HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018/08/20 - Briefing Packet 20.1
BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DRAFT BRIEFING MEETING AGENDA
411 North Fifth Street, Shelton WA 98584
Week of August 20, 2018
Monday, August 20, 2018
Commission Chambers
9:00 A.M. Closed Session — RCW 42.30.140 (4) Labor Discussion
9:10 A.M. Executive Session — RCW 42.30.110 (1)(b) Real Estate
9:15 A.M. Support Services — Frank Pinter
9:30 A.M. Juvenile Services- Jim Madsen
9:45 A.M. Community Services — Dave Windom
10:15 A.M. BREAK
10:30 A.M. Public Works — Jerry Hauth
Utilities & Waste Management
11:00 A.M. Executive Session — RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) — Potential Litigation
11:30 A.M. Mason Conservation District- John Bolender
Commissioner Discussion — as needed
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Commission Chambers
10:30 A.M. WA State Association of Counties Annual Courthouse Visit—
Eric Johnson, WSAC Executive Director&WSAC President Blair Brady
Briefing Agendas are subject to change,please contact the Commissioners'office for the most recent version.
Last printed 08/17/18 at 3:59 PM
If special accommodations are needed,contact the Commissioners'office at ext.419,Shelton#360-427-9670;Belfair#275-4467,
Elma#482-5269.
MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONER BRIEFING INFORMATION FOR WEEK OF
August 20, 2018
In the spirit of public information and inclusion, the attached is a draft of
information for Commissioner consideration and discussion at the above briefing.
This information is subject to change, additions and/or deletion and is not all
inclusive of what will be presented to the Commissioners.
We have changed the packet format so that it is an interactive document. Please
click on the agenda item which then takes you to the cover sheet of that section in
the document. To get back to the agenda, hit your "home" key on the keyboard.
Please see draft briefing agenda for schedule.
0,14 Co
,.. , 1854
Mason County Support Services Department Budget Management
411 North 5t" Street Commissioner Administration
Emergency Management
Shelton, WA 98584 Facilities, Parks&Trails
360.427.9670 ext. 419 Human Resources
Information Services
Labor Relations
1•rs1 Risk Management
MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONER BRIEFING ITEMS FROM SUPPORT SERVICES
August 20, 2018
• Specific Items for Review
o Public hearing for Lake Kokanee on August 28
o Status of Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) Project List— Frank
• Commissioner Discussion
J:\DLZ\Briefing Items\2018\2018-08-20.docx
Attachment B
MASON COUNTY
BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM
TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Mike Dunn
DEPARTMENT: Juvenile Court Services EXT: 334
BRIEFING DATE: 08/20/18
PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES:
If this is a follow-up briefing, please provide only new information
ITEM: Juvenile Detention Officer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: (If applicable, please include available options and
potential solutions):
The Mason County Juvenile Detention Center is down one full time regular Detention
Officer (female) due to a resignation. Our department would now like to fill the
position and bring the facility back up to regular staffing.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
There are not any financial impacts of hiring this position. All funding for this position
is already accounted for in the approved Juvenile Detention budget.
RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION:
Allow Juvenile Court Services to open a recruitment for a Juvenile Detention Officer
(female) position.
ATTACHMENTS:
N/A
Briefing Summary 8/13/2018
MASON COUNTY
BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM
TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Michael MacSems
DEPARTMENT: DCD EXT: 571
BRIEFING DATE: August 20, 2018
No previous briefing on this item
ITEM: Briefing for recommendation to add the approval of two Summer 2018 Heritage
Grant applications totaling $5,150 to the September 4th BOCC Action Agenda.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: (If applicable, please include available options and potential
solutions
RCW 36.22.170 created a surcharge on documents recorded with the County
Auditor, one dollar of which is dedicated for County historic preservation purposes.
The Mason County Historic Preservation Commission wishes to channel some of
these funds to organizations engaged in the collection, preservation and interpretation
of Mason County's heritage. In pursuit of that goal, the Mason County established a
Heritage Grant program in 2011 that provides reimbursement grants for up to $5,000
for qualified projects and applicants. This is a reimbursement grant, so no public money
is spent until contracted grant work is complete.
Summer 2018 marks the County's 15th HGP cycle. Four applications were
received this cycle (totaling $11,973), all were found to be qualifying projects, but for
financial reasons, the MCHPC voted to only forward the to two highest scoring proposals
to the BOCC for approval.
The successful applicants are the Mason County Genealogical Society with a
$400 request for website development which will be available for public viewing on line.
Also, the McReavy House of Hood Canal with a $4,750 request for urgent roof repairs to
the historic McReavy House in Union.
BUDGET IMPACTS: The HPC budgeted $15,000 for fiscal year 2018. So far $4,031.89
has been paid out and there is an additional liability of$7,549.29 for Winter 2018
Heritage Grants whose contracts are not yet complete/reimbursed. Assuming that the
outstanding 2018 grants ends up being reimbursed and these two new grants are also
paid, the Heritage Grant line item will have a negative balance of$1,731.18 In order to
reconcile this deficit, the HPC agreed to move $1,731.18 from an unused line item
(Historic Surveys and Inventories).
RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION: Approval of two Summer 2018 Mason County
Heritage Grants, as discussed above, for a total amount of $5,150 at the September
4th BOCC meeting.
ATTACHMENTS: Copies of the grant proposals from applicant, Mason County Heritage
Grant Program Guidelines, Comments about Contract from Tim Whitehead, Draft
Contracts.
Briefing Item Summary Form Heritage Grants S 16.doc
Page 1 of 1
Michael MacSems - Re: Draft Heritage Grant Contracts 15A and 1513
From: Tim Whitehead
To: Michael MacSems
Date: 8/13/2018 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Draft Heritage Grant Contracts 15A and 15B
Approved. Thanks
Tim
>>> Michael MacSems 8/13/2018 10:04 AM >>>
Hello Tim,
Please find attached two draft Heritage Grant contracts, that I need to brief the BOCC on.These contracts are
identical to previous Heritage Grant contracts, except for the particulars.I need an e-mail from you, approving
these per form,for my briefing.
Thank you,
Michael
file:///C:/Users/rams/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5B 716174Masonmail 10016134621... 8/13/2018
Draft HERITAGE GRANT CONTRACT
This Heritage Grant Contract(this"Contract")is entered into as of September 4,2018 by and between
Mason County(the"County"),and the Mason County Genealogical Society(the"Grantee").
Mason County Genealogical Society Mason County
c/o Sue Sheldon c/o Mason County Historic Preservation Commission
P.O.Box 103 615 W Alder Street
Shelton,WA 98584 Shelton,WA 98584
(360)-427-3119 Attn:Michael MacSems
(360)427-9670 ext.571
RECITALS
1.The Grantee has applied for a grant up to the amount of$400 to cover the cost of 16
hours of website development to index information regarding headstone location,
obituaries and funeral cards of persons buried at the Shelton memorial Park Cemetery
for public viewing.
2.The County is granting up to the$400 requested for this project on a reimbursement
basis,based on receipts.All persons performing the work associated with this grant shall
act as an independent contractor(s),and not as an employee(s),on the terms and
conditions set forth herein.The money for this grant comes from fees collected by the
Mason County Auditor as authorized by RCW 36.22.170,which established a dedicated
fund for support local historic preservation.
AGREEMENT
In consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual promises set forth herein,and intending
to be legally bound,the parties herein agree as follows:
1.Engagement
(a)The County hereby agrees to reimburse the Grantee up to the full amount
of the grant based on an invoice and a final report of the completion of the
restoration of the historic shed as described in the scope-of-work (Exhibit
"A"),which shall be performed by independent contractor(s).
(b) The Grantee hereby accepts the engagement to have said work
performed, to present an invoice and a final report for reimbursement and
agrees to an inspection of the final product prior to receiving payment under
the terms and conditions set forth herein.
2.Term.
(a) This Contract will commence on the date written above, and unless
modified by the mutual written agreement of the parties, shall continue until
six months from that date.
September 4,2018 to March 4,2019
The Grantee may request a one-time six-month extension.Extension request
must be in writing and be submitted to the Mason County Historic
Preservation Commission for approval no later then 5:00 p.m. four months
from the date of the award(January 4,2019).
HG 15A
3.Grantee's Obligations
(a) The Grantee shall provide a scope-of-work, consistent with the grant
application,which shall be attached to this contract as Exhibit A.
(b) Upon completion of the project the Grantee shall provide the County
with an invoice for reimbursement for the work approved by this grant
award. At a minimum the invoice shall include the organization's name,
remittance address, date, details of expenses (paid receipts), invoice total
and program or grant being billed. Grantees will allow at least 60-days for
reimbursement after the invoice has been received by the County.
(c)Upon completion of the granted project, a final report shall be submitted
by the Grantee to the Mason County Historic Preservation Commission.The
final report shall summarize the project, its completion and outcome. The
final report shall be submitted to the Mason County Historic Preservation
Commission, 615 West Alder St, Shelton, WA 98584 within 10 calendar
days of the authorized grant completion date.
Chair,Mason County Board of County Commissioners Date
Chair,Mason County Historic Preservation Commission Date
Authorized Representative of the Grantee Date
HG 15A
Mason County Genealogical Society
Project Description for Mason County Heritage Grant Application
Summer 2018 Grant Cycle
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Mason County Genealogical Society's grant application for this cycle of the Mason County
Historic Preservation Commission's Heritage Grant Program will support the Society's work of
public education on genealogy, which consists of much personal and social history of Mason
County. This project will also preserve and make available to the public its extensive collection
of historical genealogy publications. Our grant request is $400.
The Society will use these funds, and our own, to accomplish these objectives:
• Contracting to have a basic, easy to use and robust website built;
• Obtaining a domain name and website hosting for three years on Dotster; and
• Purchasing WordPress Essentials, a website development program.
When in place,the website will have links to:
• More than 12,000 digital headstone photos of burial sites in the Shelton Memorial Park
currently in our collection, but not now available to the public. These photos, in turn, will be
linked to a database of names and dates for those interred.
• About 7,500 digitized obituaries from the Mason County Journal, dating from around 1920
to 2017.
• An index we compiled of more than 2,300 funeral home cards from 1887 to 1931.
• Copies of our monthly newsletter,the Mason Log, will be accessible from the website as
well.
PROJECT BUDGET
ITEM ( GRANT MCGS ! TOTALS
16 hours of website development @ $25/hour $400.001 $400.00
_.—__.._..._........-- .._.-.-..............–.......
Domain name and three years of hosting $44.97 $44.97
._.__........._.......
�_-.:__......
WordPress Essentials software j $36.00 1 $36.00
Total budget �—'-
$480.97
Currently, the Mason County Genealogical Society is a well-kept secret within our community
and beyond. A new and attractive website, with the links described above, as a start, will go a
long way to giving access to historical data and information of importance to the families and
friends of so many of our predecessors in Mason County.
H6- is A-
RECEIVEC
^^'^
Mason County Heritage Grant Application JUL 13 cu�u
615 W. Alder Street
Applicant: Mason County Genealogical Society Date: 7/12/2018
Mailing Address: PO Box 103, Shelton, WA 98584
Email: masoncountygenealogy@hotmail.com Phone: 360-427-3119
Project Description Attached on Separate Page: Yes X No
Total Project Cost: $480.97
Grant Request Amount: $400.00
Heritage grants are available to non-profits, government agencies and tribes. If your
organization is a non-profit, please attach proof that your organization is currently
registered with the Washington Secretary of State or is 501(c).(3).
Proof of non-profit status is attached: Yes X No
How many of the following categories does your project fall into? Please mark all that
apply:
Professional Development: Yes_ No_
Public Education: Yes X No
Small Capital Projects: Yes No
Collections Management: Yes X No
Heritage Investigations: Yes No
Historic Preservation: Yes No
Does your organization have a current incomplete Heritage Grant project pending?
Yes No X
Does your organization have a previously approved six month time extension for an
incomplete approved project?
Yes No X
Rev.02/01/2018
If your organization had a previously approved six month time extension, has one year
elapsed since the completion of the project?
Yes_ No X
Has the person completing this application read the Heritage Grant Guidelines published
on the Mason County website?
Yes X No
Does your organization understand that this is a reimbursement grant not to exceed
$5,000?
Yes X No
Does your organization have the funding ability to complete the project prior to
reimbursement?
Yes X No
Signature of official for your organization (i.e. city official, organizational president, etc.):
Date: July 12, 2018
Signature of your oganization's financial officer:
2tt,'2 -/*I 1 //`1-, Date: July 12, 2018
Rev.02/01/2018
�D STATES pF A
T
y 1
STATg O
i >
P l
Of
Secretary of State
I,I(IM WYMAN, Secretary of State of the State of Washington and custodian of its seal,hereby issue this
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
to
MASON COUNTY GENEALOGICAL SOCIETY
A WA NONPROFIT CORPORATION effective on the date indicated below. 1:
ja
1 Effective Date: 05/17/2018 f
UBI Number: 604 286 431
l
l;
f,
STATS
Given under my hand and the Seal of the State
of Washington at Olympia,the State Capital
Kim Wyman, Secretary of State
18g9 Date Issued: 05/17/2018 "
z=
Page 1 of 1
Michael MacSems - Re: Draft Heritage Grant Contracts 15A and 15B
From: Tim Whitehead
To: Michael MacSems
Date: 8/13/2018 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Draft Heritage Grant Contracts 15A and 15B
Approved. Thanks
Tim
>>> Michael MacSems 8/13/201810:04 AM >>>
Hello Tim,
Please find attached two draft Heritage Grant contracts, that I need to brief the BOCC on.These contracts are
identical to previous Heritage Grant contracts, except for the particulars.I need an e-mail from you, approving
these perform, for my briefing.
Thank you,
Michael
file:///C:/Users/mms/AppData/LocaUTemp/XPgrpwise/5B716174Masonmail10016134621... 8/13/2018
Draft HERITAGE GRANT CONTRACT
This Heritage Grant Contract(this"Contract')is entered into as of September 4,2018 by and between
Mason County(the"County"),and the Mason County genealogical Society(the"Grantee").
McReavy House of Hood Canal Mason County
c/o Jayni Kamin c/o Mason County Historic Preservation Commission
P.O.Box 388 615 W Alder Street
Union,WA 98592 Shelton,WA 98584
(360)-239-6790 Attn:Michael MacSems
(360)427-9670 ext.571
RECITALS
1.The Grantee has applied for a grant up to the amount of$4,750 to cover the cost of
emergency roof repairs in order to stabilize and preserve the historic McReavy House.
2.The County is granting up to the$4,750 requested for this project on a reimbursement
basis,based on receipts.All persons performing the work associated with this grant shall
act as an independent contractor(s),and not as an employee(s),on the terms and
conditions set forth herein.The money for this grant comes from fees collected by the
Mason County Auditor as authorized by RCW 36.22.170,which established a dedicated
fund for support local historic preservation.
AGREEMENT
Iii consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual promises set forth herein, and intending
to be legally bound,the parties herein agree as follows:
1.Enga ement
(a)The County hereby agrees to reimburse the Grantee up to the full amount
of the grant based on an invoice and a final report of the completion of the
restoration of the historic shed as described in the scope-of-work (Exhibit
"A"),which shall be performed by independent contractor(s).
(b) The Grantee hereby accepts the engagement to have said work
performed, to present an invoice and a final report for reimbursement and
agrees to an inspection of the final product prior to receiving payment under
the terms and conditions set forth herein.
2.Term.
(a) This Contract will commence on the date written above, and unless
modified by the mutual written agreement of the parties, shall continue until
six months from that date.
September 4,2018 to March 4,2019
The Grantee may request a one-time six-month extension.Extension request
must be in writing and be submitted to the Mason County Historic
Preservation Commission for approval no later then 5:00 p.m. four months
from the date of the award(January 4,2019).
HG 15B
3.Grantee's Obligations
(a) The Grantee shall provide a scope-of-work, consistent with the grant
application,which shall be attached to this contract as Exhibit A.
(b) Upon completion of the project the Grantee shall provide the County
with an invoice for reimbursement for the work approved by this grant
award. At a minimum the invoice shall include the organization's name,
remittance address, date, details of expenses (paid receipts), invoice total
and program or grant being billed. Grantees will allow at least 60-days for
reimbursement after the invoice has been received by the County.
(c)Upon completion of the granted project,a final report shall be submitted
by the Grantee to the Mason County Historic Preservation Commission.The
final report shall summarize the project, its completion and outcome. The
final report shall be submitted to the Mason County Historic Preservation
Commission, 615 West Alder St, Shelton, WA 98584 within 10 calendar
days of the authorized grant completion date.
Chair,Mason County Board of County Commissioners Date
Chair,Mason County Historic Preservation Commission Date
1
Authorized Representative of the Grantee Date
HG 15B
The McReavy House board of directors has approved this scope of work for our 2018 Heritage Grant
application:
The entire roof of the main portion of the house will be completely re-tarred and torched with special
attention given to those areas where the gutter system and leaks have weakened the existing
cardecking. Where necessary,the cardecking will be replaced by similar material and the gutters will be
replaced with a regular drain and downspout. The entire project will be completed by local roofer, Brett
Allen for$4750.
Thank you,
Jayni Kamin,
President, McReavy House of Hood Canal
Mason County Heritage Grant Application
Applicant: McReavy House of Hood Canal Date: June 26, 2018
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 388, Union, WA 98592
Email: iayni@kaminexcavation.com Phone: 360-239-6790
Project Description Attached on Separate Page: Yes X No
Total Project Cost: $4,750 Request Amount: $4,750
Heritage grants are available to non-profits, government agencies and tribes. If your
organization is a non-profit, please attach proof that your organization is currently registered
with the Washington Secretary of State or is 501(c).(3).
Proof of non-profit status is attached: Yes X No_
How many of the following categories does your project fall into? Please mark all that apply:
Professional Development: Yes_ No X
Public Education: Yes No X
Small Capital Projects: Yes X No
Collections Management: Yes_ No X
Heritage Investigations: Yes_ No X
Historic Preservation: Yes No X
Does your organization have a current incomplete Heritage Grant project pending?
Yes_ No X
Does your organization have a previously approved six month time extension for an incomplete
approved project?
Yes_ No X
Rev. 02/01/2018
If your organization had a previously approved six month time extension, has one year elapsed
since the completion of the project?
Yes No [Not applicable]
Has the person completing this application read the Heritage Grant Guidelines published on the
Mason County website?
Yes X No
Does your organization understand that this is a reimbursement grant not to exceed $5,000?
Yes X No
Does your organization have the funding ability to complete the project prior to
reimbursement?
Yes X No
Signatur f official f
Date:
or yo r organization (i.e. city official, organ izati napl president, etc.):
i� �i'\
Signa re-of•your organization's financial off.:icer:
Dater ..�-
Mason County Heritage Grant Application
Project Description: Roof Repair [Exterior maintenance(roofing,painting,relevant landscaping,
etc.)of substantive value/nature,i.e.,more than routine and periodic maintenance expected of a prudent
owner or tenant if such maintenance is necessary to protect historic archival exhibits]
Applicant: McReaw House of Hood Canal
Date: June 26,2018
Total Project Cost: $4,750.00
•Promotes heritage,preservation and history in Mason County(25 pts.maximum)
Built in 1890,McReavy House stands as a monument to the pioneering spirit of John McReavy who
founded Union City and owned a logging and sawmill operation on the Union River.He served as the
school superintendent,postmaster,hotel and store owner,real estate agency during his time in Union.
He was a member of the 1889 Washington State Constitutional Convention and a senator in the first
legislature of the state.He married Fannie Dow Gove in 1880.Their home was a center for Hood
Canal cultural,social,and business activities.It is likely the oldest existing residential structure on the
lower Hood Canal.Restoring and maintaining the house will help keep this history alive.
•Public benefit,shows public need and scope,and will increase public understanding,exposure and
experience of Mason County history(20 pts.maximum)
Union and the lower Hood Canal have many attractions to draw tourists, including Alderbrook Resort
and historical sites like Robin Hood Restaurant and the Dalby Waterwheel,arts and crafts,the
Skokomish Fish Hatchery,and access to Olympics and the marine environment.The town,however,
has few places where residents can meet and enjoy the unique spirit of this community.Rehabilitation
of McReavy House and its grounds will provide another venue for events,historical education,and
public gatherings as well as a potential site for use by nonprofit organizations and income-generating
operations.With its restoration,McReavy House also can join the growing number of historical sites
in Mason County able to attract and educate visitors to the area.
•Applicant has the capacity to complete the project using professional standards(15 pts.maximum)
In 2007,the McReavy's descendants,the Visser family, donated the house and property as a
community asset.It was granted 501(c)(3)status as a nonprofit organization in 2006.In 2016
McReavy House Board members and its Friends began meeting most every Saturday morning-even
in the pouring rain-cutting ivy,clearing brush,pulling scotch broom and sprucing up the landscaping
on the property.Inside,their efforts went first to securing the property and making necessary repairs
to preserve the integrity of the structure.By summer's end repairs to the foundation began,broken
windows were replaced and door locks repaired,the interior was cleaned,and the main drawing
rooms repainted with help provided through United Way's Day of Caring. This was done entirely by
local volunteers giving almost 600 hours of work.
