerability report and Robin Shoal said the
USFS has a climate vulnerability assessment report. Both indicated that these documents could be
shared with the team.
Next Steps
DCD noted that we want to improve ways to make Quilcene residents aware of these meetings and Don
Svetich suggested some of the best ways to reach out to the community.
The next meeting date in November is yet to be determined. With the exception of November, advisory
team meetings will be the first Thursday of the month at 3:00 PM.
Final note from Lisa Belleveau: It is important to keep in mind that restoration of natural process/river
access to the floodplain is one of the best ways to mitigate flood hazard impacts.
A-3
ADVISORY TEAM MEETING MINUTES
FLOOD PLAN FOR BIG QUILCENE AND LITTLE QUILCENE RIVERS
NOVEMBER 9, 2022
Attendees:
Brent Butler, Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Donna Frostholm, Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Spencer Easton, ESA (Consultant)
Dan Beckley, ESA (Consultant)
Tami Pokorny, Jefferson County Environmental Health
Matt Gerlach, Washington Department of Ecology
Ben Cross, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Quilcene Hatchery
Gus Johnson, Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group
Glenn Gately, Jefferson County Conservation District
Randy Johnson, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe
Marla Powers, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
Lisa Belleveau, Skokomish Indian Tribe
Michael Kingsley, Quilcene Resident
Judith [ ? ], Quilcene Resident
Minutes (Virtual Meeting, Recorded):
Preliminary Information
Those in attendance verbally introduced themselves.
ESA prepared a power point presentation for the meeting and Spencer Easton reviewed the November
meeting agenda.
The advisory team was asked if they had any comments on the minutes drafted for the first meeting.
Hearing no comments, the October 2022 minutes were accepted as is.
Spencer provided project updates, including progress on drafting sections of the Comprehensive Flood
Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP) and a summary of the site visit ESA and the county made to the
project area on October 10, 2022.
A-4
Matt Gerlach asked about coordination with Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group as they have
restoration efforts planned.
Existing Conditions Findings
Dan Beckley presented the findings used to write the Existing Conditions section of the CFHMP. As part
of the presentation, he showed a map of the project area, reviewed the methods used and data sources
available to prepare the findings, provided an overview of the river reach descriptions for each river, and
recapped the history of flooding in the project area. He then summarized the following Existing
Conditions sections of the Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP):
• Natural Features (fish species use of project area/populations for some species is low or at risk)
• Land Use (comprehensive plan and development regulations/project area zoning)
• Infrastructure (county bridges at risk of overtopping due to low clearance/septic system
concerns)
• Planning and Regulatory Context (Shoreline Master Program/Critical Area Regulations/
development may pre-date regulations)
• Demographics (most densely populated areas occur in floodplain/segment of the population in
the floodplain may be at greater risk and more susceptibility of flooding)
• Potential Future Conditions (Climate change/sea level rise/potential for more extensive
flooding)
• Flood Management Activities (past use of levees/current priority is non-structural flood
control/past and on-going restoration efforts)
• Vulnerability (review of cumulative effects for vulnerabilities/adaptive capacity)
Lisa Belleveau asked about the one-foot referenced in Dan’s presentation and noted that if the area
experiences a sea level rise of six-foot rise, flooding impacts will be greater.
Donna Frostholm noted that the county also has a sea level rise grant (in which ESA is also the
consultant) and that the preliminary results indicate that there will be more extensive flooding in the
lower elevations.
Matt Gerlach followed up on pre-FIRM development and asked if we can get an idea of key areas that
are more likely to be developed or redevelopment. He suggested a review flood development permits
for the past few years to get a better understanding of what has been happening as of late. See if there
is a potential for buying them out.
Brent Butler noted that the county requires development be constructed one foot above base flood
elevations. He mentioned marginalized populations and asked Matt about potential options for funding
to elevate structures.
Michael Kingsley asked about how often and how long the Linger Longer bridge is being overtopped. Or,
if there is a risk of the bridge being completely washed out.
Marla Powers asked about culverts, many of which tend to be undersized.
A-5
Judith lived along the Big Quilcene River for 11 years. The bridge has never been inundated, but the
levee has broken through. The dikes are of the most concern; they are not maintained and rock has
been added. Most flooding occurs during higher high tides.
Ben Cross noted information from their climate change report had been used and reiterated that there
are some concerns about culverts near the hatchery, including the one at Penny Creek.
Goals and Objectives
Spencer reviewed the four goals and 17 objectives that were revised based on input from the advisory
team in October.
Michael Kingsley discussed forest practices and asked about efforts to encourage more sustainable
practices. Spencer clarified that at the last meeting, the Forest Service said there is no tree harvesting
on federal land upstream of the project area.
