Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2976 Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management PlanORDINANCE N0.2976 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE QUIMPER WILDLIFE CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature adopted the Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990 and amendments thereto, Chapter 36.70A RCW, (the "Act"), requiring selected counties and cities to prepare comprehensive plans consistent with the provisions of the Act. Planning goals in the Act include: (1) Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. (9) Open space and recreation. Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities. (10) Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water; and, WHEREAS, after an extensive public involvement process, the City's current comprehensive plan was adopted in 1996 (Ordinance No. 2539) as the official public document intended to facilitate the orderly and coordinated growth and development of the City, and to guide the preparation of "implementing" plans; and, WHEREAS, the City's comprehensive plan is consistent with the planning goals of the Act, for example, the plan provides land use designations and densities sufficient to accommodate the population growth expected to occur during the planning horizon and, the Plan includes policies which would lead to the creation of aCity-wide interconnected system of open spaces and trails. These green spaces would help to protect the small town atmosphere of Port Townsend while providing other benefits, including storm water control and linking key wildlife areas; and. WHEREAS, a number of the stated goals and policies of the City's comprehensive plan support the Quimper Wildlife Corridor (QWC) project: Land Use Element Policies: 3.6.2 Support the establishment of a Quimper Peninsula wildlife and open space corridor. 3.2.5 Work with nonprofit groups, such as the Jefferson Land Trust, to obtain conservation easements and create incentives for open space and trails system development. 3.3: Locate trails in areas that are important to preserve as open spaces. such as wooded areas, drainage corridors, shorelines, scenic vistas, and others. Locate trails along drainage corridors when possible to do so without degrading the environmental functions and values of the area. Ordinance 2976 Policy 3.4: Designate and retain wetlands, drainage corridors and other areas that provide essential habitat for priority plant or wildlife species as passive open space. Sites which the City should consider acquiring include, but are not limited to: a. Winona Wetlands; b. Howard Street Wetlands and Drainage Corridor; a 50th Street Wetlands and Drainage Corridor; and d. Hastings/25th Street Wetlands and Drainage Corridor; and, WHEREAS, two of the habitat and passive open spaces areas specifically identified by Policy 3.4 are located within the QWC (Winnona Wetlands and 50`h Street Wetlands and Drainage Corridor); and, WHEREAS, the City has purchased numerous parcels within the QWC 100- year floodplain including parcels within Winona Wetland, the SOa' Street Wetlands and Drainage Corridor, and the connecting properties between the Levinski property (Quaking Aspen Wetland) and Winona Wetland using funds from the Washington State Revolving Fund as a loan to the City's storm water utility ;and, WHEREAS, The Land Use Map accompanying the Comprehensive Plan identifies "Potential Open Space" including most of the critical areas found within the QWC; and, WHEREAS, in 1999 the City adopted the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Functional Plan which includes a statement of purpose fox open space and trails including: "To work creatively in financing and providing for open space through grant opportunities, coordination with development proposals, and cooperation with other agencies including the Port Townsend School District, Jefferson Land Trust, and Jefferson County (emphasis added)." "To develop management plans for city owned open space that maximizes multiple functions and values." And, WHEREAS, The Quimper Wildlife Corridor is a series of high quality wetlands, 100- year floodplains, drainage corridors, and forested connections that serves multiple functions and values including providing buffers, preserving view corridors, providing links between neighborhoods, providing wildlife corridors, and generally serving multi-purpose functions such as storm water treatment and conveyance, all of which contribute to the health, safety and welfare as well as quality of life that Port Townsend residents enjoy ;and, WHEREAS, the preservation of the QWC in open space substantially addresses the City's requirements under the Growth Management Act to retain open space while accommodating urban growth; and, Ordinance 2976 WHEREAS, the 1999 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Functional Plan states, the City intends to develop site specific management plans for City owned properties in conjunction with storm water, trail planning and facility maintenance; and, WHEREAS, in 1995, Jefferson Land Trust (JLT) adopted the Quunper Wildlife Corridor Project (QWCP) as its first proactive land protection project. In adopting the project, the JLT Board of Directors sought to preserve the QWC through the acquisition of property and conservation easements, partnerships with other government agencies, and educational and outreach programs. In 1994, the JLT launched a major capital campaign for acquisition of properties within the corridor; and, WHEREAS, the JLT has drafred the Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan to provide management tools for long-term protection between multiple property owners and governmental jurisdictions; and, WHEREAS, In order to be eligible for potential RCO urban habitat acquisition grant, it is necessary to adopt a habitat management plan for the azeas subject to the grant application; and, WHEREAS, as set forth in Appendix D of the Plan and furthermore within the findings below, the citizen involvement process employed in the planning process complies with the public participation requirements set forth in the Act (RCW 36.70A.140); and, WHEREAS, on March 26, 2008, the SEPA Responsible Official made a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) concerning the Plan. The DNS was duly noticed. It was not appealed and thus represents the final environmental determination concerning the Plan; and, WHEREAS, consistent with the requirement of the GMA, Planning staff provided notice of intent to adopt the proposed QWC Management Plan to the State of Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) for review and comment prior to the adoption of this ordinance (RCW 36.70A.106). Expedited review was granted on April 10, 2008. No substantive comments were received; and, WHEREAS, on March 27, 2008, during duly-noticed public workshop, the Planning Commission received an overview presentation of the draft QWC Plan; and, WHEREAS, on April 10, 2008, and after timely public notice, the Port Townsend Planning Commission held a public hearing to accept public testimony concerning the specific recommendations contained in the plan. The Planning Commission reviewed the Plan, considered public testimony and comments, engaged in deliberation, and formulated its recommendation to the City Council for approval of the Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission transmitted their Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation, including a list of final recommended amendments, to the City Council, together with a recommendation for adoption; and, Ordi~aance 2976 WHEREAS, on April 28, 2008, during adult'-noticed public workshop, the City Council received an overview presentation of the draft QWC Plan; and, WHEREAS, on May 19, 2008, and after timely public notice, City Council conducted an open record public hearing to review the QWC Plan and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and to take additional public testimony; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the QWC Plan is consistent with the Growth Management Act, the City's comprehensive plan, and other applicable law. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. ADOPTION. The 2008 Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan (Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference), as recommended by the Planning Commission and revised consistent with City Council direction, is approved in its entirety as a "functional" and "implementing" land use and development planning document for the City of Port Townsend, supplementing and implementing the 1996 Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance 2539. Recommendations in the plan shall only apply to the following lands within the QWC that also lie within the City limits: 1) Lands owned by Jefferson Land Trust 2) Lands subject to a Jefferson Land Trust conservation easement, and 3) City owned parcels within the QWC excepting there from, the Wastewater Treatment facility (i.e., the north-half of Block 11, all of Blocks 20 and 21 of the California Addition to the City of Port Townsend) and the northerly and westerly portions of the Levinski property (i.e., Tax Parcels 52-57 inclusive and Tax Parcel 59). In the event of conflict between the provisions of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), codified in Chapter 19.05 PTMC, or any other duly enacted City Ordinance, and the Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan, said City Ordinance shall prevail. SECTION 2. FILING: The 2008 Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan as approved shall be filed with the City Clerk and shall be available for public inspection upon the effective date of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. TRANSMITAL TO DCTED. The City Clerk shall transmit a copy of this Ordinance and the 2008 Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan as approved by the City Council on this date, to the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (DCTED) within 10 days of final adoption of this Ordinance, and to other offices and agencies as maybe required by law. Ordinance 2976 SECTION 4. PREPARATION OF FINAL REVISED QUIMPER WILDLIFE CORRIDOR PLAN AND COPIES. Copies of the Fina12008 Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan, incorporating all amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council, shall be prepared by the Planning Department staff and shall be made available for public inspection within 30 days of final adoption of this Ordinance. SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY. Should any section, subsection, pazagraph, sentence, clause or phrase set forth in this ordinance or in Exhibit 1 or its application to any person or situation be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or Exhibit 1 or its application to any other person or situation. The City Council of the City of Port Townsend hereby declazes that it would have adopted this ordinance and Exhibit 1 and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses; phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 6. PURPOSE AND LIABILITY. It is expressly the purpose of this ordinance to provide for and promote the health safety and welfare of the general public and not to create or otherwise establish or designate any particular class or group of persons who will or should be especially protected or benefited by the terms of this ordinance. It is the specific intent of this ordinance that no provisions nor any term used in this ordinance is intended to impose any duty whatsoever upon the City or any of its officers or employees. Nothing contained in this ordinance is intended nor shall be construed to create or form the basis of any liability on the part of the City, or its officers, employees or agents, for any injury or damage resulting from any action or inaction on the part of the City, its officers, employees or agents. SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days following publication of this Ordinance or the summary thereof. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Port Townsend, Washington, at a special business meeting thereof. held this 19`" day of May 2008. Attest: Pamela Kolacy, MMC City Cierk Michelle Sandoval; Mayor Approved as to Form: J ~`~ F John Watts City Attorney Ordinance 2976 (This draft incorporates changes recommended by the Planning Commission at their April 10, 2008 hearing with the exception of updated map references. GIS staff is currently working on revised maps and references; also incorporated are clarifications requested by Council;key revisions are highlighted) Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan Draft May 12, 2008 Prepared for Jefferson Land Trust Prepared By: Sam Gibboney Engineering and Management Services & Associates Christy Carr Dr. Fred Sharpe Jude Rubin Timothy Witten This document funded with the generous support of- Hugh and Jane Ferguson Foundation EXHIBIT The Mountaineers Foundation 3 Horizons Foundation Ouimper Wildhfe Corridor Management Plan Draft 05112108 i '��K^D �� "="�� �^ Contents T i31 Of ' ~. ^ ,^°^°^�r,"" _______-_______._____._______________----------- ll/ K�*um^ «-�xmn'xExx ....~. lNll<(DUC]i(}N Purpose Relaiionshi'�to Other Ciz�.Plans and 'Ordinances - _~ ^ting~ - ` Project History CHAPTER Two: HABITAT ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 7 General Introduction Vegetation Inventory Wildlife Habitat Value Natural Disturbances �n� /�on�B �� ,6� ��/�/` and Human —'z----' ~~ ��'' ~ TpinMonitoring CHAPTER THREE: LAND USE AND REGULATORY l[W—..----.----.-' 71 Washington State Regulations Local Jurisdictions The P/^«�' Relationship . .~.. /a� ..~�.�//on�n�� CHAPTER Fo0R: {~/\ND PB[)T[CTl()N STB,ATEGl' --.-----......-..-------.. 30 (�m/7�ln/ Ownership' . Acquisition V/'»/epn Update Alternative Protection Strategies CHAPTER FIVE: INVASIVE PLANT SURVEY AND S __ .................. 36 Methods Results and Recommendations Invasive ///aw/ /`^w/r0/and Stewardship ' CHAPTER.~.Six: NUN-MOTO0%[DlUAD.3, SIGNAGE, AND INTERPRETIVE DISPLAYS..-...'.''..''.........'.'....''..''....'____._.._._..__.__.__......_...._..._......_.._._......_._._.___ 45 Trails and /}0C—Areas of Overlapping Use Areas for Si/m' and Interpretation CHAPTER : UTILITY ENCROACHMENT INTO THE Ql*'/-............................ 55 Potential Future Utilh�y Impacts CHAPTER EIGHT: RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES AND METHODS..................... 58 CHAPTER NINE: ACTION PLAN --..---.-.---.-------.---.-..-.---_-.--.- 65 Uumpc,Wildlife Corridor Management Plan n Draft 05112108 - FIGURES .........................................:................................................................... 72 1. Ownership Analysis 2. Habitat Types 3. Habitat Segments and Connectors 4. Utility Intrusions 5. Overlapping Uses APPENDIXA:REFERENCES.......................................................................................................73 APPENDIX B: CHAPTER THREE LAND USE AND REGULATORY OVERVIEW ..............................77 APPENDIX C: CHAPTER FIVE INVASIVE SPECIES NOTES ..........................................................91 APPENDIX D: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT,COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION.......................92 APPENDIX E: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.........................................................96 Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan Draft 05112108 III List of Acronyms BAS Best Available Science DNR Department of Natural Resources DOE Department of Ecology ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area FPA Forest Practice Act GIS Geographic Information System GMA Growth Management Act HPA Hydraulic Permit Application JCCP Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan JLT Jefferson Land Trust NMTAB Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board NMTP Non-Motorized Transportation Plan PHS Protected Habitats and Species P/OS Public Open Space [zoning classification] PTCP Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan PTMC Port Townsend Municipal Code SEPA State Environmental Policy Act SOC Species of Concern UGA Unified Growth Area WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WSPRC Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan iv Draft 05112108 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Project Mission Statement To preserve an undeveloped wildlife corridor of native vegetation connecting important wildlife habitat areas between Fort Worden and the Middlepoint Land Conservancy. The Quimper Wildlife Corridor(QWC) is an ambitious project spearheaded by Jefferson Land Trust (JLT). The Quimper Wildlife Corridor is a series of high quality wetlands, floodplains, and forested connections located on the North Quimper Peninsula in East Jefferson County, Washington. This 3.5-mile drainage course stretches from the Middlepoint Land Conservancy near Protection Island on the west side of the Quimper Peninsula to Chinese Gardens Wetland near Fort Worden State Park. The wildlife.corridor links six major wildlife habitat areas, including four significant and high-priority wetlands. The wildlife corridor also contains areas of significant habitat value within the connections between the major habitat areas. Purpose The purpose of this plan is to re-examine and refine the vision of the Quimper Wildlife Corridor Project (QWCP) and to provide recommendations for long-term management strategies for Jefferson Land Trust and its partners. The QWCP was first conceptualized in 1992 and much has been accomplished since then. Consequently, the focus of this document is not to complete a feasibility study but to provide management tools for long-term protection between multiple property owners and governmental jurisdictions. Primary goals include: • Establish a greenbelt of native vegetation Protect an Improve wildlife habitat for multiple species with a corridor that connects key habitat areas/nodes • Preserve,the long.-term viability of the QWC • Increase community stewardship Secondary goals include: • Protection of the largest natural drainage basin within the City • Providing opportunities for passive,recreational uses Quimper Wildlife Corridor Managemeni Plan Draft 05IJ2108 Primary Objectives The primary objectives of this plan are as follows. Complete an inventory and habitat assessment of the corridor. Initial feasibility studies of the QWC identified six major habitat areas. Since that initial assessment, the research for this Plan has identified other significant habitat areas. This plan will provide an inventory and assessment of the major habitat areas as well as the connecting lands between. Evaluate land use policy. This plan will examine current state and local land use policies and regulations and assess their compatibility with the QWC. Identify and/or update land acquisition strategy. JLT developed a tiered acquisition strategy in 1999 at the onset of its capital campaign. This plan will examine current ownership and provide recommendations on the final phases of land acquisition for the project. Identify protection strategies other than acquisition. Some areas are highly developed and are unlikely to either be acquired or to have conservation easements. This plan will identify alternative strategies for adding and protecting wildlife habitat. Manage invasive species. This plan will identify areas of invasive species and make recommendations on containment strategies. Evaluate trails and human usage and potential areas of conflict. This plan will examine the City of Port Townsend's adopted Non-Motorized Transportation Plan and identify any potential areas of conflict. It will also examine points of entry and identify areas for signage and interpretation. Evaluate utility and infrastructure encroachment. This plan will identify existing utility and infrastructure encroachments into the QWC and will also identify potential future conflicts as proposed by utility comprehensive plans. Identify areas for restoration. This plan will examine the corridor and identify areas for potential restoration efforts. Identify Mitigation Opportunities. This plan will consider identification of opportunities for off-site mitigation through implementation of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. Qnimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 2 Draft 05112108 Applicability Within the City Limits this plan includes guidance,'or''q corridor that traverses through unincorporated portions o Jefersow County:aria wrtliin the riun cipal bciindaries of the City of Port Townsend:: The Ctty,through revs,, and'adoptiori of this plan,, an implement only policies and standards for lands located within its jurisdiction. Land located within unmeorporated Jefferson County is not subject to the standards`and policies in this plan runless action is taken by Jefferson County. Tide City has further chosen to limit applicability of the plan to encompass only the following lands_ • Land located within the corridor protected by a conservation easement held by the Jefferson Land Trust. • Land located within the corridor owned by the Jefferson Land Trust. • Land located within the corridor owned by the City of Port Townsend, excepting the City's Wastewater Treatment facility(i.e.,the north-half of Block 11, all of Blocks 20 and 21 of the California Addition to the City of Port Townsend) and the northerly and westerly portions of the Levinski property(i.e.,Tax Parcels 52-5-7 inclusive and Tax Parcel 59) In regards future land purchases by the city,this plan shall apply in cases where stormwater funds are used to purchase parcels for the purpose of protecting the 14©-year floodplain This plan shall be considered advisory only for all other properties located within the City's jurisdiction. Although not mandatory,owners of private property located within the corridor in the City are encouraged to implement the policies and standards of the plan on a voluntary basis. Relationship to Other City Plans and Ordinances In 1996,the City of Port Townsend adopted a_comprehensive plan consistent with the planning goals of the Growth Management Act (GMA). As an urban growth area,the city is charged with the responsibility to plan for urban density sufficient to absorb its allocated share of Jefferson County's population growth over the planning horizon. Consistent with the GMA planning goals,the city's comprehensive plan contains policies and goals to retain open I space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat,increase access to natural resource lands and water,and develop parks and recreation facilities. A number of the stated goals and policies of the City's comprehensive plan support the Quimper Wildlife Corridor(QWC)project as further outlined in Chapter Three. The City of Port Townsend adopts the,QWC Plan as a`'functional" and"implementing"land use and development planning document for the City of Port Townsend, supplementing and implementing the 1996 Comprehensive Plan,adopted by Ordinance 2539. Adoption of the Quintper Ifildlife Con-iclor Manogenient Plan 3 Draft 05112108 WC Fan'signmficantly nee#s the city's obligatson to meet'open space`requrciienfs.;u?i#hi ai urban growth area: In the event of eanflct between the provision$of the.Ci itical Areas flrdnance'(CAE)); eq, ified;to Chaptef 19:05 PTMC,'and the Qu per Wildlife Corridor Nlanagerrient Plan, the CA{3 shall ...... revail: The City of Port Townsend's-Role,in Implementing the Plan Through adoption of this plan,the City,fully implements the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Element Policy 3.6.2. The direction ofthis policy is to"Suppori the establishm nt ofa Quimper Peninsula wildlife;and-open space corrtd, _' Adoption-.0f thisplan allows for spec€f c management policies and standards to be applied to lands located within the corridor that are owned by the City or subject to a:,Jefferson Land Trust conservation easement. The City;through-its regulatory authority, will ensure compliance.with the requirements contained within the plan for applicable properties. A significant aspect of the plan is the direction to establish though either voluntary agreement or purchase,permanent conservation easements on lands'located within the corridor.The City intends to seek funding to acquire key parcels within the corridor to;ensure their permafie it-protection. The City plans1b pufsue acquisition of these parcels in partnership with the Jefferson Land Trust. This partnership will have designated roles. the City will apply for grant funding and the Land Trust will:seek donations, contributions and/or funding from other sources to meet any required jurisdictional "match"for grants obtained: Several rezones of city-owned lands are recommended in the QWC Management PIan. Recommended rezones will require a Corrmpxehensive Plan amendment. The city will.require additional analysis and opportunity for public comment prior to acting on the recommended rezones. Project History The Quimper Wildlife Corridor was first conceptualized in 1992. At that time the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County were experiencing one of the highest human population growth rates in the state. Concurrently, both the City and the County were working to implement the State of Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA). The purpose of the GMA is to address the problems of rapid growth and encourage planning efforts and appropriate land use. One of the goals of the GMA legislation is to protect "Critical Areas," which include wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat areas, aquifer recharge areas, and frequently flooded areas. The City formed the Wetlands and Stormwater Advisory Committee, which began work on an inventory of wetlands and drainage corridors within the city limits. This committee is largely credited with developing the "natural drainage system approach"that is identified as Quin7per Nfildlife Corridor Management Plan 4 Draft 05112108 a goal in the City's comprehensive plan. This committee was the first to identify the string of wetlands across the north Quimper Peninsula. In the spring of 1992, Kathleen Mitchell, a local resident,biologist, and student, completed a report: Investigating the Feasibility of an Urban Wildlife Corridor in Port Townsend, Washington (Mitchell, 1992). This paper was the seminal work that launched the QWCP. In her report, Mitchell notes the threat to wildlife habitat by urban development and fragmentation. The paper also introduced the concept of the"wildlife corridor" as a way to counter fragmentation. Corridors are regarded as narrow strips of habitat that have wildlife value (Adam and Dove, 1989). A corridor can connect "nodes" of high conservation value such as existing parks, wetlands, natural areas, and forestlands. The paper then recommended that eight habitat areas be identified as nodes within a corridor. Seven of these habitat areas. or nodes,have been incorporated into the QWC (see Figure 1): • Fort Worden State Park • Chinese Gardens • Quaking Aspen (Levinski)Wetland • Winona Wetland • Tibbals Lake Reserve • Department of Natural Resources (DNR) State School Land Parcel • Middlepoint Land Conservancy In 1995.the City of Port Townsend completed an area study of the city's largest drainage basin (Polaris Engineering and Surveying, 1995)that contains a good portion of the QWC. This plan delineated and mapped the I00-year floodplain for the basin and includes Winona Wetland, Quaking Aspen Wetland, and Chinese Gardens. This delineated floodplain, along with the adopted "natural drainage system approach" to stormwater management, spurred to City to obtain funding to acquire properties within the floodplain. Much of Winona Wetland and the connecting properties between the Levinski property (Quaking Aspen Wetland) and Winona Wetland were purchased using funds from the Washington State Revolving Fund as a loan to the City's stormwater utility (see Figure 1). Also in 1995, JLT adopted the QWCP as its first proactive land protection project. This was a major policy shift for JLT. Traditionally, the land trust did not solicit conservation easements or protection plans nor did they try to form geographically or biologically cohesive ownership and protection patterns. In adopting the project, the JLT Board of Directors sought to preserve the QWC through the acquisition of property and conservation easements, partnerships with other government agencies, and educational and outreach programs. In 1999, the JLT launched a major capital campaign for acquisition of properties within the corridor. Over the years, more than $500,000 was raised, which includes more than $80,000 of county Conservation Futures Funding. Tbe,majority of this money has gone to purchase properties within the corridor (see Figure 1), with a portion contributed to JLT's stewardship fund for long-term protection. Quin7per Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 5 Draft 05112108 Even with the amount of money raised, JLT knew that not enough money was available to purchase all the land or conservation casements desired. Therefore, the following priority tiering system was developed to strategically identify properties for acquisition or easements: Tier l: top priority properties, with the highest habitat values and connectivity Tier 2: properties with good habitat values, to be pursued if additional money remaining after Tier 1 acquisitions or if there were landowners willing to donate land or easements Tier 3: properties adjacent to the corridor, with a focus on landowner outreach and education While the first phase of the QWCP, that of property acquisition, continues, it was never the goal to simply acquire all of the property within and affecting the wildlife corridor. That is simply unattainable. JLT also faces the challenge of managing its properties and working with surrounding property owners and government agencies to preserve the long-term viability of the QWC. Ouimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 6 Draft 05112108 CHAPTER Two HABITAT ASSESSMENT "Green space and wildlife corridors help reduce isolation and fragmentation...and enhance the movement of animals which promotes genetic exchange and population stability." D. R. Ludwig. 