Watershed Management Plan - Mason County

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 2 WRIA 16 – State of the Watershed Figure 4. Example of Shoreline Development, including Bulkheads, Docks/Piers, Groins, and Fill, in the Finch/Lilliwaup Sub-basin (Ecology Oblique Photo #100908, 2000) Fill Groins Bulkheads Forest practices may also affect salmon habitat in the watershed. In particular, large clearcuts, inadequate riparian vegetation, and poorly constructed or maintained forest roads and culverts have all altered salmon habitat in WRIA 16. These changes are particularly evident on state and privately owned forest lands but are also present on certain National Forest lands that have been harvested. In contrast, habitat conditions in the Olympic National Park and on those U.S. Forest Service lands protected from logging are generally among the healthiest natural habitats in WRIA 16. Riparian degradation in the lower Dosewallips River, McDonald Creek, lower Hamma Hamma River, lower Lilliwaup River, Skokomish River, and lower Duckabush River has been attributed to forest practices (WCC, 2003). Agricultural activities and development can channelize mainstems and tributaries, drain beaver ponds, and threaten or destroy forested riparian zones. Development and agricultural activities in the watershed have, in some cases, disconnected floodplains from side channel habitats, removed large woody debris, reduced channel complexity and instream structure, removed riparian vegetation, caused sediment accumulation in channels, and decreased streambed and streambank stability throughout the watershed. (See Figure 5 for an example of development on lower Lilliwaup creek). Removal of large woody debris has reduced habitat quality in many streams in WRIA 16 (WCC, 2003). One factor that may contribute to the impact of development on floodplains and other critical areas are local policies regarding danger trees, defined as trees that pose an imminent danger to life or property. In stream and wildlife buffer areas, county regulations restrict tree-cutting to help protect fish and wildlife habitat. However, these regulations make page 28 Final Plan for County Adoption – May 11, 2006
Chapter WRIA 16 – State of the Watershed 2 exceptions to allow for cutting trees that are identified by an arborist or professional forester as danger trees. The definition of danger tree can be open to different interpretations and may be misused by landowners who wish to cut trees for sightlines or other uses of their property. Furthermore, other approaches to managing danger trees may provide greater habitat protection than simply removing the whole tree. Figure 5. Example of Development Impacts on Estuary and Riparian Areas (WCC, 2003) Final Plan for County Adoption – May 11, 2006 page 29
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 15 and 16: Chapter WRIA 16 - State of the Wate
Page 33: Chapter WRIA 16 - State of the Wate
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 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Key Issues and Options - Water Qual
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Key Issues and Options - Habitat Ap
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
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 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
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?