Ben Cross noted that there is infrastructure upstream of the project area.
Flood Reduction Strategies
Spencer noted that the team will begin identifying and analyzing strategies and actions soon. He noted
there are a range of strategies that could be implemented and that the focus is on non-structural means
of addressing flooding. To facilitate the discussions, Spencer reviewed some potential evaluation
criteria and clarified the three categories of strategies and measures. The meeting was then broken
down into two groups for about 15 minutes.
At the end we reported back, Spencer and Donna briefly recapped discussions from their groups. Marla
said she agreed with the discussions.
Next Steps
Public meeting next Tuesday; hoping to get more input from those who reside in Quilcene.
Jefferson County is reviewing Existing Conditions section of the CFHMP drafted by ESA.
ESA is drafting a Determinations of Need for the CFHMP.
ESA will begin working on Strategies and Action.
Next meeting may be in December.
A-6
ADVISORY TEAM MEETING MINUTES
FLOOD PLAN FOR BIG QUILCENE AND LITTLE QUILCENE RIVERS
JANUARY 5, 2023
Attendees:
Brent Butler, Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Donna Frostholm, Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Spencer Easton, ESA (Consultant)
Dan Beckley, ESA (Consultant)
Don Svetich, Quilcene Fire Rescue
Ben Cross, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Quilcene Hatchery
Gus Johnson, Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group
Randy Johnson, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe
Marla Powers, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
Lisa Belleveau, Skokomish Indian Tribe
Charles Swartley, Quilcene Resident
Minutes (Virtual Meeting, Recorded):
Introductory Comments
ESA prepared a power point presentation for the meeting and Spencer Easton reviewed the January
meeting agenda.
The Advisory Team was asked if they had any comments on the minutes drafted for the last meeting.
Hearing no comments, the November 2022 minutes were accepted as is.
Spencer reviewed the status of Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP) preparation
with the Advisory Team. Currently, the task of preparing goals and objectives has been completed, the
review of Chapters 2 (Existing Conditions) and 3 (Determination of Need) has been completed by the
county and ESA is making revisions, and the process of identifying and evaluating strategies and actions
has begun. The intent is to complete a draft CFHMP in April 2023 and have a final version by June 30,
2023.
With the recent precipitation and king tides throughout the region, Spencer asked if anyone had any
observations of inundation or flooding along the Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene Rivers that they
wanted to share with the team. Comments included:
A-7
• Don Svetich stated that with the atmospheric river and king tides, both rivers were flowing at or
above flood stage. On the Big Quilcene River, at the old Rogers Street crossing, concrete
structures had previously been removed. Had they still been in place, the lower valley around
Muncie Avenue would have flooded and it is possible that the river channel could have changed.
Along the Little Quilcene River at East Quilcene Road (near the causeway), water was present on
both sides of the road nearly to Center Road and up past McInnis Creek. Silt was being
transported in the stream and, overall, it was a pretty significant event. He indicated that wave
action overtopped the bridge and water was on the road only at the causeway.
• Randy Johnson asked about the Linger Longer Bridge. Don stated that to the north and south of
the bridge, water was flowing over the road (approximately six inches deep where Leadville
Avenue intersects with Linger Longer Road). For the most part, vehicles were able to drive
through this area. Water did not breach the two dikes from Rogers Street to the Linger Longer
Bridge; if it had, accessibility would have been an issue.
• Ben Cross addressed impacts to the hatchery infrastructure. A good bit of wood migrated
downstream during the recent event. Most woody material was able to continue downstream
without impacting hatchery infrastructure or the Penny Creek culvert. There were significant
flows into the fishway, but it did not damage existing infrastructure. Channel migration may
have occurred further upstream.
Flood Mapping
Spencer started the discussion by showing a draft of CFHMP Figure 3.1. Lisa Belleveau asked if she could
have a copy of the figure, and it was agreed that a draft version could be sent out. The Advisory Team is
encouraged to provide comments on the draft.
Gus Johnson noted that the Moon Valley and Lower One Mile project areas are shown incorrectly on the
figure. He will send shapefiles to ESA.
Spencer reviewed flood-related mapping along the two rivers. This included the 100-year floodplains
and floodways mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, channel migration zones
mapped by the county, and geologically hazardous maps that the county uses.
If Department of Community Development hears about any flooding issues for a water diversion from
the Big Quilcene River to the City of Port Townsend reservoirs, we will let the Advisory Team know.