This effort has continued.On the inside,the study was re-insulated,the hallway,old kitchen and
dining room sheet rocking,painting and wainscoting for the kitchen and hallway were installed.The
posts,decking,new railing,and ceiling of the front walking porch and back porch were restored.
Exterior window sashes and related siding were replaced as well.Repairs to the foundation and
drainage system were completed.The roof on the single story addition was re-torched and patches put
in place on the second story to address major leaks.With these structural improvements and a grant
from the Mason County Historical Preservation Commission in the summer of 2017,the exterior of
the house was repainted by Gethsemane Ministries,a local non-profit organization,making for a
vastly improved presentation of the McReavy House to the community and visitors to Union.At
present,replacement and repair of the plumbing in the kitchen and downstairs bathroom is underway.
With the exception of the work by Gethsemane and the contracted roofer and plumber,renovation
efforts have been done by local volunteers contributing another 500 hours of work over the past year.
All the work is being carried out with adherence to historic preservation principles,attempting to
make the restoration correspond to the original McReavy House structure and property.
•Immediate need or opportunity and relates to applicant's mission and/or goals(15 pts.maximum)
For the Board and Friends of McReavy House,ensuring the integrity of the house is of utmost
importance.This year's repairs to the roof and installation of improved drainage addressed the
immediate difficulties,but have not proven sufficient.The design of the roof with its built-in gutter
system,put in place with the removal of the third floor of the house, is problematic.We thought the roof
repairs made in the past year would last us until we could initiate a"Raise the Roof'campaign to restore
the original third floor and roof line,but unfortunately,the old roof was too brittle to hold the patches
and it began to leak heavily again this spring.To restore the original roof would likely cost tens of
thousands of dollars,not a project we are able to take on at this time.Re-torching the lower roof on the
single story addition is working just fine and is expected last at least 10 years.We believe re-torching the
remainder of the roof is our best option at present.
It is crucial to repair the existing roof in order to preserve the improvements we have made thus far.The
contractor for the project is a local roofer and lifelong Union resident,familiar with the house and the
goals of the organization,committed to helping safeguard the structure for the future.
•Measurable outcomes(10 pts.maximum)
Completion of re-torching the roof
•Well defined budget as well as effectively leveraged funding and support from other sources(total
project costs,i.e. grant amount plus hard and soft match; enhancing historic visibility)(10 pts.maximum)
Total Cost=Labor Cost+Material Cost=$4,750.00
The focus of rehabilitation efforts to-date has been to do as much as possible with sweat-equity labor,
conserving McReavy House's financial resources for those things we are unable to accomplish solely
with volunteers and donated materials. We will seek donations of some materials and McReavy
House Board members and Friends will provide donated assistance for preparation and clean-up of
the project.
•Economic benefit to Mason County(5 pts.maximum)
Union envisions itself as a gateway destination.A jumping off point for people traveling to the
Olympic Peninsula.The Alderbrook Resort,Union Country Store,Union City Market and other local
businesses continue to increase the draw of visitors to the area. Creating another cultural and
community venue to attract tourists and businesses to Union and the lower Hood Canal will assist in
these efforts and have a positive impact on the local area and the region.
Our Vision-
Inspired by the enchanting natural beauty of eav
Ouse
the Hood Canal,the restored McReavy House
will celebrate the unique spirit of Union while
connecting to the historical roots of its pioneer Of Hood Canal
founder and visionary,John McReavy.
Our Mission-
Now:To preserve and renovate the.McReavy
House. „
Future:To create a special place providing for a
variety of community and cultural activities. �'
The McReavy House Museum of Hood Canal
is a 501 c)3 non-profit organization(IRS# 20-5440315),
a Washington State non-profit entity(# 602 642 447), ,� '
and a registered Washington State charity(#23313).
Donations,which are tax-deductible,can be sent to: .IIIII[I •IIIIiI� I I '
McReavy House Museum
P.O. Box 388, Union, WA 98592
McReavy House Board Officers:
President:Jayni Kamin Capital
Vice President: Brandon Hesher
� Treasurer: Quentin Christie Improvement
Secretary: Dawn Smart
x McReavy House Board Members: Campaign
rd
00
0 Larry DeForresr,Rick Endicott,Terry Oliver
a 0 3 For inquiries, please contact:
o Jayni Kamin 360-898-2000
� x
---
uilt in 1890 on a bluff overlooking Hood Canal '
and the Olympic Mountains,McReavy House stands n O r' �P-- 'v Y Z
as a monument to the pioneering spirit of John McReavy. .� �• A
Born in 1840 in Northfield.Maine,McReavy arrived
N
o , N
in the northwest in 1861 and went to work in the
burgeoning timber industry.Within a decade,he was °e P
owner of a logging and sawmill operation on the Union <
River.He founded Union City and was Cr M
school superintendent,postmaster,
3 C fD n
hotel and store owner,real estate
agent,a member of the 1889 Union CfV food Canal, 189OsCT
v
' Washington State Constitutional ~ T 0 CA
oday,the McReavy House Building Committee seeks the o ° ° p �'
Convention,and a senator in c rs :3the first legislature of the state.
Inds needed to rehabilitate and restore the structure and
its surrounding grounds.The goal is to raise$150,000 for o o
During his lifetime,his house was
a center for Hood Canal cultural, Phase I projects,which•include: o fD
social,and business activities. Complete restoration of kitchen/dining o
o Today,McReavy House is likely room addition, creating a catering 0 A
the oldest existing residential kitchen to handle events. M °
2
structure on the lower Hood Canal. .
• Installation of an energy efficient heating 9
system.
• Reconstruct front bay and entry porch. <
= C'7 r�i
w..
• Interior floor refinishing and wall M
0 O
treatments. � �
• Upgrade of electrical and security �p
systems. O
horse II and subsequent phases of the Capital
Improvement Campaign will include restoration of 00
third story and roof to replicate the historic profile of p �y
the structure, rebuild the fireplace, replace modern O
windows with period style double hung wood windows.
; Projects scheduled for the upcoming year include: Complete
foundation repair to insure structural integrity,exterior
Union Cify, 1877= painting to approximate original historic appearance;Repair
plumbing and renovate bathrooms;Complete reconstruction
n 2007,John McReavy s descendants,the Visser family, of walking porch;Upgrade electrical and security system:
donated the house and property as a community asset. Renovate upstairs bedrooms,entry hall and study;and
Between 2008 and 2010,corrununity programming was
complete cleanup of grounds and parking lot.
launched,and displays of regional historical significance
and works representative of the regions artists and contributing to the building's Capital Improvement d �H { -LO -LO
artistic traditions were installed.In 2010.the McReavy Campaign will keep the rehabilitation projects moving
House Museun gained commercial property status, forward.The Building Committee has designated levels of
which gives the board members greater latitude to raise
funds to rehabilitate the property and utilize the property giving based on the accomplishments of John McReavy:
as retail space for events,education,vendors,and other Pioneer......................................$500.00 _
sources of income. Founder..................................$1,000.00
Statesman.......... .......$2,500.00
Merchant............ .......$5,000.00
MASON COUNTY
BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM
TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Michael MacSems
DEPARTMENT: Community Services EXT: 571
BRIEFING DATE: August 20, 2018
ITEM: Appoint Christina Lee Williams to fill a vacant seat on the Mason County
Historic Preservation Commission. This term will expire in November 2020.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: (If applicable, please include available options and
potential solutions): The Mason County Historic Preservation Commission is a seven
(7) member commission which serves to identify and actively encourage the
conservation of Mason County's historic resources.
Currently the MCHPC has a vacant seat. Ms. Williams attended the MCHPC's July 12th
and August 9th meetings. At the August meeting the meeting the MCHPC members
voted to forward Ms. William's application to the BOCC for consideration and
approval.
BUDGET IMPACTS: None
RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION:
At the September 4th BOCC meeting, appoint Christina Lee Williams to the Mason
County Historic Preservation Commission to fill the balance of a term ending in
November 2020.
ATTACHMENTS:
Application from Christina Lee Williams. 2018 HPC membership list.
Briefing Item Summary Form Appointments 11 23.doc
CcCMMRS Neatherlin Shutty, Drexler
Clerk
877� 1 �
EC
*1854
AP SON COWL —1YCOM�SSIOATEPS
IG411 NOP.T HFIFTH STREET
SHELTON WA 98584
Mason COUntV7ax 360-427-8437; Voice 360-427-9670,Ext. 499;275-4467 or 482-5269
Commissioners
I AM SEEKING APPOINTMENT TO Mason County Historic Preservation Commission
NAME:Christina Lee Williams
ADDRESS: PHONE:
CITY/ZIP: VOTING PRECINCT: WORK PHONE:
Grapeview (OR AREA IN THE COUNTY YOU LIVE)P116 E-MAIL: com
COMMUNi TY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT:(IF RETIRED.PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE)
Polson Muse(ACTIVITIES
m,F oquianrn MEMBER'
COMPANY: Brookside Vet Clinic,Gig Harbor Wa 2 YRS
Backcountry Horsemen of Washington POSITION: Veterinarian assistant
Washington Trails Association COMPANY: Winslow Animal Clinic, Bainbridge Wa 5 yRS
Coastal Raptors,Ocean Shores Wa POSITION: Receptionist/Vet assistant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In your words,what do you perceive is the role or purpose of the Board, Committee or Council for which you are applying:
To help preserve historic properties,educate public about historic properties,enforce preservation laws
What interests,skills do you wish to offer the Board,Committee,or Council?
While my skills are general administation(typing phones,note taking,etc), I have a strong interest in seeing historic
properties preserved.
Please list any financial, professional, or voluntary affiliations which may influence or affect your position on this Board:
(i.e.create a potential conflict of interest)
No conflict of interest
Your participation is dependent upon attending certain trainings made available by the County during regular business hours
(such as Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records).The trainings would be at no cost to you.Would you be
able to attend such trainings? Yes
Realistically,how much time can you give to this position?
Quarterly Monthly X Weekly Daly
OfficeUse®nly
1114101110PI
( jQ� Appointment Date
Sig ature Date
Teras Expire Date
2018 Mason County Historic Preservation Commission
Membership List
Stephanie Neil Professional Expertise Nov 2018
91 E Morris Creek Dr.
Belfair,WA 98528
stephvanb@hotmail.com
Works for Squaxin Cultural Resources,formerly with USFS
Steve Rose Vice Chair Nov 2019
P.O.Box 1215
Allyn,WA 98524
STEVE—E—ROSE@hotinail.com
Vacant Seat Nov 2020
Patricia Jerrells Nov 2019
320 SE Nighthawk PI
Shelton,WA 98584
Trisha7of9@hotmail.com
Edgar Huber Professional Expertise Nov 2020
111 SE Emerald Drive
Shelton,WA 98584
ehuber@sricrm.com
Principle Investigator/Project Manager at SRI
Lorilyn F.Rogers Nov 2019
W 229 Wyandottte
Shelton,WA 98584
lukesgang@comcast.net
Rick Calvin Chair Nov 2018
2461 E Grapeview Loop Rd
Grapeview,WA 98546
calvinsteely@aol.com
Rhonda Foster Ex-Officio Member
THPO Squaxin Tribe
SE 70 Squaxin Ln
Shelton,WA 98584
rfoster@sgaxin.us
Kris Miller Ex-Officio Member
THPO Skokomish Tribe
N 541 Tribal Center
Shelton,WA 98584, Shlanayl@skokomish.org
MASON COUNTY
BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM
TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Kell Rowen, Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT: DCD EXT: 286
BRIEFING DATE: August 20, 2018
ITEM: New Release for one open seat on the Planning Advisory Commission (PAC).
BACKGROUND: The Mason County Planning Advisory Commission is a seven (7)
member citizen board appointed to advise the Board of Commissioners on policy related
to the county comprehensive plan and on land use issues. The Planning Advisory
Commission members help set the long-term direction or vision for the community's
future.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
This proposal will cost has no cost.
RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION:
Approve the attached News Release to attract candidates for the open position. The
News Release will be read at the August 28th, 2018 meeting of the Mason County Board
of Commissioners weekly meeting and placed on the Mason County Planning Advisory
Commission's webpage.
ATTACHMENTS:
New Release
Briefing Item Summary Form Open Seat 8-2018
NEWS RELEASE
August 28,2018
MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
411 NORTH 5T"ST
SHELTON,WA 98584
(360)427-9670 EXT.419
TO: KMAS, KRXY,SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL,THE OLYMPIAN, SHELTON CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, NORTH MASON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, CITY OF SHELTON, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL,THE SUN
RE: Planning Advisory Commission Vacancy
Mason County is seeking one at-large applicant from Mason County in either Commissioner District 1, 2
or 3 for the Mason County Planning Advisory Commission.
The Planning Advisory Commission is a seven-member citizen board appointed to advise the Board of
County Commissioners on policy related to amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Master
Program, Resource Ordinance and other development regulations.
The Commission typically meets at least once per month on the third Monday at 6:00 p.m.,with special
meetings scheduled as necessary.Appointed Commissioners normally serve a four-year term. Currently,
this position will be filling a vacancy set to expire in January of 2022.
Applications to serve on the board are being accepted until the position is filled,and should be
submitted to the Mason County Commissioners,411 N. 5th St., Shelton,WA 98584.
Application forms may be obtained from the Commissioner's Office, (360)427-9670 ext.419 or visit our
website at www.co.mason.wa.us.
BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Randy Neatherlin Terri Drexler Kevin Shutty
Chair
MASON COUNTY
BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM
TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Casey Bingham
DEPARTMENT: Public Health EXT: 562
BRIEFING DATE: 8/20/18
PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES:
If this is a follow-up briefing, please provide only new information
ITEM:
Amendment W2RRED-2019-MaCoPH-00005
Background:o� This provides $30,000 in funding for the education of Mason County
residents about reducing waste, recycling, and properly disposing of trash. The grant
requires a 25% match that is covered by the tipping fee.
This new funding and has been budgeted in the 2019 budget.
RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION: Move Amendment W2RRED-2019-
MaCoPH-00005 to the Action Agenda for 8/28/18
Briefmg Summary 8/15/2018
WASTE 2 RESOURCES WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING EDUCATION
Organization: Mason County - Public Health Department W2RWRRED-2019-MaCoPH-00005
Version Date: 08/15/2018 11:30:09
General Information
Project Title Clean up Mason County
Project Short Description This project will educate Mason County residents and visitors about illegal
dumping through environmental workshops, classroom activities, community
outreach/information campaigns, and a presence at special events. There will be
an emphasis on educational materials for non-English speaking citizens.
Project Long Description The RECIPIENT will create materials to educate citizens about what is expected
as far as reducing waste, recycling, and properly disposing of trash. Special
attention will be given to certain products listed in RCW 82.19.020 such as soft
drinks, beer, newspapers, and magazines, household paper products, and metal
containers.
The RECIPIENT will use social marketing techniques to educate and change
behaviors so garbage is not dumped illegally. Techniques will include flyers,
brochures, and updates to their website. Educational materials will be translated
into other languages as needed.
The project success will be measured in the decreased number of complaints
received, by the reduced number of dumps located around the county, by
increased recycling activity, and by increased awareness that illegal dumping is
a problem that can be controlled by everyone's actions.
The RECIPIENT will provide educational materials to the public at workshops
and community wide events. The information will be available at events such as
the onsite sewage system homeowners workshops, Oakland Bay Day,
Oysterfest and other events as they are identified.
Total Cost $30,000.00* Total Eligible Cost $30,000.00*
Effective Date 7/1/2018 Expiration Date 6/30/2019
Ecology Waste 2 Resources
Program
Project Category Solid Waste Education
Will Environmental Monitoring Data be collected? No
Overall Goal The purpose of the project is to educate citizens and visitors to Mason County
and reduce illegal dumping. Educational materials will support waste reduction,
recycling and proper disposal. The overall goal is to reduce solid waste
complaints to Public Health by 10% by June 30, 2019 and to improve the overall
appearance of Mason County as demonstrated by staff observation and photos.
08/15/2018 Page 1 of 4
WASTE 2 RESOURCES WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING EDUCATION
Organization: Mason County - Public Health Department W2RWRRED-2019-MaCoPH-00005
Version Date: 08/15/2018 11:30:09
General Information
This work will be ongoing using the educational materials developed under this
funding. The local media will be used to cover the project developments; the
improvements and overall appearance of Mason County will be highlighted. The
stories will be added to the RECIPIENT's webpage and Facebook page to make
people aware and motivate action.
08/15/2018 Page 2 of 4
WASTE 2 RESOURCES WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING EDUCATION
Organization: Mason County - Public Health Department W2RWRRED-2019-MaCoPH-00005
Version Date: 08/15/2018 11:30:09
Project Characterization
Project Themes
Select a primary and secondary theme that best
describes the work to be achieved during this project.
Primary Theme: Solid Waste
Secondary Theme(s): Education & Outreach
Project Website
If your project has a website, please enter the web address below.
After entering a website and saving, another blank row will appear. Up to
three websites may be provided.
Website Title/Name Web Address
Mason County http://www.co.mason.wa.us/health/environmental/soli
d-waste/index.php
08/15/2018 Page 3 of 4
WASTE 2 RESOURCES WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING EDUCATION
Organization: Mason County - Public Health Department W2RWRRED-2019-MaCoPH-00005
Version Date: 08/15/2018 11:30:09
Mapping Information
Facility Site ID Facility Site Link
Facility Site
No location data currently exists for this project. To
add location data, please click the map button below.
A Review Is Required on this Mapping Information
08/15/2018 Page 4 of 4
WASTE 2 RESOURCES WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING EDUCATION
Organization: Mason County-Public Health Department W2RWRRED-2019-MaCoPH-00005
Version Date: 08/15/2018 11:30:09
Recipient Contacts
Project Manager Casey Bingham
Contact Information
Casey Bingham
Finance Manager
415 North 6th Street
shelton, Washington 98584
(360) 427-9670
(360) 427-7787
caseyb@co.mason.wa.us
Authorized Signatory Casey Bingham
Contact Information
Casey Bingham
Finance Manager
415 North 6th Street
shelton, Washington 98584
(360) 427-9670
(360) 427-7787
caseyb@co.mason.wa.us
Billing Contact Casey Bingham
Contact Information
Casey Bingham
Finance Manager
415 North 6th Street
shelton, Washington 98584
08/15/2018 Page 1 of 6
WASTE 2 RESOURCES WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING EDUCATION
Organization: Mason County-Public Health Department W2RWRRED-2019-MaCoPH-00005
Version Date: 08/15/2018 11:30:09
Recipient Contacts
(360) 427-9670
(360) 427-7787
caseyb@co.mason.wa.us
Other recipient signatures on printed agreement
Name Title
Randy Neatherlin Commissioner
08/15/2018 Page 2 of 6
WASTE 2 RESOURCES WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING EDUCATION
Organization: Mason County-Public Health Department W2RWRRED-2019-MaCoPH-00005
Version Date: 08/15/2018 11:30:09
Scope of Work-Task 1 Project Administration: 1
Task Number 1
Task Title Project Administration Task Cost $3,000.00
Task Description A. The RECIPIENT will administer the project. Responsibilities will include, but not be
limited to: maintenance of project records; submittal of requests for reimbursement and
corresponding backup documentation, progress reports and recipient closeout report;
submittal of required performance items; and compliance with applicable procurement
and contracting requirements.
B. The RECIPIENT will, along with each request for reimbursement, prepare and
submit a progress report to ECOLOGY's project manager through Ecology's
Administration of Grants and Loans (EAGL) on line grant management system. The
reports shall include, at a minimum, the following information:
1.A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for the
reporting period.
2.The reasons for any delays if the project does not meet established objectives.
3.Plan and schedule of activities for the upcoming two months.
4.Analysis and explanations of any cost overruns.
5.Any additional pertinent information.
C. The RECIPIENT shall submit a Recipient Closeout Report encompassing the entire
project with their last payment request. The RECIPIENT shall submit the final payment
request and Recipient Closeout Report by July 30, 2019.
D. The RECIPIENT must manage and carry out this project in accordance with any
completion dates outlined in this agreement.
Task Goal Statement Properly managed and fully documented project that meets ECOLOGY's grant
administration requirements
Task Expected Outcomes * Timely and complete submittal of requests for reimbursement, quarterly progress
reports and recipient closeout report.
* Properly maintained project documentation
Recipient Task Coordinator Casey Bingham
08/15/2018 Page 3 of 6
WASTE 2 RESOURCES WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING EDUCATION
Organization: Mason County-Public Health Department W2RWRRED-2019-MaCoPH-00005
Version Date: 08/15/2018 11:30:09
Scope of Work-Task 1 Project Administration: 1
Deliverables
Deliverable# Description Due Date Received? EIM Study ID EIM System Link Latitude Longitude Location
(ECY Use Address
Only)
1.1 Payment 10/30/2018
Request/Progress
Report
1.2 Payment Request/ 1/30/2019
Progress Report
1.3 Payment 4/30/2019
Request/Progress
Report
08/15/2018 Page 4 of 6
WASTE 2 RESOURCES WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING EDUCATION
Organization: Mason County-Public Health Department W2RWRRED-2019-MaCoPH-00005
Version Date:08/15/2018 11:30:09
Scope of Work-Additional Tasks: 2-Educational material development&distribution
Task Number 2
Task Title Educational material development & Task Cost $27,000.00"
distribution
Task Description The RECIPIENT will develop, print, and distribute educational materials focused on cleaning up and
preventing illegal dumping in Mason County. Materials will also encourage waste reduction and recycling.
