Watershed Management Plan - Mason County

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix C Key Issues and Options – Water Quality • Regular monitoring of program implementation and water quality trends. • Development of an implementation schedule. The Planning Unit could encourage Mason and Jefferson counties to design and implement stormwater management programs that contain these elements. Option 53. Modify Shoreline Master Programs to protect water quality Mason and Jefferson counties’ Shoreline Master Programs are sets of guidelines that translate the broad policies of the State’s 1971 Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.020) into local shoreline use regulations. A Shoreline Master Program is officially part of a county’s Comprehensive Plan under the Growth Management Act. Mason County last updated its Comprehensive Plan (including the Shoreline Master Program) in 2005; Jefferson County peformed its update in 2004. The next scheduled update for Mason County is 2012; for Jefferson County, it’s 2011 (RCW 90.58.080). Given the rapid development of shoreline in WRIA 16 and the increasing severity of water-quality and habitat concerns in the region, the Planning Unit may wish to encourage Mason and Jefferson Counties to update its Shoreline Master program more frequently than the every-seven-year schedule outlined in the Growth Management Act. Or, the Planning Unit could recommend that counties continuously monitor the sufficiency of the Shoreline Master Program and be prepared to make updates as needed, even if before the next required updates. In either case, the goal of making new updates would be to ensure that the programs protect nearshore water quality and habitat. Mason and Jefferson counties could draft language to ensure that stormwater discharges, construction runoff, and other nonpoint sources of pollution do not degrade nearshore water quality. Option 54. Identify and correct stormwater violations Stormwater management ordinances specify methods of controlling and dissipating water that runs off of impervious surfaces such as roads or roofs. When these methods are improperly used, stormwater can enter rivers and streams, causing flooding, erosion, and decreased water quality, among other problems. Comprehensive stormwater management programs often include regular inspections of construction sites and existing stormwater facilities to identify and prevent stormwater violations. Citizen complaint lines are another method of identifying violations. The Planning Unit could recommend that jurisdictions institute or strengthen programs to ensure that stormwater violations are identified and corrected. Currently, Mason County employs one person in its Public page 122 Final Plan for County Adoption – May 11, 2006
Key Issues and Options – Water Quality Appendix C Works Department to handle stormwater management requirements. This staff person responds to complaints but does not have time to perform inspections (Alan Tahja, Mason County, personal communication, April 26, 2005).. Jefferson County requires that a person certified in erosion and sediment control be on-site or on-call at all times at construction sites (Jefferson County Department of Community Development, 2005). Option 55. Require new developments to manage stormwater on-site using infiltration, where geologically appropriate Infiltration is when stormwater percolates into the ground rather than running off. Managing stormwater through infiltration helps to protect water quality through reducing the amount of pollutants reaching streams. Developers can use infiltration to help manage stormwater in several ways: • Infiltration basins are low spots designed to drain within 72 hours where stormwater can collect temporarily and percolate into the ground. Often, these basins are vegetated, which helps remove pollutants from the stormwater. • Porous pavement systems are hard surfaces that allow stormwater to penetrate through them into the ground. These systems include porous concrete or asphalt, cobble pavers with porous joints or gaps, and perforated concrete blocks. • Infiltration trenches or wells are gravel-filled ditches designed to allow stormwater to percolate into the ground. Infiltration cannot be used everywhere, however. Where groundwater is a primary source of drinking water, infiltration may not be appropriate due to the potential for pollutants to enter the aquifer. Soils must be permeable, and frequent maintenance may be necessary to prevent the infiltration area from becoming clogged with sediment (Choi and Engel, 2005). As described in Water Quantity Option 7, low-impact development techniques encourage developers to manage stormwater on-site through techniques such as infiltration rather than with large conveyances that transport stormwater off-site. Jefferson County requires all new development, including single-family residences, on Marrowstone Island and within a quarter-mile of any marine shoreline to infiltrate all stormwater runoff on-site (Jefferson County Department of Community Development, 2003). The Planning Unit could recommend that jurisdictions adopt ordinances that require all new developments to manage stormwater using infiltration or other low-impact development techniques, where appropriate. Final Plan for County Adoption – May 11, 2006 page 123
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 127: 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?