Strategy Development Process
Spencer reviewed the process of developing strategies and actions. ESA prepared a slide that addressed
Advisory Team questions from the last meeting. The slide showed four steps in the process of
identifying Strategies and Actions for the CFHMP and what inputs are used at each step. Advisory Team
input occurs during the first step (Develop Evaluation Criteria) and second step (Identify Potential
Strategies and Actions). The third step (Apply Evaluation Criteria) includes input from engineers. The
final step is to have preferred strategies and actions identified.
Spencer reviewed Evaluation Criteria in the state handbook and what the Advisory Team recommended
during the November meeting. He then reviewed the Evaluation Criteria that have been drafted. The
Advisory Team was asked if they have any comments on the following criteria:
A-8
• Consistency with CFHMP Goals and Objectives;
• Effectiveness;
• Environmental Benefits and Impacts (both natural and built environments);
• Cost;
• Implementation Timelines;
• Funding Sources;
• Permitting Complexity;
• On-going Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair Requirements.
ESA will develop a matrix, based on the above criteria, that uses relative rankings, such as high, medium,
low. Evaluation Criteria would not be quantitative. Spencer showed how the criteria would be
presented in the matrix, using an example from an earlier Jefferson County CFHMP.
As an example of how the criteria would be used for this CFHMP, Dan Beckley showed a slide of the
Lower One Mile project, which is a Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group (HCSEG) project. Dan
summarized the details of the proposal, and Gus Johnson described the flood and transportation
benefits of project. Dan then showed how a matrix could be presented for flood risk reduction in the
Lower One Mile project area. The Advisory Team provided input on the risk reduction rankings for the
HCSEG project, and these comments will be considered as the Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene CFHMP
rankings are developed.
Spencer showed a slide that listed other potential strategies and actions, and some comments were
received. The discussion included some of the pros and cons of potential strategies and actions as well
as some concerns about finding funding sources to implement some of the actions.
Next Steps
Next meeting will be in February or March, on the first Thursday of the month.
A-9
ADVISORY TEAM MEETING MINUTES
FLOOD PLAN FOR BIG QUILCENE AND LITTLE QUILCENE RIVERS
MARCH 2, 2023
Attendees:
Brent Butler, Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Donna Frostholm, Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Spencer Easton, ESA (Consultant)
Dan Beckley, ESA (Consultant)
Ben Cross, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Quilcene Hatchery
Gus Johnson, Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group
Randy Johnson, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe
Tami Pokorny, Jefferson County Environmental Public Health
Glenn Gately, Jefferson County Conservation District
Chris Chappell, Washington Department of Natural Resources
Matt Gerlach, Washington Department of Ecology
Minutes (Virtual Meeting, Recorded):
Introductory Comments
ESA prepared a power point presentation for the meeting and Spencer Easton reviewed the March
meeting agenda.
The Advisory Team was asked if they had any comments on the minutes drafted for the last meeting.
Hearing no comments, the January 2023 minutes were accepted as is.
Spencer reviewed the status of Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP) preparation
with the Advisory Team. Currently, the task of preparing goals and objectives has been completed, the
draft revisions of Chapters 2 (Existing Conditions) and 3 (Determination of Need) have been completed,
the identification and evaluation of strategies and actions have been drafted, and the drafting of the
CFHMP is in progress. The intent is to complete a draft CFHMP in April 2023 and have a final version by
June 30, 2023.
Strategies and Actions
Spencer reviewed Figure 3-1, which shows the flood issues that have been identified.
A-10
Dan Beckley reviewed the Evaluation Criteria being used in the flood plan as well as the three categories
of strategies and actions.
Dan discussed new and updated/ongoing strategies and actions for:
Flood hazard information (5 new; 2 updated/ongoing);
Non-structural alternatives (6 new; 6 updated/ongoing);
Structural alternatives (2 new; 2 updated/ongoing)
Dan addressed strategies and actions that were identified but not proposed. Reasons why a strategy or
action was not recommended included:
Not aligned with the goals and objectives;
Significant environmental impacts with no benefits to the natural environment;
High cost with limited or no funding options;
Complex permitting;
Requires maintenance.
The following five strategies and actions that were identified as high priority actions:
Develop a community-based flood response plan for Hiddendale Drive
Proactive landowner outreach and communication about flood risks and actions
Improve monitoring and documentation of flood events and impacts
Complete Moon Valley Restoration project
Complete Lower One Mile project
These were discussed by the Advisory Team to determine if these are the right priorities, if there are
other actions that should be considered a priority, and if there are challenges to implementing these in
the near term.
Brent Butler asked incorporating the CRS into the plan. Matt confirmed some language could be added
to look at a cost/benefit ratio. Matt noted that being in the CRS is a staff capacity issue.