1995 Natural Areas Journal The Quimper Wildlife Corridor Project (QWCP)began in 1992 with the goal to protect a permanent "ribbon of green", connecting six distinct wetlands and stretching 3.5 miles across the Quimper Peninsula, from McCurdy Point, in close proximity to Protection Island, to Fort Worden Sate Park, following the natural drainage path to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Protection Island and the shoreline of the Quimper Peninsula are on the Pacific flyway and provide habitat for numerous migratory, resident, and breeding waterfowl species. The QWCP provides safe passage and habitat critical to perpetuation of species diversity in an area of looming urban development. It is home for a wide variety of flora and fauna, from the rough-skinned newt and Calypso orchid to nearly 120 bird species and numerous small and large mammals. These include: Bald eagle, Merlin; Wood duck, Great Blue Heron, Pileated Woodpecker, western screech owl,barred owl, cougar, elk,black tailed deer, and bob cat. Several of the species and habitats in the corridor have been identified by WDFW as Priority Species and Priority Habitats. The corridor allows these species and others the safety of cover to move between significant habitat areas. The primary goal of the project is to protect intact habitat for multiple species. Secondary goals include protection of the largest natural drainage basin within the City, and providing opportunities for passive recreational uses such as hiking and bird watching. This report examines these goals in the context of the current science available about wildlife corridors and provides an assessment of the habitat found within the original corridor route. Design Guidelines When establishing green space or wildlife corridors, it is important to look at the structure and use of the surrounding landscape and see how each natural area fits within the region as a whole (Diamond and May, 1976). Detailed biological information about the species and habitats of concern is highly advantageous when designing natural areas. However, in the absence of comprehensive information, the following guidelines are recommended (Noss and Cooperrider, 1994; Ferguson, 2001). 1) Maintain large, intact patches of native vegetation by preventing fragmentation. Blocks of habitat close together are better than blocks far apart. 2) Maintain connections among wildlife habitats by protecting corridors for movement. Quimper W'ildlire Corridor Management Plant 7 Draft 05112108 3) Minimize edge; round patches are optimal overall, though at a local scale, complex edges, in contrast,provide more suitable habitat for wildlife, as they increase cover and provide escape terrain. 4) Establish priorities for species protection. 5) Protect rare landscape features. 6) Maintain ecological processes. 7) Balance recreation with wildlife needs. General Introduction The QWC encompasses a landscape that is biologically and culturally complex. The biological complexity is a function of the topography, hydrology, and soils that produce a wide range of vegetation types (wetlands, riparian, shrub,prairie, and coniferous forest). The cultural richness is evident from thousands of years of aboriginal presence and a recent occupation by peoples of European origin. The degree to which human activities have shaped the landscape varies widely across the corridor, ranging from moderate density suburban neighborhoods in the San Juan Valley to larger relatively un-fragmented tracts of coniferous forest in Middlepoint/DNR area. Nearly all the habitat within the corridor exhibits mild to severe disturbance by humans in the form of timber harvesting, clearing for roads, housing, agriculture, and fire suppression. The QWC is a melange of natural and human processes,native and non-native plants, public and private interests. The degree to which the project is successful will depend on the JLT's ability to collaborate with the various stakeholders in unifying their management vision. History The former aboriginal presence is evidenced by grassland soils and the Hall Street legacy tree, which suggests that portions of the QWC (San Juan Valley, Tibbals Plateau)were characterized by prairie and savanna-like conditions subject to frequent low-intensity fires. The recent presence of Euro-Americans brought abrupt changes to the land during the past 150 years.This included land clearing for agriculture,home sites, timber, and roads. During this early land-clearing phase there was extensive use of fire, although in more modern times, fire suppression has been practiced. General Site Description The QWC falls within the western hemlock zone as described by Franklin and Dymess (1973). They recognized that the drier portions of this zone dominated by Douglas fir would likely be reclassified as a separate vegetation unit. A subsequent classification by Klinka et al., (1991) characterizes this region as part of the British Columbia Coastal Douglas Fir Zone. This scheme recognizes the under-representation of western hemlock, which is a distinctive feature of the Olympic Peninsula's rainsbadow areas and is precisely the conditions found in the QWC. In the classification provided here, the native forests are divided into three basic types: dry, mesic, and wet. Although each of these forest types typically occurs as distinct and recognizable units, intermediate forest types are pervasive. Higher resolution mapping will be required to delineate these intermediate forest types. One Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 8 Draft 05112108 native non-forested community is recognized, consisting of a shrub/emergent mosaic. The final habitat noted is groomed pasture,which occurs predominantly along the southern boundary of the corridor and is interspersed among residential neighborhoods in the eastern lowlands. Topography is the principal factor influencing vegetation characteristics of the corridor lands. Greater moisture (and hence higher site potential)is found in low-lying areas and basins. In contrast, drier conditions prevail on upland sites and on ridge tops. The drainage system that dominates the eastern portion of the corridor is best described as a shallow U-shaped basin that trends in an east to northeast direction. The slopes on the north side of the basin tend to be drier(because of their southward orientation)while slopes on the south side of the basin are more protected from sunlight and prevailing winds. Consequently, these wetter northward-oriented slopes have superior growing conditions and tend to produce larger trees with more structurally complex canopies (e.g., Winona Wetland buffer area). The drainage system is characterized as a series of small,partially impounded, low- gradient, intermittent, minerotropic wetlands. Minerotropic wetlands are those that contain no marine- derived salts and are fed by water that has been in contact with mineral soil (Damman, 1986; Kunze, 1994). Sphagnum moss and its associated plant species are absent. Sol] characteristics are also an important feature influencing vegetation structure and composition of the QWC. Wherever water can be impounded for extended periods, bydric soils and vegetation favoring wet conditions develop.Nearly all of the soils in the corridor are underlain by a compact till basement, which is nearly impervious to water(Clallam Series). This basement is overlain by deposits of well-drained outwash that vary widely in thickness (Hoypus Series). The soils are saturated in winter with a high water table, while during the dry summer months most soils experience a moisture deficit. The past disturbance history(predominantly fire and human harvest) also strongly affect vegetation structure and composition. In general, Douglas fir competes well after major disturbance,but in many sites is gradually replaced by more shade-tolerant species such as cedar, grand fir, and hemlock on the mesic to wet sites. Vegetation Inventory The habitat assessment began with an inventory of vegetation associations. Seven site visits were made to the corridor lands between the October 24, 2003 and December 7, 2003 totaling 18.5 hours of field observations. Field surveys were conducted by entering the area on foot and making notes of the plant and animal communities. An aerial reconnaissance flight was conducted on January 19, 2004 to obtain photographs and video to assist with the vegetation mapping. Plants names follow Hitchcock and Cronquest (1974). Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 9 Draft 05112108 Principal Native Habitat Types Five principal native habitat types were identified throughout the corridor. One additional non-native habitat type was also.identified. These habitat types are described below and their approximate boundaries are shown in Figure 2. • Dry Forests This relatively simple plant association is dominated by Douglas fir and salal. This community is found on dry,nutrient-poor sites with flat to southward-oriented slopes (i.e.,Tibbals Plateau). Madrona and ocean spray are present along edges and in forest gaps. • Mesic Forests This is the most widespread of the forest associations and is characterized by sites of intermediate soil moisture such as north slopes and low-lying areas without standing water(Winona-Levinski Connector, 501h Street Connector, Winona Wetland area, DNR/Middlepoint Area). The principal conifer species are Western red cedar, grand fir, and Douglas fir. The common broadleaf trees include red alder, Scouler's willow, and bitter cherry. The most prevalent shrubs are salmonberry and red elderberry. • Wet Forest This localized association is characterized by hydric soils and standing water for all or part of the year. It follows the main drainage channel through the 50t1' Street Connector and is found at the Quaking Aspen (Levinski)Wetland, around the periphery of Winona Wetland, and locally on the Tibbals Plateau. The principal trees are Scouler's willow, Pacific willow, red alder, red cedar, and locally trembling aspen. Salmonberry, Nootka rose, and slough sedge occur as the principal understory species. • Shrub/Emergent Forb Wetland Shrub and herbaceous communities are found in open wet sites. Primary species include hardback, Nootka rose, and canary grass (Winona Wetland, eastern 5011' Street Connector). • Kah Tai Prairie Perhaps the most biologically significant and most degraded natural feature of the QWC is native grasslands. That the Kali Tai Prairie once extended north to the Strait of Juan de Fuca is evidenced by the pre-settlement grassland soils that underlie this area(Chappel et al., 1998). Human development of the San Juan Valley, however, has almost completely eliminated the prairie vegetation from this site, thus, it has not been indicated on Figure 2). The open meadowland found around Chinese Gardens in Fort Worden State Park is heavily degraded and dominated by exotic grasses. • Pasture Open farmland occurs extensively along the southern perimeter of the QWC,primarily beyond the city limits. The predominant plant species include non-native bluegrasses, fescues, biomes, and other grasses. Quiniper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 10 Draft 05112108 Detailed Plant Associations The following is a detailed description of the plant associations found along the corridor. For narrative purposes the corridor was broken into the following habitat nodes (Figure 3). • North Beach Segment (from Chinese Gardens to Hendricks Street) • Quaking Aspen (Levinski)Wetland • Levinski-Winona Connector • Winona Wetland • Winona-Tibbals Connector • Tibbals-DNR Connector • DNR Parcel North Beach Segment The North Beach segment is heavily timbered and possesses considerable variation in forest associations including 1) cedar/sword fern, 2)nearly pure stands of grand fir with a heavily shaded poorly developed understory, and 3) Douglas fir/grand fir/cedar mix. In the wetter portion of the corridor, deciduous species are more prevalent, including alder, willow; cherry; wild pear, and rose. Crossing Jackman Street, the drainage corridor is characterized by mowed field, culverts, and ditches. The vegetation is predominantly shrubs and grasses including rose, wild pear; canary grass, common rush, and a variety of pasture grasses. At the Chinese Gardens,bulrush and pickleweed compete favorably with canary grass,presumably due to the elevated salinity. Quaking Aspen (Levinski)Wetland The most distinctive feature of the Quaking Aspen (Levinski)wetland is a stand of aspen, which is situated in a slight depression where the drainage corridor widens. Willow is present as a co-dominant, while the most conspicuous understory species are Nootka rose, slough sedge, and minor amounts of hardback. Along the southern edge of the aspen grove is a forest composed principally of cedar and grand fir(with some standing dead wood). On the north side of the aspen grove, drier conditions are present which favor patches of Douglas fir and salal. The primary drainage corridor becomes less noticeable as it traverses the remainder of the Levinski property between the aspen grove and Cook Avenue. Moisture conditions are intermediate here, and the vegetation is typified by open mixed stands of Douglas fir, cedar, hemlock with a well-developed shrub layer of willow, cherry, and regenerating alder. Where the drainage corridor intercepts Cook Street, a large patch of canary grass has become established. Winona-Levinski Connector This low-lying site possesses relatively moist conditions dominated by cedar,willow, grand fir, and Douglas fir. To the north, the width of the drainage corridor appears constrained by Sapphire Street. The southern portion of the Winona-Levinski connector is moderately sloped and dominated by Douglas fir and salai (suggesting dry conditions and past fire). However, there is robust regeneration of shade-tolerant cedar in the understory, suggesting that this northward-orientated slope possess relatively mesic conditions. Qrrimper-Wildlife Corridor Management Plan I I Draft 05112108 Winona Wetland This site possesses important wetland habitat despite considerable disruption by human activities.Human perturbations include harvesting of forest buffers and the construction of roads and a sewer line that encroach into the wetland. Along Peary Street, trenching and diking has occurred (toward Cook Avenue),presumably contributing to the drying of the wetland. As noted by Mitchell (1992), the construction of a dirt road along the east side of the wetland may have facilitated flooding of the upland buffer, resulting in conifer mortality in the mid-1980s. The wetland is also characterized by locally heavy infestations of canary grass. The vegetation in the central portion of the wetland is characterized by discrete patches of cattail,hardback, canary grass, and bentgrass. Pacific willow is present in the central portion of the wetland,while Scouler's willow is prevalent around the periphery. A low-lying area extends to the northwest to Cook Avenue. This site contains some of the largest/oldest trees noted on the corridor lands. The basin's bottomland supports a diverse mix of tree and shrub species including alder, cedar, grand fir, Douglas fir, bitter cherry, elderberry, hawthorn, salmonberry, and Nootka rose. The largest trees (predominantly grand fir-and Douglas fir) are found on slightly elevated sites around the periphery of the basin. The southern side of the basin is bounded by a relatively steep slope heading up to the Tibbals Plateau. This slope protects the stand from winds, thus contributing to the large size class of individual trees. Moving upslope, the presence of stumps indicates past logging and apparently a low incidence of wildfire. No open water was noted anywhere in the Winona Wetland area. Winona-Tibbals Connector This portion of the corridor is topographically and vegetationally diverse. The western portion of the connector(Tibbals Plateau)occurs along a flat ridge top. In general, this area supports dry Douglas fir forests. However, small-scale topographical undulations, combined with extensive graded roadways,have produced a number of small pocket wetlands, including the Elmira and Alwood wetlands. Consequently, the vegetation changes abruptly from a dry fir/salal association (on raised sites)to wet forests in depressions dominated by willow, alder, and slough sedge. A single legacy tree was located just south of the corridor lands near the corner of 39'h and Hall Street (Figure 3). The age of this tree is unknown,but is estimated to be at least 200 years and thus may predate European presence. Its short stature and dense, wind-swept crown suggest open conditions formerly prevailed on this site. Fire scars on the trunk suggest that fire formerly may have maintained this site in open park-like conditions. To the north in the vicinity of Linden and Topaz Streets, the forest is a mix of Douglas fir and Scouler's willow and suggests relatively dry, hard-packed soils with occasional standing water. The eastern portion of the Winona-Tibbal's Connector drops off steeply into the Winona Wetland ravine. Conditions are more mesic, with cedar and alder becoming co-dominants with Douglas fir and willow. In the ravine bottom land, cedar and alder become the most conspicuous components of the canopy, with elderberry, salmonberry, and nettle forming the understory. A portion of ravine bottom land is held in private ownership and is being maintained in open conditions for intensive gardening.Moving up the eastern slope of the ravine, alder and cedar are replaced by the Scouler's willow/Douglas. Near the top of the Quirnper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 12 Draft 05112108 ravine(South Garnet Street),Douglas fir and salal are dominant, suggesting relatively dry conditions. Tibbals Lake Tibbals Lake Reserve in held in common ownership through a property association agreement.At the request of the property association and JLT, this property was not examined. Tibbals-DNR Connector The environmental conditions in this part of the corridor are relatively dry, with wind shear a major factor influencing stand characteristics. Exposure to prevailing southeast winds is high, given the relatively flat open terrain and extensive farmland to the south. In the Lewis/George Street area, the forests are dominated by second-growth Douglas fir and salal. On the northern portion of this connector(View Street), the land slopes gently to the north, producing more mesic conditions.Much of this area appears to be former pastureland, and is currently being invaded by regenerating stands of alder,willow, Douglas fir, and.hemlock. A small swale situated along Walnut Street runs from Jacob Miller to the Tibbals Lake property.The eastern portion of this swale contains well-developed wetland vegetation including hardback, Nootka rose, canary grass, and Scouler's willow. A few Douglas fir snags are situated immediately to the south of this wetland. DNR Property This area contains dry to mesic forest types dominated by Douglas fir and grand fir. Alder and other deciduous vegetation are being removed as part of the site's management plan. This parcel is not designated as a Natural Area Preserve or a Natural Resource Conservation Area (Mike Cronin, pers. com.). Thus, the site should not be considered protected indefinitely. The current management plan prescribes removal of one-third of the stand's volume every 20 years (Mike Cronin, pers. com.). The prescription practiced on this block may be modified in the future and could include an expanded harvest,trading, or selling for rural housing, although efforts are currently underway to enable Jefferson County to lease this property for 50years from DNR in order to preserve its habitat and recreational value. Wildlife Habitat Value Once plant associations were identified and mapped, their value to wildlife was analyzed. The four principal habitat types or vegetation associations can be further characterized as either upland or riparian wildlife habitats. The previously described Dry Forest and Mesic Forest are considered upland habitat, while the Wet Forest and Shrub/Emergent Forb Wetland are considered riparian habitat. The relationships of these plant associations to wildlife are described below. Upland Forests and Dependent Species Numerous studies have demonstrated that late successional or old-growth forests are important for wildlife. Many species of birds reach their greatest abundance in stands with greater vegetation height, structural complexity, and canopy layers (Olson et al.,2001). Quifnper Wildlife Corridor Manogement Plan I j Draft 05112108 Larger forest parcels provide more suitable habitat for interior species, and reduce the microclimate nest parasites associated with edges. This survey, in addition to previous studies (Resources Northwest, 1992), found no evidence that any of the corridor forests support old-growth-dependent species such as the marbled murrelet, Vaux's swift, goshawk, or spotted owl. In addition, the projected development over the next 50 years, suggests it is unlikely that a number of large- to medium-sized mammals (bear, elk, cougar,bobcat,beaver)will be able to maintain viable populations on the north Quimper Peninsula. Nonetheless, some of the forests along the corridor were found to possess relatively high-quality habitat. These include the deciduous component of the forests in the eastern lowlands (Winona Wetlands, Levinski Wetland) that supports a number of riparian- or broadleaf-dependent bird species including black-headed grosbeak, warbling vireo, and black-throated gray warbler. In addition, the relatively tall crowns and open stand conditions found on the DNR/Middlepoint Iands provide excellent nesting habitat for the olive-sided flycatcher. Regionally, there have been concerns that this neotropical migrant is declining due to habitat loss on the breeding grounds. At least one WDFW priority species, the pileated woodpecker has been identified in several areas of the QWC. Although not considered in this study, it is likely that the QWC currently supports a diverse assemblage of small mammals and amphibians. The Vaux's swift may colonize the site in the future if management activities promote snag development. (Note: The following birds were noted during the field investigations: bald eagle,pileated woodpecker, western screech owl,barred owl, downy woodpecker, northern flicker,brown creeper, chestnut-backed chickadee, ruby-crowned kinglet, golden-crowned kinglet, Hutton's vireo, American robin, dark-eyed junco, purple finch, and evening grosbeak. The local chapter of the Audubon Society has conducted annual bird counts in the area of the corridor, and has documented over 120 species of birds. Large trees, snags, and downed logs are known as "legacy structures." These features are ecologically important and regulate many basic forest processes including hydrology, nutrient cycling, and habitat for fish and wildlife(Franklin and Waring, 1980). Large trees, snags, and downed logs provide protection and habitat for birds, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals (Bigley, 2001). Habitat quality for species associated with these legacy structures can be seriously diminished if management activities result in their loss from the landscape (Hayes, 2001). Assessment of Upland Forests in the QWC Legacy structures are infrequent to lacking on corridor lands with the exception of the Winona area and DNR/Middlepoint area. One of the most important factors associated with the paucity of legacy features on corridor lands is human modification of the landscape. Similar to lowland areas throughout Puget Sound, the Quimper Peninsula underwent early and intensive lumbering activities. During the last 150 years, land clearing, farming, road building, and housing have continued and have not facilitated replacement of legacy structures. The absence of these structures is attributed to fire, which has been shown to be a primary agent of wood degradation in drier forest types (Rose et al., 2001). Given the corridor's close proximity to the Kali Tai Prairie,it is likely that aboriginal fires were relatively frequent during pre-settlement times (Norton 1979). It is likely that forests Quimper-Wildlife Corridor Managemew Plan 14 Draft 05112108 bordering the prairie were"fire conditioned,"with open savanna-like conditions. During the early settlement period,.fire frequency and intensity likely increased, as hot, stand-destroying fires were common in association with land clearing(Mike Cronin,pers. com.). Another important feature reducing the input of legacy structures to corridor lands is the relatively poor growing conditions. These poor growing conditions are most evident on drier Douglas fir stands,particularly in the Tibbals Plateau area. Given that the drainage corridor is a low-energy system, flood events will lack sufficient force to redistribute large logs along the corridor. Consequently, snags and downed logs must be produced by trees growing in each specific locale. Sites along the corridor that possess optimal growing conditions and large live trees should be given high priority for protection. The opportunistic harvesting of downed_logs for firewood should be strongly discouraged. Riparian Habitat The habitats on the corridor lands with the greatest biological significance are those found on wet sites.Riparian zones serve as natural corridors for migration routes,particularly in highly fragmented landscapes (Kauffman, 1996). Riparian sites are of biological importance given their strategic position between terrestrial and aquatic environments. These habitats are botspots of biodiversity by virtue of their high productivity, deep soils, and availability of water (Kauffman, 2001). Wildlife makes disproportionately greater use of wetland habitats in drier conifer-dominated landscapes such as the Quimper Peninsula, which receives relatively low rainfall and has few perennial streams. Many species of wildlife reach their greatest abundance here, while a number of birds are restricted to the deciduous vegetation that proliferates in these sites (MeGarigal and McComb, 1993). Assessment of Riparian Habitat within the QWC Although the Winona drainage does not possess a free-flowing annual stream,it does possess many of features indicative of a riparian zone. This includes a preponderance of deciduous species and high-quality growing conditions for conifers. The relatively young regenerating vegetation found over much of the Levinski property possesses a high percentage of deciduous species (ocean spray,red alder, willow, wild cherry) and thus encourages several deciduous inhabiting species to use this area including the Wilson's warbler and orange- crowned warbler. Investigating and restoring the groundwater conditions to the Winona Wetland is critical. In the recent past, the site possessed a much greater variety of riparian birds including great blue heron, wood duck, and mallard. Recent inventories failed to locate other typical wetland species such as common yellowthroat,marsh wren, or red-winged blackbird. The marsh is drying, and is being invaded by more upland species such as non-native grasses: thistle, and bedstraw. The aspen stand in the Levinski Wetland has been compromised and reduced in size by the access road that transects the site. Restoration of this wetland could include decommissioning of the road and converting to single-lane recreation trail. Tilling of the compact road surface may permit aspen to reinvade. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 15 Draft 05112108 Natural Disturbances and Human Impacts in the QWC Once the vegetation community inventory and the wildlife habitat value assessment were completed, an analysis of the natural disturbances and human impacts in the QWC was undertaken. The following is a general description of impacts to wildlife habitat within an urbanizing environment as well as specific observations of impacts within the QWC. Habitat Fragmentation Fragmentation can result in genetic isolation of less mobile species such as reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals(Howard et al.,2001). Fragmentation is the result of human activities dividing natural habitat into small areas that are isolated and disconnected (Howard et al., 2001). This can have serious impacts for wildlife(Dickennan, 1987). The richness and abundance of wildlife found in a fragmented landscape depends on: 1)parcel size, 2)the amount of isolation between parcels, and 3)the characteristics of the surrounding habitat. 1) Parcel Size: Smaller parcels provide less habitat to meet a species' needs (Andre, 1994). Smaller parcels also have greater amounts of edge relative to interior habitat (Wilcove et al., 1986). Although edges are beneficial to a number of wildlife species, they also are associated with higher densities of nest predators (raccoons,jays, crows, cats, skunks, opossums) and nest parasites such as cowbirds (Yahner, 1988). If these parasites and predators occur in sufficient densities, they may create ecological traps. 2)Isolation: Habitat blocks that are close together are better than those that are farther apart (Noss and Cooperrider, 1994). It should be a goal to maintain connectedness between habitat parcels within corridors (Furguson, 2001}. 