A contractor will be hired to translate the materials into the language and/or dialects of the non-English
speaking communities in Mason County. A commercial printer will be hired to print the educational
materials.
The RECIPIENT will submit all presentation and promotional materials to ECOLOGY for review in
accordance with section 18 of the General Terms and Conditions for this agreement.
Task Goal Statement The goal of this task is to produce effective, usable educational materials to be placed on the Mason
County website, to be handed out to individuals or groups at workshops, classroom activities, community
outreach/information campaigns and special events.
Task Expected Outcomes The RECIPIENT expects a reduction of solid waste complaints to Public Health by 10% by June 30, 2019
and to demonstrate an overall improved appearance of Mason County through staff observation and
photos.
Recipient Task Coordinator Luke Cencula
Deliverables
Deliverable# Description Due Date Received? EIM Study ID EIM System Link Latitude Longitude Location
(ECY Use Address
Only)
2.1 Develop 11/2/2018
educational
08/15/2018 Page 5 of 6
WASTE 2 RESOURCES WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING EDUCATION
Organization: Mason County-Public Health Department W2RWRRED-2019-MaCoPH-00005
Version Date: 08/15/2018 11:30:09
Scope of Work-Additional Tasks: 2-Educational material development&distribution
materials in English
and appropriate
non-English
language/dialects
2.2 Have approved 12/31/2018
educational
materials printed
and ready for
spring events and
clean up
2.3 Distribute 5/31/2019
educational
materials on an
ongoing basis to
community groups,
events, workshops,
etc throughout the
grant period
08/15/2018 Page 6 of 6
WASTE 2 RESOURCES WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING EDUCATION
Organization: Mason County - Public Health Department W2RWRRED-2019-MaCoPH-00005
Version Date: 08/15/2018 11:30.09
Scope of Work Summary
Task Title Task Cost
Project Administration $3,000.00
Educational material development & $27,000.00
distribution
Total $30,000.00
Total Eligible Costs
(from the General Information Form)
$30,000.00
08/15/2018 Page 1 of 2
WASTE 2 RESOURCES WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING EDUCATION
Organization: Mason County - Public Health Department W2RWRRED-2019-MaCoPH-00005
Version Date: 08/15/2018 11:30:09
Evaluation Summary
Number of Evaluators 4
Reviewer Average - TOTAL Score 54.5 /70
Final Score 54.5
Rank 8
Final Review Comments
08/15/2018 Page 2 of 2
WASTE 2 RESOURCES WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING EDUCATION
Organization: Mason County-Public Health Department W2RWRRED-2019-MaCoPH-00005
Version Date: 08/15/2018 11:30:09
Ecology Contracts
Project Manager Dunne Kelsey M.
Financial Manager Dunne Kelsey M.
Technical Advisor
Fiscal Analyst
08/15/2018 Page 1 of 3
WASTE 2 RESOURCES WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING EDUCATION
Organization: Mason County- Public Health Department W2RWRRED-2019-MaCoPH-00005
Version Date: 08/15/2018 11:30:09
Ecology Contacts
08/15/2018 Page 2 of 3
WASTE 2 RESOURCES WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING EDUCATION
Organization: Mason County-Public Health Department W2RWRRED-2019-MaCoPH-00005
Version Date: 08/15/2018 11:30:09
Funding Distribution: Litter Control Account
Funding Number EG190034
Funding Title Litter Control Account
Funding Type Grant
Funding Category Waste Reduction and Recycling Education Grants
Recipient Match % 25.00%
InKind Interlocal Allowed Yes
v No
InKind Other Allowed v Yes
No
Agreement is match for a Federal No
Grant?
Funding Source
Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Litter Control 100.00%
Account
Task Title Task Budget
Project Administration $3,000.00
Educational material development & $27,000.00
distribution
Funding Effective Date Funding Expiration Date
7/1/2018 6/30/2019
Loan Security
Interest Rate % Project Start Date Final Accrued Interest
Admin Charge % Project Completion Date Final Loan Amount
Effective interest Rate 0 Initiation of Operation Date Repayment Sched #
Loan Terms
08/15/2018 Page 3 of 3
WASTE 2 RESOURCES WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING EDUCATION
Organization: Mason County - Public Health Department W2RWRRED-2019-MaCoPH-00005
Version Date: 08/15/2018 11:30:09
Funding Distribution Summary
By Task Funding Distribution
Recipient/Ecology Share
Funding Distribution Recipient Recipient Share Ecology Share Total
Match %
Litter Control Account 25.00% $7,500.00 $22,500.00 $30,0
00.00
Total $7,500.00 $22,500.00 $30,0
00.00
Total Eligible Costs Ecology Share Recipient Share
$30,000.00 $22,500.00 $7,500.00
08/15/2018 Page 1 of 2
WASTE 2 RESOURCES WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING EDUCATION
Organization: Mason County - Public Health Department W2RWRRED-2019-MaCoPH-00005
Version Date: 08/15/2018 11:30:09
Agreement Information
Agreement Template Simple Template
Organization Display Name Mason County Public Health Department
Agreement Specific Terms and Conditions
Amortization Sched #
Uploads
08/15/2018 Page 2 of 2
PUBLIC WORKS
MONDAY AUGUST 20, 2018— BRIEFING ITEMS
FROM PUBLIC WORKS
(For Commissioners Meeting August 28,2018)
Items for this meeting,are due to Diane Zoren on Wednesday,August 22,2018
4.0 CORRESPONDENCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
(None)
8.0 APPROVAL OF ACTION ITEM
• Budget Manager to move forward with a public hearing to consider budget amendments for Solid Waste
Fund#402.
9.0 OTHER BUSINESS
(None)
10.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ITEMS SET FOR A CERTAIN TIME
(None)
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Attendees:
Commissioners: Public Works: Other Dept.: Press: Public:
_Randy Neatherlin _Jerry Hauth List below: List below List Below:
_Kevin Shutty _John Huestis
_Terri Drexler _Bart Stepp
Others-List below:
j w
T
MASON COUNTY
BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM
TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Merrilee Kenyon, Finance Manager
DEPARTMENT: Public Works EXT: 388
BRIEFING DATE: August 20, 2018
PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES:
(If this is a follow-up briefing,please provide only new information,)
ITEM: Supplemental Budget Appropriation — Fund # 402
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Solid Waste requests approval to supplement the
2018 budget for Fund 402. This fund will receive revenues and incur
expenditures that were not anticipated or included during 2018 budget
development.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
Increase revenue by $127,500 for the CPG Household Hazardous Waste DOE
Grant received in 2018.
Increase capital expenditures by $675,000 which includes:
$250,000 for the replacement of the 2007 loader scheduled to be replaced in
2019 however it has reached mechanical failure and needs immediate
replacement.
$425,000 for the construction of the Eells Hill Transfer Station improvements.
This project began in 2017, however only the design portion was completed that
year. $125,000 is currently in the 2018 budget for capital expenditure.
$600,000 for the construction phase of the improvements should be in the
budget for 2018. This project is scheduled to be completed this fall.
The ending fund balance will be reduced by 547,500.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend the Board authorize the Budget
Manager to proceed with a public hearing to consider budget amendments for
Fund 402 (Solid Waste).
Attachments: Budget Transfer Forms— Fund 402
Briefing Summary
2018 BUDGET C NGE REQUEST
Date: 8/20/2018 Change Request#
PLEASE SUBMIT BUDGET CHANGE REQUESTS TO BUDGET MANAGER - SUPPORT SERVICES
X Supplemental Appropriation Non-Debatable Emergency Debatable Emergency Budget Amendement
For increased expenditures due to unanticipated For the relief of a stricken community For a Public emergency other than a For increased expenditures to be funded from
federal,state,or local funds requiring immediate address;to meet non-debatable emergency which Current Expense funds
mandatory expenditures required by law counid not reasonably have been
foreseen at the time of making the
budget,requiring the expenditure of
money not provided for in the budget.
REVENUE/SOURCE
FUND NUMBER BARS LINE Amount Description
402.000000.000.000 343.03.310005 127,500.00 CPG HHW&Recycling DOE Grant
ai
m
c
0
z
U
v
r
rn EXPENDITURES
c
•N
'v From - 402.000000.000.000 508.10.500000 < 547,500.00 > Ending Fund Reserve
m
`m To + 402.000000.000.000 594.37.564000 250,000.00 Equipment
E
t
o. To + 402.000000.000.000 594.37.563031 425,000.00 Minor Facility Improvements
v
v
L To +
o
Reason for change: Solid Waste was awarded a DOE grant in the amount of 127,500
g Move funds from EFB to pay for the purchase of a replacement loader. Also,move funds from EFB to cover costs for improvements to the Eells Hill
ED Transfer Station. 2018 budgeted EFB is not sufficient,the actual EFB will cover this change.
N
N
Please indicate with if a y of th requested Change To BARS lines are new and need to be added.
Authorizing signature for
department requesting transfer: EXT:
Title of authorizing signature: Ir G C>k' Date: AS
rn o Action taken by Budget Manager: Change Approved Change Denied
� c
°O Budget Manager signature: Date:
o H CHANGE COMPLETED IN FINANCIAL SERVICES BY:
'u w
o Z DATE: COPIES TO:
c y
LL N
MASON COUNTY
BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM
TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Merrilee Kenyon, Finance Manager
DEPARTMENT: Public Works EXT: 388
BRIEFING DATE: August 20, 2018
PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES:
(If this is a fo/%w-up briefing,please provide only new information,)
ITEM: Supplemental Budget Appropriation — Fund # 402
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Solid Waste requests approval to supplement the
2018 budget for Fund 402. This fund will receive revenues and incur
expenditures that were not anticipated or included during 2018 budget
development.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
Increase revenue by $127,500 for the CPG Household Hazardous Waste DOE
Grant received in 2018.
Increase capital expenditures by $675,000 which includes:
$250,000 for the replacement of the 2007 loader scheduled to be replaced in
2019 however it has reached mechanical failure and needs immediate
replacement.
$425,000 for the construction of the Eells Hill Transfer Station improvements.
This project began in 2017, however only the design portion was completed that
year. $125,000 is currently in the 2018 budget for capital expenditure.
$600,000 for the construction phase of the improvements should be in the
budget for 2018. This project is scheduled to be completed this fall.
The ending fund balance will be reduced by 547,500.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend the Board authorize the Budget
Manager to proceed with a public hearing to consider budget amendments for
Fund 402 (Solid Waste).
Attachments: Budget Transfer Forms— Fund 402
Briefing Summary
2018 BUDGET C NGE REQUEST
Date: 8/20/2018 Change Request#
PLEASE SUBMIT BUDGET CHANGE REQUESTS TO BUDGET MANAGER - SUPPORT SERVICES
X Supplemental Appropriation Non-Debatable Emergency Debatable Emergency Budget Amendement
For increased expenditures due to unanticipated For the relief of a stricken community For a Public emergency other than a For increased expenditures to be funded from
federal,state,or local funds requiring immediate address;to meet non-debatable emergency which Current Expense funds
mandatory expenditures required by law counld not reasonably have been
foreseen at the time of making the
budget,requiring the expenditure of
money not provided for in the budget.
REVENUE/SOURCE
FUND NUMBER BARS LINE Amount Description
402.000000.000.000 343.03.310005 127,500.00 CPG HHW&Recycling DOE Grant
ti
m
c
0
r
U
v
t
EXPENDITURES
c
a' From - 402.000000.000.000 508.10.500000 < 547,500.00 > Ending Fund Reserve
v
v To + 402.000000.000.000 594.37.564000 250,000.00 Equipment
E
t
EL To + 402.000000.000.000 594.37.563031 425,000.00 Minor Facility Improvements
v
v
= To +
`o
Reason for change: Solid Waste was awarded a DOE grant in the amount of 127,500
a Move funds from EFB to pay for the purchase of a replacement loader. Also,move funds from EFB to cover costs for improvements to the Eells Hill
m Transfer Station. 2018 budgeted EFB is not sufficient,the actual EFB will cover this change.
N
N
Please indicate with if a y of th requested Change To BARS lines are new and need to be added.
Authorizing signature for
department requesting transfer: r QCt EXT:
Title of authorizing signature: e G or Date: &114l$
v m Action taken by Budget Manager: Change Approved Change Denied
rn
� c
a° :E Budget Manager signature: Date:
o N CHANGE COMPLETED IN FINANCIAL SERVICES BY:
u m
o Y DATE: COPIES TO:
c a
r� N
MASON COUNTY
BRIEFING ITEM SUMMARY FORM
TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM:
Barbara Adkins
DEPARTMENT: EXT:
Mason Conservation District 427-9436, ext. 104
BRIEFING DATE:
August 20, 2018
PREVIOUS BRIEFING DATES: June 19, 2017; April 9, 2018
(If this is a follow-up briefing, please provide only new information)
ITEM: Voluntary Stewardship Plan (VSP) Work Plan Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: (If applicable, please include available options and
potential solutions):
The VSP Work Plan has been approved by the Washington Conservation
Commission effective June 19, 2018. The next phase of this program is the
Plan's implementation which includes public outreach, stewardship practices,
monitoring and adaptive management. Attached is a brief summary of the
current status of the Program and how the District is strategizing the next steps.
Also provided to the Board are the final VSP Work Plan and the WCC's official
approval correspondence.
Part of the implementation process includes regular reporting to the County;
therefore the District will continue to provide the Board and other County
Officials updates on the status of the Plan and any monitoring results involving
agricultural activities and critical areas. Changes to the County's Resource
Ordinance and/or Comprehensive Plan to accommodate the County's VSP
standing may be necessary, as well as to the County's website, in order to best
serve and inform interested citizens.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Work Plan (digital copy)
Briefing Summary 8/16/2018
Voluntary Stewardship Plan
Post Approval Update
July 10, 2018
POST APPROVAL UPDATE
The VSP Work Plan has been approved by the Washington Conservation Commission
effective June 19, 2018. A letter confirming this approval was provided to Frank Pinter
on June 20, and is included with this update. District Staff participated in two Formal
Reviews with the WCC's Technical Panel in which comments and suggestions by the
Panel were received and incorporated into the draft Plan. After the second review held
on June 19, 2018, the Panel voted to approve the Work Plan pending final edits. While
Mason County did receive correspondence from WCC dated June 20, 2019 announcing
the Work Plan approval, District Staff continued to make the final edits. Once
completed, the final Work Plan was provided to the WCC on July 9 and to Mason
County Officials as part of this update package.
As per GMA, the next phase under the Voluntary Stewardship Program is the
implementation of the Work Plan through outreach, monitoring and adaptive
management. Implementation progress is reported to the WCC and the County under
the following schedule:
REPORTING SCHEDULE
Benchmark Status Check Due 10 years post funding November 24, 2025
Periodic Evaluations Due 60 Days post each August 19 2020, 2022,
biennium 2024
Report on Meeting Goals Due 5 years post funding November 24, 2020
and Benchmarks
Report on Meeting Goals Due 10 years post funding November 24, 2025, 2030,
and Benchmarks and then every 5 years post 2035
funding
Prior to the first periodic evaluation in August of 2020, the Work Group together with
District Staff will begin strategizing outreach efforts to maximize the program's
exposure. The Work Plan includes a chapter on outreach that resulted from a
brainstorming work session and the techniques listed are ideas from which more
specific plans can be formed. Since Voluntary Steward Programs are new in
Washington, there is no tried and true method of achieving maximum results.
Therefore, the outreach will be one aspect of the plan that will necessarily be adjusted
along the way. The Work Group and District Staff will also be creating a structured
format for reporting data received as a result of monitoring. There are several
resources being reviewed under the Program and documenting change legibly and
uniformly will be crucial as the Work Plan's life span extends beyond 10 years. Finding
a recording method that can be followed easily by future group members and staff will
be the best way to assure results are properly reported.
Mason Conservation District Page 1
Voluntary Stewardship Plan
Post Approval Update
July 10, 2018
As of this date, 18 out of 27 participating counties have approved Work Plans with the
earliest ones approved in April of 2017. A cursory review of the implementation status
of each of these Counties shows a lull inactivity post work plan adoption. Considering
there is a two-year window before any reports are due, and the length of time between
resource updates, it is reasonable to see a brief hiatus. In the interim, while Mason
County as well as the others fine tune their outreach strategies and monitoring systems,
the WCC continues to work through all the kinks that accompany new legislation. The
WCC's Statewide Advisory Committee, which works with the Commission's Director and
with Work Groups whose plans are rejected, is also empowered to established policies
and procedures for implementing the VSP. Three such policies have been adopted
thus far that address (1) confidentiality of stewardship plans, (2) timeline for VSP work
plans, and (3) roles and responsibilities for VSP implementation. Each of these Policy
Advisories is available on the WCC's VSP homepage under Statewide Advisory
Committee. There is a fourth policy under consideration and scheduled for discussion
on July 25, 2018. This new proposed policy involves recommending changes to Critical
Area Ordinances as they relate to the application of VSP to all agricultural activities.
The following except is from the approved meeting minutes of the Technical Panel
meeting on February 23,
General discussed of VSP information coordination among state agencies
related to "new" agriculture and how counties are applying VSP and their critical
area ordinances. Perhaps a new policy advisory (04-18) would need to be
created to address how counties in VSP address adding a statement to their
critical area ordinance once it is updated to state that they are VSP counties and
that the VSP applies to all agricultural activities, as defined in VSP, but that all
others laws, including development regulations such as the SMA, Endangered
Species Act, county building codes, etc. are still in effect. GMA differentiates
between old agricultural and new agriculture. VSP doesn't have the
differentiation. There is no new versus old agriculture in VSP. VSP applies to all
unincorporated property in the county that ops into VSP. RCW 36.70A.710 (5).
A statement in the CAO that states that the county is a VSP county and that VSP
applies to all agricultural activities, as defined in the VSP statute, should be
added to each county VSP who've opted into VSP. For example, new structures
would be covered in development regulations, not VSP. VSP would deal with the
effects of that agricultural practices (i.e. the installation of a structure) within the
watershed as a whole.
Once formalized, this new Policy should provide guidance to local jurisdictions,
including Mason County, on amending their CAO's to better clarify the role of VSP and
its application to new as well as existing agricultural activities. Having at least some
reference within Mason County's Code acknowledging the existence of the Voluntary
Stewardship Program is something to be considered by the Board of Commissioners.
Even prior to the current Policy under consideration, several counties have include
references in either their Comprehensive Plans and their development regulations
Mason Conservation District Page 2
Voluntary Stewardship Plan
Post Approval Update
July 10, 2018
indicating that their county is a VSP county, and providing direction for where additional
information may be located (i.e. the Conservation District, the County, or some other
appointed agency). They also provide links on the County's homepage where
information on VSP can be found, and whether it is being implemented by the County or
by another technical assistance provider. Since most interested parties will begin their
search for land use rules with the local governing body, a link to VSP information as well
as to the District's homepage would be very helpful. Most of the Counties who've opted
into VSP have such links established; however finding their corresponding code or plan
amendments proved to be far more challenging. If Mason County chooses to create a
VSP information page from its homepage, including additional links to code and plan
changes would be useful. The following describes some of the formal amendments
VSP counties have made to acknowledge their VSP standings:
VSP RELATED CHANGES
COUNTY WORK PLAN APPROVAL CHANGES — CODE/PLAN
DATE
Adams Not Approved
Asotin May 2018 None Found
Benton April 2018 None Found
Chelan April 2017 Code Amendment (Title 13 Environment)
Clatlam Non-VSP
Clark Non-VSP
Columbia Not Approved
Cowlitz Not Approved
Douglas April 2018 None Found
Ferry Not Approved
Franklin February 2018 Comp Plan Amendment (Natural
Resource Element)
Garfield June 2018 None Found
Grant June 2017 None Found
Grays Not Approved
Harbor
Island Non-VPS
Jefferson Non-VSP
King Non-VSP
Kitsap Non-VSP
Kittitas April 2018 None Found
Klickitat Non-VSP
Lewis Not Approved
Lincoln April 2018 Code Amendment (Title 18 Environment)
Mason June 2018
Mason Conservation District Page 3
Voluntary Stewardship Plan
Post Approval Update
July 10, 2018
COUNTY WORK PLAN APPROVAL CHANGES — CODE/PLAN
DATE
Okanogan Not Approved
Pacific August 2017 None Found
Pend Oreille Not Approved
Pierce Non-VSP
San Juan January 2018 Code Amendment (Title 18 Unified
Development Code)
Skagit July 2017 Code Amendment (Title 14 Unified
Development Code)
Skamania Non-VSP
Snohomish Non-VSP
Spokane Not Approved
Stevens December 2017 None Found
Thurston April 2017 Code Amendment (Title 17 Environment)
Wahkiakum Non-VSP
Walla Walla November 2017 Comp Plan Amendment (Critical Areas
Element)
Whatcom Non-VSP
Whitman August 2017 Code Amendment (Title 19 Zoning Code)
Yakima October 2017 Code Amendment (Title 16C Critical
Areas)
NEXT STEPS:
Prepare Outreach materials
Compile Current List of Potential Outreach Events
Compile Current List of Civic Groups and Organizations
Work with County on Code Amendments to inform Citizens
Create Structured Reporting Matrices
Mason Conservation District Page 4
The Mason County Voluntary
Stewardship Program helps local
farm - rc vnhantarily rnncsarve. , ur
County- h good
WORK PLAN
stewarc (A• The
Voluntary Stewardship Program
Mason 6,19,2018 Aship
Mason County, Washington
Program ritarily
conserve /„. .. _ _ _ _ _�_� _ _ _Niources
through good stewardship practices on
the land . The Mason County Voluntary
Stewardship Program helps local
farmers voluntarily conserve our
County's natural resources through good
stewardship practices on the land. The
Mason County Voluntary Stewardship
Program helps local farmers voluntarily
conserve our County's natural resources
through good stewardship practices on
the land . The Mason County Voluntary
Stewardship Program helps local
Seco coal Mason County
A
IliState of Washington
We
Z
' 411 N. 5th Street
lif Shelton, Washington 98584
1854.