Randy Johnson asked about land management up higher in the watershed. Suggested decision-makers
in the watershed have good communication, such as every two years.
Tami suggested treatment of invasive species that affects hydrologic conditions. Matt asked about
specifics as having information about locations might be helpful.
As part discussion of strategies and actions, Dan provided an overview of 10 Updates and Ongoing
Programs.
Matt asked for an update on the land use pieces, primarily as it pertains to sea level rise. There may be
opportunities to incorporate some findings into our SMP. Donna noted that the sea level rise study
would be used to assess hydrologic conditions and Brent confirmed that there will likely be revisions to
our code once all the results are in.
Matt noted Thurston County has a successful program for capturing high water marks that led to better
standards on some development in floodplains. This may be a good overarching concept that could be
A-11
used by Jefferson County. Brent, who worked in Thurston County, noted that they had a number of
highly qualified staff to work on floodplain issues, and was able to coordinate with King County.
Ben Cross asked about culverts, some of which may be undersized and may not have the capacity for
future flood risks as climate changes. ESA can look into this. Matt suggested communication moving
forward, as it pertains to restoration efforts in these two river basins. Randy Johnson and Gus Johnson
discussed future restoration efforts that could be good for flood resilience, especially along the Little
Quilcene River.
Brent suggested changing the word ‘strict’ in the third from bottom bullet, as it could be a trigger from a
regulatory perspective. He noted Public Works has been good at addressing flood resiliency.
Glenn Gately noted problems with beaver dams, notably at Leland Lake and Leland Creek.
Matt suggested getting parcels in the Special Flood Hazard Area be flagged to better manage flood
development and working towards better coordinate with WSDOT as it pertains to culverts. Brent
concurred that tagging parcels would be appropriate.
Additional Resources
Dan reviewed two additional sources of information that could be included in the plan. This could
include fact sheets, flyers, or web resources.
Brent brought up the impacts of fires on flooding. Dan noted that this was briefly discussed in the
Existing Conditions. Matt noted that state agencies are beginning to discuss this as an emerging issue.
Spencer indicated there may be a way to connect this to an action.
Donna asked if information could be made available about cost savings for building more than one foot
above base flood elevation. Spencer noted this may be difficult to summarize as it is no longer straight
forward (due to FEMA Risk Rating 2.0).
Matt noted that there is a Chehalis Basin homeowner manual, which describes strategies to reduce
flood damage reduction.
Tami suggested graphics for on-site septic systems and wells, and how that ties to shellfish and water
quality.
Glenn discussed rotation cutting higher in the watershed, and noted the importance of prevention.
Spencer noted the Forest Service participated early. Glenn asked if they have a written plan about
retaining forested land.
Tami suggested Bonneville Power Administration has a wildfire prevention document that may be
relevant to this plan.
Draft CFHMP and Comment Period
Spencer reviewed the outline of the CFHMP chapters. The draft will likely be released on or about April
4 with comment period ending about a month later.
Brent asked about any upcoming public meetings so that we can get an article in the local paper to
increase public participation.
A-12
Next Steps
Next meeting will be in mid- to late April and the draft CFHMP will be reviewed at that time.
A-13
ADVISORY TEAM MEETING MINUTES
FLOOD PLAN FOR BIG QUILCENE AND LITTLE QUILCENE RIVERS
APRIL 20, 2023
Attendees:
Donna Frostholm, Jefferson County Department of Community Development
Spencer Easton, ESA (Consultant)
Dan Beckley, ESA (Consultant)
Siobhan Moreno, ESA (Consultant)
Don Svetich, Quilcene Fire Rescue
Denise Hawkins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Marla Powers, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
Minutes (Virtual Meeting, Recorded):
Introductory Comments
ESA prepared a power point presentation for the meeting and Spencer Easton reviewed the agenda.
The purpose of this meeting was to review the draft Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan
(CFHMP) that was sent out the previous week. The contents of the draft report have been presented
and discussed with the Advisory Team during the previous four meetings so this final meeting gives the
Advisory Team a chance to provide feedback and ask questions.
The Advisory Team was asked if they had any comments on the minutes drafted for the last meeting.
Hearing no comments, the March 2, 2023 minutes were accepted as is.
Project Updates
Spencer noted that the draft CFHMP and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documents were sent
out for review and that the county is taking comments through May 3, 2023.
Also noted as part of the Advisory Team update was the virtual public meeting held on April 18, 2023,
which 14 members of the public attended. Don Svetich asked about getting public input on the plan,
and Spencer said that the plan is open to comments from everyone and that Don should feel free to
forward it on to others in the community.
