Watershed Management Plan - Mason County

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix C Key Issues and Options – Water Quality • Require less space or land than multiple septic systems; • Cost-effective; and • Provide more operational and maintenance control to local jurisdictions and rely less on individual homeowners to maintain the system. The drawback of community systems that additional effort may be required for local jurisdictions to acquire land for the system and conduct ongoing maintenance and management once the system is in place. Local governments could require community wastewater systems for all new developments of four or more homes. Option 43. Evaluate the effectiveness of farm plans and best management practices The Mason Conservation District works with landowners to create farm plans and implement best management practices (BMPs) for preserving water quality and fish habitat. Such farm plans typically include some combination of the following strategies: • fencing to exclude animals from waterways; • maintaining streamside vegetation; • land application of manure at times and rates that prevent excess from being carried into waterways; • storing manure so that it's not accessible to rain or flood waters; and • maintaining pastures and animal keeping areas to minimize run-off. The Conservation District could partner with a third party to conduct an evaluation of how effectively the farm plans and their BMPs are being implemented, and to what extent they result in protection of water quality in WRIA 16, particularly in the Skokomish Valley. Option 44. Create or modify farm plans, best management practices, or regulations to avoid water-quality impacts during flooding When implemented, best management practices such as stream fencing, streamside vegetation, and pasture maintenance (as described under Option 43) reduce water-quality pollution. However, frequent flooding (as is experienced in the Skokomish River) can reduce the effectiveness of these efforts, as flood waters can pick up livestock manure on the floodplain, leading to water pollution. Accordingly, new efforts may be needed to keep manure off the floodplain. In particular, page 116 Final Plan for County Adoption – May 11, 2006
Key Issues and Options – Water Quality Appendix C • A local ordinance could regulate spreading manure or livestock grazing in a floodplain; Whatcom and Thurston counties have similar ordinances; or • A local ordinance that would prohibit livestock on the floodplain during winter months; or • Manure storage structures could be built off the floodplains to contain and digest manure. A recent zoning variance now provides increased flexibility for building new manure-storage structures in the Skokomish sub-basin. Mason County, the Conservation District, and other stakeholders could pursue changes to farm plans, best management practices, or local ordinances to encourage the above practices. Option 45. Provide plastic bag dispensers and trash cans at parks and other public areas Pet waste can contribute to water-quality problems. By providing plastic bag dispensers, trash cans, and instructional signs, local parks and other public areas could help humans control their pets’ waste and avoid waterquality impacts. Option 46. Provide more toilets at problem areas Outdoor pursuits are popular in WRIA 16. Certain areas are used so heavily, however – or for long enough duration – that new or additional toilets may be necessary to effectively manage human waste. Local stakeholders could work to provide new, additional, or updated toilets at popular fishing, camping, or other highly-used recreation areas. Option 47. Assess adequacy of current boat-pumping stations Hood Canal is a popular area for recreational boating. Residents of Mason, Jefferson, and Kitsap counties own an estimated 20,000 boats, and there are 15 boat moorages and launches on Hood Canal. Given the high boating traffic – especially in summer – human waste may be a concern for Hood Canal water quality. Local counties could partner with other stakeholders, such as the State Parks and the Interagency Committee on Outdoor Recreation (IAC), to assess whether the number of pumpouts and shoreside facilities is adequate, whether they are being regularly maintained, and whether current state grants programs are sufficient to ensure that there are sufficient pumpouts and shore-side facilities to accommodate boaters on Hood Canal. Currently, there are four pumpout facilities on or near Hood Canal that accept sewage from boats: Port Ludlow marina (technically north of Hood Canal), Pleasant Harbor Marina, Twanoh State Park, and Alderbrook Inn and Resort (PSAT and HCCC, 2004). Final Plan for County Adoption – May 11, 2006 page 117
Page 1 and 2:
Watershed Management Plan Skokomish
Page 3 and 4:
WRIA 16 Summary of Watershed Manage
Page 5 and 6:
WRIA 16 Summary of Watershed Manage
Page 7 and 8:
WRIA 16 Watershed Management Plan T
Page 9 and 10:
Chapter Introduction and Background
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Chapter WRIA 16 - State of the Wate
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Chapter Recommendations: Water Quan
Page 43 and 44:
Chapter Recommendations: Water Qual
Page 45 and 46:
4.2. On-site Septic Systems 4.2.1.
Page 47 and 48:
Chapter Recommendations: Water Qual
Page 49 and 50:
Chapter Recommendations: Habitat 5
Page 51 and 52:
Chapter Other Recommendations 6 ent
Page 53 and 54:
Chapter Other Recommendations 6 6.1
Page 55 and 56:
Chapter Other Recommendations 6 lan
Page 57 and 58:
Chapter Other Recommendations 6 Pla
Page 59 and 60:
Chapter Implementing the Plan 7 7.
Page 61 and 62:
Chapter Works Cited 8 Hood Canal Co
Page 63 and 64:
Chapter Works Cited 8 Puget Sound A
Page 65 and 66:
Chapter Works Cited 8 Washington St
Page 67 and 68:
Chapter Glossary 9 9. Glossary 303(
Page 69 and 70:
Chapter Glossary 9 pH - A measure o
Page 71 and 72: Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A Appe
Page 73 and 74: Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A The
Page 75 and 76: Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A Duck
Page 77 and 78: Figure 7. Duckabush Sub-basin
Page 79 and 80: Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A Esti
Page 81 and 82: Figure 8. Map of the Hamma Hamma Su
Page 83 and 84: Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A perm
Page 85 and 86: Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A Figu
Page 87 and 88: Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A Spri
Page 89 and 90: Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A beco
Page 91 and 92: Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A ISSU
Page 93 and 94: Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A Sout
Page 95 and 96: Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A Cree
Page 97 and 98: Figure 11. Map of the South Shore S
Page 99 and 100: Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A Depa
Page 101 and 102: Key Issues and Options - Water Quan
Page 115 and 116: Key Issues and Options - Water Qual
Page 121: Key Issues and Options - Water Qual
Page 139 and 140: Key Issues and Options - Habitat Ap
Page 149 and 150: Addressing Cumulative or Cross-Cutt
Page 151 and 152: Addressing Cumulative or Cross-Cutt
Page 153 and 154: Options for Funding New Efforts App
Page 163 and 164: Supporting Documents Appendix G App
show all

Watershed Management Plan - Mason County

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?