Watershed Management Plan - Mason County

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix A Sub-basin Summaries Finch/Lilliwaup Sub-basin The Finch/Lilliwaup sub-basin, which includes the extensive wetlands located in the Upper Lilliwaup Valley, is 54.7 square miles and is drained by several smaller creeks rather than one large river. The creeks that drain the sub-basin are the Jorsted Creek, Ayoch Creek, Eagle Creek, Lilliwaup Creek, Little Lilliwaup Creek, Sund Creek, Miller Creek, Clark Creek, Finch Creek and Hill Creek (Golder Associates, 2003). Commercial and residential development is concentrated along the eastern portion of the sub-basin along the shore of Hood Canal in the towns of Lilliwaup and Hoodsport. Hoodsport is the largest town in the sub-basin, as well as the location of a salmon hatchery. The upper reaches of the subbasin support logging, recreation, and Christmas tree farming (Golder Associates, 2003). WATER QUANTITY Total discharge of water from the Finch/Lilliwaup sub-basin, including both surface water (streamflow) and groundwater seepage to Hood Canal, is an estimated 206,389 acre-feet per year (AF/yr) (Golder Associates, 2003). Of this total, an estimated 2,449 AF/yr are allocated as surface water and groundwater, and 13 AF/yr are consumed via permit-exempt wells. Table 5, below, summarizes the known information on water quantity in the Finch/Lilliwaup sub-basin. Table 7. Summary of Water Quantity Information for the Finch/Lilliwaup Sub-basin (Golder Associates, 2003) Annual volume (Acre-feet per year) Estimated surface water discharge 192,561 Estimated groundwater seepage 13,828 Total estimated discharge 206,389 Surface water allocation 1,026 Groundwater allocation 1,423 Total allocation 2,449 Estimated permit-exempt well use 13 Of the 2,449 AF/yr of allocated water, approximately 92% is allocated for domestic and municipal uses (the highest percentage of any sub-basin), with 7% allocated for irrigation. Approximately 1,100 people live in the subbasin (Census 2000), an estimated 103 of whom draw their water from page 76 Final Plan for County Adoption – May 11, 2006
Sub-basin Summaries Appendix A permit-exempt wells; total estimated residential demand is 143 AF/yr. In 2010, an estimated 31 more people will live in the sub-basin, increasing projected residential to demand to 148 AF/yr (Golder Associates, 2003). Six applications for groundwater and one application for surface water are currently pending in the Finch/Lilliwaup sub-basin (Golder Associates, 2003). WATER QUALITY The Department of Ecology listed Finch Creek as an impaired water body due to fecal coliform levels above state water-quality standards. The exact cause of elevated fecal levels has not been determined; however, possible causes include failing septic systems and pet waste (EnviroVision, 2003). Stormwater drainage near Hoodsport may also impact water quality in the lower reaches of the sub-basin and Hood Canal. Ecology listed Lilliwaup Creek as a water body of concern based on measured levels of fecal coliform. More data need to be collected to determine if the Creek is impaired and needs a water clean-up plan. However, the fact that the Department of Health has closed shellfish harvesting in Lilliwaup Bay (Washington State Department of Health, 2005) is likely indicative of elevated fecal coliform levels in Lilliwaup Creek. HABITAT The Finch/Lilliwaup sub-basin supports many salmonid species including chum, coho, chinook, and pink salmon, as well as cutthroat trout and steelhead. Anadromous fish populations are generally limited to the lower reaches of the sub-basin because of natural barriers (waterfalls and cascades) as well as artificial structures (e.g., the hatchery intake structure at mile 0.3 on Finch Creek). Habitat quality in the sub-basin is similar to that in other WRIA 16 sub-basins. In general, estuarine degradation and loss of riparian vegetation limit habitat quality for anadromous fish in the lower reaches of the sub-basin. In the upper reaches, resident fish are blocked by culverts or other barriers on several creeks, including Jorsted Creek, Eagle Creek, upper Lilliwaup Creek, Little Lilliwaup Creek, and Miller Creek. Other structures also block transport of woody debris and sediment, including two culverts at Highway 101 along Ayock Creek and Little Lilliwaup Creek, a hatchery intake structure at Finch Creek, and a 20-foot dam on Hill Creek (WCC, 2003). ISSUES Based on the existing technical information in the Finch/Lilliwaup subbasin, the following key issues emerge: • Fecal coliform levels in Finch and Lilliwaup Creeks have exceeded state water quality standards, but more data are needed, particularly in Lilliwaup Creek; Final Plan for County Adoption – May 11, 2006 page 77
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: 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: Figure 8. Map of the Hamma Hamma Su
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 133 and 134:
Key Issues and Options - Water Qual
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?