The CFHMP needs to be approved by Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the Jefferson
County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC). As part of this approval, the Advisory Team needs to
recommend that the BoCC adopt the plan. Based on this, a proposed process for getting an Advisory
Team recommendation was discussed. The three Advisory Team members in attendance did not object
to the proposal. However, if objections to the plan are received within seven days of the final draft
A-14
being sent out, then we will schedule another Advisory Team meeting to address the objections. Denise
Hawkins suggested a ‘thumbs up’ or ‘thumbs down’ on the plan. It was agreed we would ask for a reply,
but if no response is received, the county will assume the plan is acceptable for adoption.
The intent is still to have a final plan by June 30, 2023.
Flood Plan Contents
Dan Beckley noted that we have reviewed the contents of the plan during previous Advisory Team
meetings so he is intending to go over where to find information in the plan. Dan highlighted the
information included in each chapter. He reviewed the contents of the existing conditions,
determination of need, evaluation of alternatives, and implementation and funding chapters.
Dan reviewed the figure in the CFHMP that identifies the key flood risk locations in the county and how
the locations noted in the figure corresponds to actions in the plan.
Dan reviewed 10 recommended existing and ongoing actions and 15 recommended new actions in the
plan. Of these, five are considered to be high priority actions.
After this part of the presentation, the Advisory Team was asked if they had any questions or comments.
Denise noted that the USGS/hatchery has two gages: one is along Penny Creek and the other is on the
Big Quilcene River. The location of these gages can be gotten from the USGS. Denise noted that the
weir at the hatchery is no longer electric so she wanted to know what was the best way to get
comments to ESA and the county. Denise will add comments to the document. She asked about actions
that included adding logjams and revetments. Spencer said this came from the vulnerability assessment
and an ESA engineer. Denise does not disagree with recommendation but was curious about where the
recommendation came from.
Marla Powers had questions about drainage ditches and asked about the recommended action of
surveying drainage ditches. Spencer explained that during the site visit last fall, a heavy flow of water
was observed in a roadside ditch even though there had not been any precipitation. The idea behind
the action would be assess ditches and see if there are impacts that could trigger adaptive management.
He noted that the recommended action could be revised and clarified.
Dan showed a slide pertaining to steps that could be taken in the future to implement some of the
recommended actions. This included funding sources, coordination/outreach, and periodic updates to
the county comprehensive plan and ordinances.
Next Steps
The draft flood plan and SEPA documents are out for review and comment; send comments by May 3,
2023.
Once Ecology has reviewed the final draft, the Jefferson County BoCC will hold a public hearing as part
of the adoption process.
This is the last Advisory Team meeting.
A-15
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Appendix B.
Public Outreach
This appendix includes the following document:
• Public Meeting Minutes – November 15, 2022
• Public Meeting Minutes – April 18, 2023
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
FLOOD PLAN FOR BIG QUILCENE AND LITTLE QUILCENE RIVERS
NOVEMBER 15, 2022
Attendees:
DCD Staff: Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner/Wetland Specialist
ESA Staff: Spencer Easton, Environmental Planner; Dan Beckley, Environmental Planner
Public: One county resident was present for the virtual meeting and Tami Pokorny (Jefferson County
Environmental Health) joined the meeting.
Minutes (Virtual Meeting, Recorded):
Introduction
The meeting was led by Spencer Easton with assistance by Dan Beckley. Spencer opened the meeting by
introducing himself, Dan, and Donna Frostholm. Donna briefly noted that the county is interested in
taking a comprehensive look at the shorelines in the county and that this grant would be used to
identify strategies that could help protect people, property, and infrastructure in the Big and Little
Quilcene floodplains.
Spencer then reviewed the agenda for the evening. He noted this meeting was intended to be a
discussion and he paused several times during the presentation to allow for questions.
Overview of Flood Plan and Purpose
Spencer recapped the reasons why the county applied for the flood grant. He noted that there are state
guidelines for how to prepare a flood plan, and he provided a ‘high-level’ overview that included a
schedule to complete the plan by June 30, 2023.
ESA has started drafting sections of the flood plan and are hoping to get input from the public as they
draft the plan.
A map of the study area was presented and Spencer noted that the plan would focus on areas within
county jurisdiction.
Quilcene Flood Issues
Spencer reviewed flood history for both river basins. Lower reaches are generally the most flood prone,
and a number of properties subject to flooding are zoned residential.
ESA described a site visit to several location in Quilcene on October 10, 2022 with the county, and he
showed pictures of some of the bridges assessed during the site visit (as an example of one type of
infrastructure evaluated by ESA engineers).