,N...ZI
MASON CONSERVATION DISTRICT
45o W. Business Park Road
Shelton,Washington 98584
360/427-9436-www.masoncd.org
"Promoting the sustainable use, conservation and restoration of natural resources for future
generations"
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 12
WORK PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF TABLES 6
TABLE OF FIGURES 7
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 8
TABLE OF ACRONYMS I I
I. DEFINITIONS 12
2. MASON COUNTY — OVERVIEW 15
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM 18
4. OVERVIEW AND HISTORY OF VSP 20
5. ORGANIZATION AND PROCESS 22
STATE 22
COUNTY 22
WORK GROUP 23
STATE ... AGAIN 24
6. SCHEDULE AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 25
7. THE WORK PLAN 27
8. EXISTING WATERSHED PLANS 3I
Shellfish Protection Districts 31
Watershed Planning Act 32
9. WORK GROUP STRUCTURE AND ROLE 35
10. MEET THE "PROTECT CRITICAL AREAS" TEST 38
11. MEET THE "MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE AGRICULTURAL VIABILITY" TEST 39
12. CREATE AND MEET PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT BENCHMARKS 40
13. BASELINE CONDITIONS AND MONITORING 41
14. BASELINE BANKING 42
NAIP HIGH RESOLUTION AERIAL IMAGERY CHANGE DETECTION 42
MASON CONSERVATION DISTRICT BMP PROJECTS 44
USDA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE — CONSERVATION PRACTICES 46
15. MONITORING 49
16. AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES 54
17. ESTABLISHING THE AGRICULTURAL BASELINE 57
18. AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND CRITICAL AREAS INTERFACE 59
CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS 61
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS 64
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 13
WORK PLAN
LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS 68
SEISMIC HAZARD AREAS 70
EROSION HAZARD AREAS 73
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS 75
WETLANDS 78
19. GOALS AND BENCHMARKS 82
Goals 82
Benchmarks 82
Participation Benchmarks 83
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas 84
Frequently Flooded Areas 84
Wetlands 85
Erosion Hazard Areas 86
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 87
Protection and Participation Benchmarks— 88
Enhancement Benchmarks 89
20. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 92
WETLANDS 93
CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (CARAs) 95
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS 97
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS 99
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS 101
LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS 101
SEISMIC HAZARD AREAS 101
EROSION HAZARD AREAS 102
21. EXISTING REGULATORY BACKSTOPS 104
MASON COUNTY CODE 104
SECTION 8.52.140 MCC—LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS 104
SECTION 8.52.150 MCC—SEISMIC HAZARD AREAS 104
CHAPTER 14.22 MCC -FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION 104
CHAPTER 14.04 MCC STATE BUILDING CODES ADOPTED AND CHAPTER 14.08 MCC BUILDING CODE
AMENDMENTS 105
CHAPTER 17.01 MCC- MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 105
CHAPTER 17.50 MCC-SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM USE REGULATIONS 105
OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS 105
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 14
WORK PLAN
ASSISTING STATE AGENCIES IN THEIR MONITORING PROGRAMS 105
22. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 107
23. OUTREACH STRATEGY 108
OUTREACH EVENTS 108
COMMUNITY BASED MEETINGS 109
ADVERTISING 110
WORKING WITH AG-RELATED BUSINESSES &ORGANIZATIONS 110
PRINT AND BROADCAST MEDIA — INTERNET AND WEBSITES I I 1
BUILDING AWARENESS THROUGH BRANDING 112
SITE VISITS 113
CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS 113
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 113
MATERIALS 113
SCHOOLS 113
LANDOWNER MEETINGS 114
LOCAL BUSINESSES/GOVERNMENT OFFICES 114
VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP OVERVIEW AND INDIVIDUAL PLAN CHECKLIST 114
OUTREACH PRIORITIZATION AND SCHEDULE 115
APPENDIX 1 CRITICAL AREAS 117
WETLANDS 118
CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS 122
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS 125
AQUATIC AREAS 126
TERRESTRIAL AREAS 127
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS 129
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS 131
LANDSLIDE HAZARD 131
SEISMIC HAZARD 133
EROSION HAZARD 135
APPENDIX 2 EXISTING PLANS 137
AN NAS BAY CLOSURE RESPONSE STRATEGY,APRIL 2007 138
MCLANE COVE SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICT, MAY 2016 141
OAKLAND BAY ACTION PLAN,AUGUST 2007 142
WRIA 16 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN, MAY 2006 145
HOOD CANAL INTEGRATED WATERSHED PLAN, MAY 2014 148
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 15
WORK PLAN
HOOD CANAL COORDINATING COUNCIL'S HOOD CANAL REGIONAL POLLUTION 148
APPENDIX 3 SWOT ANALYSIS 150
APPENDIX 4 REGULATORY CONTEXT 153
CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE 154
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 155
APPENDIX 5 FARMS AND CROPS 157
FARMS 158
CROPS 162
APPENDIX 6 GOALS, BENCHMARKS, MONITORING, AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENTS
167
APPENDIX 7 MONITORING PROGRAM 178
APPENDIX 8 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 184
APPENDIX 9 VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP OVERVIEW AND INDIVIDUAL STEWARDSHIP CHECKLIST192
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 6
WORK PLAN
TABLE OF TABLES
Table I Land Use Categories 17
Table 2 Reporting Schedule 25
Table 3 Crosswalk 29
Table 4 Watershed Work Group Membership 36
Table 5 HRCD Detected Changes by WRIA (Acres) 44
Table 6 Mason Conservation District BMP Projects as Of fuly 2011 45
Table 7 NRCS Conservation Practices 2011-2017 46
Table 8 Net Baseline Acres of Critical Area Improvements 48
Table 9 Acres and Percentages of Agriculture and Critical Area Interface 59
Table 10 Acres and Percentages of CARA and Agriculture Interface 62
Table II Acres and Percentages of Flood Areas and Agriculture Interface 65
Table 12 Acres and Percentages of Landslide Areas and Agriculture Interface 68
Table 13 Acres and Percentages of Seismic and Agriculture Interface 71
Table 14 Acres and Percentages of Erosion and Agriculture Interface 73
Table IS Acres and Percentages of Habitat and Agriculture Interface 76
Table 16 Acres and Percentages of Wetland and Agriculture Interface 78
Table 17 Acreage of Agriculture in Critical Areas by WRIA 80
Table 18 Acres of Wetland Interface By WRIA 93
Table 19 Best Management Practices for Wetlands 93
Table 20 Acres of CARA Interface by WRIA 95
Table 21 Best Management Practices for CARAs 95
Table 22 Acres of Priority Species Habitat by WRIA 97
Table 23 Best Management Practices for Fish & Wildlife Habitat 97
Table 24 Acres of Flooded Areas Interface By WRIA 99
Table 25 Best Management Practices for Frequently Flooded Areas 100
Table 26 Erosion Interface by WRIA 102
Table 27 Best Management Practices For Erosion Hazard Areas 103
Table 28 First Year Outreach Efforts 115
Table 29 Water Typing System 127
Table 30 Differences between VSP and Resource Ordinance 155
Table 31 Total Farm as Percent Total Land,2007-2012 159
Table 32 Number Of Farms By Acreage,2007-2012 159
Table 33 Number of Farms by Market Value,2007-2012 160
Table 34 Crops and Livestock Numbers and Values,2007-2012 161
Table 35 Farm Operators,2007-2012 161
Table 36 Number Of Crop And Livestock Farms,2007-2012 162
Table 37 Types and Size of Crops,2007-2012 164
Table 38 Goals I And 2, Benchmarks and Adaptive Management 168
Table 39 Goal 3, Benchmarks and Adaptive Management 174
Table 40 Monitoring 179
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 17
WORK PLAN
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure I Mason County Location Map 15
Figure 2 Mason County Town Hall, 1914 16
Figure 3 Charles H.Mason 16
Figure 4 City Of Shelton, 1974 17
Figure 5 Mason County WRIAs Map 27
Figure 6 High Resolution Change Detection Map,201 1-2013 43
Figure 7 2016 Prelim Floodplains Map-Skokomish Valley 5 I
Figure 8 Mason County Future Land Use Map 55
Figure 9 Baseline Agricultural Lands 58
Figure 10 Interface Illustration 59
Figure I I Intersection Of Agricultural Lands And CARAS Map 63
Figure I2 2016 Aerial View of Skokomish River Valley and Skookum Creek 66
Figure 13 Intersection Of Ag Lands And Flooded Areas Map 67
Figure 14 Intersection Of Ag Lands And Landslide Areas Map 69
Figure 15 Intersection Of Ag Lands And Seismic Areas Map 72
Figure 16 Intersection of Ag Lands and Erosion Areas Map 74
Figure 17 Intersection of Ag Lands and Priority Species Map 77
Figure 18 Intersection of Ag Lands and Wetlands Map 79
Figure 19 Mosaic of Critical Areas Map 8 I
Figure 20 Shelton Farmers Market 1 13
Figure 21 Wetlands Map 121
Figure 22 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Map 124
Figure 23 WDFW Priority Species Habitat 128
Figure 24 Frequently Flooded Areas Map 130
Figure 25 Landslide Hazard Areas Map 132
Figure 26 Seismic Hazard Areas Map 134
Figure 27 Erosion Hazard Areas Map 136
Figure 28 Annas Bay Shellfish Protection District Map 138
Figure 29 Big Bend Shellfish Protection District Map 140
Figure 30 McLane Cove Shellfish Protection District Map 142
Figure 31 WRIA 14 Kennedy Goldsborough Creeks Map 144
Figure 32 WRIA Map with 14b 145
Figure 33 WRIA 16 Skokomish Dosewallips Map 147
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
70 70 z
SS < 70 70 C C < < C 70 z z 70 z 7 70 70 70 70 70 70 73 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 ,on n n - N Hnnnn70nnnnnn70n n n nnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnss
,.t
p' 77 C
-0 A
00 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w C 0n
,D `D C° ;to CO 0, o, W o, Orn o, Orn o, o, W 0, W 0, W W p, W W W W W W o, W o, Os W Os Orn W o, CT W W ro rU ro C W
p p ,O A m rn a o, rn o rn a rn a a rn rn rn rn o, -' -, -, o rf r
IOL
m o o •w ' V D a • • • a • D n D n D D n D V D D 0 0 D • D a • D a a D o o D p 0D •- Rl
p O p O, Cn V w N N N N N V N V — V V — V O • V V V •V O V O O N W W p w W > 0' - O
0 0 0 Ch Cn Ln O O O N 0 N Cn — — O — ^ 0 0 0 0 p N 0 0 0 — O O W O O V 70 7, 70 ,,"4"
.• V' • �N.., p — • ` ^ u, — p — Cn W co w N p O CO p N p n n nT
C
H
2
0
77
m
3
0
0
O
0
n
0
0
0
0
E--
0
8
`D
0
0
0 4, TX
Zj W N N
- ,O ,O
o N . . •. N N W W W N COr o 0
. . . . . . . _ . •. •. •. Ln o N o v, a D
3 - U n- a 4. 0 o -. o ONo Co 0 -A o — '0 CO � - .pa — CD o U VV,, � '0 � CO 2 '0 0 CO m — ..4 W N � Lr.
Z CO
Page 19
WORK PLAN
RCW 90.58.065 12
RCW 90.72.030 31
RCW 90.72.045 31
RCW 90.82.010 32
RCW 90.82.040(2)(e) 32
RCW 90.82.043 32, 33
RCW 90.82.070 145
RCW 90.82.080 145
RCW 90.82.090 145
RCW 90.82.100 145
Rules
WAC 173-18 105
WAC 173-183-710 1 19
WAC 173-183-71 0(d)(ii) 1 19
WAC 173-183-710(d)(ii)) 1 19
WAC 173-22 105
WAC 222-16-030 127
WAC 365-190-030(3) 13
WAC 365-190-030(8) 99, 129
WAC 365-190-120(1) 13
WAC 365-190-120(5) 13
WAC 365-190-120(6) 13
WAC 365-196-200(221 14
WAC 365-196-425 13
WAC 365-196-830 155
WAC 173-20 105
WAC365-190-030(3) 122
Regulations
CHAPTER 14.04 MCC 105
CHAPTER 14.22 MCC 104
CHAPTER 17.01 MCC 105
Chapter 17.03 MCC 155
Chapter 17.06 MCC 12
CHAPTER 17.50 MCC 105
Chapter 8.52 MCC 12, 154
IBC Chapter 16 70
IRC R30I.2(2) 70
/RC Section 401.4.1 70
Section 14.22.020 MCC 64
Section 17.06.010 MCC 12
Section 8.52.030 MCC 13
Section 8.52.040(5)MCC 56
Section 8.52.061 MCC 155
SECTION 8.52.140 MCC 104
SECTION 8.52.150 MCC 104
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 110
WORK PLAN
Section 8.61.010 MCC 56
Section 8.61.010(5)(B)MCC 56
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page II
WORK PLAN
TABLE OF ACRONYMS
ACRONYM :. ..
BMP BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
CA CRITICAL AREAS
CARA CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA
FWHCA FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREA
GMA GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT
HMP HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
ISP INDIVIDUAL STEWARDSHIP PLAN
MCC MASON COUNTY CODE
MEP MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT
PHS PRIORITY HABITAT SPECIES
RCW REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON
SMA SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT
SMP SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
VSP VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
WAC WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
WDFW WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
WRIA WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 112
WORK PLAN
I . DEFINITIONS
AS per the GMA statute (RCW 36.70A.703), the VSP utilizes the definition of the Shoreline
Management Act (RCW 90.58.065) for agricultural activities. Other relevant definitions from Mason
County's Resource Management Code, Chapter 8.52 MCC, and Mason County's Zoning Code,
Chapter 17.06 MCC, are also presented here.
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES (as per RCW 90.58) means agricultural uses and practices
including, but not limited to: producing, breeding, or increasing agricultural products; rotating and
changing agricultural crops; allowing land used for agricultural activities to lie fallow in which it is
plowed and tilled but left unseeded; allowing land used for agricultural activities to lie dormant as a
result of adverse agricultural market conditions; allowing land used for agricultural activities to lie
dormant because the land is enrolled in a local, state, or federal conservation program, or the land
is subject to a conservation easement; conducting agricultural operations; maintaining, repairing, and
replacing agricultural equipment; maintaining, repairing, and replacing agricultural facilities, provided
that the replacement facility is no closer to the shoreline than the original facility; and maintaining
agricultural lands under production or cultivation.
AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT and AGRICULTURAL FACILITIES (as per RCW 90.58)
includes, but is not limited to: (i) The following used in agricultural operations: Equipment; machinery;
constructed shelters, buildings, and ponds; fences; upland finfish rearing facilities; water diversion,
withdrawal, conveyance, and use equipment and facilities including but not limited to pumps, pipes,
tapes, canals, ditches, and drains; (ii) corridors and facilities for transporting personnel, livestock, and
equipment to, from, and within agricultural lands; (iii) farm residences and associated equipment,
lands, and facilities; and (iv) roadside stands and on-farm markets for marketing fruit or vegetables.
AGRICULTURAL LAND (as per RCW 90.58) means those specific land areas on which
agriculture activities are conducted.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS (as per RCW 90.58) includes but is not limited to horticultural,
viticultural, floricultural, vegetable, fruit, berry, grain, hops, hay, straw, turf, sod, seed, and apiary
products; feed or forage for livestock; Christmas trees; hybrid cottonwood and similar hardwood
trees grown as crops and harvested within twenty years of planting; and livestock including both the
animals themselves and animal products including but not limited to meat, upland finfish, poultry and
poultry products, and dairy products.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE LAND (as per Section 17.06.010 MCC) means land designated
by Mason County as agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance.
COMMISSION (as per RCW 36.70A.703) means the Washington State Conservation Commission
as defined in RCW 89.08.030.
CRITICAL AREAS (as per RCW 36.70A.030(5)) include the following areas and ecosystems: (a)
Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d) frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas.
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 113
WORK PLAN
"Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas" does not include such artificial features or constructs
as irrigation delivery systems, irrigation infrastructure, irrigation canals, or drainage ditches that lie
within the boundaries of and are maintained by a port district or an irrigation district or company.
CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (as per WAC 365-190-030(3)) are areas with a
critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, including areas where an aquifer that is a
source of drinking water is vulnerable to contamination that would affect the potability of the water,
or is susceptible to reduced recharge.
DIRECTOR (as per RCW 36.370A.703) means the Executive Director of the Washington State
Conservation Commission.
EROSION HAZARD AREAS (as per WAC 365-190-120(5)) includes areas likely to become
unstable, such as bluffs, steep slopes, and areas with unconsolidated soils.
ENHANCE or ENHANCEMENT (as per RCW 36.70A.703) means to improve the processes,
structure, and functions existing, as of July 22, 2011, of ecosystems and habitats associated with
critical areas.
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS (as per Section 8.52.030 MCC) means lands in the
floodplain subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year, including floodplain
related areas of avulsion risk. These areas include, but are not limited to, streams, rivers, lakes, coastal
areas, wetlands and the like.
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS (as per WAC 365-190-120(1)) means areas that
because of the susceptibility to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological events, are not suited
to the siting of commercial, residential, or industrial development consistent with public health or
safety concerns.
HAMLET (as per WAC 365-196-425) are isolated rural areas of more intense development,
including commercial, industrial, residential, or mixed-use areas. They are a subcategory of
LAMIRDs (Limited Areas of More Intense Rural Development) as defined under the Growth
Management Act. These areas were recognized during the initial adoption of the Comprehensive Plan
to permit small-scale development and prevent low density sprawl. Hamlets in Mason County include:
Bayshore, Dayton, Deer Creek, Grapeview, Lilliwaup, Matlock, Potlatch, Spencer Lake, and Tahuya.
INTERFACE is the place at which independent and often unrelated systems meet and act on or
communicate with each other.'
LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS (as per WAC 365-190-120(6)) areas include areas subject to
landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include any
areas susceptible to landslide because of any combination of bedrock, soil, slope (gradient), slope
aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors.
"Interface."Merriam-Webster.com,Merriam-Webster,wwwmerriam-webster.com/dictionary/interface.Accessed 25 May 2018
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 14
WORK PLAN
LONG TERM COMMERCIAL FORESTS are lands primarily useful for growing trees,
including Christmas trees subject to the excise tax imposed under RCW 84.33.100 through
84.33.140, for commercial purposes, and that has long-term commercial significance for growing trees
commercially.
PARTICIPATING WATERSHED (as per RCW 36.70A.703) means a watershed identified by a
county under RCW 36.70A.710(I) to participate in the program.
PRIORITY WATERSHED (as per RCW 36.70A.703) means a geographic area nominated by the
county and designated by the Commission.
PROGRAM (as per RCW 36.70A.703) means the Voluntary Stewardship Program established in
RCW 36.70A.705.
PROTECT or PROTECTING (as per RCW 36.70A.703) means to prevent the degradation of
critical area functions and values existing as of July 22, 2011.
RECEIPT OF FUNDING (as per RCW 36.70A.703) means the date a county takes legislative
action accepting any funds as required in RCW 36.70A.715(1) to implement the program.
STATEWIDE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (as per RCW 36.70A.703) means the statewide
advisory committee created in RCW 36.70A.745.
TECHNICAL PANEL (as per RCW 36.70A.703) means the Directors or Director designees of
the following agencies: the Department of Fish and Wildlife; the Department of Agriculture; the
Department of Ecology; and the Commission.
WATERSHED (as per RCW 36.70A.703) means a Water Resource Inventory Area, salmon
recovery planning area, or a subbasin as determined by a county.
WATERSHED GROUP or WORK GROUP (as per RCW 36.70A.703) means an entity
designated by a county under the provisions of RCW 36.70A.715.
WETLANDS (as per WAC 365-196-200(22)) means areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not
include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited
to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment
facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July I, 1990, that were
unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may
include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas created to mitigate
conversion of wetlands.
WORK PLAN (as per RCW 36.70A.703) means a watershed work plan developed under the
provisions of RCW 36.70A.720.
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 115
WORK PLAN
2. MASON COUNTY — OVERVIEW
MASON County is situated along the southwestern portion of Puget Sound, and encompasses
roughly 1,051 square miles (672,715 acres). It borders on Jefferson County to the north, Grays
Harbor County to the west and southwest, Thurston County to the southeast, Pierce County to the
east, and Kitsap County to the northeast.