3) Connecting Habitat: The impact of fragmentation depends on the surrounding landscape between habitat parcels (Dorney, 1986). As the surrounding landscape becomes increasingly developed, many species have greater difficulty moving between habitat parcels (Bolger, 1999). The consideration of these characteristics is the founding principal of the QWC concept: To preserve an undeveloped}wildlife corridor of native vegetation connecting important wildlife habitat areas between Fort Worden and the Middlepoint Land Conservancy. Observations of Impacts within the QWC The following is an assessment of the existing impacts in or near the QWC and of the state of "connectedness"between the habitat nodes. Housing Medium-density neighborhoods cover much of the San Juan Valley and portions of the North Beach area. Low-density to rural neighborhoods characterize Fowlers Park and the 49`11 Street Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 16 Dra fr 05112108 neighborhoods. It is not readily apparent where the historical boundary between the forest and the Kah Tai Prairie was situated. Regardless,the medium-density neighborhoods that now occur in the San Juan Valley/North Beach area appear to have lost most of their former ecological function. Natural prairie vegetation has been almost entirely eliminated and much of the native forest cover has been removed. The most conspicuous natural features remaining in medium-density neighborhoods are shrub communities and young conifers. Landscape Aesthetics The landscape in the connecting lands is heavily platted (with relatively small,rectangular parcels) and contains numerous vehicular right-of-ways_As development and land clearing continues in the surrounding lands, it will increase the regular or geometric character of the landscape. Given the surrounding land use patterns (agriculture,hobby farms, home sites, and roads), edges will.often be abrupt. It was noted above in the design guidelines that it is best to maintain habitat patches where the overall shape is round. At a local scale however, complex edges, in contrast, provide more suitable habitat for wildlife, as they increase cover and provide escape terrain (Edge, 2001). Consequently, parcels acquired in Tier 2 or Tier 3 lands (]Deluding those not spatially linked to Tier 1 lands)will have considerable aesthetic value. Encouraging adjacent landowners to retain fencerows and shelter belts and to maintain portions of their pastures in an unimproved state will fbrther"soften" the landscape and enhance value to wildlife. Flooding Periodic flooding is a natural process that contributes to the ecological functioning of riparian communities (Olson et al., 2001). The maintenance of avian diversity in wetland environment ultimately depends on maintenance of natural hydrological and disturbance regimes (Kauffman et al., 2001). Flooding results in the deposition of sediments and organic matter,increasing soil fertility(Boon et al., 2001). Flooding or periods of elevated water levels can result in tree mortality, producing snags (e.g., Peary Street in the Winona Wetland area). Flooding is a particularly important natural disturbance agent in low-energy systems like the Winona drainage corridor where flowing water is generally absent. In low-energy systems, disturbance in the form of bank cutting and tree toppling is also lacking. Although fire was historically a major disturbance agent in the corridor lands (Mike Cronin, pers. com.), it obviously is not practical under current conditions. Consequently, less catastrophic forms of disturbance(i.e., small-scale flooding)will likely remain the principal natural disturbance agent. Non-Native Wildlife Non-native wildlife can exert a variety of negative impacts. Starlings compete for food resources, transmit disease, and usurp nest sites from many native cavity-nesting birds including songbirds, woodpeckers, and waterfowl (Weitzel, 1988). Feral or free-ranging cats are heavy predators of native birds and small mammals, and often found in high densities in suburban environments(Coleman et al., 1997; Fitzgerald, 1988). Starlings are common in the Port Townsend area. The species is known to have a disproportionately greater impact on native birds when cavities are limited (Bursh, 1983). The degree of cat predation on corridor lands is not known,but is presumed to be high given the close proximity to human habitation. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 17 Draft 05112108 Given that starlings make extensive use of human structures for nesting, starling awareness campaigns in neighborhoods surrounding the corridor are advised. By encouraging landowners to exclude starlings from buildings and trees, the local population can decline (Johnson and Glahn, 1994). Starlings will disperse from high-density roosts to forage over large areas (Glahn et al., 1991). Consequently, deterring the species from roosts on structures in the downtown area of Port Townsend may reduce starling density on corridor lands. Encouraging the use of"dissuader design"nest-boxes, and delaying the erection of songbird nest boxes until later in the breeding season further limits opportunities for starlings (Lamsden, 1986). Coyotes and other native carnivores may help reduce the abundance of feral cats and other small mammals that prey on songbirds, thus helping to maintain a natural ecosystem balance (Quinn, 1997) Roads Roads can impact wildlife by causing habitat fragmentation, altering drainage patterns, facilitating the spread of non-native species, and causing direct mortality from vehicle collisions(Forman, 1995). Roads can cut across long-established animal migration paths (Rost and Bailey, 1979) and may pose barriers to movement for amphibians along riparian zones. The corridor lands are heavily impacted by roads. As development of the corridor and surrounding lands continues, traffic will increase and smaller secondary roads will be up- graded. The rough-skinned newt is known to cross roads regularly and is subject to considerable vehicle-induced mortality (D Kelso,pers. com.). As information is accumulated on the vertebrate biota of the corridor, management prescriptions for individual road crossings can be implemented(i.e., speed reduction features, reducing posted speed limits, modifying culverts, driver education). Long-Term Monitoring While it is beyond the scope of this document to develop a monitoring program, the following discussion offers recommendations for monitoring. Amphibians Amphibians are good indicators of ecosystem health as they are especially sensitive to pollution, water diversions, habitat loss, and increases in water discharge associated with impervious surfaces (Booth and Remelt, 1993; Howard et al., 2001). Because amphibians have limited mobility and dispersal capabilities, continuous riparian zones are important pathways for colonization of suitable habitat (Kauffman et al., 2001). The rough-skinned newt is an ideal species'for monitoring in the QWC as it 1) is locally abundant, 2)benefits from very small wetlands, 3) is easily censused, and 4)is currently the focus of an informal monitoring and management program (D. Kelso, pers. com.). Perhaps most importantly, the newt's life history patterns (i.e., moderate dispersal distance, well- Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 18 Draft 05112108 established travel corridors, reliance on ponds and riparian zones) suggest that it is benefiting from the QWC conservation efforts. Birds A major factor impacting bird communities is the alteration or loss of native vegetation, particularly riparian and understory deciduous vegetation. In particular, the loss of structural complexity, such as snags and foliage height diversity, is critical (Van Druff et al., 1994; Lancaster and Rees 1979). The following are recommended indicator species to consider for long-term monitoring: Neotropical migrants: Olive-sided flycatcher Mature/old-growth: Townsend's warbler, pileated woodpecker Riparian obligates:warbling vireo, yellow warbler Deciduous understory: Swanson's thrush,Wilson's warbler Raptors: Coopers hawk, Red-tailed hawk, small owls, eagle roost trees Mammals In highly fragmented areas, small mammals with limited dispersal capabilities are particularly susceptible to local extinctions (Soule et al., 1991). Elevated levels of suburban predators (cats, dogs) also negatively effect populations (Beck 1974, Fitzgerald 1988). Small mammals are an important food resource for birds of prey, coyotes, and medium-sized mammals. Monitoring of small mammals will give important information as to the availability of food for larger predators. In general, JLT should consider continuing to capture data from periodic monitoring such as the Audubon Christmas bird count and breeding bird surveys. JLT should also consider establishing permanent census plots. Quinrper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 19 Draft 05112108 Action Plan Habitat Assessment Recommendation Implementation Action 1. Update acquisition • Secure/protect the remaining larger habitat blocks and protection strategy including the Winona Basin (with its remnant mature incorporating new growth), the DNR property, and the Levinski Property. habitat assessment data. • Retain the basic 3-tier corridor concept, while broadening the search to include biologically significant habitats within I km. • Secure protection for the Hall Street legacy tree, Ivy Street wetland (Frog Forest), and the 43'd Street unit. 2. Develop specific • Delineate management units based on habitat type habitat and management and/or location. goals. • Designate a lead entity responsible for managing each management unit. 3. Develop public • Expand enhancement program guidelines for planting outreach program. with native vegetation and erecting nest boxes. • Produce educational materials on best practices for both landowners and small woodlot managers residing in the greater corridor area. Include information on invasive plant and bird species as well as effect of pet and feral cats and dogs. • Implement docent program to involve and educate residents. 4. Develop long-term • Establish long-term monitoring programs during all monitoring program. seasons and spanning multiple years, with particular emphasis on quantifying indicator species. • Continue efforts to gain insight into the corridor's pre- settlement plant communities through tree ring data, photo archives, and vegetation analysis of analogous sites. Quimper Jfildlife Corridor- Management Plan 20 Draft 05112108 CHAPTER THREE LAND USE AND REGULATORY OVERVIEW The Quimper Wildlife Corridor is composed of seven major wildlife areas connected by a greenbelt and is located in both the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County. Both Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend have adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plans consistent with the State of Washington Growth Management Act (GMA) that include goals relating to land use patterns and preservation of fish and wildlife habitat. Both jurisdictions have land use and environmental regulations which govern development within and adjacent to the corridor. At this time, the majority of land use and environmental regulations affecting the Quimper Wildlife Corridor are "trigger"regulations; that is, they are triggered by a land use application. The exception can be the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, an adopted plan of the City of Port Townsend, consistent with the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. In certain instances, the City of Port Townsend may choose to implement the Non- Motorized Plan for parcels and right-of ways in City ownership. Federal Re ulations Clean Water Act Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the placement of fill in waters and wetlands of the United States. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers administers the permitting program for this law. (for more detailed information, refer to Wetlands Regulations Guidebook, Ecology Publication #88-5.) Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that proposed dredge-and-fill activities, permitted under Section 404 be reviewed and certified by the Washington Department of Ecology to ensure that the proposed project meets State water quality standards. The Federal permit is deerned invalid unless it has been certified by the State. Washington State Regulations Water Pollution Control Act This WPCA [Chapter 90.48 RCW] and the Shoreline Management Act give the Washington Department of Ecology authority to regulate wetlands. The WCPA's definitions of "pollution" [90.48.020] and "discharges" [90.48.080] are broad and include all of the impacts that typically degrade wet land functions, including placing fill and discharging stonnwater runoff. The Act gives the DOE wide latitude in protecting waters of the State, and designates the DOE as lead State agency for implementing provisions of Sections 401 and 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 21 Draft 05112108 The implementing regulations for the statute include Surface Water Quality Standards [Chapter 173-201 A WAC]: the primary regulations that cover wetlands and other waters of the State. The Antidegredation Policy [Chapter 173-201A-070 WAC] provides the basis for protecting wetlands. The primary mechanism for implementing the provisions of this statute is the State Water Quality Certification issued pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. Because most wetland impacts are regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, this process is used to address the State's concerns with wetland impacts. For those activities that degrade wetlands and fall outside the purview of the 404 program, the DOE may use other State water quality permitting processes such as wastewater discharge permits, short-term water quality modifications, and administrative orders. State of Washington Growth Management Act The State of Washington adopted the amended GMA in 1995 to ensure local implementation of statewide goals regarding land use, growth and environmental protection. Included within the State GMA are goals specifically related to preservation of"Critical Areas"including wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, fish and wildlife habitat areas, aquifer recharge areas, and frequently flooded areas. GMA requires,that wetlands be recognized and rated according to their relative function, value, and uniqueness in each city and county jurisdiction. Fish and wildlife habitat areas include areas with threatened, endangered, and sensitive species habitats and species of local importance; naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres that provide fish and wildlife habitat; and state natural areas and preserves. The GMA allows that cities and counties may consider classifying and designating habitat corridors. The GMA does not, in itself,protect these areas; rather, it requires that cities and counties adopt regulations that will provide Critical Areas protection consistent with the Act. The Act was amended to require that cities and counties revise their critical areas protection to include Best Available Science (BAS)requirements. Addition of Best Available Science Requirements Washington counties and cities are required to review and, if needed, revise their Critical Areas policies and development regulations within certain specified timeframes. In doing so, jurisdictions must abide by provisions that the state legislature added to the GMA in 2001 requiring local governments to: • Incorporate BAS when developing policies and regulations to protect the functions and values of Critical Areas. • Give special consideration to conservation or protection measures to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries. (Anadromous fish include salmon, steelhead, and sea- run cutthroat trout that hatch in fresh water, migrate to the ocean, and then return as adults to spawn in fresh water.) Ouimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 22 Draft 05112108 These requirements increase the responsibilities that local governments have with regard to protecting Critical Areas. The deadline for counties and cities to incorporate the changes was December 1, 2004,though jurisdictions could petition to have the deadline extended. The state adopted a rule to guide jurisdictions in identifying and including BAS. This rule provides local governments with a procedure for acquiring and evaluating scientific information to determine whether it constitutes BAS. The rule also provides guidance to help local governments demonstrate that they have included BAS in developing their Critical Areas policies and that they have given special consideration to anadromous fisheries. While the rule states that information from non-scientific sources may be valuable to consider, non-scientific information may be used to supplement—but not replace—valid scientific information.In addition, the rule includes specific requirements for local governments to follow in documenting that they have obtained and considered BAS. Finally, if a city or county departs from science-based recommendations,it must explain its rationale for doing so and identify how it will limit potential risks to the Critical Areas at issue. The Washington State Office of Community Development has published a handbook: Citations of Recommended Sources of Best Available Science For Designating and Protecting Critical Areas, March 2002 that guides local jurisdictions in implementing the BAS requirements to update Critical Areas protections. Specific guidelines relating to wildlife habitat protection include identification of wildlife species needs for adequate environmental conditions to support reproduction, cover, foraging, resting, and dispersal of animals at a variety of scales across the landscape. Fragmentation and habitat corridors are specifically addressed. BAS provisions of the GMA do not apply until local jurisdictions take action to amend their Comprehensive Plans and implement ordinances. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) establishes and maintains the State Habitats and Species Lists and Management Recommendations,issues Hydraulic Project Applications (HPA) permits, and provides technical assistance and Geographic Information System (GIS) information for land use planning purposes through a variety of programs. The State Habitats and Species Lists and Management Recommendations fulfills one of WDFW's most fundamental responsibilities—to provide comprehensive information on important fish, wildlife, and habitat resources in Washington. Initiated in 1989, the PHS (Protected Habitats and Species) Program was identified as the agency's highest priority. Today, the PHS Program serves as the backbone of WDFW's proactive approach to the conservation of fish and wildlife. There are 18 habitat types, 140 vertebrate species, 28 invertebrate species, and 14 species groups currently on the PHS List. These constitute about 16 percent of Washington's approximately 1,000 vertebrate species and a fraction of the state's invertebrate fauna. In addition, the agency maintains the Species of Concern (SOC) List. This list includes those species that are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive or as Candidates for these designations. Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive species are Qaimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 23 Draft 05112108 legally established in Washington Administrative Codes. Candidate species are established by WDFW policy. There are currently 29 Endangered, 16 Threatened, 10 Sensitive, and 103 Candidate species on the SOC List. The PHS List is the principal means by which WDFW provides important fish, wildlife, and habitat information to local governments, state and federal agencies, private landowners and consultants, and tribal biologists for land use planning purposes. PHS is the agency's primary means of transferring fish and wildlife information from State resource experts to those who can protect habitat. The PHS Program identifies which species and habitat types are priorities for management and conservation, where these habitats and species are located, and what should be done to protect resources when land use decisions are made. Specifically, the PHS List identifies habitats and species determined to be priorities based on defensible criteria; maps the known locations of priority habitats and species using GIS technology;provides information on the conditions required to maintain healthy populations of priority species and viable, functioning priority habitats using BAS;provides consultation and guidance on land use issues affecting priority habitats and species; and distributes this information and makes it easily accessible Habitats identified include both rural and urban natural open space areas, snags and downed logs, freshwater wetlands, and aspen stands. The State Habitat and Species List needs to be adopted by local jurisdictions and integrated into local land use and environmental regulations in order to ensure that it is a controlling regulation for the purposes of land use review. In addition, WDFW uses the Habitat and Species List and Management Recommendations to review HPA and Forest Practice Act (FPA) Applications. FPA applications are reviewed by the DNR and local jurisdictions whenever a landowner proposes to cut or thin a significant amount of standing timber. WDFW specifically uses the Habitat and Management recommendations to respond to FPA applications through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)review process administered by the local jurisdiction or the DNR and to comment specifically on potential impacts to wildlife and habitat relating to the clearing of large amount of trees. WDFW comments are recommendations only; the local jurisdiction and/or DNR need to act on these recommendations. In addition,WDFW is a SEPA review agency, and will be contacted for review and advice whenever a land use proposal requires SEPA review at the local level. WDFW provides a significant source of expertise and grant funding for landowners through a variety of programs that support habitat restoration and acquisition. HPAs are required for work near, over, or in the waters of the state of Washington,which may include larger wetland complexes such as the Quaking Aspen (Levinski) or Winona wetlands. Washington State Open Space Act The Washington State Open Space Aci (RCW 84.34.020) defines open space as any land area, the preservation of which, in its present use, would: Quimper H'ildlife Corridor Management Plan 24 Draft 05112108 • Conserve or enhance natural, cultural or scenic resources. • Protect streams, stream corridors, wetlands, natural shorelines, and aquifers. • Protect soil resources and unique or critical wildlife and native plant habitat. • Promote conservation principles by example or by offering educational opportunities. • Enhance the value of parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations, and other open spaces. • Enhance recreational opportunities. • Preserve historic and/or archaeological sites. The tax benefits provided under this Act could provide incentives to landowners to protect open space and attendant habitat values. Local Jurisdictions Jefferson County Land Use Regulations In 1998, Jefferson County adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Map consistent with Washington's GMA regulations. The City of Port Townsend is one of only two designated Urban Growth Areas(UGA) on the Quimper Peninsula, and all lands included in the Quimper Wildlife Corridor outside of the City of Port Townsend boundaries have been zoned for Rural Residential (RRI) development. QWC lands located in the county are subject to the County codes and plans discussed in the following sections. Jefferson County Plan The Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in 1998 following five years of community participation and review. Included in the Comprehensive Plan was a Community Vision Statement intended to create a foundation for land use decisions and provide for internal consistency within the document. The Community Vision Statement includes the following statement: "...Protect and conserve the environment, ecologically sensitive areas, and preclude development and land uses which are incompatible with critical areas" (Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan (JCCP), 1998, Appendix C)_ Further goals, policies and text relating to the importance of preserving wildlife habitat are included in Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use chapter designates land uses for the unincorporated lands lying outside the two UGAs. The chapter includes a land supply inventory and needs allocation that recognizes that there is a 20-year demand for 500 residential lots, that 1,735 currently exist, creating a 1,235 lot oversupply. All land areas located on the Quimper Peninsula within the area of the QWC are designated as rural lands, with a proposed zoning designation of 1 housing unit per 5 acres of land. The Land Use chapter recognizes existing lots of record which may not be consistent with this designation as being"grandfathered,"but adopts policies that may address the need to preserve larger parcels. No existing areas of rural commercial development are identified within the QWC planning area. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 25 Draft 05IJ2108 Open Space Strategy The County adopted an Open Space Strategy that proposed planning goals and policies designed to: • Protect and preserve the natural environment including air, water, soil, vegetation, and wildlife habitat, as well as other significant ecosystem elements. • Integrate adequate open space into rural development projects in order to provide amenities and help foster community identity. • Protect and manage natural resources for long-term productive use, including buffering natural resource lands from adjacent non-resource-related land uses. • Create a county-wide system of interconnected open spaces, including forests, farmland, parks,trails, waterways, meadows and tree stands, critical areas, and natural resource lands both in public and private ownership. In order to promote consistency and provide certainty in the application of the planning goals and policies, the first step in this strategy is to define open space as it pertains to Jefferson County. Open space is a broad term used to describe different types of lands that have important values and provide benefits to the public. Generally, open space lands include natural and environmentally critical areas such as wetlands; aquifer recharge areas; lakes and streams; designated parks and trails; and natural resource lands, such as agricultural and forest lands. Based upon the characteristics of the land and its uses, a variety of open space lands are recognized in Jefferson County. Jefferson County Unified Development Code Jefferson County adopted its Unified Development Code in 2003. This code sets development standards and outlines allowable land uses. This code also identifies Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and establishes regulation for land uses within their boundaries. ESAs identified include critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, fish and wildlife habitat areas and wetlands. City of Port Townsend City of Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan (PTCP) The Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1996 in compliance with the GMA. Of the multitude of goals and policies contained within this document, many directly or indirectly affect the QWC. • Natural Drainage System Approach. This approach to stormwater management was adopted in the PTCP (Policy 5.4 of the Land Use Element). It calls for preservation of natural drainage systems to convey and treat stormwater runoff. This innovative approach has won much praise throughout Washington and led to the identification of many of the natural features located in the QWC such as the 100- year floodplain and many of the wetlands. Ouinrper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 26 Draft 05112108 • Land Use.RI Zoning.The PTCP designates a vast majority of the land area of the QWC found with the city limits as RI residential (or—4 units per acre).This is Iess dense than the standard residential density of 8 units per acre found throughout most of the rest of the city. The decision to lower the density in this area was based on a basin area study funded by the Washington Department of Ecology that identified and delineated the I00-year floodplain. This study found that if development occurred at the standard 8 units per acre, the 100-year floodplain would no longer have the capacity to convey the 100-year flood. 0 Designation of ESAs. Identified ESAs include critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, fish and wildlife habitat areas, and wetlands. ESAs and their regulatory process are codified in Title 1 9.05 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code (PTMC). The City's Critical Areas Ordinance of this code was updated in 2006 (Ordinance 2929 adopted September 15, 2006). • Designation of Potential Open Space. The PTCP and its land use map identify areas to potentially be protected as open space, including most of the ESA's found within the QWC. The PTCP specifically mentions the QWC as part of its open space planning(Policy 3.6.2, Land Use Element). • Transportation and Non-Motorized Transportation Planning. The PTCP addresses both motorized and non-motorized transportation. The goals and policies affect development of roads, trails, and protection of rights-of-way. Parks,Recreation and Open Space Plan This plan addresses the need to protect open space as well as the connection between open space and trail and non-motorized transportation development. The plan devotes a relatively long section to the QWC and identifies cooperation between local and state agencies and private landowners as a determining factor on the ultimate path of the corridor. Port Townsend Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (NMTP) The NMTP seeks to develop a network of non-motorized transportation trails throughout the city and especially in the relatively undeveloped northwest quadrant. "The Non-Motorized Transportation Plan seeks to Harmonize its objectives with the goals of the Quimper Wildlife Corridor Project. Facilities will be planned to be compatible and of low impact and some areas of the corridor will be avoided entirely. This plan attempts to minimize the number of paths crossing the corridor. " (p.8) Analysis of the NMTP and its potential impacts on the QWC is provided in Chapter Six of this management plan. Stormwater Management The City adopted the Department of Ecology's most recent Stormwater Management Manual as part of its engineering design standards,thus, the City is in compliance with statewide Stormwater regulations.The 1999 Draft Stormwater Management Plan has yet to be adopted. Quimper Wildlife Con-idor Management Plan 27 Draft 05112108 This draft plan contains strategies for regional stormwater management systems that use the "natural drainage system approach" and calls for preservation of natural hydrologic regimes. The plan also calls for continued funding of the land acquisition within the 100-year floodplain found within the QWC as part of its capital improvements plan. The Planning Relationship As one can tell from this very brief summary of relevant regulations,planning at the local level has become a very complicated business. The relationship between local planning and management of the QWC can, and should,be a two-way relationship. On one hand, regulations equip JLT with tools for shaping and controlling growth and other factors influencing the QWC. On the other hand, JLT can suggest or request revised or new regulations, codes, and policies that contribute to the goal of managing the QWC. Undoubtedly, the most successful relationship between JLT and especially the two local governments (City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County)will be that of partnership. However, this partnership relationship will be most effective if it extends beyond the incidental. This plan recommends that both jurisdictions designate a key staff person to act as a point of contact for JLT and the QWCP. This person can receive an in-depth training as to the goals of the QWC and can help keep JLT informed as to how new rules and policies may affect the project. They can also help other staff members to consider the QWC while reviewing development proposals. The partnership can also work on joint efforts for such things as funding and restoration efforts. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 28 Draft 05112108 Action Plan Land Use and Regulatory Overview Recommendation Implementation Action 1. Develop an "active partnership" • Request that a staff person be designated with the City of Port Townsend and as a point of contact to better facilitate Jefferson County. communication. • Conduct a two-way training seminar between agency staff and JLT staff. • Work with City staff to facilitate acquisitions/mitigation along the QWC as a viable off-site mitigation site in situations where on-site mitigation is determined to be infeasible or of minimal value. 2. Develop compatibility between Ensure 2008 supplement to the Non- trail placement and design and the Motorized Transportation Plan addresses QWC. potential conflicts, as is currently proposed. • Work with Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board to ensure any new trails are compatible. Qvirnper-Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 29 Draft 05112108 CHAPTER FOUR LAND PROTECTION STRATEGY The QWC will ultimately consist of a patchwork of property owned by JLT,the City of Port Townsend, other public agencies such as Jefferson County,Washington DNR, and private individuals. It has not been the goal of the QWCP to acquire all the land within and affecting the wildlife corridor. Rather, it is the goal of JLT to create a common vision of long-term management of properties to insure the viability of the wildlife habitat. Current Ownership First, the current ownership of the significant habitat nodes was examined in the context of long-term protection of the property from a natural resources management perspective (Figure 1). The originally identified seven major habitat nodes were analyzed first. These properties have been considered the nodes of the wildlife corridor. Originally Identified Significant Habitat Nodes Areas l and 2 —Fort Worden State Park and Chinese Gardens. Management of these properties falls under the purview of the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. Consequently, long-tern management of these areas falls outside the scope of this document,though there may be opportunities to work with WSP as they develop their Park Plan. Area 3—Quaking Aspen/Levinski Wetland. This property is commonly referred to as the Levinski property and is owned by the City of Port Townsend (Tax Parcels 52-60). The property was purchased with wastewater funds as a possible site for meeting future wastewater treatment needs. The Seaview sewer crosses the site impacting the Quaking Aspen itself, as well as leaving vulnerable the access road as a disturbed area prone to invasive plant species. In recent years, several non-motorized trails have been developed on the property. It is currently zoned as public/open space-mixed use(POS-B), and consideration should be given to changing this to POS as this designation would be more consistent with the goals of this Plan. The actual wetland and drainage corridor comprise only a small portion of the property. However, as discussed in the habitat assessment section of this plan, the site also contains other significant habitat. A 14.5 — acre portion of the Levinski property is permanently protected through a conservation easement, (Tax Parcel 60) and the remaining property cannot be considered protected with regards to the QWC. With adoption of this plan,the City intends to increase the area of permanently protected land to include Tax Parcel 58 (approximately 6.84 acres)`. Area 4—Winona Wetland. This large wetland consists of dozens of 50- x I00-foot lots. The City of Port Townsend has purchased most of the area including the buffer using a Qtennper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 30 Draft 05112108 Washington State Revolving Fund loan as part of its "natural drainage system approach"to stormwater management. Deed restrictions have not been placed on these properties,but requirements of the grant funding used for their purchase limit their use. The City's;adoption ofthis Plan will clarify its policy regarding use©f th ese p r (i.e.,that the pareels remain in theircurrert:or restored condittori) Again, the City may consider a rezone of the Winona parcels in order for the long-term land-use to be consistent with QWC goals. Area 5—Tibbals Lake Reserve. Tibbals Lake is an open-water wetland located just outside of Port Townsend city limits. The wetland is on a 43-acre privately owned reserve that was established to protect the wetland,while allowing for a limited number of development/house sites on the perimeter of the property.The majority of the property is held in common by the owners of these properties and is managed through a property owners association. Building, development, and vegetation removal are managed by restrictive covenants. While JLT does not hold a conservation easement on the property, it has worked with the property owners association to steward the property. If a commitment can be continued by both JLT and the Tibbals Reserve property association to work in partnership, this property could be considered protected with regards to the QWC. Area 6—DNR School Trust Lands Property. This parcel is not designated as a Natural Area Preserve or a Natural Resource Conservation Area (Mike Cronin, pers. com.). Thus the site should not be considered protected indefinitely. The current management plan prescribes removal of one-third of the stand's volume every 20 years (Mike Cronin,pers. com.). The prescription practiced on this block may be modified in the future and could include an expanded harvest, trading or selling for rural housing. DNR is considering a 50 year lease of this parcel to Jefferson County as part of its Trust Land Transfer Program, which could provide some protection measures to this significant habitat area. Area 7—Middlepoint Land Conservancy. JLT holds a conservation easement on this private development. Monitoring of the observance of the terms of this easement is conducted annually by the JLT stewardship committee. This property can be considered protected with regards to the QWC. Connectors and other Significant Habitat The habitat assessment completed in this plan as well as refinement of the acquisition goals by JLT staff have revealed areas of significant wildlife habitat that were not originally identified. The current ownership of these significant habitat areas was examined in the context of long-term protection of the property from a natural resources management perspective. • 501h Street Connector. Four blocks along this stretch have been purchased by the City(Blocks 8­11 of the Montana Addition) Through adoption of this plan;the City indicates its intent to permanently retain these areas in their natural'or restored A. condition, portion of this connector remains in private'ownership. Future development of these parcels would be subject to the City's CAO,though this does Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 31 Draft 05112108 nc�t prQh�bt atI development consequently, this connecter can;lie vd eed as partially protected: 49th Street Wetlands.These wetlands are bisected by 49'h/Cook Avenue and are also impacted by the sewer access road. JLT owns the property on the northeast corner of this property, and the City owns the property on the southwest corner(Tax Parcel 58). Throng adoption cif this plan,.the City in' icates its-xntent;to perianently retain"Tax Parcel 5$m its natural.or"restored:condition,(See t ppltcab-12't in Chapter ]� • Le nd -Winona Conneetor.The Cit' nas purchased.Iaricl r itlun this connector, The majority is,however still held n private ownership:This pe Itiori of the"corridor canna be""considered protected`witli regards,to the QWC: Through"adopion of this plan;,the City indicates its intent to permanently retain city-awned Iands in thus area in their natural or restored condition(excepting portions of the Levinsk property,-see Applicability in Chapter,1). • TeePee Wetland.This wetland lies within the 100-year floodplain to the south of Winona. JLT has purchased the majority of the wetland, and those lots held by JLT may be considered protected. A small portion of the wetland remains in private ownership and thus cannot be considered protected. • Ivy Street Wetland. The wetland forest has old-growth characteristics rarely seem in east Jefferson County, and is a haven for songbirds and amphibians.The area appears to be connected hydrologically to Elmira Wetland, and is adjacent to significant JLT holdings. • Winona-Tibbals Connector. This area is where JLT has focused much of its acquisition efforts and much of the area is now owned by JLT_ Property owned by JLT can be considered protected. JLT is currently seeking funding to add to its holdings in this area. • Tibbals—DNR Connector. JLT has purchased a small amount of property in this area, which can be considered protected. Other privately owned parcels cannot be considered protected at this time. Acquisition Strategy Update Ownership of property by JLT, the City of Port Townsend, and Washington DNR offers varying degrees of protection with regard to the QWC. The following are recommendations to further clarify the long-term protection of these habitat lands. • In adopting this plan; the City clarifies-its intent toWretain all of the property purchased with stormwater funds located within the QWC in their natural or restored state (excepting portions ref the Levinski property and the Kuhn Strcet"Wastewater Treatment Plant, See Chapter 1,Applicability). It is recommerided that the City Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 32 Draft 05112108 cirrsider transferring:conservation easements on These properties so that.these pohe� s can be enfcirced lri petPetuty Dscpss areas.uvthiri the Ct }!afasstble reZoringfi • Transfer conservation easements to an eligible agency(likely the City of Port Townsend) for JLT properties. This "double layer" of protection will insure the long- term preservation of the habitat. • Continue working to secure the long-term protection of the DNR parcel. This 80-acre parcel is a very large, vulnerable piece of the corridor that cannot currently be considered protected. Some property remains to be acquired to "fill in the gaps" of the corridor. Some of the parcels have been identified as significant habitat areas,but are not currently protected by either ownership or regulation by either City or County ESA or Critical Areas ordinances. As discussed previously, these regulations offer only limited protection. Figure 1 depicts the acquisition priorities (Tiers I and 2). Alternative protection measures that might be employed are discussed below. Alternative Protection Strategies Portions of the QWC are already developed to a relatively high density. This is especially true in the eastern end nearing Fort Worden. Much of the habitat value has been lost and some homes have been located in the 100-year floodplain. The following are alternatives to acquisition: Owner Outreach - Backyard Wildlife Sanctuaries. This type of educational, outreach program seeks landowners to voluntarily improve their property as habitat. Practices generally involve planting native vegetation and employing organic gardening methods. They may also encourage small water features or other ways to encourage wildlife. These programs typically provide education by way of brochures, resource lists, and workshops. The program may also help provide native vegetation at reduced or no cost. This type of program seems ideally suited as an outreach program for JLT. Partnerships could also be formed with Jefferson Conservation District to obtain native plant starts and technical expertise. Properties that would benefit from this type of an outreach program are shown as Tier 3 in Figure 1. Right-of-Way Vacations. Many of the existing platted rights-of-way within the corridor are semi-developed,usually without a permit or other permission from governmental agencies. Some are vestiges of logging roads, others are impacts from off-road vehicular traffic. As JLT and the City secure more properties, rights-of-way that are bounded on both sides by protected properties can be considered for street vacation (Figure 1). This process would reduce future threats of development. It is important to note that the right-of-way vacation process is fundamentally different within the city limits and outside the limits (Jefferson Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 33 Draft 05112108 County jurisdiction). Those rights-of-way shown platted in Jefferson County have been statutorily abandoned and require a quiet title process to vacate them. Action Plan Land Protection Strategy Recommendation Implementation Action 1. Coordinate with City of • Form a study group with JLT and City of Port Port Townsend staff on the Townsend staff. use of city-owned property within the QWC. 9 Ensure that the adopted natural drainage system approach is incorporated into the Stormwater Master Plan. • Request that the City designate a staff member to be a point of contact for issues involving the QWC to better facilitate communication. 9 Discuss possible rezoning of some protected parcels owned by the City or JLT. 2. Transfer conservation . Investigate ownership alternatives with the above easements to an eligible recommended stud group. agency (likely the City of y p" Port Townsend) for JLT . Investigate mechanisms for placing conservation properties. easements or transferring development rights. 3. Secure the long-term • Form a study group with Jefferson County staff to protection of the DNR investigate how this parcel fits within the County's School Lands parcel. open space goals. • Work with Jefferson County staff to accept 50-year lease to Jefferson County under DNR's Trust Land Transfer program. 4. Update Acquisition • Use the map provided in this plan to determine a new Strategy. cost estimate for remaining acquisitions. • Develop a funding strategy to complete acquisitions. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 34 Draft 05112108 Action Plan Land Protection Strategy Recommendation Implementation Action 5. Pursue street vacations. • Identify rights-of-way eligible for vacation. • Begin vacation applications with City of Port Townsend. • Begin quiet title process for those rights-of-way in Jefferson County jurisdiction as appropriate. QI imper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 3 5 Draft 05112108 CHAPTER FIVE INVASIVE PLANT SURVEY AND STEWARDSHIP Invasive plants threaten native plant and animal communities in the wildlife corridor. Because they evolved in a different locale, there are few ecological mechanisms=such as animal browsing or fire—to keep non-native plants in check. They are often "pioneer species" well adapted to disturbed environments, and they have rapidly and tenaciously stabilized the soil disturbances along roads, trails, and the sewer access right-of-way. Their rapid spread prevents native plant species from obtaining the water, sunlight, space, and nutrients they need. Since native insects, birds, and mammals have evolved to depend on native plant food sources, invasive plants directly diminish wildlife populations. Once established, invasive plant species can be extremely difficult and expensive fo control. In winter 2003-2004, a field study was conducted to verify the extent, location, and types of non-native plant invasions present within select areas of the QVIWC. This report is a synopsis of the field study, and offers recommendations for stewardship. Given the grid work of platted and constructed roads and trails (abandoned roads)that intersect that corridor throughout its length, the QWC has surprisingly few areas of severe non-native plant invasions; many of the gaps along old roads are sufficiently covered over by native plants. That said, there are several severe problem areas. The worst invasions occur along the biggest land scars: large roads such as 49`h Street, and the path of the sewer line such as in Winona Wetland. The corridor has benefited from past efforts to remove invasive species, most notably in Elmira Wetland, where multiple road intersections through the wetland.would have caused much more invasion if not for stewardship interventions. Methods Field studies were conducted on December 31, 2003 and January 1-2, 2004 in clear winter conditions, when plants were easy to see and identify, due to the lack of deciduous leaf growth. In each of seven areas, site location was confirmed on both a plat map and with Global Positioning System (GPS)readings, and all non-native plants were noted along 100- foot transects in several directions. For all transects, compass direction was taken using magnetic north. In some cases, additional field observations were made en route to study sites. Conditions were clear and sunny, and the corridor was surveyed from northeast to southwest. Locations listed here cite street names that were used on the original plat map, but many exist OD the ground only as trails, as many roads have not (yet)been constructed, or were roughed in but never completed. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 36 Draft 05112108 Areas Surveyed 1) 50th Street Connector 2) 49th Street Wetland . 3) Quaking Aspen (Levinski)Wetland 4) Levinski -Winona Connector 5) Winona Wetland 6) Teepee Wetland 7) Alwood/Elmira Wetland Results and Recommendations Non-native plants identified in the QWC include: reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), English holly (Ilex aquilifolium), English and other ivies (Hedera helix,Parthenocissus sp.), Himalayan blackberry (Rubes discolor), evergreen blackberry(Rubus lacinatus), Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius), and bamboo (species not identified). Their distribution is described below. In general, recommendations are to remove invasive species and attempt to re-establish native populations. Specific methods are described in each appropriate section. Note that where herbicides are recommended, they should be applied 1) only where other methods have been tried unsuccessfully, 2) in the lowest possible effective dose and 3) and by trained, licensed.applicators. Descriptions of the invasive plants found in the surveyed areas as well as recommendations for removal and replanting with native species are found below. 50"' Street Connector In this area, English holly (Ilex aquifolium) seedlings and several mature (fruiting)trees thrive in the shady understory of an otherwise native forest. Holly is insidious because birds disperse the seeds of fruits in their droppings, and seeds can germinate in deep shade. Although their initial growth is partially suppressed by shade, they are poised to out-compete the native evergreen tree species (such as Western red cedar and grand fir) when mature falling trees create light gaps. Holly, a prickly, tough-leaved evergreen imported from England, has no native browsers. Also, in this neighborhood, landowners have planted potentially invasive species such as Butterfly bush (Buddleia sp) in their yards, which have the potential to invade the wildlife corridor. Many people plant this bush to attract butterflies, but it may prove to be invasive in wetland and riparian (streamside) areas. In the yards of residential homes to the north of 49th Street, ivy is growing on many of the mature trees. This is clearly visible from the road. While technically this area is "outside" of the corridor, it is ecologically connected to the corridor and should be treated as such. Qeimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 37 Draft 05112108 Recommendations: 1) Remove mature holly trees and seedlings.English holly is an escaped ornamental, which often invades upland forests and wetland areas. English holly often grows into a tall, thick-trunked tree. Removal in winter would be best, as plants are easier to see. Seedlings must be pulled up including roots, or they will re-sprout. Re-sprouting is a problem with mature trees as well; a new multi-stemmed shrub or tree will grow back immediately from a pruned stump. Cut stumps should be judiciously painted with herbicide as soon as they are cut. The wound will absorb the herbicide and thus kill the root of the plant. 2) Replant with natives. Wherever holly is removed, replant with red cedar(Thuja plicata), sword fern (Polystichuni munitum), Indian plum (Oemelaria cerasiformis), and dwarf native rose (Rosa gymnocaf pa). 3) Work with neighbors to spread understanding about the threat of invasive plants to the adjacent wildlife corridor and their special relationship to the corridor. Encourage them to be proactive about replacing non-native plants with native species. Residents along 491h Street should be encouraged to pull ivy from their trees. These residents may also be helpful in efforts to remove invasive plants from the nearby 491h Street Wetland, described below. 4) Recognize and praise volunteer stewardship activities. Note that landowners adjacent to the eastern edge of the sedge/open water wetland, Mike and Laurel Dawson, are already removing English ivy(Hedera helix) from the Douglas fir (Psudotsuga menzisii)trees on their property, immediately adjacent to the QWC to the east. This stewardship should be recognized and encouraged; if they stopped, the ivy would quickly move into the sedge wetland. Other efforts throughout the corridor should likewise be encouraged. 49t" Street Wetland This is the most severe invasion of non-native plants in the QWC. The wetland is located at the intersection of 491h Street and the public path/sewer line access road heading due south, located just west of Hendricks Street. Approximately one-third acre of wetland—including at least 12 mature trees—is entirely covered in ivy (Hedera helix, as well as Parthenocissus sp.). In this area,native vegetation is almost entirely suppressed on the ground. In addition, reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) covers much of this area. Also penetrating this area are small patches ofHimalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) and Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius). This area, especially the wetland and trees visible from 49th street (looking south)presents a major stewardship challenge for the Jefferson land Trust and it partners. Along the sewer access road, there are invasions of Scot's broom along the east-westerly trail along "46"' Street'between "Hancock" and "Rosecrans" trails. Quiniper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 38 Draft 05112108 Recommendations: 1) Remove ivy from mature trees and ground in the area just south of 49'11 Street,just west of Hendricks. Winter will be the easiest time to accomplish this. Remove plant debris from site, as it will re-root if left in place. Large ivy stumps (>2 inches in diameter) should be judiciously painted with a"wetland safe"herbicide just after cutting. 2) Remove non-native blackberry. Himalayan blackberry was introduced from Asia by way of England. It prefers disturbed, open,upland sites,but you will find it here in some shady areas as well. Birds and animals readily spread it, as its fruits are delicious. Best removal techniques are to prune back vines to the ground (leave in a heap to dry out in an open area), and judiciously paint the cut stems with a"wetland safe"herbicide. 3) Manage reed canary grass. This is the most invasive grass species in wetlands of the Pacific Northwest. It is a rhizomatous,mat-forming perennial,which takes over wetland habitats. It is especially fond of wet, disturbed areas. Reed canary grass is a native of Eurasia. It was widely planted in this area between the 1930s and 1980s for erosion control. Attempted control methods include: changing hydraulic conditions, mowing, herbicide application,hand pulling, fire, and others. In this area, a combination of mowing and herbicide application to resprouting clumps in spring may be the preferred alternative. 4) Narrow the roadbed. Along the sewer access road or the"46t11 Street trail,"the trail is wide enough to invite Scot's broom and blackberry invasion. This area could be cleared of Scotch broom by pulling mature and seedling plants up by the roots, tilling the old roadbed, and replanting with sun-tolerant species such as Douglas fir, dwarf native rose (Rosa gymnocarpa), and small seedlings of Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii). A limiting factor in restoration will be the road width needs of sewer maintenance vehicles. Quaking Aspen Wetland (Levinski property) This otherwise pristine (and unique) grove of aspen (Populus sp. — locally referred to as Quaking aspen (P. tremuloides-- but efforts were not made to confirm species))harbors a single 3-inch diameter ivy vine climbing a tree in its epicenter, as well as at least three mature English holly trees. On the small trail that circumnavigates the entire wetland, Himalayan blackberry abounds along the western edge only. The northern edge is quite intact. Recommendations: 1) Remove ivy and English holly trees from interior of wetlands. Scour more carefully for seedlings in summer when water conditions permit. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 39 Draft 05112 108 2) Remove blackberry. This will be an ongoing task in the trail to the west of the Levinski wetland. Winona-Levinski Connector Deep within the Winona—Levinski connector are some scattered patches of English holly, Himalayan blackberry, and Scot's broom. Problem areas include Magnolia Street-Bell Street, south of East Sapphire Street, and Willamette Street-Caines Street south of East Sapphire Street. Recommendations: l) Remove non-native plants, including English holly, Himalayan blackberry, and Scot's broom as described above. 2) Replant with natives such as red cedar(Thuja plieata), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), Indian plum (Oemelaria cerasiformis), and dwarf native rose(Rosa gymnocarpa). Winona Wetland This wetland site was disturbed by the construction of the Seaview sewer line. Reed canary grass covers almost the entire wetland. An academic debate continues about whether this species is actually non-native to the continent. It may have, in fact, been present on the Pacific Northwest coast for several centuries,based on evidence of use in basketry "by the Halq'emylem and probably other Salish groups'' (Polar and Mackinnon, 1994). However, all sides agree that the plant has become unusually invasive in wetlands. Reed canary grass invasion to the extent it is present in the Winona Wetland is usually the result of artificially altered hydrology and soil disturbance. Scattered cattails and sedges throughout indicate the past vegetation of Winona Wetland. Generally, when a wet site becomes a bit drier(i.e., water levels decrease), or when frequency of flooding to a wetland decreases, reed canary grass out competes natives. Thistle, Scot's broom, and blackberries are also present on this site,but are in smaller populations. Recommendations: 1) Explore the possibility of restoring or simulating native water flow regime. Options should be evaluated for answering the following questions: What are the advantages and disadvantages of altering stormwater runoff to increase flooding in the wetland from nearby housing? Is there some way to change the topography of the site to allow for more flow? Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 40 Draft 05112108 2) Manage reed canary grass removal.Attempted removal methods include: heavy mulching,mowing, herbicide application, and fire. Removal by hand or machine is strongly discouraged, as this plant re-sprouts vigorously from the root mat.Note, however, that these methods are short- and mid-term solutions, and do not account for the process that allowed the reed canary grass to become established and thrive. Therefore,before attempting labor-intensive, expensive solutions, further study should be conducted to determine whether a creative solution could be found to create a water flow pattern more favorable to native sedges, rushes, and tules. (See Appendix C for additional notes on reed canary grass.) 