B-1
Spencer reviewed demographics and equity, and the rationale for why they need to be considered in
flood plans.
Climate change is expected to affect flooding, including the Big and Little Quilcene River basins.
Precipitation is more likely to come as rain rather than snow, which changes flood patterns. For
example, rain events will likely be greater than they are now and sea level rise is expected to increase
the extent of flooding over time.
Levees and dredging have occurred in the project area to control food risks. Now there is a focus on
non-structural means of flood management that could include, for example, increasing flood water
storage.
Restoration proposals in the lower reaches of the Big Quilcene River have been proposed that would
increase flood storage within this river basin.
ESA conducted a vulnerability assessment. It was noted that the lower reaches were generally more
likely to flood and that historic development has occurred in these floodplain areas (i.e., development
that went in prior to land use regulations).
Someone asked about sea level rise and Donna provided information about that grant-funded study.
The person asking the question about sea level rise was most interested in property near the Linger
Longer Bridge.
Goals and Objectives
Spencer reviewed the four goals and 17 objectives that the Advisory Team identified for the flood plan
being prepared for the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers.
Someone asked what options would be available for developing in the floodplain (e.g., elevating the
house). Tami noted that the on-site septic systems could be compromised by flooding.
Next Steps
Draft flood plan will be out in April for comments.
Next public meeting will be in April.
Next advisory team meeting is January 5, 2023 and they are open to the public.
B-2
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
FLOOD PLAN FOR BIG QUILCENE AND LITTLE QUILCENE RIVERS
APRIL 18, 2023
Attendees:
DCD Staff: Donna Frostholm, Associate Planner/Wetland Specialist; Brent Butler, Director
ESA Staff: Spencer Easton, Environmental Planner; Dan Beckley, Environmental Planner
Public: Some attended for the entire meeting while some were present for a portion of the virtual
meeting. The list of attendees below is based on the names that showed up on Zoom (i.e., the full name
may not be known). Those attending included:
• Mark Baclawski
• Denise Dillman
• Craig Uchida
• Naomi Gebo
• Wan De
• Dan
• Erik
• Hank
• Dana Ward
• Worthington Woodlands
• Sarah Henneford
• Bruce Wendler
• Margot Hamilton
• Julie
Minutes (Virtual Meeting, Recorded):
Introduction
The meeting was led by Spencer Easton and Dan Beckley, consultants for this project. The consultants,
ESA, prepared a Power Point presentation for the meeting. ESA staff (consultants) and Donna Frostholm
(county project manager) introduced themselves.
Spencer reviewed the agenda for the evening. He let those attending know that a draft flood plan has
been released and is out for comments. He noted this meeting was intended to be a discussion and ESA
paused several times during the presentation to allow for questions.
Project Background
A Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP) was prepared for the Big Quilcene River in
1998 that needs to be updated. There has been no CFHMP prepared for the Little Quilcene River. Flood
frequency and intensity is increasing, which would be expected to affect flooding for both rivers.
Washington State Department of Ecology offers grants under the Flood Control Assistance Account
Program, which has been used by the county to fund preparation of this CFHMP. The county CFHMP is
being prepared based on state guidance.
Spencer reviewed the process and schedule for completing the CFHMP, which is set to be completed by
June 30, 2023. He noted that the draft CFHMP is out for comment and that this public meeting has been
scheduled to coincide with the comment period.
Spencer showed a figure of the two river basins being considered in the CFHMP.
CFHMP
Spencer reviewed the four goals and the 17 objectives developed for the plan.
Dan Beckley reviewed the history of flooding identified during preparation of the plan. He discussed the
built environment and infrastructure that is most susceptible to flooding and some of the impacts
flooding has had on existing infrastructure. Most flooding occurs in the lower portions of the floodplain.
The demographics indicate those residing in the lower areas of these river basins are most likely to be
affected by flooding. There is a higher level (than state average) of vulnerable people residing within
the floodplains, resulting in some Quilcene residents having a heightened level of vulnerability to
flooding hazards.
Potential future conditions were reviewed. This included climate change effects, increasing frequency
and intensity of precipitation, and sea level rise.
Past flood management activities were addressed, some of which has had negative environmental
effects.
ESA conducted a vulnerability assessment. This identified people and infrastructure that will be more at
risk as flood events get more severe. More monitoring data is needed to assess risk.
Dan reviewed a graphic that had been prepared to show areas along the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers
that are currently most susceptible to flooding. This set the stage for discussing the management
strategies and actions that have been developed.