Figure I Mason County Location Map
Clallam
Jefferson
Kitsap
Mason ' Washington Ida!
PieFce` SIL�S
Grays Harbor • 4/'
Thurston Or@9, i
Source:www.worldatias.corn
It is a predominantly rural county despite the urban spillover from both Thurston and Kitsap
Counties. The County has one incorporated City, Shelton, and two Native American Tribes, the
Skokomish and the Squaxin Island Tribes.
Three geological provinces combine to form Mason County.
They include the Puget Sound Lowland, the Olympic Mountains,
and the Black Hills. There are also a total of 109 waterbodies The way land is
considered to be shorelines of the state including two marine developed,undeveloped or
waterbodies (Hood Canal and South Puget Sound), 64 rivers and farmed is a reflection of its
population distribution. The
streams, 44 lakes nearly 709 linear miles of shoreline have been Washington Office of
identified within the County.2 Financial Management
projects 81,616 people will
live in Mason County by
2026—a 31%increase
2 Mason County Final Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report October 2012
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 116
WORK PLAN
Additionally, five watersheds exist within the County: Queets-Quinault, Lower Chehalis, Skokomish,
Hood Canal, and Puget Sound. Watersheds are physically divided areas that drain into particular
bodies of water. Watersheds are also
grouped into Water Resource Figure 2 Mason County Town He, 1914
Source:Mason County Historical Society j,
Inventory Areas, also known as a �!
WRIA. A WRIA is a legislatively created
boundary of an area for the purposes of - +--at` __ T _ -
formal water resource planning. These _ waft
►' ..
five watersheds have been grouped .7`_.
into five WRIAs for planning purposes: . �)
Kennedy-Goldsborough (WRIA14), F
w.� , re •" ' ' '4-3
AWN
Kitsap (WRIA 15), Skokomish-
Dosewallips (WRIA 16), Queets- `-` > �'• .:
Quinault (WRIA 21), and Lower ,
Chehalis RIA 22).3 Mason County's E
rich natural resources and open spaces
prevail across its landscape. Combined
national, state, and private forests currently account for about 61%4 of the County's land. Mineral
deposits underlie its top soils, and both agricultural and aquaculture areas contribute to the County's
natural beauty and its economy. Mason County also includes substantial open space that hosts wildlife
habitat, undeveloped natural areas, and many developed park and recreation sites.'
A report published in 1960 by the United States Department of Agriculture provides an interesting
discussion of Mason County's unique history, including its agricultural beginnings. The County was
established in March of 1854 and originally named Sawamish County after
a tribe of Indians in Thurston County. At that time, the County included
the western part of Thurston County to the Hood Canal. The name
didn't change until 1864 when it became Mason County, in honor of the
first secretary of the Territory of Washington, Charles H. Mason, who
served from 1853 until his death in 1859.
In 1903 Mason County had a population of about 4,471. By 1950 the
population was 15,022, according to the United States Census. One-third
is urban, mainly in and around Shelton. The rest is rural. The growth
in population has been related to the expansion of the lumbering and
other wood-using industries. Agriculture has only a minor place in the
Figure 3 Charles H. Mason economy of Mason County because the soils are not suitable for farming
WA State Historical Society
3 Mason County Comprehensive Plan,2005
4 Mason County Assessor's Office,2015,and Mason County Department of Community Services
5Mason County Comprehensive Plan,2016
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 117
WORK PLAN
or the terrain is too rugged. Only about 7.6 percent of the county was in farms in 1954. The
main farming communities are around Shelton, Matlock, Dayton, Kamilche, Grapeview,
Belfair, along the Pickering Passage, and in the Skokomish River Valley. Much of the land on
the average farm is covered by second growth forest or is in stump pastures. Dairying is the
most important type of agriculture; poultry raising is second. Hay is the predominant crop,
but grapes are produced in large quantities. Growing of berries and fruits and raising of beef
cattle are of lesser importance.6
Table 1 Land Use Categories?
Land Use Total Acres % Total Agriculture remains a relatively small percentage of
Residential 40,201 g g% Mason County's overall division of land use when
Commercial 4,361 1.0% compared to the way the rest of the County has
developed. As Table 1 shows, less than 2% of the
Transportation 2,440 0.5%
County is actually designated as agricultural. There
Utilities 1,980 0.4% are other portions of the County where agricultural
Government 8,638 1.9% activities are permitted, but not designated as
Parks 1,968 0.4% agriculture that must also be included. Information
Agri/Aquaculture 7,633 1.7% more inclusive of smaller farming activities on other
Mining 147 0.03% land uses was extracted from the Washington
Forest 276,848 60.7% Department of Agriculture's (WDA) 2010 crop
Vacant 111,912 24.5% survey data. The total number of acres reflecting
Total 456,128 100% agricultural activities incorporating the WDA survey
is approximately 8,015; however the percentage of
total land use with the increased
agriculture acres is still approximately
With that being said, the long history
of agriculture and its perseverance in
the community continue to reflect its
importance in Mason County's culture _ . - r=,;_ - _.t<'
and economy. Programs that support
the protection of farming, such as the •
Voluntary Stewardship Program, provide :
. _ , t.. a
Counties with additional opportunities r.atMr - '�►�_ `• 4�• c A
to facilitate and even expand this ,�j ` = ' . , _•
industry in the future. e'•''F* • _ ;, `
Figure 4 City Of Shelton, 1974
Source:Mason County Historical Society Museum
6 Soil Survey of Mason County,Washington Report by A.O. Ness,Soil Conservation Service,United States Department of Agriculture,and R.H.
Fowler,Washington Agricultural Experiment Stations, 1960
7 Mason County Assessor's Office,2015,and Mason County Department of Community Services
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 118
WORK PLAN
3. INTRODUCTION TO THE VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP
PROGRAM
ENACTED by the Legislature in 201 1, the Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP) is an alternative to
traditional top-down regulations for the
protection of critical areas on agricultural
land. Enabled under the Washington State
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), 'CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT
the VSP uses a collaborative, stakeholder-
ENGROSSED SUBSlITUTB ROUSE BILL 1886
driven process to identify, coordinate, and
build on existing programs and practices
Chapter 360, Laws of 2011
that address agricultural effects on critical
areas. The Program directs that each
62nd Legislature
participating County create a Work Plan 2011 Regular Session
to include goals and benchmarks for
protection and enhancement of critical CRITICAL AREA PROTECTION--VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
areas through voluntary, site- specific
stewardship plans, while also
maintaining and enhancing the long- term EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/22/11
viability of agriculture and reducing the
conversion of farmland to other uses.
Mason County has opted in to the VSP and reached out to stakeholders forming the VSP Watershed
Work Group to prepare the Work Plan. Within the Work Plan, the Group will develop strategies to
achieve the goals and benchmarks, together with methods of monitoring and techniques of adaptive
management. The Legislature intended counties and VSP Watershed Work Groups to "focus and
maximize voluntary incentive programs[that]encourage good riparian and ecosystem stewardship
as an alternative to historic approaches used to protect critical areas."8 (Appendix Critical Areas)
The VSP is a voluntary approach to I) protect critical areas, 2) maintain and enhance the viability of
agriculture, and 3) promote the voluntary enhancement of critical areas through incentive-based
measures. The Program's Goals are:
a. Promote plans to protect and enhance critical areas within the area where agricultural
activities are conducted, while maintaining and improving the long-term viability of
agriculture in the state of Washington and reducing the conversion of farmland to
other uses;
b. Focus and maximize voluntary incentive programs to encourage good riparian and
ecosystem stewardship as an alternative to historic approaches used to protect critical
areas;
8 RCW 36.70A.700(2)(b)
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 119
WORK PLAN
c. Rely upon RCW 36.7oA.o6o for the protection of critical areas for those counties that do
not choose to participate in this program;
d. Leverage existing resources by relying upon existing work and plans in counties and local
watersheds, as well as existing state and federal programs to the maximum extent
practicable to achieve program goals;
e. Encourage and foster a spirit of cooperation and partnership among county, tribal,
environmental,and agricultural interests to better assure the program success;
f. Improve compliance with other laws designed to protect water quality and fish habitat;
and
g. Rely upon voluntary stewardship practices as the primary method of protecting critical
areas and not require the cessation of agricultural activities.9
Agriculture operations that receive
incentives to keep land in farm production
and are provided protections beyond
general purpose rural zoning are less
likely to be rezoned, annexed,subdivided,
or otherwise converted out of agricultural
use.
Designating Farmland Around Puget Sound,
American Farmland Trust, 2014
9 RCW 36.70A.700
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X20
WORK PLAN
4. OVERVIEW AND HISTORY OF VSP
IN 2007, the legislature passed Substitute Senate Bill 5248 with two primary objectives — finding
a balance between the regulatory requirements and productive use of critical areas; and the
preservation of viable agricultural lands. Toward that end, the Bill
• enacted a moratorium on new critical areas regulations on agricultural uses defined in the Bill
between May 1, 2007 and June 30, 2010. In 2010, the moratorium was extended until June 30,
2011 so the work could be completed.
• directed the William D. Ruckelshaus Center, a neutral policy consensus center operated by
Washington State University and the University of Washington, to convene the chief participants at
the negotiating table and search for "common ground." The Agriculture and Critical Areas
Committee, comprised of representatives from agricultural and environmental organizations,
counties, and tribes, was tasked to conduct a fact finding mission, bring together stakeholders on
this issue for discussion of the issues, and develop a recommendation to the legislature. The
Committee met for two years discussing potential solutions to protect and restore critical areas
while preserving agricultural viability.
To ensure that productive agriculture and a healthy environment can co-exist, the
Committee developed a shared vision. Desired outcomes for the future in this vision include
opportunities for the next generation of farmers and fishermen to earn a living. Critical
areas support clean water, sustainable and harvestable populations of salmon and shellfish,
and healthy and diverse populations of wildlife and plant species. Farmers would operate
successful agricultural businesses while taking the initiative to improve the environment on
their land. Washington State is already a model for local watershed groups working together
to identify problems and implement solutions. A successful agricultural stewardship
program would enable these local communities to apply cooperation, innovation, and
effective action for the advancement of agriculture and the environment.
Principles for the Agriculture and Critical Areas Stewardship Program
• Build on existing work in local watersheds.
• Emphasize voluntary stewardship first.
• Protect critical areas from further degradation, and apply consequences where volunteer
measures fall short.
• Set priorities for voluntary actions to restore and enhance critical areas.
• Enforce existing state laws for water quality and habitat.
• Work together to find funding.bo
The hard work undertaken by the parties brought together by the Ruckelshaus Center concluded in
early 2011 with an agreement submitted to the legislature in the form of HB 1886. The Center
10 The William D. Ruckelshaus center, 2010. A Framework for Stewardship: Final Report on the Work of the Agriculture and Critical Areas
Committee.Washington State University,Pullman,WA and University of Washington,Seattle,WA.
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 121
WORK PLAN
provided the State Legislature and the Governor with A Framework for Stewardship: Final Report of the
William D. Ruckelshaus Center on the work of the Agriculture and Critical Areas Committee in October 2010.
This document ultimately prescribes that the
...framework of stewardship is characterized by choices at the county and landowner level.
In those places where agricultural activities intersect with sensitive critical areas ... promote
incentives for agricultural landowners and operators to voluntarily enhance the condition of
critical areas through restoration projects and farm management practices"
The legislature subsequently enacted Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 1886. This bill
amended the Growth Management Act to allow options for protecting critical areas that:
• Permits the County to use a voluntary stewardship program in conjunction with stakeholders in
lieu of enacting further critical areas regulations in regards to agricultural uses. At the state level,
the voluntary stewardship program is to be administered by the Washington Conservation
Commission; or
• Continue under existing law and update critical areas regulations for agricultural uses by July 22,
2013. RCW 36.70A.7I0(6)(a);or
• Limit the voluntary stewardship program to certain watersheds in the county, and update the
critical areas regulations for other watersheds.
IT--' :7; - - fp-,
: ' 1 ' . ' .-: 1' •' .:Sl;iN4I';'..; —• ' 1: 1.*:; ''s e :41 "II:. ! . *
I
II The William D. Ruckelshaus center, 2010. A Framework for Stewardship: Final Report on the Work of the Agriculture and Critical Areas
Committee. Washington State University,Pullman, WA and University of Washington,Seattle, WA
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 122
WORK PLAN
5. ORGANIZATION AND PROCESS
STATE
THE Voluntary Stewardship Program ("VSP") is administered by the Washington State Conservation
Commission ("Commission"). As such, the Commission must (a) establish implementation policies and
procedures; (b) administer funding for counties; (c) administer technical assistance funds; (d) Establish
a technical panel; (e) review and evaluate submitted work plans and reports; (f) Review and evaluate
the program's success and effectiveness; (g) designate priority watersheds; (h) provide administrative
support for statewide advisory committee; (i) maintain a program web site; (j) report to legislature on
program status; (k) conduct a review of the program every five years; and (I) report to the
appropriate committees of the legislature. The Department of Commerce, under which the Growth
Management Act is administered, shall assist counties participating in the program. The Commission,
Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Fish and Wildlife, and Ecology, and other state agencies shall
also cooperate and collaborate to implement the program.
,716 PROCESS DIAGRAM
County opts in Work plan submitted to Local group
State Conservation implements work plan
Funding is provided Commission for approval Plan approved
Focused outreach
Local VSP Workgroup Work plan reviewed by . - conducted with
Coordinating Entity VSP Technical Panel landowners to develop
identified farm plans protecting
critical areas
Status reports
Ran delivered to State
rejected Conservation
Commission—must
show progress on
measureable
VSP Workgroup works benchmarks
VSPwith State Conservation
Workgroup develops
work plan Commission executive Plan
approved
director and VSP
Work plan identifies critical Statewide Advisory
areas and ag activities Committee to revise work VSP Workgroups m
plan for approval report on progress
Work plan includes every five years
measureable benchmarks
for program and resource Must show progress• .'`
results benchmarks or
implement adaptive
management
approaches
Source:Washington Conservation Commission
COUNTY
The legislative authority of a county may elect to protect critical areas through a VSP program. In
order to participate, within six months after July 22, 2011, the County must have adopted an
ordinance or resolution that elects to participate, identifies the watersheds that will participate; and
nominates watersheds for consideration as state priority watersheds. The process for selecting
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X23
WORK PLAN
watersheds includes considering the role of farming within it, the likelihood of program success, and
the existence of other programs already in place. The process for prioritizing watersheds from those
selected goes further by evaluating fish and wildlife habitat in the region, and determining presence
of community support for effective program administration.
Adoption of the County's ordinance or resolution establishes the effective date of the program. It will
apply to all unincorporated property upon which agricultural activities occur within each participating
watershed. It also makes the County eligible for a share of the funding made available to implement
the program, subject to funding availability from the state. Until, however, adequate funding was
made available; the County was not required to implement the VSP program. When funds did
become available, the County had 60 days to designate a Watershed Work Group and an entity to
administer the funds for each watershed.
WORK GROUP
The Work Group is tasked with developing a work plan to protect critical areas while maintaining the
viability of agriculture in the watershed. The Plan must also include goals and benchmarks for the
protection and enhancement of critical areas. In developing and implementing the Work Plan, the
watershed group must:
a. Review and incorporate applicable water quality, watershed management, farmland
protection, and species recovery data and plans;
b. Seek input from tribes, agencies, and stakeholders;
c. Develop goals for participation by agricultural operators conducting commercial and
noncommercial agricultural activities in the watershed necessary to meet the protection
and enhancement benchmarks of the work plan;
d. Ensure outreach and technical assistance is provided to agricultural operators in the
watershed;
e. Create measurable benchmarks that, within ten years after the receipt of funding, are
designed to result in (i) the protection of critical area functions and values and (ii) the
enhancement of critical area functions and values through voluntary, incentive-based
measures;
f. Designate the entity or entities that will provide technical assistance;
g. Work with the entity providing technical assistance to ensure that individual
stewardship plans contribute to the goals and benchmarks of the work plan;
h. Incorporate into the work plan any existing development regulations relied upon to
achieve the goals and benchmarks for protection;
i. Establish baseline monitoring for: (i) Participation activities and implementation of the
voluntary stewardship plans and projects; (ii) stewardship activities; and (iii) the effects
on critical areas and agriculture relevant to the protection and enhancement benchmarks
developed for the watershed;
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 124
WORK PLAN
j. Conduct periodic evaluations, institute adaptive management, and provide a written
report of the status of plans and accomplishments to the county and to the commission
within sixty days after the end of each biennium;
k. Assist state agencies in their monitoring programs; and
1. Satisfy any other reporting requirements of the program.12
When the Work Plan is complete, it is submitted to the Executive Director for the Washington
Conservation Commission for approval. An approved Work Plan extends eligibility for additional
state assistance and funding. Additionally, both commercial and non-commercial agricultural
operators participating in the program are eligible to receive funding and assistance under
watershed programs.
STATE ... AGAIN
After the Executive Director ("Director") receives the County's Work Plan, it is submitted to the
Technical Panel for review. The Technical Panel ("Panel") is made up of representatives of the
Commission, and the Departments of Agriculture, Fish and Wildlife, and Ecology. The Panel has
ninety (90) days to report to the Director if the Work Plan will, after ten years of receipt of funding,
work in conjunction with other existing plans and regulations to protect critical areas while
maintaining and enhancing the viability of agriculture in the watershed.
If the Panel determines the Work Plan will work, it must recommend approval to the Director who
must then approve the Plan. If the Panel does not recommend approval, it must describe the reasons
why to the Director, then those reasons are provided to the Work Group. The Work Group
has a total of two years and nine months to submit and receive approval of the Work Plan,
including any revisions. If that is not achieved, the Director will submit the Work Plan to the
Statewide Advisory Committee.
The Statewide Advisory Committee ("Committee") is appointed by the Commission and made up of
two representatives each from county government, agricultural organizations, environmental
organizations, and may include two representatives from tribal governments.
The Committee serves in consultation with the Director when there is disagreement as to whether
or not a submitted Work Plan meets the goals and benchmarks for successful implementation. The
Director then acts upon the recommendations of the Committee on how to proceed. If the
recommendation is that the Work Plan would likely be approvable within six months, the Director
must grant the Work Group an extension. If, however, the Committee determines that six months
will not likely result in an approvable Work Plan, then the Director does not grant an extension and
the Plan fails.
2 RCW 36.70A720
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X25
WORK PLAN
6. SCHEDULE AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
DEADLINES for the monitoring and reporting portions of the Voluntary Stewardship Program are
established in the statute, and begin with the date that Mason County received its funding. Each
County is required to report their Work Plan's effectiveness and accomplishments at specific periodic
increments. This reporting also initiates adaptive management based on what the County reports.
Thresholds set in the Work Plan to be met are evaluated during this reporting periods and
adaptations, if necessary, are instituted. Mason County's "receipt of funding" date, as defined in RCW
36.70A.703(9) is November 24, 2015. The following schedule is the timeline in which documents are
due under the RCW 36.70A.720 based on a tentative approval date of September 7, 2018. These
dates will necessarily shift dependent on the actual approval date of the Work Plan.
Table 2 Reporting Schedule
November 24, 2015 Receipt of Funding
Work Plan Approval Deadline— 2 years, 9 months from Receipt of Funding
September 7, 2018
Date
May 24, 2018 Submit to Technical Panel —90 days prior to deadline
August 24, 2018 Report Due to County and Commission —60 days prior to recurring
biennium periodic evaluation
November 24, 2020 Report Due to Director and County—at 5 years and recurring, if Work
Plan is meeting protection and enhancement goals and benchmarks
November 24, 2025 Report Due to Director and County—at 10 years if Work Plan is meeting
protection and enhancement goals and benchmarks
The reports will be developed by District Staff together with the Work Group. Draft reports would be
prepared and presented to the Work Group for review and comment. Comments will be addressed
and edits made to the reports, which will then be approved by the Work Group and will be distributed
to the County, WSCC, and others by the District on behalf of the Work Group. The general timing
for reporting will be as follows:
• Monitoring will focus on the measurable benchmarks and will include informal evaluations at least
every 2 years in support of the 5-year performance review, and to determine if any adaptive
management measures are needed prior to the 5-year review.
• The Work Group must report no later than 5 years after receipt of funding on whether the
protection and/or enhancement goals are being met or identify an adaptive management plan to
meet VSP goals and benchmarks.
• The Work Group must report not later than 10 years after receipt of funding, and every 5 years
thereafter, whether it has met the protection and enhancement goals and benchmarks of the Work
Plan.
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 26
WORK PLAN
If the Work Group determines goals have not been met, they must propose and submit an Adaptive
Management Plan for achieving the goals and benchmarks. Monitoring indicators will inform the long-
term viability of the Adaptive Management Plan, based on goals for protecting critical area functions.13
The Work Group will satisfy all other reporting requirements of the Program in compliance with
RCW 36.70A.720(I).
Commercial and noncommercial
agricultural operators participating
in the program are eligible to receive
funding and assistance under
watershed programs.
