Watershed Management Plan - Mason County

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix D Key Issues and Options – Habitat and other fish species provides an excellent opportunity to maintain good riparian areas and restore degraded areas. Restoration activities could involve removal of dikes and culverts, planting vegetation, or increasing slope stabilization. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board administers funding for salmon recovery activities, including habitat restoration and acquisition of property. Funding is available to tribal, state, and local government agencies, as well as non profit organizations and private landholders. The Planning Unit could support efforts to identify ideal properties in WRIA 16 for habitat restoration and encourage eligible groups to purchase and restore the properties to support salmon habitat. One approach to habitat and open space protection that may serve as a model for Hood Canal is the Cascade Agenda (www.cascadeagenda.org). Issue: Floodplain Connectivity, Riparian Degradation, and Channel Complexity Floodplain connectivity, channel complexity, and riparian conditions have all been degraded by development. In particular, diking, bank armoring, and highway construction have removed streamside habitat and blocked access to side-channels. Riparian areas have been developed for residential or agricultural use, thereby removing vegetation that helped control runoff and sedimentation, provided a source of large woody debris, provided habitat for terrestrial animals, and naturally protected streambanks from erosion. As discussed above, the WRIA 16 Planning Unit recognizes that other planning efforts are addressing habitat, including issues related to development, and does not intend to duplicate those efforts. Nevertheless, following are a few options that could be pursued in WRIA 16 to advance salmon recovery progress in the watershed. Option 73. Encourage salmon habitat recovery efforts to address floodplain connectivity, riparian degradation, and channel complexity. Several entities are implementing recovery plans for salmon and other fish in the region. The Planning Unit could request that these other efforts focus attention on maintaining good riparian areas, restoring degraded areas, and protect streamside forests and vegetation in riparian areas. Option 74. Revise the critical areas ordinances in Mason and Jefferson Counties to support habitat Critical Areas Ordinances are a set of development regulations designed to protect particularly sensitive areas such as wetlands, stream corridors, fish and wildlife habitat, areas that recharge groundwater sources used for drinking water, frequently flooded areas, and geological hazards (such as page 134 Final Plan for County Adoption – May 11, 2006
Key Issues and Options – Habitat Appendix D steep slopes). Every county and city in Washington is required to adopt Critical Areas Ordinances (CAO) according to the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.060), and they are required to use best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas (RCW 36.70A.172). All jurisdictions are required to review, evaluate, and, if necessary, revise their critical areas ordinances according to a fixed schedule: Mason County must update its CAO by December 1, 2006; Jefferson County was required to update its CAO by December 1, 2004. The Planning Unit could recommend that Mason and Jefferson counties review, assess, and potentially revise their CAOs to: • Provide adequate buffers, or set-backs – buffer set backs restrict how closely development can be to designated critical areas; Mason county and the Planning Unit could review whether the CAO provides big enough setbacks and whether the quality of the buffer is sufficient to protect the critical area; • Ensure that developments are in compliance with their habitat management plans. The width of buffer set-backs may be decreased if a biologist completes a habitat management plan demonstrating that the development would not harm the stream, but compliance with these plans could be assessed to ensure they are adequately protecting habitat; • Provide better stormwater treatment and controls, which may be necessary to adequately prevent and treat stormwater runoff, a key contributor to water quality issues, particularly in the nearshore environment; and • Maintain undeveloped drift cells – a drift cell is a particular reach of marine shore where nearshore sediment processes are not significantly interrupted; undeveloped drift cells are important for habitat. Mason County could conduct this work as part of its 2006 update process. Jefferson County will not have to update its CAO for several years, but could submit revisions in advance of the deadline. Issue: Low levels of large woody debris (LWD) in streams Large woody debris (LWD) has been removed from streams and its sources (forested riparian areas) have been reduced. LWD in streams provides direct salmon habitat through shade and protection; LWD also helps form and maintain pools, which provide a refuge from predators and floods for juvenile salmon (WCC, 2003). Final Plan for County Adoption – May 11, 2006 page 135
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 139: Key Issues and Options - Habitat Ap
Page 143 and 144: 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?