An attendee asked about the ongoing flooding and then rebuilding in the floodplain, and wanted to
know if this is within the purview of the plan. Spencer noted that the CFHMP does include acquisition of
properties that flood (from willing property owners) and that the county has development regulations
that would need to be met to build in the floodplain.
Another attendee noted the floodplains are in ancestral lands and asked about tribal involvement.
Spencer said that there is an advisory team that has contributed to the plan and that the tribes have
been providing input as advisory team members.
Dan noted that flood control structures are present above the hatchery. The actions include replacing
structures to better address sediment transport.
One attendee asked about shoring up the river bank. The county indicated that this would be difficult to
approve because it disconnects the river from the adjacent habitats. That is why the CFHMP focuses on
non-structural ways to address flooding.
Dan reviewed the process of working with the advisory team to draft the CFHMP.
Dan discussed the evaluation criteria used to develop the strategies and actions in the plan. Based on
the evaluation, five actions were identified as high priority. Dan then reviewed the new actions that are
included in the plan and the ongoing actions in the plan that should be continued.
Attendees asked the following questions:
• Are any of the projects ‘shovel ready’? Spencer noted that the two Hood Canal Salmon
Enhancement Group (HCSEG) projects have some level of funding and are progressing. This
CFHMP is intended to provide guidance to the county, the local agency that will be reviewing
the evaluation criteria to determine which actions items can be implemented in the future, as
funding allows.
• Is there any coordination with restoration organizations? It was confirmed that ESA and the
county have been interacting with HCSEG, who has contributed to the plan.
• Are there any wild salmon left? Fish presence is documented in the flood plan, and there are
some wild run stocks in both rivers.
• Is runoff into the bay being addressed? Actions proposed are not specifically addressing runoff
but they are part of the plan, such as assessing flooding risks to septic systems. Stormwater
management is regulated and addressed through the permitting process.
• Has rebuilding the Rodgers Road bridge been considered? The flood plan does not include a
bridge at this location because building this type of infrastructure across a floodplain is difficult.
It was noted that the potential for rebuilding a bridge was considered as an alternative under
one of the HCSEG restoration plans.
Next Steps
Draft flood plan is out for review and comment. Comments are due by May 3.
There will be a hearing before the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, who will be
adopting the plan.
Big and Little Quilcene Rivers
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan June 2023
Appendix C.
Factsheets
This appendix includes the following factsheets:
• The Big and Little Quilcene Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan: Summary
• Flood Safety Guide: Know Your Flood Risk
• How Nature Reduces Flood Risk: Ecosystem Services in Resilient
Watersheds
• Natural Systems in the Watershed
• Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plans
Goals of the Big and Little
Quilcene Flood Plan
1. Implement projects that reduce the
future risk of flood damages and
hazards.
2. Reduce public expenditures to
repair damaged areas.
3. Minimize, to the extent possible,
the environmental impacts of flood
hazard management.
4. Focus on non-structural alternatives
and ecological restoration to
address flood safety.
High Priority Recommended Actions
•Develop a community-based emergency flood response plan for the Hiddendale Drivecommunity.
•Proactive landowner outreach and communication about flood risks and riskreduction strategies.
•Improve monitoring and documentation of flood events and impacts.
•Complete ecological restoration and flood risk reduction capital projects near on thelower Big Quilcene.
•Acquire properties and remove houses in the floodplain.
The Big and Little Quilcene Comprehensive
Flood Hazard Management Plan: Summary
What is it?
Jefferson County staff and consultants from Environmental Science Associates
developed this Flood Plan to identify flood risks and put forward flood risk reduction
strategies for the lower Big and Little Quilcene River basins.
Learn more about the Flood Plan and future actions by contacting the
Jefferson County Department of Community Development.
https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/260/Community-Development | dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
C-1
Flood Safety Guide
Know Your Flood Risk
https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/260/Community-Development | dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
From 2012 to 2022 there were six Presidentially-declared
Disasters related to flooding in Jefferson County.
Do you live in a floodplain?
Search your address at
www.msc.fema.gov to find
out what flood zone you live
in. You may also request
flood map information from
the Jefferson County
Department of Community
Development.
Create a home flood plan
Monitor how your property is affected during different river flows at
your local gage, such as if access is blocked or the garage is flooded
Choose response stages, such as flood extents for sheltering in-place,
evacuating, or interim steps like moving vehicles to higher ground.
Choose responsibilities and create checklists for each response stage
If evacuating, secure valuables and shut off gas and electric utilities
Get flood insurance
Any property insurance agent is qualified to sell flood insurance
through the National Flood Insurance Program. You can also learn how
to enroll in flood insurance at www.floodsmart.gov.