3) Continue efforts to pull Scot's broom, blackberry, and thistle. Teepee Wetland This wetland area is very unusual. The south end is forested, with an overstory of alder (Alnus rubra) and willow (Salix spp.). The north end is an intensive garden plot, complete with a fence,benches,raised beds, and small garden shed. The only potentially invasive species here is the bamboo planted along the north edge of the garden. There are approximately six recent privacy plantings (1-2 inches in diameter), as well as one large(12- foot) clump to the east side. Bamboo is highly invasive, spreading by woody runners underground. Once established, it is very tenacious and hard to eradicate. Also on this site is a fresh quarter-acre clearing on the west side of the garden plot (bare soil). There are scattered clumps of blackberry along the southern edge of the trail leading from S. Garnet to S. Ruby along"39th Street trail." Recommendations: 1) In coordination with the City, contact landowners to determine isrhether improvements are consistent with the Critical Areas Ordinance.' In addition, determine if they are willing to have bamboo taken out and replaced with Western red cedar or some other native plant that provides the same function they seek. If landowners are willing, remove large bamboo clump and small plantings. Inquire about their intentions for the cleared area. A fruit orchard would not be a threat to the QWC. A bamboo nursery,however, would. 2) Continue efforts to cut back blackberry from southern trail. Ahvood/Elmira Wetland On "Lenore Street Trail,"between Teepee Wetland and Alwood/Elmira Wetland, there is an unusual abundance of Scot's broom. Elmira Street as well as Cook Avenue divides Alwood Wetland. Considering this fragmentation, the site is in good condition. Alwood Wetland itself contains some trash and debris,but very few non-native plants. Evidence of past Scot's Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 41 Draft 05112108 broom removal was noted. On the east side of the wetland,Atwood Street roadbed restricts water flow. Recommendations l) Continue to pull Scot's broom seedlings, which could persist for seven more years. 2) Consider removing old roadbed on the"Atwood Street trail"and replacing it with a wooden plank walkway to reestablish water flows. This might be a,good public service project for a youth group. Ivy Street Wetland or "Frog Forest" This intact, forest wetland is bounded by Elm Street to the west, 3gtb to the north, Spring Street to the east, and 35`h Street to the south. The wetland forest has old-growth characteristics rarely seem in east Jefferson County, and is a haven for songbirds and amphibians.The area appears to be connected hydrologically to Elmira Wetland, and is adjacent to significant JLT holdings. No invasive species were noted in this area, and the area is only mentioned here because it impressed the field surveyor with its wildlife habitat value and charm. Notes According to the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, the QWC contains only one "Class B Weed,"Scot's broom. However, this list was designed for agricultural needs rather than wildlife protection. "Class B Weeds are non-native species presently limited to portions of the state. Species are designated for control in regions where they are not yet widespread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high priority. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with containment as the primary goal" (Washington Noxious Weed Board, 2004). Although Scotch Broom does fix nitrogen in soil, removal is recommended. English ivy is listed as a "Class C Weed, species that are considered widespread in the state. Long-term programs of suppression and control are a county option, depending upon local threats and the feasibility of control in local areas" (Washington Noxious Weed Board, 2004). Removal is recommended. Invasive Plant Control and Stewardship Priorities Areas can be grouped according to both the degree of problem, and the ease with which these can be remedied. When prioritizing stewardship in the QWC, it may be helpful to managers to consider the following questions: • How intact or pristine is the micro-site? • What disturbances or processes caused the invasion? • How severe is the invasion? What processes exacerbate it? • How do adjacent areas affect stewardship? Qnnnper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 42 Draft 05112108 • What are known remedies? Are they"do-able"? • Are remedies long-term or short-term solutions? Advanced invasion/ difficult to remedy: • "49th Street Wetlands" (southeast of Cook/Hendricks/49'h): English and other ivies, reed canary grass and Himalayan blackberry are overtaking more than a quarter acre of wetlands. See notes below for suggestions. • Winona Wetland: Reed canary grass, Himalayan blackberry, and Scot's broom cover most of this wetland. Encroaching housing developments will cause further hydrologic disruptions as stormwater runoff increases and/or flooding frequencies change. High concern/early invasion/easy to remedy: • Quaking Aspen (Levinski) Wetland: An otherwise pristine (and unique) quaking aspen grove harbors a single 3-inch diameter ivy vine climbing a tree in its epicenter, as well as at least three mature English holly trees. Ivy and holly could be removed from this site in one day. Moderate invasion/difficult to remedy: • The Levinski-Winona Connector: Between Winona Wetland and Quaking Aspen (Levinski)Wetland are scattered pockets of Himalayan blackberry, Scot's broom, and English holly. Removal will require frequent revisits to scour the area, especially in springtime to pull sprouts. Long-term, sustained effort is required. • Alwood/Elmira Wetland: The wetland is in surprisingly good condition. A roadbed at Alwood Street trail just east of Cook could be removed and converted into a plank walkway, thus allowing hydrologic recovery. Moderate invasion/easy to remedy: • 501h Street Wetland: English holly seedlings and trees could easily be removed and replanted with native plants. • TeePee Wetland: Residents have recently established "privacy plantings" of bamboo, which is very highly invasive. Working with the landowners to remove this and replant with natives may be easy or difficult, depending on the landowner. One planting is>12 feet in diameter: others are much smaller. There is also a large (approximately a quarter acre) new clearing adjacent to the large garden/farm in the north end of TeePee Wetland, which may or may not invite invasive plants in the near fixture. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 43 Draft 05112108 Action Plan Invasive Plant Control Recommendation Implementation Action 1. Begin invasive species . Follow recommendations of this plan for species control program. removal/control and revegetation with native species. • Incorporate this program into ongoing JLT stewardship program. • Consider forming a "Friends of the QWC" volunteer program. Trained stewards can be responsible for ongoing invasive species control in addition to organized work parties. 2. Incorporate invasive • Winona Wetland and 491h Street Wetland invasive species control into larger species control must be considered in the context of restoration programs. overall restoration. Consider partnerships to seek funding and implement comprehensive restoration activities at these two sites. 3. Develop a local • Incorporate this program into on-going JLT Backyard Wildlife stewardship activities. Sanctuary Program and/or other owner outreach • Develop partnerships to implement this program, e.g., programs. Jefferson Conservation District, Audubon Society, etc. Qninaper Nl'ildlife Corridor Management Plan 44 Draft 05112108 CHAPTER SIX NON-MOTORIZED TRAILS WITHIN THE QWC, SIGNAGE, AND INTERPRETIVE DISPLAYS The establishment of a non-motorized trail system and the protection of a wildlife corridor are both worthy goals. However, trail development and usage can have a significant negative impact on wildlife habitat. With careful planning and continuing communication between land managers responsible for trails and wildlife corridors,impacts can be minimized and the two public uses can successfully co-exist. Trails and QWC - Areas of Overlapping Use This section identifies areas of overlapping use within the corridor and provides recommended measures to minimize impacts to natural resources. Areas of overlapping use are those in which trails or other human uses cross, intersect, intrude upon, or otherwise impact, a designated Habitat Area and/or fall within the 100-year flood plain (see Chapter Two for definitions of these areas). Sixteen such overlapping areas were identified and are shown in Figure 5. Recommended measures to minimize or mitigate impacts to natural resources include physical responses and management responses. Each area of overlapping use and a measure recommended for that area are summarized below. Areas of Overlapping Use Table 6-1 lists the 16 areas of overlapping use identified in the corridor. These areas were identified through a comprehensive review of the Port Townsend and Jefferson County Non- Motorized Transportation Plans (NMTPs). The trail data from each of these plans were overlaid with the mapped Habitat Areas and 100-year floodplain within the corridor(see Figure 5). Areas of overlapping use were identified where trails cross, intersect, intrude upon, or otherwise impact, an area designated as Habitat Area, and/or fall within the 100- year floodplain. While,it is recognized that there may be other human uses that may overlap with these areas, none was found in the analysis conducted for this plan. The majority of the overlaps are with proposed trails. There are a number of these conflicts, because the Port Townsend NMTP, in general,proposes the construction of as many trails as possible in the undeveloped rights-of-way in the northwest part of the city. The goal of the NMTP is to weave a "network" so that non-motorized users travel between almost any two points in that area of the City without using an open, paved street. While such a network of trails may be consistent with the management goals of the corridor, the impacts of these proposed trails should be investigated prior to construction. The Port Townsend NMTP addresses the impact of trails on the natural environment in following statements: Quimper Wildlife Corndor Management Plan 45 Draft 05112108 "[The goal is to] develop a comprehensive open space and trails plan and implementation program which protects the natural environment and significant cultural resources,provides passive recreation opportunities, is integrated with the non-motorized component of the Transportation Element, and is designed to link neighborhoods with parks, significant open spaces, schools, shoreline access areas, mixed use centers and employment centers." -Open Spaces & Trails Goal excerpted from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan "The Non-Motorized Transportation Plan seeks to harmonize its objectives with the goals of the Quimper Wildlife Corridor Project. Facilities will be planned to be compatible and of low impact and some areas of the corridor will be avoided entirely. This plan attempts to minimize the number ofpaths crossing the corridor" (p.8) "This multi-modal loop also unites neighborhoods with an extensive system ofparks and open spaces, including many environmentally sensitive areas that provide significant wildlife habitat. " (p. 21) While it is clear from these statements that such impacts were a consideration in the policies and other text of the NMTP, it appears the conceptual trail alignments did not considered the impacts of trails on environmentally sensitive and protected lands. Many proposed trails cross environmentally sensitive areas. However, as indicated in the concerns and intent expressed in the body of the NMTP—in addition to those in the Comprehensive Plan impacts of the trails on natural resources will be an important consideration in the final planning of any trail. A 2008 supplement to the NMTP is expected to address these concerns and to include a policy of finding alternate routes for trails that are proposed across wetlands or other critical habitat areas. Recommended Measures A wide variety of potential measures exists to address overlapping uses. The challenge within the corridor is to maximize natural resource protection while avoiding significant restriction of the outdoor recreation experience or manipulation of the non-motorized transportation network. Recommended measures are grouped into three broad categories: no action, physical measures, and management measures. Many of these measures are adopted from current publications on trail design and management. These publications and suggested resources for further reading are included at the end of this section. Physical measures can be implemented for new trail construction and/or where realignment/reconstruction is necessary. Proper trail design, layout, and maintenance are essential for natural resource protection and also contribute positively to trail user satisfaction. Proper design can encourage users to utilize the trail in ways that minimize resource degradation. Given that there is an extensive network of existing and proposed trails throughout the corridor, proper trail design, layout, and maintenance should be a primary consideration. Physical design, layout, and maintenance measures that can help avoid or minimize natural resource impacts in overlapping areas include adequate buffers, design and Quimper Wildlife Corridor Monagement Plan 46 Draft 05112108 construction of trails to accommodate expected use and minimize erosion, adding(or leaving)physical barriers, and implementing an effective maintenance program. Management measures are intended for trails that are already in place. Management measures can be divided into two broad categories: 1) interpretation and education, and 2) regulations and enforcement. It is common that natural resource impacts resulting from trail use are often the result of uninformed or unintentional actions. Effective communication regarding the location and value of natural resources within the corridor can prevent further impact and degradation. Specific examples of interpretation and education elements are provided in Table 6-2. These elements include entrance and directional signs and interpretive signs and displays. Regulations such as speed limits, separating users (e.g., mountain bikes and pedestrians), right-of-way yield requirements, and closing trails or trail sections during sensitive seasons could be established to minimize impacts in overlapping areas. Measures will differ depending upon whether the trail is existing or proposed and,in some cases, a number of different measures may be appropriate. In some cases,no action is recommended for overlapping areas located along existing, permanently paved roadways. Specific recommended measures for-each area of overlapping use are summarized in Table 6-1. Trail Design, Construction, and Management Resources Ryan, Karen-Lee, ed. 1993. Trails for the Twenty-first Century: Planning,Design and Management Manual for Multi-Use Trails.Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. Island Press: Covelo,CA. Flink, C. and R. Scams. 1993. Greenways: A Guide to Planning,Design, and Development. Island Press: Washington, D-C. Knight,R.L. and D.N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreationists. In: Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Research and Management_ A.L.Knight and K. Gutzwiller, eds. Island Press: Covelo, CA. Pp. 51-69. Smith,D. and P.Hellmund_ 1993. Ecology of 6reenways. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis,MN. Quintper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 47 Draft 05112108 7-» z 00 o U s-. U O R U O o _H >~ O >~ 'r3 0 O o O w O m Ocli ? U O ai o cct O ai O M O O O '_� ': as z7 cd d w a w 'o _ o o c o cd cd a G >"l u O O- o O cp o 01 0 0 > �' > > > .� U o o U o.� o o tJn; Q. r z 0 0 0 axi 0 03 0 is ca U4 N Y ti CL 03 c - y ca > o _i � ' � V Q) ¢ "LS C' , O U bz O , o O s ' � U cn > U c3 CD'O U O cn �» -O U O � R Q -O c U 0 q) — O U O s `*" w 'OA V O O bb .U U O � al cli O O O pC�S N a z Z Z o U U ° > > �O W a W w x x +� cd to G= X � ¢ iz: x z3a c A OX va v� Xx WW WW cu CnW C U U U cd Ql � 0= fs, w kn d U v W i > w an a a a a w w v� C ti d U) 3 �. o >, D p n V 'C3 -� 10. U � ° o -6 3° o > o II a n a O C's 'd o p as o' r- a o ,o . y y s Q o o Q� a cn a r4 01 4 c) v , .� a � O0 Oa� Oa� -,z; Cc'>, > o —Cd > > > > Il 'C�i o o o o o y o o 0 0 .. � .. c p' 0 z a�i o CIS p O o co v w sU N U Q ¢ w >,r- 3 M >, C�3 .0 0 cd o as a m 0 0 x Z '� '� Z Z as w 0 ¢ `n a5 II � > w cz (D � a! v1 w c > o yew y3 w w w w �cn o0 's~ AOwX cz a. x a � xroo tiX X X Xv� u 03 y 0 �, w > o > > �° 0 00 E tr W u. II U o ° o = 3 0 Cd Pml .01 3 ¢ II ~' II vi 4- ,Q y Cl N c6 i _cn 40. .� cn o cz L = °o n Qw o U ^ a 0 . U .x 0 cd 0i C15 C13 z CIS c� H z a, � Q Areas for Signs and Interpretation Signs and interpretive elements will serve to enable and assist JLT and other landowners of corridor properties to achieve several goals. These goals can be divided into the following two categories: 1) Informing users of efforts to protect, preserve, and facilitate enhancement and/or restoration of the corridor, and informing users of ownership and custodianship status of lands. This goal will be achieved primarily through the use of signs. These signs will typically be either simple indicators of the entrance or boundary of the corridor, ownership and/or stewardship, and maps of the corridor or section of the corridor. 2) Informing and educating users of particular characteristics of the surrounding lands and other natural features. This'goal will be achieved primarily through the use of interpretive elements. The interpretive elements will typically address a specific area of interest and be placed within view of that area of interest. They will typically contain informative literature and possibly accompanying diagrams, illustrations, photographs and maps. A strategy for employing the signs and interpretive elements should divided into the following phases. These are also designated in Table 6-2. 1) Addressing existing features and situations on existing trails 2) Addressing future or planned-features and situations on existing trails 3) Addressing features and situations on proposed trails A countervailing view is that the QWC contains areas that are sufficiently wild, rural, undeveloped, and uncontrolled that any formalization of the area will compromise those characteristics. This view would hold that any signs, maps, and interpretive elements would damage many of the QWC's rare—if not unique—qualities. Perhaps the most important aspect of this view is that the QWC,because it is largely in a natural state, and because its trails are mostly unmapped and perplexing,provides an intriguing, even . mysterious, adventure to those who are willing to explore it. For many Port Townsend urban dwellers, this is not only an enchanting experience, but one that is rarely available to people in other cities. In this view, the signs, maps, and interpretive elements, while helping some visitors appreciate and understand the surrounding natural environment, are simultaneously obliterating some of those very characteristics and making the area similar to many others that one can find much more easily across the country. For these reasons, the placement of signs and other elements that formalize the experience of visiting and traveling through the QWC should be done extremely judiciously. The recommendations in Table 6-2 seek to address both concerns: the desire to promote the preservation and conservation of sensitive areas and the desire to maintain the Corridor's rare combination of wildness, informality and proximity to an urban area. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 50 Draft 05105108 The majority of the signs in the table are simply informing passersby that the lands adjacent to a trail are either owned by JLT or are otherwise protected or sensitive. An interpretive element is recommended, either at Thomas and East Sapphire or east of the intersection of Willamette and Morton. More detailed site inspections should determine which of these locations is chosen. Either location will help direct visitors to an accessible part of the QWC, will provide beautiful and interesting surroundings, and will be located within a short walking distance ofpaved streets. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 51 Draft 05105108 sz co to > > u h fa 41 v ra U h r+ L/) 41 v a Q c E E E E E � v L L L L OQ Y OC C C C 4.1 .di +�-+ .�-� _ O O O � C c C c u C C C 0 0 0 O O E v 0 ra O O ra QJ E 0.0 tEo v O > 0 Q O n U u O > > .0 m� O M C C p C C C C O O O O D — C O O!A 0 V) O U ra U C V V) �N O U � ra r6 (6 ra C Q) Z Ln v v E _ v) to to 0 CL 1— ro ra c E = c v c c' Q. — rya v v v v E 0 .0 -0 _0 v v O w Ln � (n N a-.+ C C C C C C fu u O > V) C u N CL -0 � U � a _0 -1 -0 Ln -j -0 Ln w cl m �ru � o 0 0 ° v v o o LO o 0 ra axi Q V) > > 0 a a a g c c C L N N •i i i i i 03 0 0 a) � '- L O O O O O C ro V) u M Q U u U U U C pt Ln a) a)O O o 0 0 •X O m C C C v Q) Q1 v v M M O C V O O U U U v U C 4� y v Ql 41 +� C C C C C O _ ru ra ra ra ra -0 -0 _ �f Ln i L L L L L Ln Ln v v C C C C C C C L V 4 c Q w a N v v v v v c c rn 01— V)�y Ln .V r6 0 a' u' � a' � rn a] rn rn rn co C C C ca. c- -0 C C C C V ra a--� .t..+ v QJ U u u u v QJ Ov 70 v L L _0 _0 _0 _0 _0 .� L L -0 Q C Q "� m "6 ra •C _C C C C X C L L C v C C C C C C C Q1 w N-- (n u .0 (n "U to -6 t/ (n V? rn In C C C L •W 'L Ln Ln Ln y v v v ra L L L 70 u Ni--I ra a Ln w Q Q [GU o = ra = 0 O o U O Y u C O fu Of O � O O w E 0 -0 c� v — u -0 cn � o fu ° o Qv � V ra ra ra ra 1� 00 ; a) to 70 Sr U c w ra v E ° m 5 ° -0 C ra n p p = L o C v c � 0 +.+ m C .0 L Q > J �i QT to O ra II. F' ..a -0 _0 -0 '•Q U CL to `+ O C C C C C . +, .0 O ra O (n C ra ra ra ra ra v a a E 4� ra Y S v c o w n 0 0 0 0 0 Lu U u u u u c E v E t., (D < u a m m Q u u u u v 4 H .. > � a (n O Q cl c L �. • ) c Qr p to to rn Ln to to to to to w it II N HF Q acne ui CD r �C o Q3 U) l0 1- 00 0) Y rn . \ \ \ k E 3 & . ƒ / $ \ . / § ® / E 0 c: > u u E U) k % 2 f n / z k \ ) _ ., / % 3 ƒ ey ± / © 2 % \ \ > > 7 G / / \ § o c a D / \ \ 2 « k/ 2 4 41 _ $ $ L) 0 \ / 3 _0 2 22 � _ = o \ / / \ 4- (3) -i / § ƒ .� /2 F F f E f a E / _ _ ' o a G b u ' u u — ' ' y / . 0% aa £ £ 7 � . « _ _ � \-0 CL \ / § / § / § / / a n § : : * .21 meo u # e 2 o » o a o « « » \ \ \ 222 m o 0 r kmG 2 O # © / 2 / $ § 2 2 ® . o © ® 7- \ k _0 / ƒ D C:\ § 7 a) \ / C�s / � f / ~ / ± f ® § ± \ 2 ~ ^ / E R 2 Q) < ƒ / CD « U U U « / m - U R ƒ I Cl f c / :\ } E © m 2@ 2 2 k � 2 2 an _ w \ . x f o 0. m % * m $ L � Ie w z e Non-Motorized Trails, Signage, and Interpretive Displays Recommendation Implementation Action 1. Resolve existing and potential future • Support the Port Townsend NMTAB trail conflicts within the QWC. in rerouting trails as recommended. • Work with the Port Townsend NMTAB to update the plan to reflect new trail alignments as recommended. 2. Provide signage and interpretive • Work with the Port Townsend displays in the QWC. NMTAB to coordinate signage needs. • JLT has recently acquired funding to provide signage and interpretive display(s) in the QWC. 3. Minimize impacts of trails to habitat. • Work with Port Townsend NMTAB and others to develop trail maintenance schedule to prevent widening trail impact areas. • Follow restoration recommendations for rerouted trails and narrowing impact areas of trails. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 54 Draft 05112108 CHAPTER SEVEN UTILITY ENCROACHMENT INTO THE QWC The QWC occurs within an area of the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County that was platted without regard to topography or environmentally sensitive areas in the 1894s. Development of public utilities and infrastructure based upon these historic plats has continued without much knowledge or regard for wetlands and wildlife habitat. This section identifies public utility development that has encroached into the area of the QWC. It also identifies potential future encroachment as contained in public utility comprehensive plans. While this plan does not attempt to present an exhaustive analysis of the impacts of such encroachments, it does make recommendations as to those areas that might benefit most from mitigation. Following are areas where utility development crosses, encroaches into, or otherwise affects the QWC. Figure 4 shows utility locations in relation to the habitat areas. 49`h Street Wetlands (0).The most significant impact here is from the installation of the Seaview sewer line and the associated service access road. There also appear to be water lines in the area, though they probably have little impact on the surface features. The access road has left a good deal of disturbed area that is prone to invasive plants. The function of the culvert under 49th Street is also questionable and undoubtedly affects the hydroperiod of the wetland to the south. This area is identified as an opportunity for restoration. Quaking Aspen (Levinski)Wetland (#2). The Seaview sewer Iine and associated service access road encroaches into the Quaking Aspen Wetland and hydrologically isolates one corner from the rest of the wetland. The service road is wide throughout the area and is prone to invasive plants. This area is also recommended for restoration, including an examination of the hydrology of the site. Willamette Street across the 100-year floodplain (#3). A water Iine was installed here in the late 1970s and has certainly affected the hydrology of Winona Wetland, resulting in significant conifer mortality. A service"road"remains here and is used as a trail. However, the trail was never developed to any acceptable standard and is annually inundated. Because this area has a fairly large volume of bike and pedestrian traffic, the "trail"' continues to widen as users seek to avoid the quagmire. This area is recommended for restoration and for relocation of the trail if an alternate route can be arranged. Karno Street Detention Pond (#4). A recent development of properties was permitted to construct a detention pond on City-owned property and within the buffer of Winona Wetland. This issue has been reviewed and the City no longer allows stormwater Qvimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 55 Draft 05112108 facilities in rights of way except in unique circumstances or for a regional facility, as provided in the City's CAO [19.05.110(D)(5)]. Winona Wetland(#5). The Seaview sewer line was constructed in the middle of Winona Wetland. This encroachment undoubtedly affects the surface hydrology of the area and may affect local surficial and groundwater flows. This area has also been recommended for restoration and may be one area where relocation of the offending utility line may be warranted. The first step would be to undertake a multi-year hydrologic analysis of current conditions before developing an action plan. Potential Future Utility Impacts Streets The City's Comprehensive Plan [Fig. VI-I] shows a proposed extension of 39"' Street through the Winona wetland. This is conceptual only and will require a more detailed analysis. All parties concerned need to cooperate in determining optimal alignment that is compatible with the QWC and with regulatory environmental constraints. From Winona Wetland, the QWC and drainage corridor/100-year floodplain he in a west to east fashion. To the north, development (Fowler's Park area) and associated utility and road improvements have occurred. As population pressure increases,the development trend may move to-the south of the QWC, and it is likely that a road crossing across the QWC will be proposed. JLT should work with the City to develop an alternative in a revised arterial street plan. Stormwater 1) Pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan, the City has adopted a"natural drainage,,system";approach to managing,stormwater(Policy 5.4 of the Land Use Element}. Subsequently,the City adopted the Department of Ecology's most recent Stormwater Management Manual as part of its engineering design standards, thus` .City is in compliance with statewide stormwater regulations. However,the city's most current 1999 Draft Stormwater Plan, is still awaiting further revisions and action_ In the future the City should develop specific plans for each drainage basin to be incorporated into their storwater plan: QW177per Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 56 Drafi 05/12108 Sewer and Water The City's Comprehensive sewer and water plans do not show any planned major capital improvements projects within the QWC planning area. However, it should be noted that the Levinski property was purchased using funds from the sewer utility fund. (This property does contain the Seaview sewer line.) Further clarification of the long-term intended use of this property is needed. Action Plan Utility Encroachment Recommendation Implementation Action 1. Mitigate impact of utility • Analyze impacts of utilities in the context of encroachment of utilities into overall wetland restoration for Winona.. Quaking wetlands. Aspen/Levinski, and 49`h Street wetlands. a Consider impacts to wetland hydrology from utility encroachment. • Follow recommendations for restoration. 2. Mitigate and minimize • Work with City Public Works Department to impact of utility access roads. develop minimum standards for utility access roads (Seaview sewer,Willamette Street) • Follow restoration recommendations for narrowing impact areas of such roads and re- vegetate as appropriate. 