RCW 36.70A.720(5)
13 Lincoln County VSP Work Plan
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 127
WORK PLAN
7. THE WORK PLAN
Figure 5 Mason County WRIAs Map
THE Program is intended to address
each County at the watershed level, not QUESTS-QUIN LT
on an individual property or parcel level.
In that way, the work plan can then build
`from existing watershed plans, salmon
recovery information, water quality
SSOKOJI ISH-DOSE WALLIPS
cleanup plans, the Puget Sound Action KITSAP
Agenda, and other available data, and
will incorporate information on local
agricultural conditions and objectives."14
(Existing Plans Appendix)
Mason County includes portions of five
Water Resource Inventory Areas
(WRIAs): Kennedy- Goldsborough
KENNEDY-GOLDSBOROUGH
(WRIA 14), Kitsap (WRIA 15), LOWER CHEH.ALIS
Skokomish-Dosewallips (WRIA 16),
Queets-Quinault (WRIA21), and Lower
DES" '•TES
Chehalis (WRIA 22). In 2012, under
Resolution #07-12, the Board of County
Commissioners opted in to the
Voluntary Stewardship Program and nominated all five WRIAs for consideration as "priority
watersheds" pursuant to RCW 36.70A.210. The Work Plan will, however, primarily address only four
of the WRIAs. That portion of the Queets-Quinault WRIA in the very northwestern tip of Mason
County is completely within the Olympic National Park where no agricultural activity occurs and no
mapping data is available.
Once the watersheds were designated and prioritized and funding was received, the County
selected the Mason Conservation District to administer the grant and its deliverables. A VSP
Watershed Work Group ("Work Group") was established and appointed by the County to be
responsible for ensuring the program's future success. This will require, in part, the creation of a
Work Plan that outlines a strategy "to protect critical areas while maintaining the viability of
agriculture in the watershed. The work plan must include goals and benchmarks for the protection
and enhancement of critical areas."15
14 The William D. Ruckelshaus Center, 2010. A Framework for Stewardship: Final Report on the Work of the Agriculture and Critical Areas
Committee. Washington State University,Pullman,WA and University of Washington,Seattle,WA
15 RCW 36.70A.720(I)
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 128
WORK PLAN
The Work Group's first core task is meeting the statutory test in determining whether or not "... at
the end of ten years after receipt of funding, the work plan, in conjunction with other existing plans
and regulations, will protect critical areas while maintaining and enhancing the viability of
agriculture in the watershed."1b According to the VSP statutes, the Work Plan must be approved
within two years and nine months after receipt of funding, as determined through the VSP Work
Plan Approval process, if considered to be effective over a ten year period. The Work Group's
second core task is to create measurable ten-year benchmarks designed to promote voluntary,
incentive-based measures to provide long-term protection of critical areas and to encourage voluntary
enhancements to improve critical areas. Together these voluntary incentive-based efforts reflect the
three core "test" elements of an approvable VSP Work Plan: I) Protection of critical areas; 2)
maintenance and enhancement of agricultural viability; and 3) voluntary enhancement of critical areas
through promotion of incentive- based measures.
The Work Group has prepared this Work Plan to provide goals, measurable benchmarks, strategies
and adaptive management, .• leverage existing watershed plans and other programs, and to protect
critical areas and promote ag ulture. This Work Plan applies to the intersection of agriculture and
five critical areas — fish and 'life abitat conservation areas, wetlands, frequently flooded areas,
geologically hazardous a eas (in .ing landslide, seismic and erosion hazards), and critical aquifer
recharge reas in u 'nco porate, -as • ason Co . This Work Plan is intended to fulfill the VSP
legislative requirements to create a
. voluntary set of goals, benchmarks,
' .,• r;i;=-'':j. and planned activities. The
• ' Crosswalk in Table 3 provides
�, '" ,. verification that the Work Group
.. A. . -
has included information in the
ork Plan as outlined in RCW
36.70A.720.
A
S _
.
16 RCW 36.70A.725(2)
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Parc 129
WORK PLAN
Table 3 Crosswalk
IILO.36.7ojAa2iaillIlli==111 Chapter/Page
(a)Review and incorporate applicable water quality,watershed management, Appendix 2 &
farmland protection,and species recovery data and plans; Chapter 8
(b)Seek input from tribes,agencies,and stakeholders; Chapter 9
(c)Develop goals for participation by agricultural operators conducting Chapter 19 &
commercial and noncommercial agricultural activities in the watershed Appendix 6
necessary to meet the protection and enhancement benchmarks of the work
rain•
(d)Ensure outreach and technical assistance is provided to agricultural Chapter 22 &
operators in the watershed; Chapter 23
(e)Create measurable benchmarks that,within ten years after the receipt of Chapter 19 &
funding,are designed to result in(i)the protection of critical area functions and Appendix 6
values and(ii)the enhancement of critical area functions and values through
voluntary,incentive-based measures;
(f)Designate the entity or entities that will provide technical assistance; Chapter 22
(g)Work with the entity providing technical assistance to ensure that individual Chapter 22
stewardship plans contribute to the goals and benchmarks of the work plan;
(h)Incorporate into the work plan any existing development regulations relied Chapter 21
upon to achieve the goals and benchmarks for protection;
(i)Establish baseline monitoring for: (i)Participation activities and Appendix 6
implementation of the voluntary stewardship plans and projects; (ii)
stewardship activities;and(iii)the effects on critical areas and agriculture
relevant to the protection and enhancement benchmarks developed for the
�nntvrchurl•
U)Conduct periodic evaluations,institute adaptive management,and provide a Chapter 6 &
written report of the status of plans and accomplishments to the county and to Appendix 6
the commission within sixty days after the end of each biennium;
(k)Assist state agencies in their monitoring programs;and Chapter 21
(I)Satisfy any other reporting requirements of the program. Chapter 6
The VSP was added to the Growth Management Act for the protection of critical areas in relation to
agricultural activities. Once a VSP Work Plan has been developed for Mason County, an agricultural
operator may choose whether or not to participate in the program.
VSP statutes do not grant counties or state agencies any additional regulatory authority to protect
critical areas on lands used for agricultural activities." In order to promote producer participation
and productive discussion among VSP Work Group members, the statutes prohibit county
promulgation of new critical area regulations related to agricultural activities during the VSP process
17 RCW 36.70A.702
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X30
WORK PLAN
(narrow exceptions apply).18 The VSP Work Plan is to rely on voluntary stewardship "as the primary
method of protecting critical areas and not require [termination] of agricultural activities". 19
Additionally, the County, through its VSP Work Plan, may not "require an agricultural operator to
discontinue agricultural activities legally existing before July 22, 2011."20 Further, nothing in the
VSP statutes requires participation from agricultural operators.21
With regard to conservation programs, the VSP is not to be administered in a manner that prevents
operator eligibility for environmental incentives, 22 and "agricultural operators implementing an
individual stewardship plan consistent with a work plan are presumed to be working toward the
protection and enhancement of critical areas".23 Agricultural operators volunteering to participate
may withdraw from the program at any time. Also, VSP may not require participating operators who
voluntarily enter conservation contracts to protect or enhance critical areas to continue such
voluntary measures after expiration of the applicable contract.24
¢ + :
! '4Cc tom+ f } 4+4,,f1
1_,
mi
18 RCW 36.70A.I 30(8)(a)Except as otherwise provided in (c) of this subsection,if a participating watershed is achieving benchmarks and goals for
the protection of critical areas functions and values, the county is not required to update development regulations to protect critical areas as they
specifically apply to agricultural activities in that watershed.
19 RCW 36.70A.700
20 RCW 36.70A.702
21 RCW 36.70A.705
22 RCW 36.70A.702
23 RCW 36.70A.750
24 RCW 36.70A.760
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 131
WORK PLAN
8. EXISTING WATERSHED PLANS
IN recent history, many attempts have been made by several agencies to address the issues
surrounding watershed protection and enhancement. To leverage existing resources and avoid
redundancy with ongoing watershed planning efforts, the Work Group performed a review of some of
those existing water quality, watershed management, farmland protection, and species recovery
plans, consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.720(I)(a). These plans identify major
watershed-scale issues related to natural resource functions; factors contributing to the degradation of
those functions; and strategies recommended improving those functions and/or preventing their further
degradation. A summary of the Plans reviewed in this plan can be found in Appendix 2.
SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICTS
When a shellfish growing area is downgraded, RCW 90.72.045 requires the county legislative
authority to create a shellfish protection district and establish a shellfish protection program.25 In
Mason County, several districts have been established as a result of this rule including Oakland Bay,
Annas Bay, Big Bend, and McLane Cove Shellfish Protection Districts. Review of these plans
illustrates commonalities in their priorities and recommended strategies, generally centered
on water quality. The following noted priorities are a much abbreviated list aimed at the
primary concern, which is water quality, but also those than can be concurrently addressed
through VSP implementation:
PRIORITIES:
• fecal coliform bacteria
• shoreline, stormwater, and upland runoff
• non-point contamination sources
The strategies below, as interpreted from the SPD Plans, are also consistent with those of the VSP's
goals and benchmarks connecting VSP implementation to the continuation of shellfish protection and
water quality improvement. The strategies below align with those BMPs suggested and already in use
that serve to assist in the control of contaminants entering water resources.
STRATEGIES:
✓ COMPOSTING FACILITY — reduce pollution potential and improve handling of organic
wastes
25 RCW 90.72.045 Shellfish protection districts—Programs required after closure or downgrading of growing area classification—Annual report. The
county legislative authority shall create a shellfish protection district and establish a shellfish protection program developed under RCW 90.72.030 or
an equivalent program to address the causes or suspected causes of pollution within one hundred eighty days after the department of health,because
of water quality degradation due to ongoing nonpoint sources of pollution has closed or downgraded the classification of a recreational or commercial
shellfish growing area within the boundaries of the county. The county legislative authority shall initiate implementation of the shellfish protection
program within sixty days after it is established.
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page I32
WORK PLAN
✓ FENCING — control movement of animals and people, especially near sensitive water
resources
✓ STORMWATER RUNOFF CONTROL — reducing and improving the quality of water leaving
a site
✓ ACCESS CONTROL — used to control the access of animals, people, and vehicles from
sensitive areas
✓ TREE/SHRUB ESTABLISHMENT —establishes long term erosion control and water quality
✓ ROOF RUNOFF STRUCTURE — protect surface water by excluding run off from
contaminated structures
✓ EDUCATION, OUTREACH AND CONSERVATION PLANS — a successful VSP will rely
heavily upon reaching out to landowners with conservation and protection information,
and securing the voluntary implementation of best management practices through
conservation planning
WATERSHED PLANNING ACT
Washington State legislature passed the Watershed Planning Act (Chapter 90.82 RCW)26 in 1998. This
legislation established a process for preparing watershed plans for 62 Water Resource Inventory
Areas (WRIAs), which roughly correspond with physiographic boundaries of drainage basins in
Washington.27 Under this new Planning Act, funding would be made available, to the extent
appropriated by the Legislature, to conduct the planning and implementation of a Watershed Plan.
Mason County received such funding in the form of a planning grant from the Washington
Department of Ecology for WRIA 14 and 16 planning efforts.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
I) Within one year of accepting funding under RCW 90.82.040(2)(e), the planning unit must
complete a detailed implementation plan. Submittal of a detailed implementation plan to the
department is a condition of receiving grants for the second and all subsequent years of the phase
four grant.
2) Each implementation plan must contain strategies to provide sufficient water for: (a) production
agriculture; (b) commercial, industrial, and residential use; and (c) instream flows. Each
26 RCW 90.82.010 Finding. The legislature finds that the local development of watershed plans for managing water resources and for protecting
existing water rights is vital to both state and local interests. The local development of these plans serves vital local interests by placing it in the hands
of people:Who have the greatest knowledge of both the resources and the aspirations of those who live and work in the watershed;and who have
the greatest stake in the proper,long-term management of the resources. The development of such plans serves the state's vital interests by ensuring
that the state's water resources are used wisely, by protecting existing water rights, by protecting instream flows for fish, and by providing for the
economic well-being of the state's citizenry and communities. Therefore,the legislature believes it necessary for units of local government throughout
the state to engage in the orderly development of these watershed plans.
27RCW 90.82.043
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 133
WORK PLAN
implementation plan must contain timelines to achieve these strategies and interim milestones to
measure progress.
3) The implementation plan must clearly define coordination and oversight responsibilities; any needed
interlocal agreements, rules, or ordinances; any needed state or local administrative approvals and
permits that must be secured; and specific funding mechanisms.
4) In developing the implementation plan, the planning unit must consult with other entities planning
in the watershed management area and identify and seek to eliminate any activities or policies that
are duplicative or inconsistent.28
Watershed planning is similar to shellfish protection but on a much larger scale and addresses the
resource as a whole, beyond just a shellfish focus. Enacted by state law, watershed planning can
involve as many stakeholders as it does objectives; however on a local scale goals again align with those
of the VSP. The priorities remain consistent with water quality, and expand to aspects of fish and
wildlife habitat. The VSP contains best management practices that either directly or indirectly affects
these priorities, and these Strategies illustrate a few of those most prominent in Mason County.
PRIORITIES:
• Fecal coliform bacteria
• Temperature
• Riparian conditions
• Runoff and sedimentation
• Erosion
• Grazing by streams and floodplains
• Loss of habitat
STRATEGIES
✓ HEAVY USE PROTECTION — provide a stable, non-eroding surface frequently used by
animals and people
✓ TREE/SHRUB ESTABLISHMENT —establishes long term erosion control
✓ NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT — control the amount and timing of soil nutrients to minimize
non-point pollution from agricultural activities
✓ PRESCRIBED GRAZING — managing stocking rates and animal grazing periods to improve
forage and function, and reduce soil erosion
28RCW 90.82.043
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 134
WORK PLAN
✓ FILTER STRIP — reduce suspended solids and soil contaminants in runoff
✓ MULCHING — prevent excessive bank erosion, reduce emissions of particular matter
✓ WATERING FACILITY — provide designated access of drinking water for wildlife and
livestock as alternative to sensitive source
✓ EDUCATION, OUTREACH AND CONSERVATION PLANS — a successful VSP will rely
heavily upon reaching out to landowners with conservation and protection information,
and securing the voluntary implementation of best management practices through
conservation planning
The Plans evaluated under this planning process provide a few examples of those drafted, adopted, and
currently being implemented in Mason County. The best management practices as suggested in this
Program to protect and enhancement critical areas while maintaining a healthy agricultural
environment will succinctly lend themselves to further the success of its predecessors.
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 135
WORK PLAN
9. WORK GROUP STRUCTURE AND ROLE
PER the VSP statute, "the watershed group must include broad representation of key watershed
stakeholders and, at a minimum, representatives of agricultural and environmental groups and
tribes that agree to participate".29 The Mason Conservation District, as appointed Lead Entity
providing Technical Assistance by Mason County, has solicited participation in the VSP planning
process from individuals representing the following interests:
Skokomish and Squaxin Island Indian Tribes Washington State Department of Ecology
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WRIA Basin Planning Units
Washington State Farm Bureau Local Agricultural Operators
Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group Local Interested Property Owners
WSU Extension Office
The District implemented a communications strategy to broadly inform the public of the development
of the VSP in Mason County. The promotions described the purpose of VSP and the formation of the
Watershed Work Group. Promotional efforts included:
• press release to the Shelton-Mason County Journal and iFIBER One News
• e-mail communications to
o agricultural producers and groups
o environmental groups and individuals
o residents at large
• presentations to service clubs, community clubs and organizations, and community leaders
• postings to website and social media
• word of mouth
As a result, the District obtained a number of applications from interested individuals to participate in
the Work Group from the above-listed groups with the exception of the Tribes. The Squaxin Island
Tribe has expressed in two separate writings that they do not agree with the VSP approach and
declined both invitations.
No written response was received from the Skokomish Tribe after two invitations. Both Tribes are,
however, kept on the regular VSP group mailing list to keep them apprised of the activities should they
decide to provide input at some future point. As for the remainder of the list, all individual property
owners and agricultural operators who applied to be Group members were accepted as stakeholders
in this process. The composition of the group is merely a result of community members taking an
interest in the Program and the process. No applicants were denied a seat and the District
continues to leave the invitation open for additional membership. Agency representatives from this
list acting as consultants have attempted to attend the regular meetings and continue be informed
and invited.
29 RCW 36.70A.715(3)
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X36
WORK PLAN
Members attending the Work Group meetings with some degree of regularity are listed in the table.
This group met somewhat informally for the first six to eight months before being formally appointed
by the Board of County Commissioners. Since the Group's participation is quite extensive over the
next 10 or more years, the District deemed it important to recognize the Group's stability and level
of commitment prior to formal appointment.
VSP encourages good stewardship, with a statutory goal of fostering cooperation among agricultural,
tribal, environmental, and county interests.30 The Watershed Work Group established includes the
following members:
Table 4 Watershed Work Group Membership
Name Representation Stakeholder/Consultant
BENTON, Joshua WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Consultant
BEYER, Michael Agricultural Producer Stakeholder
BLOOMFIELD, Tom Seattle Shellfish (Aquaculture) Stakeholder
BOLTZ, Larry Agricultural Producer Stakeholder
BORDEN, Allan Citizen/Property Owner Stakeholder
ECHEVERRIA, Agricultural Producer Stakeholder
EWALD, Erin Taylor Shellfish (Aquaculture) Stakeholder
HAGER, Laurie Agricultural Prod ucer Stakeholder
JANNY, Fran Agricultural Prod ucer Stakeholder
LADNER, Katie Small Farm Owner Stakeholder
MCCALLUM, Agricultural Producer Stakeholder
Michelle
REHWALDT, Jeanne Mason Matters Consultant/Stakeholder
SHEFFELS, Evan Washington Farm Bureau Consultant
SHORT, William Agricultural Producer Stakeholder
STEWART, Myrn Agricultural Producer Stakeholder
WALDBILLIG, Chris WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Consultant
The Work Group remains open to additional members over time, and is responsible for developing
and implementing the Work Plan. This responsibility comprises the following tasks: designating
technical assistance providers, identifying outreach and implementation approaches, setting goals and
benchmarks, establishing a monitoring plan, regular reporting, and adaptive management of established
goals. The Work Group is also responsible for developing and administering the Work Plan on an
ongoing basis throughout implementation and monitoring.
The Mason County VSP Work Group conducted its first meeting on June 28, 2016 and began meeting
regularly in January of 2017. Early in the Group's process a SWOT (Strength, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, and Threats) Analysis was conducted to help focus their efforts throughout the
3o RCW 36.70A.700
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X37
WORK PLAN
process. (SWOT Appendix) This exercise provided a foundation for
further discussions around how the agriculture community viewed
farming in Mason County. It also served as an educational piece for
District Staff to better understand the interests and needs of local
farmers. The Work Group has welcomed the participation of
interested parties and has drawn a distinction between the FOR
Stakeholders and the public agency representatives who attend the IMMEDIATE
meetings as "consultants". This is to clarify the decision-making RELEASE
process for developing a Work Plan, to encourage the public agencies
to provide technical assistance to Stakeholders, and to maintain the
neutrality of these agencies within the VSP process. In June of 2016, the
District issued a
As earlier stated, the County received funding in the form of a New Release
grant awarded by the Washington Conservation Commission announcing the
("Commission"). The Commission has provided funding to Mason County was ready to
County for the development of the Work Plan as required for the begin developing the
implementation of the VSP, consistent with RCW 36.70A.700-760 Voluntary
and related statutes. The Mason Conservation District ("District") Stewardship Program
has been selected by the Mason County Board of Commissioners and soliciting the
as the technical lead to develop the Work Plan and to provide Work Group's
assistance to landowners, subject to the availability of adequate membership.
funding. The District is a non-regulatory local agency which already
works closely with rural landowners developing voluntary
conservation plans for individual parcels. It also helps connect
landowners with grants and loans to help them implement the
conservation plan in a manner that helps conserve natural resources
and support agriculture.
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page I38
WORK PLAN
10. MEET THE "PROTECT CRITICAL AREAS" TEST
THIS Work Plan must detail how Mason County, through its VSP, will protect critical areas while
maintaining and enhancing the viability of agriculture within each watershed. The definition of
protection in the legislation under the VSP indicates that "`protect' or 'protecting' mean to prevent
the degradation offunctions and values existing as of July 22,2011."31
Important elements of this definition of "protection" include the terms "degradation of functions and
values" from the baseline date of July 22, 2011 and what information is available as of that date. Here
the County faces a challenge in determining the condition of its critical areas at the July 2011 date,
together with assessing the level of degradation that may have occurred since then, and its nexus to
agriculture. Using that analysis a strategy of protection from further degradation can be achieved.
