Watershed Management Plan - Mason County

Appendix
E Addressing Cumulative or Cross-Cutting Issues
action steps pertaining to water quality, public education, septic systems,
groundwater, water-based recreation, agricultural and forestry practices,
erosion and stormwater, and landfills. The only area covered by the Plan
that is now in WRIA 16 was the area around Union and the South Shore
sub-basin.
In 1998, the Watershed Planning Act defined larger-scale Water Resource
Inventory Areas (WRIAs) and initiated the current phase of watershed
planning in WRIA 16. Once this plan is completed and adopted,
stakeholders in WRIA 16 can begin implementation.
In many cases, implementing the recommendations from the planning
documents completed under WAC 400-12 and the current watershed
planning requires careful and focused coordination across jurisdictions; the
WRIA 16 Planning Unit may wish to establish some type of forum for
facilitating this necessary coordination.
Option 89.
Encourage Mason County to increase its focus
on water-quality, perhaps by consolidating its
efforts
Water quality is an increasing concern in Hood Canal and WRIA 16. Given
heightened local awareness, coupled with increased interest by the
Governor and the state government in Hood Canal’s low dissolved oxygen,
local jurisdictions have an opportunity to take a leadership role in
improving local water-quality. In particular, Mason County government is
well-positioned to contribute to water-quality improvement, given the
variety of water-related efforts it undertakes, including septic system
oversight, drinking water management, stormwater management, and water
and sewer utilities. Mason County could consolidate these efforts to
provide increased focus on water-quality planning, perhaps through
department reorganization. Possible models to study include Thurston
County, which has a Department of Water and Waste Management; Kitsap
County, which has a Department of Surface and Stormwater Management,
and King County, which has a Water and Land Resources Division in its
Department of Natural Resources.
Option 90.
Address cumulative impacts of land use
decisions (e.g., habitat fracturing) and develop a
method for this to be taken into account by land
use decision-makers
Land use decision-makers commonly make assessments and decisions
about how individual developments will affect the local environment,
including salmon habitat. These decisions, however, are usually based on
the individual impact of the particular project – not on how relatively small
impacts of that project, combined with those of others, might have a
combined or cumulative affect. A prime example of this effect is in logging
or development projects that dissect strong habitat areas and leave a
page 144 Final Plan for County Adoption – May 11, 2006