3. Minimize impacts of • Ensure that any future development of portions of stormwater to QWC. the properties puurchased with stormwater funds that are not specifically protected by this plan occurs in a manner that minimizes stormwater impacts to the QWC. • The JLT should continue to work with city staff on revisions to the 1999 draft stormwater plan and urge adoption of the plan in the near future. • Work to educate and update City and County development review staff regarding QWC. 4. Minimize future impacts of • Review utility comprehensive plans with JLT and utility development on the wetland and habitat experts. QWC. • Recommend that both the City and County designate a staff person as a point of contact for QWC related issues. Qaintper WilhJlife Corridor Management Plan 57 Draft 05112108 CHAPTER EIGHT RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES AND METHODS This chapter provides recommendations regarding locations and methods for habitat restoration within the QWC. Inventory and analysis of primary habitat types, presence and severity of invasive species, and location of existing and proposed non-motorized trails provided in other sections of this plan were used as baseline information to determine relevant need and potential strategies for restoration. The recommendations set forth in this section are intended to provide a general framework for future restoration activities that will serve to meet the overall management goals of the corridor(see page 5). Restoration goals, overall restoration recommendations, and specific restoration opportunities and methods are discussed below. Restoration Goals Recommendations for habitat restoration within the QWC are based on three overall goals: • Establish a greenbelt of native vegetation • Improve wildlife habitat quality • Increase community stewardship These goals are applicable to the entire corridor. It is anticipated that specific goals, objectives, and performance standards will be developed for individual restoration projects on a case-by-case basis. The overall restoration goals discussed below are intended to achieve the overall management goals of the corridor. • Establish a greenbelt of native vegetation. As stated earlier in this plan, the QWC began as a project with the goal of establishing a greenbelt of native vegetation averaging 200 feet wide connecting seven significant habitat nodes. Landscape connectivity incorporating natural processes and native plant communities will help ensure wildlife species persistence as well as increase resistance to surrounding landscape disturbances. As JLT continues to acquire parcels within the corridor, each property should be assessed for the presence and condition of native vegetation, and restoration of this vegetation should be undertaken as needed. • Improve wildlife habitat quality. A biological inventory of the QWC found that nearly all habitat within the corridor exhibits mild to severe disturbance(see Chapter Two). Improved habitat quality(e.g.,plant species composition and Qrimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 58 Draft 05112108 structure, legacy structures, etc.) can benefit local wildlife populations and increase the presence and persistence of wildlife species. • Increase community stewardship. Given the ongoing urbanization and associated human disturbance within and around the QWC, a critical management component should be the involvement of adjacent neighborhoods and broader community in restoration and maintenance activities in the corridor. Fostering stewardship through public involvement in restoration activities will help meet overall management goals of the corridor. Overall Restoration Recommendations This section provides overall restoration recommendations both in terms of geographic location and programmatic elements. These recommendations effectively prioritize where restoration should generally occur within the corridor and suggest a number of programs around which restoration projects should be developed. The recommendations are designed such that, if followed, future restoration projects will meet the restoration goals discussed above and achieve overall management goals of the corridor. Recommended locations The following general areas are recommended locations for restoration activities within the corridor: • JLT-owned property. Restoration activities should focus on properties currently owned by the JLT. This will minimize coordination needs and ensure that JLT's goals set the primary direction of the restoration project. Additionally, focusing on JLT-owned properties will provide a good example to other property owners within and adjacent to the corridor. • Areas of invasive species infestation. An inventory of invasive species within the corridor (see Chapter Five) indicates a number of locations of early to advanced infestation. These areas should serve as a focus for restoration activities as they are known disturbances within the corridor that can be managed with volunteer labor at minimal to moderate financial cost. • Former non-motorized trail routes. An analysis of the City of Port Townsend Non-Motorized Transportation Plan highlights locations where trail routes cross areas of high habitat value and/or environmentally sensitive areas. In some eases, future trails are planned such that they are rerouted around these areas. Once these future trails are completed,restoration of the former trail routes should occur. Restoration could also focus on vacated road, ights-of-way and abandoned utility easements if they arise. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 59 Draft 05112108 • Areas adjacent to existing roads and trails.To increase the visibility and awareness of corridor management,restoration activities should focus in areas adjacent to existing roads and trails. It is likely that these areas are locations of relatively high disturbance; therefore,restoration activities would improve habitat quality in areas visible to both users of and visitors to the corridor. • Adjacent (non-isolated)parcels. Habitat connectivity is an identified goal of the QWC. Therefore, restoration activities should focus on areas that will provide and/or improve connectedness among high-quality habitat blocks (or patches) within the corridor. Areas that are isolated (i.e., farther apart) from high-quality habitat should have a lower priority for restoration since they are less useful for wildlife species protection and persistence. Recommended programs The following topics are recommended programs around which restoration projects should be developed. These general prescriptions are applicable throughout the corridor and can be completed independently of one another or in parallel on a long-term basis. • Invasive species control. Invasive plants threaten native plant and animal communities in the corridor. In general, recommendations are to remove invasive species, and attempt to reestablish native populations. Specific recommendations presented in Chapter Five should be implemented. An additional option may be to choose a level of infestation that does not interfere with other restoration goals. • Habitat improvement. Overall habitat improvement is needed throughout the corridor. General guidelines for habitat management are provided in Chapter Two. These guidelines, along with current restoration recommendations (e.g., Washington Priority Habitats and Species Program Management Recommendations— see http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phsrecs.htm) for the principal native plant associations identified in the corridor, should be used to develop an overall habitat improvement program. Elements of this program could include canopy thinning,vegetation pruning, snag creation, and increasing plant species diversity. Evaluation of, and potential restoration of, natural hydrology in the Winona Wetland is recommended. • Restoration planting plan. It is important that restoration within the QWC is comprehensive and coordinated, whether phased corridor-wide or completed as a series of single projects. A restoration planting plan for trees, shrubs, and herbaceous natives should be developed before beginning restoration work. • Interpretation and education. As stated earlier, fostering stewardship through public involvement in restoration activities will help meet overall management goals of the corridor. An interpretation and education program should be developed to provide a framework for public outreach, volunteer coordination, neighbor collaboration, and specifics (e.g., funding, design) regarding signs, Quiniper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 60 Draft 05112108 publications, and interpretive elements. A coordinated interpretation and education effort will ensure a consistent and comprehensive message. Coordination with other land managers.A significant amount of land within the QWC is owned and/or managed by other public entities.These include: Washington DNR, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (WSPRC), the City of Port Townsend, and Jefferson County. It is essential that the JLT work closely with these entities to establish a consistent management vision for the corridor. Coordination regarding restoration activities is particularly important given that these entities manage the largest habitat areas within the corridor. • Monitoring. A monitoring program is needed to measure the relative success or failure of restoration projects. Monitoring results will provide data to improve subsequent restoration methods and potential for success. Monitoring will usually include measuring and recording elements such as vegetation survival,presence of wildlife species, water regime, and habitat structure. Specific Restoration Opportunities and Methods It is recognized that the specific location and strategy of future restoration projects will depend upon a number of variables such as funding mechanisms, volunteer availability, and occurrence of catastrophic disturbance (e.g., extreme flood or wind events). Evaluating relative importance of potential restoration projects should include considerations for connectivity between habitats, continuity of the corridors, and buffers. Lower priority restoration efforts should go towards severely infested areas that will require the greatest level of initial effort and follow-up care. Higher priority should be assigned to areas that are easily accessible and more easily remedied. Locations of specific restoration opportunities listed in Table 8-I are examples of areas within the corridor that are currently in need of restoration and/or rehabilitation of some sort. Recommended restoration methods are summarized and matched with potential restoration locations where the methods)may be implemented. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plon 61 Draft 05/12108 Table 8-1: Restoration Opportunities and Methods Location of Restoration Opportunity Recommended Methods North Beach Segment 2,4,6,7 ■ Private property ■ 49"' and 50"' Street wetlands Quaking Aspen Wetland (Levinski) 2,3,4,8 Winona Wetland 3,4,6,7,8 Former trail routes 3,6,7,9 ■ 49th Street to E. Diamond ■ 47t1' Street to 45'h and Rosencrans ■ Others as determined Winona-Tibbals Connector 1,3,5,8,9 • Teepee Wetland • Elmira Middlepoint 2,3,6 Restoration through invasive plant eradication should be implemented as specified in Chapter Five. Additional recommended restoration methods include the following: 1. Monitor legacy tree near the corner of 39t11 and Hall Street. Mulch root area and minimize activity nearby to the extent possible. Consider a mycrorhyzal application to improve soil health and stimulate fine root growth. 2. Enhance corridor buffers. Adequate buffers are critical in protecting the functions of the overall corridor as well as individual resources (e.g., wetlands) within the corridor. Perimeter invasive plant encroachments need to be eliminated. Working with adjacent landowners to encourage natural landscaping practices at the corridor edges will improve water quality, plant species diversity, and wildlife habitat. 3. Selectively restore understory with appropriate native shrubs. Understory plantings are needed mostly to reclaim areas where natives have been lost to invasive incursion or physical destruction. Matching on-site species should be attempted when replanting. Both shrub and herb layers should be reestablished. 4. Restore and/or stabilize wetland hydrology.Most of the wetlands within the corridor have altered hydroperiods due to road and utility construction and other human disturbance. This alteration has shifted the distribution of plant communities and resulted in the spread of invasive species.Volume and flow rates, impoundments, site topography, and grading should all be considered in wetland restoration efforts. 5. Remove diseased trees. Diseased trees (e.g., Western hemlock with root rot) should be removed as needed for the safety of corridor visitors and the overall Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 62 Draft 05/]2108 health of the forest canopy. Early detection and removal will minimize tree loss from disease. 6. Implement demonstration plant labeling/interpretation.Providing information about natural resources in the corridor may foster visitor stewardship and encourage users to become involved in restoration projects. 7. Amend soil throughout planting areas after invasives have been cleared and prior to planting. Invasive weed removal will likely result in areas of bare ground. This is a good opportunity to amend the existing soil to improve nutrient uptake and water retention of existing and new plants. In addition, areas cleared of invasives and/or replanted must be well-mulched to suppress the return of invasives and to conserve soil moisture. 8. Introduce habitat enhancement features. Integrating appropriate habitat enhancement features in the corridor can provide valuable wildlife habitat and increase landscape diversity. Enhancement features include snags, nest boxes, and logs. 9. Ensure forest canopy continuity. Supplement existing tree population wherever opportunities to plant are possible, such as in spot openings,where invasives or diseased trees have been removed, or where blowdowns have occurred. Native conifers with complementary deciduous species plantings are recommended. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Mcnaagement Plan 63 Draft 05112108 Action Plan Restoration Recommendation Implementation Action 1. Control invasive species. • Follow recommendations for invasive species control found in this plan. 2. Develop a comprehensive • Use Washington Priority Species restoration and coordinated plan for guidelines to identify habitat improvement practices. restoration throughout the . Develop a planting plan of trees, shrubs, and corridor. herbaceous plants for use within various habitat types. 3. Prioritize areas for • Work to restore JLT property first. restoration. • Work with the Port Townsend NMTAB to restore rerouted trails. • Restore areas along roads and trails. • Restore non-isolated areas. 4. Coordinate with other • Work with other agencies to develop restoration plans land managers. for non-JLT-owned property. • Specifically, focus wetland restoration on Winona, Quaking Aspen/Levinski, and 49th Street wetlands. 5. Educate the public. • Use restoration efforts as an opportunity to involve volunteers. • Use restoration efforts as an opportunity to provide additional signage or interpretive displays. • Inform neighbors and trail users of protection and restoration efforts via City Newsletter,brochures, mailings, etc. Quimper Wildlife Con•idor Management Plan 64 Draft 05112108 CHAPTER NINE ACTION PLAN The purpose of this plan is to re-examine and refine the vision of the Quimper Wildlife Corridor Project (QWCP) and to provide recommendations for long-term management strategies for Jefferson Land Trust and its partners. This plan hopes to provide management tools for long-term protection between multiple property owners and governmental jurisdictions. A project of this nature requires an immense amount of cooperation and coordination among the partners. The following table summarizes the recommendations and implementation actions presented throughout the plan. It also names the organization(s)best suited to take the lead on action items. Wheman,agency has not adopted the plan;identification"cif tasks can only serve as suggestions. However, much has been accomplished for this project in the spirit of partnership. It is hoped that this summary will serve to re-invigorate all the project partners and motivate them to make meaningful contributions. Summary Action Plan Recommendation Implementation Action Lead Partner(s) Habitat Assessment 1. Update acquisition • Secure/protect the remaining larger habitat JLT and protection strategy blocks including the Winona Basin (with its incorporating new habitat remnant mature growth), the DNR property, and City of PT assessment data. the Levinski Property. • Retain the basic 3-tier corridor concept,while broadening the search to include biologically significant habitats within I km. • Secure protection for the Hall Street legacy tree, Ivy Street wetland (Frog Forest), and the 43'd Street unit. 2. Develop specific • Delineate management units based on habitat JLT habitat and management type and/or location. goals. • Designate a lead entity responsible for managing each management unit. 3. Develop public Expand enhancement program guidelines for JLT outreach program. planting with native vegetation and erecting nest boxes. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 65 Draft 05112108 Summary Action Plan Recommendation Implementation Action Lead Partner(s) • Produce educational materials on best practices for both landowners and small woodlot managers residing in the greater corridor area. • Implement docent program to involve and educate residents. 4. Develop long-term • Establish long-term monitoring programs, with JLT monitoring program. particular emphasis on quantifying indicator species. Include"space for time"plots by sampling in residential areas. These plots will track conditions in different seasons over a period of several years. 0 Continue efforts to gain insight into the corridors pre-settlement plant communities through tree ring data, photo archives, and vegetation analysis of analogous sites. Land Use and Regulatory Overview 1. Develop an "active • Request that a staff person be designated as a JLT partnership" with the point of contact to better facilitate City of Port Townsend communication. City of PT and Jefferson County. . Conduct a two-way training seminar between agency staff and JLT staff. Jefferson • Work with City staff to facilitate County acquisitions/mitigation along the QWC as a viable off-site mitigation site in situations where on-site mitigation is determined to be infeasible or of minimal value. 2. Develop compatibility . Ensure 2008 supplement to the Non-Motorized JLT between trail placement Transportation Plan addresses potential conflicts, NMTAB and design and the QWC. as is currently proposed. City of PT • Work with Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Board to ensure any new traits are compatible. guimper Wildl fe Corridor Management Plan 66 Draft 05112108 Summary Action Plan Recommendation Implementation Action Lead Partner(s) Land Protection Strategy 1. Cooridnate with the • Form a study group with JLT and City of Port JLT City of Port Townsend Townsend staff. on the use of city-owned City of PT property within the • Form a study group with JLT and City of Port QWC. Townsend staff. • Ensure that the adopted natural drainage system approach is incorporated into the Stormwater Master Plan. • Request that the City designate a staff member to be a point of contact for issues involving the QWC to better facilitate communication. • Discuss possible rezoning of some protected parcels owned by the City or JLT. • Investigate possibility of transferring conservation easements on City-owned property to JLT. 2. Transfer conservation . Investigate ownership alternatives with the above JLT easements to an eligible recommended study group. agency (likely the City of City of PT Port Townsend) for JLT . Investigate mechanisms for placing conservation properties. easements or transferring development rights. 3. Secure the long-term • Form a study group with Jefferson County staff JLT protection of the DNR to investigate bow this parcel fits within the School Lands parcel. County's open space goals. Jefferson County • FolIow up with potential 54-year Iease by the County from DNR. Washington DNR 4. Update acquisition • Use the map provided in this plan to determine a JLT strategy. new cost estimate for remaining acquisitions. • Develop a funding strategy to complete Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 67 Draft 05112108 Summary Action Plan Recommendation Implementation Action Lead Partner(s) acquisitions. 5. Pursue street • Identify rights-of-way eligible for vacation. JLT vacations. • Begin vacation applications with City of Port City of PT Townsend. Jefferson • Begin quiet title process for those rights-of-way County in Jefferson County jurisdiction as appropriate. Invasive Plant Control 1. Begin invasive • Follow recommendations of this plan for species JLT species control program. removal/control and revegetation with native species. • Incorporate this program into ongoing JLT stewardship program. • Consider forming a "Friends of the QWC" volunteer program. Trained stewards can be responsible for ongoing invasive species control in addition to organized work parties. 2. Incorporate invasive Winona Wetland and 49`x' Street Wetland JLT species control into invasive species control must be considered in City of PT larger restoration the context of overall restoration. Consider programs. partnerships to seek funding and implement comprehensive restoration activities at these two sites. 3. Develop a local • Incorporate this program into on-going JLT JLT Backyard Wildlife stewardship activities. Sanctuary Program and/or other owner • Develop partnerships to implement this program, outreach programs. e.g., Jefferson Conservation District,Audubon Society, etc. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 68 Draft 05112108 Non-Motorized Trails, Signage, & Interpretive Displays 1. Resolve existing and • Support the Port Townsend Non-Motorized City of PT potential future trail Transportation Advisory Board in re-routing NMTAB conflicts within the trails as recommended. JLT QWC. . Work with the Port Townsend NMTAB to update the plan to reflect new trail alignments as recommended. 2. Provide signage and • Work with the Port Townsend NMTAB to JLT interpretive displays in coordinate signage needs. the QWC. • JLT has recently acquired funding to provide City of PT signage and interpretive display(s) in the QWC. 3. Minimize impacts of • Work with Port Townsend NMTAB and others JLT trails to habitat. to develop trail maintenance schedule to prevent widening trail impact areas. City of PT Follow restoration recommendations for rerouted trails and narrowing impact areas of trails. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 69 Draft 05112108 Utility Encroachment 1. Mitigate impact of • .Analyze impacts of utrht�es in the`context of City of PT utility encroachment into overall vuetlaid restoraJ�on.for Wihotia Q uaking wetlands. Aspep/L evinski,aiid 49a' Street`viretjii ds • Cansfder irripacts to wetland Hydrology=frcn uttlzty ericroaclime�t • Follow recornmendatons`for restoration. 2. Mitigate and . Work with City Public.Works Departirient to City of PT minimize impact of develop minirrium standards for utility access utility access roads. roads(Seaview sewer, Willamette I Street). Fo2Tow restoration recoraii�ienclations for 0 owing impact areas of such roads arid' revegtate as appropriate: 3. Minimize impacts of • Ensure that any future development of portions City of PT stormwater to QWC. of the properties purchased with stormwater funds that are not specifically protected by this JLT plan occurs in a manner that minimizes stormwater impacts to the QWC. Jefferson • The JLT should continue to work with city staff County on revisions to the 1999 draft stormwater plan and urge adoption of the plan in the near future. • Work to educate and update City and County development review staff regarding QWC. 4. Minimize future • Review utility comprehensive plans with the City of PT impacts of utility previously recommended study group. development on the • Recommend that both the City and County JLT QWC. designate a staff person as a point of contact for QWC related issues. Jefferson County Quiniper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 70 Draft 05112108 Restoration 1. Control invasive • Follow recommendations for invasive species JLT species. control found in this plan. 2. Develop a Use Washington Priority Species restoration JLT comprehensive and guidelines to identify habitat improvement coordinated plan for practices. restoration throughout • Develop a planting plan of trees, shrubs, and the corridor. herbaceous plants for use within various habitat types. 3. Prioritize areas for • Work to restore JLT property first. JLT restoration. • Work with the Port Townsend NMTAB to restore rerouted trails. • Restore areas along roads and trails. • Restore non-isolated areas. 4. Coordinate with other • Work with other agencies to develop restoration JLT land managers plans for nonALT-owned property. • Specifically, focus wetland restoration on City of PT Winona, Quaking Aspen/Levinski, and 491h Street wetlands. Washington DNR 5. Educate the public • Use restoration efforts as an opportunity to JLT involve volunteers. • Use restoration efforts as an opportunity to provide additional signage or interpretive displays. • Inform neighbors and trail users of protection and restoration efforts via City Newsletter, brochures, mailings, etc. Quimpei Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 71 Draft 05112108 Insert Figures 1. Ownership Analysis 2. Habitat Types 3. Habitat Segments and Connectors 4. Utility Intrusions S. Overlapping Uses Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 72 Draft 05112108 Appendix A References Andre, H. 1994.Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355-366. Beck, AM. 1974. The ecology of urban dogs. Pages 57-59 in J. Noyes and D. Progulske, editors. Wildlife in an urbanizing environment. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda,MD. Bigley R. 2001.Wetlands perpetuates wood Legacies: Decaying wood in Pacific Northwest forests: concepts and tools for habitat management.In: Wildlife—habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. DH Johnson and TA O'Neil eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvalis, OR. Bolger, DT. 1999. Fragmentation effects on birds in southern California: contrast to the paradigm. Abstract from the 69'h Annual Meeting of the Cooper Ornithological Society, March 29-April 3, Portland, OR. Booth, DB and LE Reinelt. 1993. Consequences of urbanization on aquatic systems— measured effects, degradation thresholds, and corrective strategies. Pages 545-550 in Watershed 93, Proceeding of a national conference on watershed management, Alexandria, VA. Bursh, T. 1983. Cavity use by secondary cavity nesting birds and responses to manipulations. Condor 85:461-466 Chappel, CB and RC Crawford. 1997. Native vegetation of the south Puget Sound prairie landscape. Pages 107-122 in P. Dunn and K. Ewing, editors. Ecology and conservation of the south Puget Sound prairie landscape. The Nature Conservancy. Coleman, JS, Temple S, and S Craven. 1997. Cats and wildlife: a conservation dilemma. University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension Service. Madison,WI. Damman, AWH. 1986. Hydrology, development, and biogeochemistry of ombrogenous peat bogs with special reference to nutrient relocation in a western New Foundland bog. Can. J. Bot. 64:384-394. Diamond; JM and RM May. 1976. Island Biography and the design of natural reserves. Pages 163-186 in: R.M. May, editor. Theoretical ecology principals and applications, W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA. Dickman, CR. 1987. Habitat fragmentation and vertebrate species richness in an urban environment. Journal of Applied Ecology 24:337-351. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 73 Draft 05112108 Ferguson,HL, Robinnette K and K. Stenberg.2001. Wildlife in urban habitats.In: Wildlife—habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington.DH Johnson and TA O'Neil eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvalis, OR. Fitzgerald BM. 1988. Diet of domestic cats and their impact on prey populations. Pages 123-147 in: D.C. Turner and P. Bateson, editors. The domestic cat: the biology of its behavior. Cambridge University Press. England. Forman, RT. 1995. Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University, England George, WG. 1974. Domestic cats as predators and factors in winter shortages of raptor prey. Wilson Bulletin 86:384-396. Glahn JF, Strickley AR, Heisterberg F, and DF Mott. 1991. Impact of roost control on local and agricultural blackbird problems. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:511-522 Gregory SV, Swanson FJ, McKee WA and KW Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem prospective of riparian zones. Biosci. 41:540-550. Hitchcock CL, and A. Cronquist. 1974. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, WA. Jobnson RJ, and JF Glahn. 1994. European starlings. Pages E109-E120 in S. Hygnstrom, R. Tim, and G. Larsen editors. Prevention and control of wildlife damage. University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service, Lincoln, NE. Kauffman JB, Otting N, Lytjen D, and RL Beschta. 1996. Ecological principles and approaches to riparian restoration in the western United States. In: Healing the Watershed: A Guide to Watershed and Natural Fisheries Restoration, Workbook Number 2, Healing the Watershed Series, Pacific Rivers Council, Eugene, OR. Kauffman JB, Mahrt M, Mahrt LA, and WD Edge. 2001. Wildlife of Riparian habitats. In: Wildlife—habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. DH Johnson and TA O'Neil eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvalis, OR. Kunze, LM. 1994. Preliminary classification of native, low elevation, freshwater wetland vegetation in western Washington. Washington Natural Heritage Program, Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA, 120 pp. Lamsden, HG. 1986. Choice of nest boxes by tree swallows,house wrens, eastern bluebirds, and European starlings. Canadian Field Naturalist 100:343-349. Lancaster,RK and WE Rees. 1979. Bird communities and the structure of urban habitats. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 57:2358-2368. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 74 Draft 05112108 Ludwig, DR. 1995. Assessment and management of wildlife diversity in an urban setting. Natural Areas Journal 15:353-361. McGarigal K and WC McComb. 1992. Streamside versus upslope breeding bird communities in the central Oregon Coast Range. Journal of Wildlife Managment. 56:10- 23. Marzluff, JM, Gehlbach, FR, and DA Manuwal. 1998. Urban environment: influences on avifuana and challenges for the avian conservationist. Pages 283-299 in: J.M. Marzluff, and R. Salabanks, editors. Avian conservation, research, and management. Island Press, Washington DC. Mitchell, K. 1992. Investigating the possibility of an urban wildlife corridor in Port Townsend, WA. Unpublished masters thesis. Morrison ML. 1981. The structure of western warbler assemblages: analysis of foraging behavior and habitat selection in Oregon. Auk 98:578-588. Naiman R, and H Decamps. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Ann. Review of Ecology and Systematics. 28:621-658. Norton, HH. 1979. The association between anthropogenic prairies and important food plants in western Washington.Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 13:199-219. Noss, RE and A Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature's legacy: protecting and restoring biodiversity. Defenders of Wildlife and Island Press, Washington DC. Olson DH, Hagar JC, Carey AB, Cissel JH, and FJ Swanson. 2001. Wildlife of westside and high montane forests. In: Wildlife—habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. DH Johnson and TA O'Neil eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvalis, OR. Pojar, J and Mackinon, A. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest coast. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver, BC. Polaris Engineering and Surveying. 1995. Implementation plan area standard drainage basin #4: North Beach. Study prepared for the City of Port Townsend, WA. Quinn, T. 1997. Coyote (Cain latrans)in three urban habitat types of western Washington. Northwest Science 71:1-5.Rose CL, Marcot BG, Mellen TK, Ohmann JL, Waddell KL, Lindley DL, and B Schreiber. Resources Northwest. 1992. An assessment of wildlife species and habitats for the proposed Middlepoint Land Conservancy Development. Rost, GR, and JA Bailey. 1979. Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 43:643-641. Ouimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 75 Draft 05112108 Sidell JR, Bisson PA, Swanson FH, and SV Gregory. 1988. What we know about large trees that fall into streams and rivers. In: From the forest to the sea, a story of fallen trees. Masser C, Tarrant RF, Trappe JM and JF Franklin editors. US Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-229. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Soil survey of Jefferson County Area, Washington. USDA, Washington DC. Soule M, Alberts, CA, and DT Bolger. 1-991. The effects of habitat fragmentation on chaparral plants and vertebrates. Oikos 63:39-47. Swanson FJ, Gregory SV, Sendell JR, and AG Campbell. 1982. Land-water interactions: the riparian zone. Pages 267-291 in: Edmonds RL, editor. Analysis of coniferous forest ecosystems in the western United States. US/IB Synthesis Series 14. Hutchinson Ross Publishing, Stroudsburg, PA. Van Durff, LW, Bolen, G, and GJ Sarin Julian. 1994. Management of urban wildlife. Pages 507-530 in TA Bookout, editor. Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD Warren, JW. 1997. Deer overabundance. Wildlife Society Bulletin Special Issue 25:2. Washington Noxious Weed Board. 2004. 2004 Weed List. bttp://www.nwcb.wa.gov. Weitzel NH. 1988. Nest-site competition between the European starling and native breeding birds in Northwestern Navada. Condor 90:515-517. Wilcove, DS, McLellan CP, and AP Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. Pages 237-256 in: M.E. Soule, editor. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland MA. Yahner, RH. 1988. Changes in wildlife communities near edges. Conservation Biology 2:333-339). Ouimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 76 Draft 05112108 Appendix B . Land Use and Regulatory Overview Detailed Policy Citations Land Use Goals and Policies The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan recognizes the guidance included in the State GMA (amended 1997)that includes the following definition of rural character: ......Rural character refers to the patterns of land use and development established by a county in the rural element of its comprehensive plan: (a)In which open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation predominate over the built environment; (b) That foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural-based economies, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas; (c) That provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and communities; (d) That are compatible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat; (e) That reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development; (f That generally do not require the extension of urban governmental services,- and (g) That are consistent with the protection of natural surface water flows and ground water and suface water recharge and discharge areas." RCW 36.70A030(14) Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, 1998 3:2. The following Land Use Goals and Policies may affect the QWC: GOAL: LNG 14.0 Preserve the functions and values of critical environmental areas and protect development from the risks of environmental hazards. POLICIES: LAND USE AND RURAL LNP 14.1 Ensure that land use decisions are based on land use ordinances which are in compliance with the Critical Areas Ordinance and all applicable state and federal environmental laws. LNP 14.2 Locate and design residential, commercial,and industrial development to minimize risk from flooding, earth,movement, shoreline erosion, and other natural hazards. LNP 14.3 Support cooperative ecosystem and habitat management processes between stakeholders and local, state, federal and tribal governments by incorporating cooperative agreements into land use ordinances and regulations. LNP 14.4 Ensure that land use decisions along Jefferson County shorelines protect the shoreline environment, facilitate public access, recognize the needs of water-oriented activities and cooperate with regional plans for protection and management of shorelines. In areas of the County under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act(Chapter 90.58 RCW), activities which are water-oriented will be preferred over those activities which are not, all other factors being equal, consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and the land use designations, goals, and policies of this Comprehensive Plan. LNP 14.6 Develop land use ordinances based on comprehensive watershed and salmon recovery plans for the conservation, protection, and management of surface and ground waters, in order to maintain water quality and quantity, and to restore and protect fish habitat. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3:92-3 Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 77 Draft 05112108 GOAL: LNG 16.0 Identify and designate lands for both public purposes and essential public facilities. POLICIES: LNP 16.1 Assess for designation public purpose lands, such as publicly owned vacant land, utility corridors, antenna sites, transportation corridors, sewage treatment facilities, storm water management facilities, recreation facilities, and schools, to provide a range of services to the public and serve as sites for some public facilities. LNP 16.3 Ensure that designated public purpose lands are appropriate to the level of service standards for the designated land use density. LNP 16.4 Provide for broad-based participation by agencies, citizens and other interested parties in the process for designating land to be used for essential public facilities. LNP 16.5 Develop standards that require public facilities to be sited in a manner unobtrusive to the immediate environment.These standards should address buffers, screening, lighting, noise, drainage, traffic impact and lot coverage.Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3:94 RURAL CHARACTER GOAL: LNG 18.0 Protect and foster the County's rural character. Rural character is defined by local rural lifestyle, local rural visual landscapes, resource productivity, environmental quality, and significant areas of open space. POLICIES: LNP 18.1 Identify and implement rural land uses, densities, and environmental standards which preserve and protect rural character. LNP 18.2 The maintenance of environmental quality is critical to the preservation of rural character. Develop and strictly enforce environmental regulations which protect the value and functions of the environment. LNP 18.4 The preservation of high-value open space is directly linked to the maintenance of Jefferson County's rural character. Protect open space consistent with the goals and policies of the Open Space Element of this plan. LNP 18.5 Locate designated open space areas so as to provide connections with adjoining open space areas, offer visual relief for both on and off-site residents, enhance habitat values, and where appropriate allow for recreational opportunities. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3:95 GOAL: LNG 23.0 Encourage residential land use and development intensities through techniques such as clustered housing that protect the character of rural areas, avoid interference with resource land uses, and minimize impacts upon environmentally sensitive areas. POLICIES:LAND USE AND RURAL LNP 23.1 Rural residential cluster subdivisions shall be encouraged, consistent with development regulations, throughout the rural areas. The open space tracts in these subdivision shall be permanently preserved. LNP 23.2 Support creative residential design and maintenance techniques including: a. common ownership and shared maintenance responsibilities of open space by residential property owners. b. dedication of open space tracts or easement to public entities or non-profit associations. LNP 23.3 Consider residential density bonuses and transfer of development rights in rural areas where such techniques can be demonstrated to sustain public goals such as the provision of wildlife corridors and public open spaces, the preservation of rural character, the enhancement and protection of water supplies, and the protection of designated resource lands. LNP 23.4 Consider integrating open space planning with innovative programs such as the purchase or transfer of development rights, cluster development, open space tax assessment, and acquisition of easements. Quimper Wildlife Corridor !Management Plan 78 Draft 05112108 LNP 23.5 Develop guidelines to identify appropriate locations for clustering such as shorelines, scenic resources, agricultural lands. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 3:97 Chapter 6 of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan recognizes that open space is essential to the rural character of Jefferson County, the chapter proposes strategies and regulations to achieve a balance between open space preservation and land development and use activities, consistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act. Open Space Lands Description 1. Pristine Open Space. This category consists of undisturbed open space,with no active land use or development. These areas may contain significant environmentally sensitive areas or wildlife habitat. Examples include old-growth forest or tidal marshes. 2. Resource Open Space.These are open lands that are actively used for natural resource production, including lands designated as being of long-term commercial significance. Examples include farms,forests, and shellfish beds. 3. Low Density Rural Residential Open Space. Residential densities throughout the County(i.e., large lot residential zoning) promote a pattern of open space because the lot coverage and resulting visual impact is minimal in relation to the size of the parcel. 4_ Public and Preserved Open Space. These areas consist of National, State, and County Parks and linkages, such as greenbelts and conservation easements_This is a multiple use category of open space, including both active and passive uses. 5. Active Open Space. This is open space designed for higher intensity or active recreational uses. These lands consist of a wide variety of public and private spaces, such as trails, marinas, golf courses, playfields, and campgrounds. Many of these lands are connected within ecological systems that have unique functions and attributes.Taken together, these areas form the distinctive mosaic of open space found in the County.This"quilt-work" of open space is integral to the rural character of Jefferson County. As a result of population growth and associated development in the County, significant areas of open space have been converted to residential uses_This change in the rural landscape has resulted in the fragmentation of open space areas and wildlife corridors, and the depletion of important resource lands, including farms and forests. Conflicts often have been created between residents and resource industries as residential development has encroached upon previously undeveloped lands. If developed areas continue to expand in the existing pattern, additional open spaces and natural areas will be converted to other uses. To plan adequately for the provision of open space, priority areas need to be identified.The majority of land that should receive priority attention in terms of open space designation within Jefferson County includes most environmentally sensitive areas including stream and drainage corridors. Other areas that should receive priority attention consist of those currently facing development pressure(i.e., actual building activity or land division). The map on Page 6-11 illustrates some priority areas for open space designation as determined by the Jefferson Land Trust(identified in light blue). The primary areas consist of.the North Quimper Peninsula Corridor area connecting the Cape George area to Fort Worden; an open space area extending from Tibbals Lake south through the valley adjacent to Jacob Miller Road; the Chimacum Creek watershed; and the headwaters of Discovery, Quilcene and Tarboo Bays. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 6:34 WILDLIFE CORRIDORS Wildlife corridors provide a safe habitat for animal and plant life to exist and flourish.Wildlife corridors maintain or reestablish links between important wildlife habitat areas that may be interrupted due to development activities. As Jefferson County continues to experience growth Qnimper Wildlife Corridor- Management Plan 79 Draft 05112108 and development, important wildlife areas are being"Cutoff"from the system of wildlife habitats making it more difficult for wildlife to pursue natural lifecycle patterns. In a very simple sense,wildlife corridors provide a protected pathway along which native wildlife species can move in relative security between the high quality habitats of the area. In many- instances it is best to coordinate the location of these corridors with existing natural drainage corridors which have naturally served in this capacity. The important functions provided by wildlife corridors include: providing safe passage for native wildlife; helping to maintain a natural flood water control system; protecting existing habitat and water quality; enhancing property values; and ensuring that future generations realize the benefits derived from maintaining a balanced natural system. Clearly, multiple goals may be accomplished by well planned and located wildlife corridors. Retaining and protecting drainage corridors along with their associated buffers will become increasingly important as development progresses (i.e., as impermeable surfaces continue to increase), and the functions of these areas for water retention, water quality enhancement and aquifer recharge will be diminished without adequate protection.These areas, in addition to serving important functions to wildlife, are the first and best element in storm water handling and treatment. Overbuilding near floodplains or reducing the size of our drainage corridors will result in the need for expensive infrastructure to treat storm water runoff and to prevent flooding and associated damage. Recent winter storms and subsequent snow melt and runoff provide dramatic testimony to the need to keep drainage corridors and floodplains open and free of inappropriate development and densities. The Jefferson Land Trust, a non-profit organization providing options for landowners wishing to preserve certain values of their property, is pursuing a system of open spaces, greenbelts and wildlife corridors throughout the County. Landowners work with the Land Trust when they wish to permanently protect the ecological, agricultural, scenic, historic or recreational qualities of their land. The most common way for a landowner to protect lands for these purposes is through the granting of a perpetual conservation easement or outright donation of land to the Land Trust. By establishing a cooperative relationship with the Land Trust, Jefferson County will be able to develop a comprehensive open space program that will help ensure the natural functions of the environment are protected while affording wildlife abundant natural areas and protecting the public health, safety and welfare of the County's residents. it is now widely recognized that development can be compatible with wildlife when we plan for it. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 6:37 OPEN SPACE GOAL: OSG 1.0 Preserve and enhance the existing open space lands. POLICIES: OSP 1.1 Develop and promote a comprehensive strategy of development regulations, incentives, public/private partnerships, land acquisition programs, and an identification process for specific open spaces to be preserved or enhanced. OSP 1.2 Evaluate proposed development projects to preserve and protect the following open space areas: a. Corridors linking habitat, wetland and riparian zones; b. Habitat areas for species of concern; c. Shoreline areas; d.Areas containing significant trees; e. Pastures and farmlands; f. Forested ridges and hilltops (if they can be viewed from public areas and public roads off-site); g_ Naturally occurring meadows and open areas; h. Existing trails and trail systems open to the public; and, i. Constructed open areas, and other altered natural areas (examples include: clear-cut Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 80 Draft 05IJ2108 timber areas, cleared fields, land formerly used for resource extraction, and recreational areas). OSP 1.3 investigate and consider a variety of techniques to preserve and protect open space including public acquisition and clustered development. OSP 1.4 Encourage.public enrollment in the current-use or preferential tax assessment(RCW 84.34)for open space lands. OSP 1.5 Pursue public acquisition of potential parks, critical wildlife areas, and other open space lands by utilizing a variety of funding mechanisms. OSP 1.6 Support efforts by the Jefferson Land Trust and other organizations to secure property for open space,wildlife habitat corridors and a County-wide trail system. GOAL: OSG 2.0 Identify and develop an interconnected County-wide network of naturally occurring and planned open spaces. POLICIES. OSP 2.1 Design and site open space areas to aid in the establishment of a County-wide system of open spaces connected by wildlife habitat corridors and trails. OSP 2.2 Establish open space network linkages throughout the County which connect UGAs and Rural Centers, schools and park or recreation sites. OSP 2.3 Locate parks or open space so as to provide for a variety of outdoor activities or to take advantage of natural processes (i.e., wetlands and tidal actions), unique landscape features(i.e., cliffs and bluffs), or outstanding natural amenities. OSP 2.4 Promote the inclusion of open space in development proposals and develop criteria for identifying types (and intensity)of open space in development proposals. OSP 2.5 Ensure that the development of new parks adequately addresses the open space objectives of both the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan. OSP 2.6 Incorporate the active and proposed trail systems identified in the Jefferson County Parks Comprehensive Plan as well as those identified in community plans, into the open space network. OSP 2.9 Pursue and encourage public involvement in open space planning through a variety of methods including advisory boards, workshops, and news releases. OSP 2.10 Coordinate efforts with the City of Port Townsend and the Jefferson Land Trust to designate open space and trail connections through the unincorporated portion of the potential FUGA(i.e., consistent with Chapter 36.70A.160 RCW). GOAL: OSG 3.0 Encourage the multiple use of open spaces and wildlife corridors POLICIES: OSP 3.1 Protect environmentally critical open spaces, such as drainage corridors or floodplains, by associating them with appropriate recreational uses. OSP 3.2 Review development proposals to evaluate opportunities for multiple use of proposed open space. The open space should be of a quality, quantity, and configuration which ensures that a suitable portion of the site is designated for conservation, passive recreation, and, where appropriate, active recreation. "Open space"refers to either the formal designation of areas as'open space" or the retention of areas within lots or parcels that will be managed under private ownership as 'open" or undeveloped uses. OSP 3.3 Jefferson County, based on information developed and provided by organizations involved in the preservation of natural wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors, has identified areas throughout the County which will be prioritized as areas targeted to be preserved and maintained as wildlife habitats and corridors_These areas are identified and illustrated on the Open Space and recreation map contained in this Plan. Quiniper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan g Draft 05112108 STRATEGIES A. OPEN SPACE STRATEGY Jefferson County's strategy for the management of open spaces focuses on identifying, preserving, acquiring and linking open spaces in order to provide a wide variety of multiple-use opportunities to both residents and visitors. Action Items 1. Develop streamlined procedures for replatting and reviewing plats and short plats where the lots in the original plat are aggregated and replatted in order to achieve better design and meet the goals of this plan. Consider vacating unimproved plats created prior to 1937 and requiring they be replatted to meet current allowed densities. (Corresponding Goal. 1.0) 2. A partnership with the Jefferson Land Trust should be developed for the preservation of open space through fee-simple purchase and conservation easements_ (Corresponding Goal: 1.0) 3.As a means of preserving open space, the County shall develop a Flexible Lot Design Subdivision process which would permit cluster development, and provide specific open space guidelines and standards. The Flexible Lot Design Subdivision shall consider and include as appropriate: • Consideration for dedication of open space for public use; • Protection of critical areas; • Preservation of significant trees; • Creative site design including placement of structures, circulation systems, and utilities that minimize land alteration (i.e., a variety of lot sizes, building types, scale and design to reduce the bulk of structures); • Pedestrian orientation, including trails and walking paths; • Adequate provision of public facilities and amenities; • Preservation of natural features; • Preservation or creation of farmland,- • Limited impervious surface/area of site disturbance; • Public waterfront access and/or view; • Establishment of perimeter buffers:from building site to building site, and from the proposed project to adjacent land uses or roadways; • Use of the most suitable soils for individual, on-site septic systems; • Preservation of scenic views; • Interconnection, where possible, with open space areas located on adjacent properties; • Sharing of a single community well or water system (if feasible). (Corresponding Goal: 1.0) 4. Criteria for the designation of open space areas in developments should consider providing connections with adjoining open space areas, offering visual relief for on and off-site, enhancing habitat values, and, where appropriate, allowing for recreational opportunities. (Corresponding Goal: 1.0) 5. Implementing ordinances (Critical Areas, Subdivision, Parks & Recreation)should promote multiple use of open space and wildlife corridors. (Corresponding Goal: 3.0) 6. Include provisions for a variety of innovative techniques to preserve open space and protect environmentally critical areas and water resources. These techniques shall include,but not be limited to: • Open space tax incentives-, • Cluster development • Transfer and purchase of development rights; • Limiting the amount of lot coverage; • Conservation easements; • Landowner compacts; • Trail systems, and • Streamlining the application process for current use assessment (Corresponding Goal: 1.0) Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 82 Draft 05112108 7. Promote and encourage the preservation of undeveloped open space through the acquisition of property by local agencies or land trusts,trades with private or governmental landowners, and incentives for developers. (Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0) 8. Develop a strategy utilizing a number of funding mechanisms to acquire open space lands, including, but not limited to: • Property tax levies; • General obligation bonds and limited general obligation bonds; • Intergovernmental funds (i.e., state grants); • Foundation moneys; • A 1/4 percent tax for capital facilities (RCW 82.46.010); • Second 1/4 percent tax for capital facilities (RCW 82.46.035); • "Tree tax" of up to one percent for acquisition and maintenance of conservation areas (RCW 82.46.070); • Creation of Parks and Recreation Districts (RCW 36.69); • Conservation futures funding (RCW 84.34) • Fee-simple purchase; • Less than fee-simple purchase (i.e., purchase of development rights and conservation easements); • Voluntary donations with tax incentives; • Land transfers or exchanges; and • Real estate excise tax_ (Corresponding Goals: 1.0, 2.0) 9. Continue to implement the Open Space Tax Program and associated Public Benefit Rating System and consider establishing a Land Acquisition Rating System for open space.A special program for the acquisition and development of marine waterfront properties(boat launch facilities and waterfront trail and interpretive systems should be included. (Corresponding Goal 1.0) Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 6:3-4 Environmental Chapter Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 includes strategies goals and polices which identify and protect wildlife habitat and commit the County to land use review which ensures that those goals are met. ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES Jefferson County believes that a healthy environment is fundamental to the quality of life of its citizens.While protection of the environment is a primary goal of the GMA planning process, neither the text of the Act nor the decisions of the Hearings.Boards define specifically how this is to be accomplished.Therefore, for the purposes of this plan, Jefferson County has adopted a working definition of environmental protection, which is based on the relationship between four essential components: • Watershed and Fish Habitat Recovery Management Strategy; • Regulatory Strategy for Consolidated Environmental Review, • Critical Areas Protection Strategy; and, • Public Education and Involvement Strategy. Watershed and Fish Habitat Recovery Management Strategy A Watershed and Fish Habitat Recovery Management Strategy recognizes the interconnected nature of environmental resources through the hydrologic cycle, and the necessity to develop comprehensive watershed and fisheries recovery management plans as the framework for Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 83 Draft 05112108 resource management.The 1998 proposed listings of salmon and bull trout species as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, including the Hood Canal Summer Chum and the Puget Sound Chinook require that Jefferson County develop land use regulations to protect habitat based on integrated watershed and salmon habitat recovery plans.The County expects to work with local, tribal,state and federal agencies to develop land use regulations based on these plans that protect the water resources of the County for use by future residents and for the fish species that are threatened with extinction, as well as all other species. Watershed management of hydrological resources addresses wetlands, shorelines, surface waters, aquifer recharge, landslide hazards,flood hazards, and frequently flooded areas. It incorporates management of instream flow volumes and storm water quality and quantity. It has a direct impact on and is integrally related to the protection of fish and wildlife habitat. The 1997 state legislature enacted laws which establish the framework for watershed and fish habitat recovery planning. Jefferson County, a member of the Jefferson County Water Resources Council,will work with adjacent counties and other parties to develop watershed management plans on which land use regulatory decisions will be based.The goals and policies of the Environment Element reflect the County's commitment to resource management based on watershed and fish habitat recovery planning. Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan 8:1-2 The Counties Critical Areas Protection Strategy describes the regulations and methodologies used to protect the critical environmental areas found throughout Jefferson County. Protection and enhancement of critical areas were determined by the state legislature to be essential to the maintenance of public health and safety. The designation of Critical Areas in Jefferson County was guided by GMA requirements, state guidelines, and an extensive local review process. In 1994, the Jefferson County Interim Critical Areas Ordinance was adopted. The Critical Areas Ordinance designates and regulates the following critical areas as required under RCW 36.70A.030(5): • Wetlands • Aquifer recharge areas; • Frequently flooded areas; • Geologically hazardous areas; and, • Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. In addition the County recognizes the following additional areas requiring enviromnental protection: Shorelines, Air Quality, Natural Heritage Vegetation and Landforms, and View and Noise Conditions. The Comprehensive Plan includes the adoption of Critical Areas maps including maps which designated areas of the QWC as Critical Areas. NATURAL HERITAGE VEGETATION AND LANDFORMS GOAL: ENG 7.0 Protect Jefferson County's natural heritage, including high quality native vegetation and unique landforms. POLICIES: ENP 7.1 Encourage collaboration with state programs such as the Washington Natural Heritage Program and local conservation groups to identify and protect plants, plant communities, habitats and landforms which reflect the County's unique natural heritage_ Onimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 84 Draft 05112108 ENP 7.2 Encourage the protection and acquisition of priority sites and habitats which protect. native ecosystems. ENP 7.3 Provide information as resources allow so that land use decisions recognize and reflect protection of native ecosystems and rare landforms. ENP 7.4 Native vegetation should be used whenever possible in habitat restoration projects and linking of open space areas. ENP 7.5 Encourage the utilization of native vegetation and drought-tolerant species to reduce water consumption and landscape maintenance costs. ENP 7.6 Encourage public education and information to foster citizen understanding of native ecosystems and Jefferson County's unique natural heritage. ENP 7.7 Encourage protection of unique geologic sites, conditions, and values, including locations of unique scientific interest, such as fossil locations and special mineral and rock locations. ENP 7.8 Support efforts of the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board and other agencies to eradicate invasive species of vegetation. CRITICAL AREAS REGULATED UNDER THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE Fish and Wildlife Habitat GOAL:ENG 12.0 Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat throughout Jefferson County. POLICIES: ENP 12.1 Participate in multi-jurisdictional processes with community representation for development of coordinated watershed and habitat conservation plans to serve as the basis of land use decisions that may affect fish and wildlife habitat. ENP 12.2 Land use decisions should recognize the priority of the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat in accordance with proposed listings of threatened and endangered species under the Federal Endangered Species Act. ENP 12.3 Buffers for fish and wildlife habitat areas should be consistent with the best available science for habitat protection. ENP 12.4 Promote the protection of wildlife habitat corridors that connect otherwise isolated habitat areas. ENP 12.5 Promote best management practices to protect fish and wildlife habitat in land use regulations related to septic systems, drainage,forest practices, agricultural practices, industry, and other development. ENP 12.6 Coordinate with appropriate agencies to avoid adverse impacts to fish and wildlife habitat in the review and approval of development proposals. ENP 12.7 Cooperate and coordinate in habitat restoration efforts with regional organizations such as the Hood Canal Coordinating Council. Wetlands GOAL:ENG 14.0 Protect and enhance wetlands in all their functions. POLICIES: ENP 14.1 Designate and manage wetlands based on the best available science. ENP 14.2 Land use activities that may impact wetlands should be reviewed in the context of a comprehensive watershed and habitat conservation plan. ENP 14.3 Standards for wetland buffers should be consistent with the best available science as recommended by wetland and habitat biologists. ENP 14.4 Promote best management practices to protect wetlands in land use regulations related to septic systems, drainage, forest practices, agricultural practices, industry, and other development. STRATEGIES A.WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND HABITAT RECOVERY STRATEGY Jefferson County's strategy for management of environmental resources will be conducted in the context of a collaborative watershed management approach to the interrelated functions of the resources, in order that land use activities are consistent with plans for the recovery of fish species proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 85 Draft 05112108 B. CONSOLIDATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REGULATORY STRATEGY Jefferson County's strategy for resource protection is based on an ongoing effort to inventory and collect information related to the County's environmental resources and functions based on the best available science, and to protect the resources through implementing ordinances. Action Items 1. Develop a consolidated environmental review process that promotes efficient and timely permit decisions and a more comprehensive environmental review. (Corresponding Goal: 1.0) 2. Evaluate and develop standards for development,where appropriate, which include incentives for the protection of environmental resources, public access to shorelines, the creation of open space,the conservation of water resources, and the protection of viewsheds. (Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 8.0) 3. Identify criteria and designate Special Environmental Overlay Districts for areas of Jefferson County in which environmental protection needs are identified. (Corresponding Goals: 3.0, 4.0) 4. Develop and adopt a Clearing and Grading Ordinance that provides valid criteria and defines a threshold for protection of critical areas and associated buffers. (Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 5.0, 12.0, 13.0, 14.0) 5. Develop and implement standards for mitigation measures for land use activities that may adversely impact environmental resources. (Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 4.0, 5.0, 12.0, 14.0) 6. Review standards for qualified experts and for technical studies used in permit review, including procedures for peer review, to promote data and analyses that.are consistent with the best available science. (Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 4.0, 9.0, 10.0, 14.0) 16. Evaluate and implement, where appropriate, criteria and standards for clustering that promote the protection of environmental resources, shoreline public access, and open space. (Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 4.0) 17. As funding becomes available, identify through revision of the shoreline plan the shoreline and water areas with unique attributes for specific long-term uses such as fish and wildlife habitat, water-oriented activities, storm water management, recreational, and open space uses, and designate these uses through amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. (Corresponding Goals:4.0, 5.0) 18_ Continue to inventory shoreline landforms, processes, and functions as funding becomes available so as to increase the scientific information on which to base permitting decisions. (Corresponding Goals.4.0, 5.0) 19. Revise the Shoreline Management Master Program to be consistent with the Growth Management Act, the Comprehensive Plan, the Critical Areas Ordinance, and the State Shoreline Management Act, including standards to preserve and protect the quantity and quality of water resources along shorelines through storm water treatment, erosion and drainage control, restoration of failing septic systems, and other appropriate measures.(Corresponding Goals: 2.0, 4.0, 5.0) 20. Incorporate measures to address the adverse impacts of invasive vegetation in lakes and bays into the Shoreline Management Master Program revision. (Corresponding Goals: 4.0, 5.0) 21. Revise the Shoreline Management Master Program to include standards for qualified experts, technical studies, and peer review to promote decision-making based on the best available scientific information to prevent hazardous development activities. (Corresponding Goals: 4.0, 5.0, 9.0) 22. Review the Shoreline Management Master Program to ensure that setbacks, stabilization techniques, and other mitigation and protection measures are based on the best available science. (Corresponding Goals: 4.0, 5.0, 9.0)ENVIRONMENT C. CRITICAL AREAS STRATEGY Jefferson County's strategy for protection and management of critical areas is based on improving the scientific information on which decisions are based, and in reviewing the Interim Critical Areas Ordinance to be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and revising it as needed prior to adoption as a final ordinance. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 86 Draft 05112108 Action Items 10. Collect existing information, identify and map important areas of both private and public lands containing fish(including shellfish)and wildlife habitat areas, as funding becomes available. Examples of such areas are: • Stream corridors and wetland areas; • Habitat areas for endangered, threatened, candidate, monitored, and sensitive species; • Priority habitats as identified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife; • Known wildlife movement corridors; • Priority recreational and commercial shellfish growing areas as identified by the responsible • State agency; • Kelp and eelgrass areas which are important to herring reproduction; • Naturally occurring ponds of less than 20 acres; • Raptor habitat areas; • Corridors which provide the only cover in high density areas and serve as connection to other habitat areas; • Other"habitats and species of local importance" (Chapter 365-190-080(5)(c)(ii)WAC) such • as the winter range of the Roosevelt elk herd; and • Fish hatcheries. (Corresponding Goals: 120, 14.0) Jefferson Count Comprehensive Plan 8:35-48 City of Port Townsend I.) Comprehensive Plan ■ Transportation Element Unimproved Street Rights of WdY Most of Port Townsend's unimproved streets were platted in the Iate 1800s. As outlined in the goals and policies of this element, it may not be in the best interest of the public to improve all of the currently platted streets. By not improving all platted streets,there will be a reduction in the amount of new paved surfaces,_stormwater run-off, and long-term maintenance costs to the City. Specific street and/or alley vacations are not recommended or proposed by this Plan. However, the following criteria should be considered when determining which streets should be Ieft unimproved: 1. Street continuity and property,access: The transportation network must provide for vehicular and pedestrian travel while ensuring access to all platted lots. 2. Utility Plans: The decision to leave some streets unimproved must take into account, and be consistent with, the recommendations of current utility and capital facility plans and programs. 3. Consistency with this Comprehensive Plan: Decisions to leave street rights-of-way unimproved must be consistent with the Land Use Element and all other relevant provisions within this Comprehensive Plan. 4.Preservation of open spaces and environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs):The street network should be designed to minimize opening of new streets,to preserve open spaces and ESAs,as well as enhancing pedestrian and other modes of nonmotorized travel. Construction of trails and other open space improvements may be required in lieu of the street. Also,wetlands and wildlife habitat corridors should be protected by leaving key rights-of-way undeveloped. (p. 68) Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 87 Draft 05112108 Policy 3.1.The City's arterial street system shall be consistent with the adopted Land Use Map, and the Draft Arterial Street Plan should be used as a guide for development of the future arterial street system: 3.1.1 Adopt and implement the recommendations of the Draft Arterial Street Plan, except for those recommendations relating to the area lying north of Hastings Avenue and west of San Juan Avenue(i.e., the northwest quadrant). (p. 74) 3.1.2 Following adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, complete a public involvement process and study that reviews a range of collector/arterial options and recommends future road alignments for the area lying north of Hastings Avenue and west of San Juan Avenue, (i.e., include the recommendations of the Draft Arterial Street Plan and a "no action" alternative as options for review).At a minimum,the study should take into consideration the following: a. Land use and zoning designations as modified by this Comprehensive Plan; b. The presence of ESAs, including steep slopes, wetlands,and drainage corridors; c. Projected future traffic generation,both at the end of the 20 yearplanning horizon, and at build-out; and d. Possible changes in travel behavior,including the use of alternative modes. 2.) Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan • "Statement of Purpose for Open Space and Trails...The purpose of the Open Space Program in the Department of Public Works is: ... to support the goals and policies outlined in the City GMA Comprehensive Plan...to work creatively in financing and providing open space through...cooperation with other agencies including...[the] Jefferson Land Trust... to develop management plans for city owned open space that maximizes multiple functions and values." (p. IV-3) • "The [Comprehensive Plan] Land Use Map designation of`Potential Open Space, Figure VI-1, includes much land that is identified as environmentally sensitive such as frequently flooded areas, wetlands, or drainage corridors. [Such designations] ... reflect an initial evaluation done through the comprehensive planning process to identify areas that may be valuable for a variety of functions in their current state. `Essential habitat', `significant open spaces' and `significant cultural resources' are referred to in the Comprehensive Plan goals but have yet to be applied to specific areas. Locations of many unique wetlands have only recently been identified during stormwater basin analysis" (p. IV-5). • "The challenge to the community is to define a quantifiable open space expectation to mitigate the impacts of new development "... In general, open space planning has the following qualities: ... • Relates to environmentally sensitive area and buffer management requirements • Establishes priorities of function to avoid conflicts of use • Meets goals of... the North Quimper Peninsula Wildlife Corridor acquisition program to protect natural systems" (p. IV-5 through IV-6) • "The Comprehensive Plan goals suggest a tie between open space and trail placement...open space management plans and development proposals need to identify areas where trails would be compatible with development and open space functions...coordination with open space management will continue during the Qnin?per Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 88 Draft 05112108 ...implementation of the Non-Motorized Functional Plan...the City recommends development of a multi-modal trail loop around the City. This loop also unites an extensive system of parks and open spaces, including many environmentally sensitive areas that provide significant wildlife habitat" (p. IV-6 • "As trails are planned and designed, the level of use...is an important consideration. Measures to avoid conflicts of use and to minimize impacts to the functions and values of the adjacent open space ... are included in standards for development review. These standards are discussed in the Non-Motorized Plan." (p. IV-6) • The Plan devotes a relatively long section to describing the NQPWC (p. IV-14 through IV-15). Beyond describing the benefits of the corridor and description of existing protections, the Plan offers this regarding future planning and management: "Protection of the proposed connector lands will be through cooperative agreements with the city, county and state agencies overseeing the public portions and through voluntary conservation easements or donations from private landowners. The ultimate path of the corridor connecting portions will be determined by those corridor neighbors that choose to participate through [such measures] ... and through landscaping for wildlife, habitat creation, and wetland restoration efforts." (p. IV-15) In the "Recommendations/Action Plan" chapter, the "Open Space"section (p. VI-33 through VI-36) consists primarily of set of policies, or what appear to be policies. They are labeled and numbered as policies ("0-1" through "0-13'), but nowhere does the Plan explicitly state that they are actually policies. As this is an adopted plan, that will probably need to be clarified. The introduction includes the statement: ■ "The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan form the basis of an aggressive approach to protecting open space in the City. The summary of existing conditions, however, illustrates that the current amount of dedicated open space is limited in comparison to `potential open space' designated on the City's 1997 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map." (p. VI-33) The following statements refer to the Comp Plan ■ "0-1 The City should consider acquiring and otherwise protecting open spaces in areas identified on the CFP... and lands identified as Potential Open Space in the Land Use Map. The Potential Open Space overlay appears in areas that could be valuable if maintained as open space, such as wooded areas, drainage corridors, and scenic vistas(Comp Plan, pg. VI-11) ■ "0-2 When prioritizing functions for land use planning, the City should demonstrate compatibility of functions in order to avoid conflicts of use. Environmentally sensitive area protection is an overriding factor when evaluating a project's design. As [ESA's] are identified during stormwater basin analysis and development review, the City should require evaluation of other open space functions such as ... buffers,habitat and cultural resources. The City should assure coordination and compatibility with the full range of functions and values, based on the open space goals, at all levels of long-range planning and development review." (p. VI-33) Qvimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 89 Draft 05112108 ■ "0-3 ...Open space management plans should identify areas where trails would be compatible with other open space functions and values and not incompatible with protection of environmentally sensitive areas." (p. VI-34) ■ "04 ...the [NMTP] recommends development of a multi-modal trail loop around the City. This loop also unites an extensive system of existing and proposed parks and open spaces, including many [ESA's] that provide significant wildlife habitat. This habitat should be assessed for a variety of open space values and functions prior to trail development including recognition of the difference in function of tra„sportation oriented non-motorized facilities and recreational facilities such as low impact trails that avoid degradation of in [sic] wildlife habitat and buffer areas.” (p. VI-34) ■ "0-5 ...Open space planning should incorporate the following elements: • ... Meet the goals of... the North Quimper Peninsula Wildlife Corridor acquisition program" (p. VI-34) ■ "0-13 The following projects are proposed for priority acquisition ... as components of an open space program and have been previously identified in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map, 1 996 • Winona wetlands parcel • 50t}' & Jackman Drainage Corridor The Parks and Open Space Plan extracts items from the Comp Plan's Capital Facilities Plan. Relevant items are the following(pgs VI-40 through VI-41): • Under"Current Capacity Projects" and under"Park and Open Space Acquisition Program": • Winona Wetlands -- $150,000, 1999, funding source= stormwater fiends • Under"Proposed Capacity Projects": • "Develop neighbor park @ Levinski"; $100,000 (2003-18); funding source= park impact fees, voluntary open space contributions, I%Real Estate Transfer Tax and REET • "Develop nature interp center' $75,000 (2003-18); funding source= "grants, donations'' Qnimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 90 Draft 05112108 Appendix C Invasive Species Notes (1) Rob Sandelin,Naturalist for Sky Valley Environment Program in Skykomish writes in Pacific Northwest Native Plant Gardening (bttp://www.tardi grade org/natives/index.html): "Reed Canary Grass is an invasive native plant. I have been told that the key to removing Reed Canary Grass (RCG) is shade and mulch. Once it is shaded it starts dying back, then you mulch it deeply (cardboard with chips on it) Then replant. RCG roots go deep, 24 inches in some cases so digging it up it really hard, and getting stuff to grow in it is hard cause the roots suck up all the water and nutrients. However, when.it dies, the roots make a nice, thick layer of mulch that is outstanding plant bed material. One approach is to weedwack it down in the winter, cover with cardboard, then a layer of 18 inches of chips. You can drill in sticks of things like willow and they will root there. I have seen places where RCG contacts with Salmonberry that RCG dies out. The Phyto-toxins in Salmonberry leaves might have an inhibiting effect on RCG, although this might also be due to shading. If you have extensive areas of RCG, in addition to the root dominance, you might also find high concentration of voles. (Look for their tunnels in the lower ground level) When these little critters have high population densities they will eat up pretty much any seedlings that might emerge. Rodent berbivory effect on seedling establishment is a hot ecological science topic. It appears that in many places studied, rodents are a prime selective force which controls what native plants establish from seeds. Because RCG provides such great cover from aerial predators, the populations of these critters can be fairly high." '(2) From National Park Service, Kings Canyon National Park, Wisconsin (http://www.nps.gov/seki/snrm/nnp/html/badphar.htm): "After attempting removal of this plant by hand, the park determined that hand digging is too disruptive to fragile meadow soils. In 2002, the park began managing sites on meadow perimeters using a combination of hand removal and approved glypbosate herbicides. The stems were cut shortly before flowering and the grass was allowed to resprout. Three weeks after cutting, the resprouts were treated with herbicide. These targeted spot treatments have been very successful,producing a 90%reduction in reed canary grass cover." Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 91 Draft 05112108 Appendix D: Public Involvement, Communication and Coordination The Quimper Wildlife Corridor Habitat Management Plan has been developed with the continuous and active participation of the Port Townsend and Jefferson County community. Key participants in developing and implementing the Plan have been the Jefferson Land Trust and the City of Port Townsend. Both the City and Land Trust have successfully addressed a number of key issues and concerns raised by community members. These key issues and concerns and corresponding response by the City and Land Trust are summarized in the table below Key Community Issue or CQncem.. Response How will the goals and strategies for the Compliance with the QWC Habitat Plan by QWC impact individual property owners? private property owners is voluntary. Only properties owned or protected by'the Land Trust or City are required to meet the standards contained within the Plan. How will the goals and strategies for the Chapter 6 of the Management Plan QWC impact existing and/or proposed addresses trails on-point and ensures trails use in the Corridor? Specifically, how coordination with the City's adopted Non- is trail use and habitat protection Motorized Transportation Plan. reconciled? Will residential development be allowed in The Management Plan focuses on the 100- the Corridor? year floodplain, wetlands, and other Critical Areas that are unsuited for residential development. Should the scope of the protected area be expanded? How will the extension of utilities with the Chapter 7 of the Management Plan Corridor be addressed? addresses utility extensions on-point. How will signage for trails be addressed in Trail signage is addressed in the City's the Corridor? adopted Non-Motorized Transportation Plan. In addition, many comments supporting the implementation QWC-Habitat Plan were provided by the community during the review process. These include: Key Community Comments Repeated appreciation of, and support for, this unique and treasured feature of our City Widespread appreciation of the ever-increasing importance of this natural area for Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 92 Draft 05112108 habitat,recreation, reduction of global warming,natural stormwater retention,trails that allow connection of neighborhoods without motor vehicles and enjoyment of nature by citizens of all ages. Surprise that the area is not already protected. Outreach and Public Involvement Chronology The following summary highlights the significant outreach and involvement efforts associated with facilitating the planning process: Media Coverage May 17, 1994 Front-page article about the Quimper Wildlife Corridor (QWC) in the Peninsula Daily News(PDN). May 22, 1994 PDN editorial supporting the QWC and its public benefit. Sept. 15, 1994 Article describing the QWC in the Whidbey Island Independent newspaper. 1995 Port Townsend Leader(Leader) newspaper article about QWC. 2002-present JLT website with coverage of QWC Spring 2007 Jefferson Land Trust (JLT) Conservation Newsletter has articles about ongoing acquisitions and about proposed interpretive trails in the Corridor. Spring 2008 Washington Native Plant Society, Olympic Peninsula Chapter, newsletter article about the QWC Public Workshops May 30 1997 Public workshop at the PT Community Center to explain and discuss the QWC. May 2000 Six neighborhood meetings and a public walk to inform nearby residents about the QWC and capital campaign. February 2, 2008 Over 50 people attend a community meeting about Cappy's Woods and the QWC. March 6, 2008 City conducts Town Meeting with over 200 participants. Participants expressed importance of preserving inter- connected open space and natural resources. Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 93 Draft 05112108 Public Meetings and Hearings March 26 2008 Port Townsend Planning Commission public meeting regarding adoption of the QWC Management Plan. April 3 2008 Port Townsend Planning Commission public meeting regarding adoption of the QWC Management Plan. April 10 2008 Port Townsend Planning Commission Public Hearing on adoption of QWC Management Plan. Commission recommended (6-0-0)that City Council approve the Management plan. April 28 2008 Port Townsend City Council workshop (televised on local TV) on the QWC Management Plan. Public Process August 2 1994 Port Townsend City Council Resolution adopts Resolution 94-103 authorizing mayor to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding with Jefferson Land Trust (JLT) and Fort Worden State Park regarding cooperative efforts to establish a wildlife corridor, in accordance with stated goals of GMA and City's stormwater strategy. 1995 JLT adopts QWC as its first proactive project. 1 996 After an exhaustive public process, the City of Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan was adopted consistent with the GMA. The planning process incorporated extensive public involvement including more than 50 public meetings and 15 public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. A number of the stated goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan support the Quimper Wildlife Corridor project: Land Use Element Policies: Policy 3.6.2 Support the establishment of a Quimper Peninsula wildlife and open space corridor. Policy 3.2.5 Work with nonprofit groups, such as the Jefferson Land Trust,to obtain conservation easements and create incentives for open Quimper Wildlife Corridor Management Plan 94 Draft 05112108 space and traits system development. Policy 3.3: Locate trails in areas that are important to preserve as open spaces, such as wooded areas, drainage corridors,shorelines,scenic vistas, and others. Locate trails along drainage corridors when possible to do so without degrading the environmental functions and values of the area. Policy 3.4: Designate and retain wetlands, drainage corridors and other areas that provide essential habitat for priority plant or wildlife species as passive open space. Sites which the City should consider acquiring include, but are not limited to: a. Winona Wetlands; b. Howard Street Wetlands and Drainage Corridor; c. 50th Street Wetlands and Drainage Corridor; and d. Hastings/25th Street Wetlands and Drainage Corridor. 1999 JLT launches a capital campaign that raises $266,000 of private contributions, reflecting broad community support March 2004 JLT submits application to Jefferson County Conservation Futures Fund (CFF) for QWC acquisitions. The CFF process includes public hearings, review by an advisory committee, and then consideration in a public meeting of the Board of Commissioners. March 2006 JLT submits another County CFF application for QWC acquisitions. March 2007 Formation of a grass roots citizen group to preserve "Cappy's Trails"; over 100 supporters_ They meet with community leaders to share the corridor vision and get feedback before committing to the same Tier 1 priorities as the QWCP. Quimper Wildlife Corn-idor Management Plan 95 Draft 05/12108 i U � o O O) N O N o . a> � O a> r, U O to O .� O o U � � � c Q Cl. o 0 U r O C N O O j O 00 C cC) 0 cd N U op C C Q 3 C13 0 L cn y 4-, G O ZI O Q ~ O Q a3 �n