See Critical Areas Appendix for a description of the Critical Areas in Mason County and their 2011
Baseline Maps.
tf tUARy
iN✓tr ,4/L
2 1
31 RCW 36.70A.703
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 139
WORK PLAN
I I . MEET THE "MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE AGRICULTURAL
VIABILITY" TEST
THE VSP Work Plan must "maintain and enhance" agricultural viability to receive approval.32 Some
VSP statutory sideboards implicitly help to maintain agricultural viability. For instance, the VSP Work
Plan is to rely on voluntary stewardship "as the primary method of protecting critical areas and
not require cessation of agricultural activities."33 The County, and the VSP Work Plan, may not
"require an agricultural operator to discontinue agricultural activities legally existing before July 22,
2011."34
Also, VSP statutes do not grant counties or state agencies any additional regulatory authority to
protect critical areas on lands used for agricultural activities.35 (Regulatory Context Appendix) In
order to promote producer participation and productive discussion among Work Group members,
VSP statutes prohibit county from proclaiming any new critical area regulations related to agricultural
activities during the VSP process (narrow exceptions apply).36 Further, nothing in the VSP statutes
requires participation from agricultural operators.37
L
,
32 RCW 36.70A.725
33 RCW 36.70A.700
34 RCW 36.70A 702
35!bid
36 RCW 36.70A.130(8)(a)
37 RCW 36.70A.705
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 140
WORK PLAN
I2. CREATE AND MEET PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT
BENCHMARKS
THE statute requires the Work Group to
[c]reate measurable benchmarks that, within ten years after the receipt of funding, are
designed to result in (i) the protection of critical area functions and values and (ii) the
enhancement of critical area functions and values through voluntary, incentive-based
measures.38
The VSP legislation further states the "program shall be designed to protect and enhance critical
areas on lands used for agricultural activities through voluntary actions by agricultural operators."39
Failure to meet a goal or benchmark set in the Work Plan will result in plan failure and will trigger a
regulatory approach to critical areas protection.4°
Though critical area enhancement is not part of the initial VSP Work Plan Approval test, the Work
Plan must also include benchmarks for promotion and implementation of voluntary actions designed
to protect and enhance critical areas. The definition of "protection" is provided in early Chapters.
The VSP legislation's definition of "enhancement" or "enhance" "means to improve the processes,
structure, and functions existing, as of July 22, 2011, of ecosystems and habitats associated with
critical areas."41
4•t TO:.
•
L .,t
tti 4
40.1
4%- _ • At. i ` _
.rn—/
38 RCW 36.70A.72 0(2)(b)
39 RCW 36.70A.705(1)
4°RCW 36 70A 720(2),RCW 36.70A.735,RCW 36.70A.130(8)
41 RCW 36.70A.703
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 141
WORK PLAN
13. BASELINE CONDITIONS AND MONITORING
BASELINE, in the context of VSP, is a term used to describe the physical state of critical areas and
farm lands in Mason County as of July 22, 2011, the effective date of VSP legislation. This includes
measurable information regarding the types, locations, and sizes of critical areas, as well as farms.
From this, the Work Group can monitor the progress in implementing the Work Plan's measurable
benchmarks.
The Plan must establish baseline monitoring for: (i) participation activities and implementation of the
voluntary stewardship plans and projects; (ii) stewardship activities; and (iii) the effects on critical
areas and agriculture relevant to the protection and enhancement benchmarks developed for the
watershed.42 The baseline status of critical areas and their intersection with agricultural activities are
identified later in this document. Though measurable benchmarks for agricultural viability are not
required by the VSP legislation, these suggested activities should be considered throughout plan
implementation to further the combined goals of "protect-ling] critical areas while maintaining and
enhancing the viability of agriculture in the watershed."43
• ,• , .
___ _
.i
_ +. 4J4 4 .+,h h{. • I .4. • . fir •
. _
i‘i•k";:i
42 RCW 36.70A.720(2)(i)
43 RCW 36.70A.725
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page I42
WORK PLAN
14. BASELINE BANKING
CONSIDERING a period of time has passed between the 2011 baseline and the approval of this
Work Plan, it would follow logic that some efforts to protect critical areas and enhance agricultural
viability have already taken place. Those activities could be considered as improving the County's
"bottom line" when it comes to both protection and enhancement efforts of critical area; as well as
agriculture. A summary of protection efforts on agricultural lands has been compiled in the table
below establishing a "banking" of positive efforts toward the overall achievement of the Work Plan's
goals.
NAIP HIGH RESOLUTION AERIAL IMAGERY CHANGE DETECTION
Advances in digital imaging and Federal initiatives to monitor agriculture have led to the acquisition of
state-wide I-meter aerial imagery for 2006, 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2015 made available by the
National Agricultural Imagery Program. The high accuracy, fine scale, and broad scope of this data
set provide a unique opportunity to address land use and land cover questions.
In this Work Plan, the Mason Conservation District will use the High Resolution Change Detection44
("HRCD") model to track the changes in critical areas as often as the information is updated.
This data covers all areas of Puget Sound for which bare earth LiDAR45 data was available,
including WRIA's 1 through 19. WRIAs 14, 15, and 16 cover most of Mason County, omitting
WRIA 22 (Lower Chehalis) which was not part of the data set. The map illustrates the areas of
detected change (green) in the eastern and northeastern parts of the County and extending beyond.
No data appears in the lower southwestern portion.
The analysis performed with HRCD quantifies new impervious and semi-pervious surfaces and canopy
loss over periods of time. In Mason County, these include the periods from 2006 to 2009, 2009 to
2011 and 2011 to 2013. Considering the baseline dates for VSP is July 22, 2011, the 2011-2013 data
set was used to establish changes that occurred in Mason County post 2011.
A GIS analysis was conducted by the District utilizing the change detection data together with
agricultural lands in the County. Of approximately 6,037 acres of detected change in the County
post 2011, approximately 28 acres, or 0.5%, of that were on agricultural lands. This reflects a
relatively small amount of change resulting in increased impervious surface or decrease in tree canopy
in Mason County's agricultural lands. Comparing this data set to the information collected for the
two preceding years, there were approximately 7,051 acres of detected change in the County, with
165 of those acres on lands with agricultural activities.
44 Developed under a Salmon Recovery Funding Board grant to the Habitat Science Division of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
45 LiDAR stands for Light Detection and Ranging and is a remote sensing method that uses light in the form of a pulsed laser to measure ranges
(variable distances)to the Earth. oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/LiDAR
Mason County--- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 143
WORK PLAN
0 ErS-QUINAU • r
r ' -
,� J,
I "21 f
f s. i;
• a . 4
SKOKOMISH-DOS EWA LLIPii y ♦I.,
v
. : KwSAP
•moi , r
• /� .1 `. •
4
1
A KEN NEM*OLDSBOROCIGH •
LOWER CHEHALIS • x •
•
DE PS
J i
f
•
o
a • i
Figure 6 High Resolution Change Detection Map, 2011-2013
During that four year period a significant reduction in change was detected; however, additional data
would be needed post 2013 to conclude any trends toward overall improvement. The following table
breaks down these changes over both collection periods by WRIA.
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 144
WORK PLAN
Table 5 HRCD Detected Changes by WRIA (Acres)
WRIA 201 1-2013 2009-2011
N N 7 N N N
cd oa Ce O O v, O N O nbq N a U O c cLl L L O Q Ll L E L S it E , i i
14 27.6 26.5 0.5 0.8 109.4 105.1 4.8 1.7
15 0.2 0.1 0.06 0.06 0.1 0.05 0.02 0
16 0.6 0.5 0 0.1 55.2 55.1 0.05 0
Totals 28.3 27.2 0.6 1.0 164.8 160.2 4.8 1.7
From the table it can be deduced that most of the changes detected were a reduction of tree canopy
and mostly in WRIA 14 in both time periods.
MASON CONSERVATION DISTRICT BMP PROJECTS
Analysis of the District records for BMPs implemented in Mason County as of July 201 I produced the
following table. These projects reflect local efforts by agricultural operators to voluntarily improve and
protect critical areas on their property.
Mason County--Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 145
WORK PLAN
Table 6 Mason Conservation District BMP Projects as Of July 2011
WRIA BMP Acres Improved Total WRIA
acres improved
14 Brush Management 6.5
Herbaceous Weed 127
Control
Conservation Cover .19
Fencing .625
Use Exclusion 12
Tree/shrub site .03
preparation
Roof runoff structures I each
Heavy use protection .03
area
Nutrient management 9.5
Subsurface drain .02
Tree/shrub site .43 157
preparation
IS Tree/shrub site .06
preparation
Tree/shrub .06 .12
establishment
16 Stream habitat 10.75
improvement &
management
Herbaceous weed 1,700
control
Prescribed grazing
Tree/shrub 2.5
establishment
Wetland enhancement 30
Grading, shaping, re- .15
leveling
Engineered log jam 6 each 1,744
22 Brush management .35 .35
Mason County--Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X46
WORK PLAN
USDA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE - CONSERVATION
PRACTICES
The table below reflects information received from the Washington office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service for conservation practices implemented in Mason County from 201 I through
2017. While the location of these practices is protected, the types and amounts over this time
period can provide a history from which projected benchmarks can be extrapolated.
Table 7 NRCS Conservation Practices 2011-2017
Code Practice Unit Amount/Year
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
560 Access Road Feet 95 425
314 Brush Management Acres 6 4.1 12.4
340 Cover Crop Acres 1 0.1
342 Critical Area Acres 0.7
Planting
647 Early Successional Acres 3
Habitat
Development/Mgmt
382 Fence Feet 200 2895 1710 2275
n383 Fuel Break Acres 8.6
561 Heavy Use Area Acres 0.1 I I 0.1 3 0.1 0.3
Protection
315 Herbaceous Weed Acres 5.6 6.6
Control
325 High Tunnel System Sq. Ft. 2160
441 —Irrigation System, Acres 1.1
Micro-irrigation
442 Irrigation System, Acres 16.2
Sprinkler
430DD Underground, Feet 1180
Plastic
516 Livestock Pipeline Feet 675 250
634 Manure Transfer N° I
484 Mulching Acres 1.3 4.7
590 Nutrient Acres 1 139.8 0.1 21.4
Management
500 Obstruction Acres 3
Removal
582 Open Channel Feet 90
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page I 47
WORK PLAN
Code Practice Unit Amount/Year
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
595 Pest Management Acres 5.8 7.8 3
516 Pipeline Feet 740 588 765
528 Prescribed Grazing Acres I 120
643 Restoration of Rate Acres 24.3 7.9 20.5 29.3 28.9
or Declining
Natural
Communities
391 Riparian Forest Acres 3.6
Buffer
558 Roof Runoff N° I 7
Structure
798 ` Seasonal High Sq. Ft. 2178.1 4080
Tunnel for Crops
381 Silvopasture Acres 6
395 Stream Habitat Acres I 0.7
Improvement and
Management
612 Tree/Shrub Acres 3.9 1.7 1.7 3.5 16.4 2.8
Establishment
660 Tree/Shrub Pruning Acres I 1.5 7 4
490 Tree/Shrub Site Acres 7 9.5 0.5 21.2 3 8.5
Preparation
620 Underground Feet 822
Outlet
313 Waste Storage N° I I
Facility
614 Watering Facility N2 3 I I 5 2
Aside from the NRCS data that cannot be assigned to a specific WRIA, this Chapter illustrates some
activities already occurring in the target area for this Program's efforts to build on. Monitoring efforts
for future protection and enhancement measures will follow through the strategies discussed in the
remainder of this plan. According to the data collected, Table 8 below reflects critical area acres
improved verses acres impacted to show a net baseline.
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page I48
WORK PLAN
Table 8 Net Baseline Acres of Critical Area Improvements
WRIA CA Acres Improved:. CA Acres Changed Total Net Baseline of
14 I45 27.6 117.4
15 .12 0.2 .10
16 I,477 0.6 1476.4
22 --- .35 -- .35
What are important to record from the table above are the acres of improvement that has
occurred in each WRIA since the baseline date of July 22, 2011. Since the VSP requires that critical
areas be protected and/or enhanced, the acres as established by that date must be maintained or
increased. In WRIA 14, 129 acres of critical areas have already been improved, as have 1,743 acres
in WRIA 16. While any decrease in critical areas is not the goal of VSP, these two WRIAs have
already established a margin of improvement should either of them suffer a loss. WRIAs 15 and 22
have minimal recorded improvements and will need to maintain the acres established in 2011.
\ 1 I l
f
\ idle
\ it,
t
ergagamaiwasia***10%.440.
fi
1005 t;ON": :: ::::
Y '3- ,-- : 0f RSKOKOMIS � ER' ,. �SERVpN
MASON OISIRICI ip.,
Iliniitillik iill letalita' iii miliiiillidi
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page I49
WORK PLAN
15. MONITORING
DETERMINING the success of the Voluntary Stewardship Program over a ten-year period requires
the ability to monitor the lands which are subject to it. The Program is intended to protect and
enhance critical areas on agricultural lands as they were in July of 2011 through voluntary
incentivized measures. It is also aimed at improving agricultural viability through those same or
additional measures. Later Chapters outline goals and benchmarks to implement the Program,
with reporting measures at periodic intervals to determine its success. Should efforts prove
ineffective at reaching the goals and benchmarks, then adaptive management will be instituted. The
monitoring element of this Work Plan is where the data is collected over time to indicate changes,
both positive and negative. In order to achieve effective monitoring, the data sets must be observable
over time — they must be updateable in order to be monitored and analyzed as a performance
measure of the Program. Each data set obtained for measuring critical areas and agricultural lands has
historical significance, but not all of them have the capacity to be updated for this Program's purposes.
Appendix 7 of this Work Plan provides a table of Monitoring Tools District Staff will be utilizing over
the next several years to determine if various benchmarks are being achieved. The Tools, the
information they provide, resources for accessing those Tools, and a monitoring schedule are
contained in the Appendix including:
• Best Management Practices (BMP) - are specific on the ground activities designed to both
improve agricultural activities and protect critical areas. A list if BMPs most commonly used in
Mason County is provided in Appendix 8 with a brief description of their use and application.
These practices originated from the Natural Resources Conservation Service in their list of
Conservation Practices. Many of these are also found, and illustrated, in the Individual
Stewardship Plan Overview and Checklist in Appendix 9.
• Individual Stewardship Plans (ISP) - target the goals of this Work Plan by addressing agricultural
activities with critical areas. An ISP is a site-specific plan for individual agricultural operations
that identifies agricultural activities and conservation practice options that promote agricultural
business viability while protecting and voluntarily enhancing critical areas.
• Restoration and Conservation Projects for salmon habitat — to show habitat enhancement
projects and areas. This resource is a tracking site to view various projects within Mason
County and can be monitored for habitat enhancement. The Habitat Work Schedule data
system 46 illustrates implementation of some of the watershed plan strategies that have
implicit protection and enhancement objectives. Land acquisition and conservation easements
represent protection of critical areas while restoration and enhancement actions would
improve the quality of critical areas functions and values. These actions are not limited to
46 The Lead Entity Habitat Work Schedule system is the mapping and project tracking tool that allows Lead Entities to share habitat protection and
restoration projects with funders and the public
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X50
WORK PLAN
areas with agricultural activities, although activities related to agriculture are highlighted for the
purpose of this Work Plan.
• NAIP High Resolution Aerial Imagery Change Detection — a digital analysis of land cover
changes that have occurred in the County's landscape over time. This resource is discussed in
further detail in Chapter 13.
Local Jurisdictional Maps — Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, Geologically Hazardous Areas, Frequently
Flooded Areas, Future Land Use Map, Wetlands, Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Maps and
mapping data obtained from the County's GIS Division is available and updated on various schedules.
As noted in the beginning of this Chapter, mapping data used to create the Critical Area maps and
subsequent tables may not be updated in an efficient or timely manner to provide a useful monitoring
tool for the purposes of this Work Plan. However, District Staff will continue to review the data for
updates as they occur.
• Geologically Hazardous Areas - data has not been updated by Mason County since the
inception of their Comprehensive Plan in 1996, or in any subsequent updates. Generally,
however, these types of areas are a result of soil composition and soil stability which do not
change over short periods of time— relatively speaking.
• Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) - data maps were developed for the County by a
geologist named Gordon Adams in 1999. Several funding requests in an attempt to update
these maps have fallen short of fruition and are unlikely to be heeded in the foreseeable future.
The type of studies needed to update CARA maps are quite costly and labor intensive.
• Wetlands - mapping was created from the National Wetlands Inventory and imported into the
District's GIS system to create mapping layers. This is a fluid mapping system, pardon the
expression, that changes annually as new information is observed. The caution to this,
however, is that wetlands are estimated using "high altitude
imagery" and not necessarily ground-truthed. Changes to fOCA
wetlands could, in fact, be noted over the next ten years in `Interpretation of these
areas subject to this Work Plan's monitoring program [Critical Aquifer Recharge
depending on their size and physical change. However, on a Area]data sources was
small scale, such as a single farm in a single county, impacts — performed by Geologist
increases or decreases — may not be recognized using the GordonAdams.An
USDFW imaging techniques. Wetlands mapping will be explanation of that
included in this Work Plan's monitoring as an updateable interpretation is included in a
letter from Gordon Adams
data set. dated March 29, 1999."
• Frequently flooded areas - are designated by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through their Section 8.52.12o(1)(B)(vii)MCC
Flood Insurance Rate Program and adopted by local
governments for regulation. In Mason County frequently It)C.,3
Mason County--Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X51
WORK PLAN
flooded areas are not regulated under the Critical Areas Ordinance (Resource Ordinance)
but instead under a separate Flood Damage Prevention ordinance adopted in the Building and
Construction code. These areas are regulated by the County under a set of regulations
prescribed by FEMA and subject to their ultimate approval. It is likely that since this critical
area is not included in the Critical Areas ordinance that it is not subject to VSP and the Flood
regulations will be maintained as a regulatory backstop. The maps generated for this Work
Plan containing frequently flooded areas reflect the most current data as compiled by FEMA
and adopted by Mason County. Considering these maps were most recently updated prior to
this in the 1980s, it is not likely that the mapping will be updated again in this Programs life
cycle.
Figure 7 2016 Prelim Floodplains Map -Skokomish Valley
� ✓
P J+ - t
lir
5 ., or. ' r 7 La
si _ .
Source: Mason County, Department of Public Works, GIS Division
• Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas maps - were created from data received from
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The data is updated as species and habitat
are found in the field and as funding permits; this is not a suitable database for use as a primary
monitoring tool.
What can be updated for monitoring purposes is the amount and location of agricultural activities.
Data utilized to map agricultural land and land with agricultural activities will be the easiest to obtain
and update for monitoring purposes. This information is updated in the Assessor's database
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 152
WORK PLAN
during their annual cycles of evaluation for taxing purposes and for properties put in or taken out of
the County's open space program. Additionally, the District works with landowners who practice
agricultural activities on their property that may not be designated as agricultural; this property can be
included in the inventory for monitoring purposes as well.
• Designated Agricultural Lands —a list of property listed as tax exempt for agricultural purposes.
Parcel lists obtain from the Mason County Assessor's Office indicate property enrolled in an
agriculture open space program. This is not an inclusive list of agricultural activities as not all
operators choose to participate in these types of programs or do not meet the states minimum
requirements.
• Census of Agriculture — conducted by the U.S. Department of Department of Agriculture.
Conducted every five years, this is a count of farms and ranches, and the people who operate
them. Much information has been extracted from this Census and provided in Appendix 5.
The last Census was in 2012, and information from the 2017 Census will be available in
February of 2019. At that time, tables utilizing that information will be updated.
• Agricultural Land Use Crop Survey Data — conducted by the Washington Department of
Agriculture. This survey conducted every three years uses field work and specialized crop
identification. This type of survey encompasses agricultural activities on lands that may not be
in open space programs or designated in the future land use map, but are nonetheless
agricultural.
Other sources for monitoring were discussed during the Formal Review Process with the Washington
Conservation Commission's VSP Technical Panel. These data sites and resources will provide the
District and Work Group with additional tools to improve the County's baseline as well as implement
more comprehensive monitoring program. These sources have received a cursory review by Staff for
inclusion in order to meet VSP statutory approve deadlines, and will be more fully explored for the
Work Plan's implementation. These include:
• Mason County's Water Quality 303(d) Listings — provided by the Washington Department of
Ecology for categorizing polluted waters. Ecology assesses water quality under the Federal
Clean Water Act to ensure they are restored and maintained as fishable and swimmable. Once
assessed, waters are classified into one or five categories.
Waters whose beneficial uses (such as for drinking, recreation, aquatic habitat, and industrial
use) that are impaired by pollutants are placed in the polluted water category (category 5) of
the water quality assessment. The 3o3(d) list, so called because the process is described in
Section 303(d)of the Clean Water Act, lists waters in the polluted water category.47
47 https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-quality/Water-improvement/Assessment-of-state-waters-303d
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page I53
WORK PLAN
• Mason County's 303(d) listings can be found on Ecology's website and include several category
5 locations with quality impairments such as temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and bacteria.