Watch for flood warnings
Sign up for alerts at www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1066/Alerts-Warnings
Find your local river gage and check for alerts at
water.weather.gov/ahps/
C-2
How Nature Reduces Flood Risk
Ecosystem Services in Resilient Watersheds
https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/260/Community-Development | dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
Flooding is a natural process. Ecosystems have adapted
to accommodate flooding long before human settlement.
How do floodplains work?
Floodplains are flat areas along
water bodies. Floodplains provide
additional storage for water and
recharge groundwater, while
reducing the velocity of water
when rivers overtop their banks.
This helps to lessen impacts to
downstream areas.
Impacts of altering floodplains
Altering floodplains can reduce their ability to mitigate the impacts of
flooding. Development in the floodplain, such as homes or other structures,
reduces the area where floodwater can be stored, resulting in higher flood
flow rates and volumes. Armored shorelines, such as levees, also produce
faster flows, reduce floodwater storage, and limit healthy, vegetated areas
that are resilient against erosion.
Naturally resilient watersheds
•Coastal wetlands mitigate wave
impacts and store floodwater
•Forests slow runoff, reduce erosion,
and aid groundwater infiltration
•Sediment movement through rivers
creates winding channels that slow
flows and create side channels with
floodwater storage
C-3
Natural Systems in the Watershed
The many sensitive natural areas near our streams and
rivers benefit the public and sustain healthy habitats.
Wetlands
Wetlands refer to a wide range of environments that have surface
water or wet soils seasonally or permanently. Wetlands include
salt marshes, vernal pools, bogs, and swamps, among other types.
Like other critical watershed environments, wetlands can store
excess water from floods and slow flows. Coastal wetlands also
absorb wave impacts, which reduce coastal flooding and damage.
Floodplains
Floodplains are flat areas along water bodies. Floodplains provide
additional storage for water and recharge groundwater, while
reducing the speed of river flows. This can reduce impacts to
downstream areas from heavy rain, snowmelt, or other flood
causes. Protecting floodplains from development helps to ensure
that these natural systems work properly, while keeping people
out of harm’s way.
Riparian areas
Riparian areas occur along the shores of water bodies, which
have wet soils and vegetation, including aquatic plants, trees, or
grasses. These environments provide important habitat, filter
pollutants from water, and protect against erosion from fast or
high river flows. Natural riparian areas may have logs and sand
bars that slow the flow of water and provide fish habitat.
Riparian vegetation also provides shade that keeps the water
cool, which supports healthy aquatic life.
Forests – From trees to debris
Forests support healthy water bodies throughout the life cycle of
trees. The strong roots of trees hold soil together, preventing
erosion and helping to recharge groundwater. This reduces the
impact of flooding by slowing water that is flowing to streams and
rivers. Fallen trees are called “large woody debris,” which can block
water and create winding river movements around the debris. This
slows the flow of rivers and can create pools and side channels that
provide habitat and more storage space for water.
Large woody debris on a stream
Photo credit: US Fish and Wildlife Service
Forested riparian areas
Photo credit: National Parks Service
River floodplain in mountain valley
Photo credit: National Parks Service
Swamp in mountain foothills
Photo credit: Bureau of Land Management
C-4
https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/260/Community-Development | dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD HAZARD
MANAGEMENT PLANS
Jefferson County applied for and was awarded a grant from the Washington State Department
of Ecology to fund the development of a Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan
(CFHMP) for the Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene Rivers. Jefferson County worked with
stakeholders, including government agencies, tribal representatives, nonprofit organizations,
and residents to guide the CFHMP.
Why prepare a CFHMP?
1. The Little Quilcene River has never had a
CFHMP prepared, and the Big Quilcene
River CFHMP has not been updated since
1998.
2. To incorporate nature-based solutions
and the best available science into
County flood planning efforts
3. To address the needs of vulnerable
communities
4. To raise awareness of flood hazards
5. To identify flood risk reduction actions
and funding mechanisms
Flooding at Penny Creek near Quilcene National Fish Hatchery above Big Quilcene River (2009)
Photo credit: Ron Wong, USFWS
While Jefferson County maintains flood
development regulations to protect people,
property, and infrastructure, the CFHMP
expands upon existing efforts to guide land use
planning, environmental health, emergency
management, and conservation.Flooding near Big Quilcene River
Photo credit: Pat McCullough
What work went into the CFHMP?
•Identifying goals and objectives for
the plan;
•Assessing existing conditions in both
watersheds;
•Presenting historic flooding and need
for the CFHMP;
•Identifying management strategies
and actions; and
•Collecting input from stakeholders on
risks, needs, and actions throughout
the process.
C-5