Within these parameters for water quality, potential agriculture related sources could include
animal waste (bacteria), organic matter decomposition (dissolved oxygen, pH), and
erosion/sediment/canopy cover (temperature).48 It is District Staffs intent to utilize the 303(d)
listings in the VSP process by cross reference agricultural activities with listed sites for potential
contaminant sourcing as well as future protection practices.
htips://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/approuedwqa/ApprovedSearch.aspx
• Washington State Department of Health Source Water Assessment Program — provides a
resource to inform as to drinking water sources and potential activities that could cause
contamination. Developed under the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, this
program and its mapping application will allow District Staff to determine if agricultural activities
are located near drinking water sources in order to avoid potential contamination.
https://fortress.wa.gou/doh/eh/maps/SWAP/index.html
https://www.doh.wa.gov/Communityand Environment/Drinking Water/Source Water/Source
WaterProtection
• NOAA Office of Coastal Management Coastal Change Analysis Program Regional Land Cover—
provides a data set that allows documentation of land cover changes over time including
wetlands, impervious surface and agriculture. District Staff will obtain the information available
for Mason County and analyze changes occurring between 2010 and 2016 for monitoring
purposes. This data will complement other land cover data the County has already
incorporated into the Work Plan.
https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/ccapregional.html
48 Lincoln County VSP Work Plan
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 154
WORK PLAN
I6. AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
AGRICULTURE as a land use or as a resource land is represented in the County's Comprehensive
Plan
"as land primarily devoted to the commercial production of horticultural, viticultural,
floricultural, dairy, apiary, vegetable, or animal products or of berries, grain, hay, straw,
turf seed, Christmas trees, or livestock, and that has long term commercial significance for
agricultural production."49
This is similar to how it is defined under the Growth Management Act. However, as discussed in the
opening paragraph of Chapter I, agriculture for the purposes of VSP is being evaluated by the way it is
defined under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). The GMA defines agriculture in a fairly broad
sense and primarily focuses on the product; and GMA has no comparable definition for agricultural
activities. The Mason County Resource Management Ordinance has also created within it a
definition of agricultural activities50 that bares some similarities to that of the SMA. In the case of the
VSP, using a definition that is standardized statewide and covers a broader range of activity allows for
uniformity among the local individual Work Plans.
The first rendition of the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1996 described the history of agriculture
practices in Mason County as having
taken place...since the early days of logging. The clear-cutting practices of those early logging
companies opened a considerable amount of County land to agriculture, particularly to
dairying and cattle raising. Crop production was limited to the growing of hay, berries and
potatoes. In the eastern part of the County where the weather was milder, extensive vineyards
and fruit orchards were planted. Despite its rich agricultural history, however,Mason County
is not well-endowed with the resources necessary to create a strong competitive advantage for
agricultural production. Consequently, agriculture's current role in Mason County's economy
is relatively minor.51
The regulation of agricultural land, as well as forestry and mining resource lands, is found in the
County's Resource Ordinance. Resource lands are "designated' as such as by a specific set of
criteria. As a designated resource land, the Ordinance acknowledges the unique importance of the
resource and affords it a distinct classification and development standards that focus on protection
and preservation from encroachment and conversion of use.
a9 Mason County Comprehensive Plan,Chapter IV,2005 Update,Mason County,Washington
so"Agricultural activities and existing and ongoing agriculture"means those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW 84.34.020(2), and those
activities involved in the production of crops and/or raising or keeping livestock, including the operation and maintenance of farm and stock ponds,
drainage ditches,operation and maintenance of ditches,irrigation systems including irrigation laterals,canals or irrigation drainage ditches,and normal
operation,maintenance and repair of existing serviceable agricultural structures,facilities or improved areas,and the practice of aquaculture.Activities
which bring an area into agricultural use are not part of an ongoing operation.An operation ceases to be ongoing when the area on which it is being
conducted is converted to a nonagricultural use or has lain idle for more than five years, unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soils
conservation program,or unless the activity is maintenance of irrigation ditches,laterals,canals or drainage ditches related to an existing and ongoing
agricultural activity.
51 Mason County Comprehensive Plan,Chapter IV,2005 Update,Mason County, Washington
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X55
WORK PLAN
Much of the agricultural land within the County is located in the rural areas, outside the urban
growth areas. According to the Mason County Assessor's records, there were 387 parcels in 2011
with the taxing classification of agricultural or agricultural open space. These parcels combined total
approximately 6,400 acres of agricultural land. Understanding that not all land being utilized for
agricultural activity is officially recognized, data must be gathered from other resources to obtain a full
picture of agriculture in Mason County. Agricultural resource land as described by the Resource
Ordinance may or may not be included in the Assessor's data base and would need to be accounted
for from other sources including the Future Land Use Map.
Figure 8 Mason County Future Land Use Map
MASON COUNTY - "
i
Future Land Use Map v,---I • w id1: E
e B
J.
J .
11
4 1
LegendLI_ n
l a
=Mason County WRIAs \ `1A o
DESCRIP ! l •
c?.
Agricultural Resource Lands I Ne, 7 >.
=City
, ]Hamlet ii '`n 1
I Indian Reservation 8 t ) E
IIIIII Moulding Lands
I Long Term Commercial Forest LJs ,,.
I Olympic National Forest [= 9r ) or '.•
Nu Olympic National Park s VVJ� ✓• f
I Rural r .
Rural Activity Center I.%II -- t• ) o ,
Urban Growth Area .: r r
Water i.
it •e Y
Parcelsyti- L '� `� �
Waterbodies ' ...� �(((„
,.
I Mason County S .1- r ,.�r �r ,.< r "�y
Date 11/2912017
r �
- i ,E1 •.r o i - t
yill Pr! GI• .. L • II �(_ ry.11, .
Mason 'II IAN
�I•.r o
Conservation
District • r , t_�� '
iit ..'{r
0 225 45 9FAi4es
I l 1 1 l I , i I
Source: Mason County, Department of Public Works, GIS Division
The Future Land Use Map (above) also created in 1996, depicts agricultural land as several areas
of brown. In this case, these parcels were designated under a specific set of criteria in addition to
any associated taxing classification utilized in the Assessor's data. These lands, in order to qualify for
designation had to be,
(1) an existing commercial agricultural use (as of the date of designation) or where the
property was used for agricultural purposes as of January 1991, where identified by
property tax classification in the open space - agriculture property tax classification
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 156
WORK PLAN
program pursuant to Chapter 84.34 RCW or where agricultural use has been identified
as the principal use of the property,are presumed to meet this criteria;
(2) a minimum parcel size of ten acres;and
(3) has prime farmland soils;
(4) is surrounded by lands qualifying under classification criteria 1 to 3;or
(5) is an upland fin fin-fish hatchery 52
In addition to the qualifying criteria outlined above, the Comprehensive Plan and the Resource
Ordinance provide protections for designated and non-designated agricultural land through a
Preferential Right to Farm. This means that,
(A) No resource use or any of its component activities shall be or become a nuisance,private
or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality thereof after the same has
been in operation for more than five years, when such operation was not a nuisance at
the time the operation began; provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not
apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent or improper operation of any such
operation or its component activities, and the property owner follows the standards of
this chapter.
(B) A resource operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the operation
conforms to local,state,and federal law and best management practices.
(C) A farm or forest operation shall not be restricted to time of day or days of the week, but
shall be conducted according to best management practices pursuant to state law.
(D) A farm or forest operation shall be free from excessive or arbitrary regulation.53
The Resource Ordinance further protects agricultural lands by requiring,
All plats, short plats, large lot subdivision, development permits, and building permits issued
for activities on, or within five hundred feet of lands designated as agricultural resource lands
shall contain the following notification: This property is within or near designated
agricultural resource lands on which a variety of commercial activities may occur at times
and that are not compatible with residential development. Residents of this property may be
subject to inconvenience or discomfort associated with these activities including, but not
limited to:dust,odor,noise and chemical applications.'54
The Open Space Taxation Act...states that it is in the
best interest of the state to maintain,preserve,conserve
and otherwise continue in existence adequate open
space lands for the production of food,fiber,and forest
crops and to assure the use and enjoyment of natural
resources and scenic beauty for the economic and social
52 Section 8.61.010 MCC well-being of the state and its citizens.
53 Section 8.52.040(5)MCC RCW 84.34
54 Section 8.61.010(5)(8)MCC
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 157
WORK PLAN
17. ESTABLISHING THE AGRICULTURAL BASELINE
IN order to evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of this Work Plan, there must be an established
baseline of conditions from where to begin. As discussed earlier, the effective date of the VSP
program, July 22, 201 I, is that date from which each jurisdiction's baseline conditions must be set.
Obtaining this information can be challenging; especially if the data was never actually created or
gathered at the time. Not every County will have data from 201 I and will need to accommodate this
requirement with the best information available. Data for the agricultural landscape of Mason County
was gathered from several resources: the Mason County Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use
Map, the Mason County Assessor's Office, the Washington State Department of Agriculture, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and the Mason Conservation District. The Agricultural Lands Map (Figure
9) is a compilation of designated agricultural resource lands from the Mason County Comprehensive
Plan's Future Land Use Map (2005), the Mason County Assessor's data on agricultural open space land
(as of 201 1) and Washington Department of Agriculture's crop survey data (2010). This is the most
comprehensive portrayal for a baseline overview of agricultural lands in Mason County. This map
shows 605 agricultural parcels covering 8,015 acres.
I
7.Not it;
A
`eft
•
MASON COUP,Tir ter
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
P, ge 158
WORK PLAN
Figure 9 Baseline Agricultural Lands
MASON COUNTY „
Baseline Agricultural Lands w- ,_Y-:_s_
S
ys
7i' Ti- 1 --'-- ' `iiia
Legend e, ---÷----+0, 11
4
I I Mason County Boundary r" 0,,,�
NM 2011 Agricultural Activities Baseline ' 7 , ••• i
IT WRIAs
Waterbodies
Parcels r-•:e. -
Date:7/31/2018 �a• .a.p*,.0 a
. I
;, 1 .7)
er
LII 6 Al%2,,.: Ftp ': 1 k a
�. .
.' 31,it: it ,r y
j
. . i = /
Mason
..
Conservation • - r
IiiimPv District
0 3.25 6-5 13 Miles
Source:Mason County and WA Department ofAgrrculture I I I I y i I
Mason County--Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 159
WORK PLAN
18. AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND CRITICAL AREAS
INTERFACE
THE following Chapters describe the overlap, or interface, of agricultural lands with the County's
critical areas. Each critical area is regulated under the Resource Ordinance with specific guidelines
targeting protection and preservation. Unlike zoning, critical area regulations are designed to create
an environment that safeguards the resource from development impacts, including agriculture. Each
critical area is different and how it interfaces with agricultural activity varies depending on the use
and intensity. The figure below is a visual representation of how the term "interface" is being applied
in this Plan. The tables below summarize the statistics of agricultural land located near or in critical
areas.
Figure 10 Interface Illustration
Agricultural Land
ckz
•
k-\
�
Wetland \
•
1t3
S..i
Table 9 Acres and Percentages of Agriculture and Critical Area Interface
Critical Total Acres Of % Of Total % Of Total
Area Acres Of Total Acres Of Agriculture Agriculture CA
"CA"55 CA Agriculture56 Interface Interface Interface
CARA 121,084 8,015 4,254 53% 3%
Flooded 59,535 8,015 3,048 38% 5%
Areas
ssCritical Areas data obtained from Mason County Public Works,GIS Services;with the exception of Fish&Wildlife data which was obtained from the
Washington Department of Fish&Wildlife
56Agricultural lands data obtained from Mason County Assessor's 201 I Open Space-Agriculture Program,Mason County, Public Works, GIS Services
for Resource Lands from the Mason County Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map, and Washington Department of Agriculture's 2010 Crop
distribution survey
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page I 60
WORK PLAN
Critical Total Acres Of % Of Total % Of Total
Area Acres Of Total Acres Of Agriculture Agriculture CA
"CA"SS CA AgricultureSB Interface Interface Interface
Landslide
82,683 8,015 290 4% 0.3%
Areas
Seismic 398,254 8,015 7,589 95% 2%
Areas
Erosion 16,856 8,015 108 1% 1%
Areas
Fish & 27,798 8,015 1,513 19% 5%
Wildlife
Wetlands 54,650 8,015 1,206 15% 2%
Monitoring interface, as described here, is a quantitative indicator of the effects conservation practices
can have on the physical perimeters of critical areas. Other indicators serve to qualitatively monitor
the functions and values of critical areas such as water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and in-
stream flows to discern agricultural impacts or trends. This type of qualitative analysis will encompass
a more in-depth layer of monitoring utilizing data from sources such as the Department of Ecology's
303(d) listings and the Department of Health's Source Water Assessment Program.
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 161
WORK PLAN
CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS
The County's Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas ("CARAs") are primarily located in the Lower Chehalis
and Kennedy Goldsborough WRIAs where there are also heavy concentrations of waterbodies. The
Skokomish-Dosewallips WRIA in the northwestern corner would appear from the data to have no
CARAs; however, this land is mostly national forest and parcel information would likely be
unavailable. This leaves a noticeable gap in data, however due to the lack of agriculture in that area it
should not affect the overall Work Plan. CARAs are regulated under the Resource Ordinance and
divided into four Standards of Classification. The determining methodology consisted of reviewing
mineral, geologic, soil, topographic and well record data. The classifications can be described as:
Class I (Extremely Susceptible) These areas are identified as having a recessional outwash of
thickness greater than 25 feet. Recessional outwashes are a geological formation predominantly
composed of underground source of drinking water unconsolidated sands and gravels. These
formations exhibit horizontal permeabilities greater than 30 feet per day (horizontal permeabilities are
generally ten times less than vertical permeabilities). Potential
contaminants entering an underground source of drinking water can Surface waters
be expected to travel one mile in six months or less. replenish, "recharge",
Class II (Highly Susceptible) These areas are identified as aquifers through
recessional outwash and alluvium 25 feet or less in thickness. These seepage from
geologic formations are composed of unconsolidated sands and gravels streams, lakes, and
interlain with discontinuous layers of hardpan and silty clays. Depth to
water is generally 25 to 125 feet below land surface. These formations wetlands, and from
exhibit horizontal permeabilities in the range of 30 to 50 feet per day. precipitation that
Potential contaminants entering an underground source of drinking percolates through
water can be expected to travel one mile in a time frame greater than soil or rock. Areas
six months and up to one year. with a critical
Class III (Moderately Susceptible) These areas are identified as recharging effect on
advance outwash. The geologic formations consist of discontinuous aquifers used for
layers of clayey gravel and sand and layers of silt and clay, which are potable water, also
more continuous and have been compacted into hardpan. Depth to
water is greater than 125 feet below land surface. These formations called Critical
exhibit horizontal permeabilities in the range of three to 15 per day. Aquifer Recharge
Potential contaminants entering an underground source of drinking Areas or CARAs.
water can be expect to travel one mile in a time frame greater than
one year and up to five years. Class III areas include those well head protection areas, not otherwise
designated as a Class I, II, or III critical recharge area.
Class IV (Low Susceptibility) These areas are identified as advance outwash found in the
southwest part of Mason County along the Satsop drainage.
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page J62
WORK PLAN
There are 4,254 acres of agricultural land (bright yellow) covering aquifer recharge areas — more
than 50% of all the County's agricultural lands (Figure 11). Of those, the table indicates the highest
concentration of this interface lies within the Kennedy Goldsborough and Skokomish-Dosewallips
watersheds. The majority of this coverage in the Skokomish River valley, along the Tahuya River in
the northeastern portion of the County, and down along the Skookum Creek (Kamilche Valley) to
the south. Concentrations of agricultural activities
are prevalent in the Skokomish River valley, A Crit icuI Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA)
centrally located in the County, and along Mill and ordinance provides local governments
Coffee Creeks to the south of Oakland Bay. The with a mechanism to protect the
functions and values of a community's
crop coverage in these areas is mostly pasture, drinking water by preventing pollution
grass hay, and Christmas Trees. In the County's and maintaining supply.
Resource Ordinance, protection measures of these
areas extend 00 feet beyond the mapped
boundaries. The map coverage does not delineate the classification of aquifers; however for
regulation purposes, this is of little relevance as each classification is held to the same regulatory
standards, with the exception of Class IV which is less. Aquifer recharge areas do not prohibit
agricultural activities with the exception of feedlots, which are prohibited unless legally pre-existing
prior to adoption of the County's Resource Ordinance. The table below shows a breakdown of
CARA acreage by watershed.
Table 10 Acres and Percentages of CARA and Agriculture Interface
WRIA Total Acres Total Acres of % Total of CARA Acres
of CARA Agriculture Interface in Agriculture
Kennedy 36,703 1,806 5%
Goldsborough
Kitsap_ 4,004 245 6%
Skokomish 11,255 1,469 13%
Dosewallips
Lower Chehalis 69,122 735 1%
Totals 121,084 4,254 3%
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Pige X63
WORK PLAN
Figure I I Intersection Of Agricultural Lands And CARAS Map
MASON COUNTY N
Agriculture and CARAs W^%C:. E
5
,, r bars •
18
491, Avila , _ Art''
Ag/CARA Interface .S'.. 5 r
Mason County Boundary r . ` • . to: ��:a:.�.': tis 4
ill 2011 Agricultural Activities Baseline r Vi i s': r; 'I i�= -'
I WRIAs il ,ii
Waterbodues "1111F' f,re1.��_ I �
Parcels : a ,.r; ..+ z
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas • `
i. ' .. ~' .' �` ..
vi„. -a,, a rcrc u IP
Date:7/31/2018 1i it°:`' .,a....:4 .� i :;f r
i`' ...Nu T -� i9.'=M i Imo: � I�..:
R it Alr a,.miromm„, -T•_,.r7 its " ,!•z iw 0...,„ �t"�._-. i y ,....,•
, .i, . •,.,_:,41,-,1.
--1 II .rw1 c a o uu
.;,
.&. T4
1111 ,
Mason f ,t,` 1 .r - ,(
Conservation 1
L - �.
ftmiw District ,
0 3.25 6-5 13 Miles
I I I I I 1 i 1 I
Source:Mason County and WA Department of Agriculture
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X64
WORK PLAN
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Frequently flooded areas are generally those designated by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) as being within the one hundred year floodplain and depicted on Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRMs) as published.' Most of them are, of course, along the banks of waterbodies.
The Mason County Resource Ordinance defers the regulation of activities and development in these
areas to the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Chapter 14.22 MCC). The authority established
under the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (FDPO) is directed by Chapter 86.16 RCW which
provides for the administration of Floodplain Management by local
governments.
The flood hazard areas of Mason County are subject to periodic
inundation which can result in loss of life and property, health, and Mason County
safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, protects
extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief frequently
and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the flooded areas
public health, safety, and general welfare. These flood losses could
by
be exacerbated by the cumulative effect of obstructions in areas of concentrating
special flood hazards which increase flood heights and velocities, urban
and when inadequately anchored, damage uses in other areas. Uses development on
that are inadequately floodproofed, elevated, or otherwise the least
protected from flood damage also contribute to the flood loss. ... amount of
[T]his flood damage prevention ordinance to implement land, considers
comprehensive flood damage reduction measures that are the suitability
necessary for public health safety and welfare and that allow of the land for
property owners to protect their property.58 development
The FDPO also distinguishes Special Flood Risk zones in the floodplain of through the use
the Skokomish River, Vance Creek and tributaries. The map in Figure 13 of performance
indicates (bright yellow) the areas of agriculture located in flood areas. standards, and
Approximately 3,000 acres — just under 40% of all Mason County provides for
agricultural lands are in frequently flooded areas. Again, there is an significant
opens pace and
abundance of this type of land use in the Skokomish River Valley, a special resource use
flood risk zone according to the County's most recent ordinance. The areas in
Skokomish River Valley and its tributaries are not only of special concern development
in the FDPO, but this area is also governed by the Skokomish River within the
Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plan cited within the Rural Area.
Ordinance. The Plan, drafted in 1987 and on record with the U. S.
57 Flood hazard areas identified on Flood Insurance Rate Map are Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). SFHA are defined as the area that will be
inundated by the flood event having a I-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The 1-percent annual chance flood is also
referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood.wwwfema.gov/flood-zones
58 Section 14.22.020 MCC
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 165
WORK PLAN
Government Printing Office, describes the valley as primarily agricultural and residential. Since the
turn of the century, the Skokomish Valley has been extensively converted to agriculture through the
cutting and removal of the aboriginal riparian forests. Today, most of the valley has been converted
to pasture and Christmas tree plantations. The economy of the Skokomish Valley is based on
agriculture, and therefore the soil resource. Soils in the valley are the key to its agricultural
success and are, in fact, the result of its continuous flooding.
Alluvial soils, deposited by successive flooding of river valleys, typically have high agricultural
values because of their widespread sources across the landscape. Because of their widespread
sources, alluvial soils contain a variety and abundance of minerals necessary for plant growth
not commonly found in soils which have developed in place from a single parent rock source.
Thus the flooding of the Skokomish Valley is the source of its agricultural productivity.59
The problems associated with the increasing annual flooding were, among other things, attributed to
soil erosion of bare, unprotected farm fields, and damage to crops such as corn and Christmas trees.
A specific concern in the 1987 Plan was a catastrophic event causing the river to jump its banks and
carve a new channel; individual measures towards amelioration include flood proofing of structures,
agricultural practices adapted to flooding, and bank protection methods not harmful to fish habitat.
Several studies were conducted over the years to determine ways to reduce flooding damage;
however, the cost-benefit analysis of most of the structural remedies didn't "pencil out". Non-
structural methods (e.g. code and policy amendments) ultimately became the weapon of choice. The
County utilized the building code, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Shoreline Management Program
to guide future activity in the Skokomish Valley. With respect to agriculture, this included the
prohibition of tillage patterns and feedlots.
Another large concentration of farm land in the frequently flooded areas is found along the
Skookum Creek, in the south end of the County. The Skookum Creek farming area including
Totten Inlet are shown collectively with the Skokomish River Valley in Figure 12 below. The
primary agricultural activity in both areas is pasture and grass/hay.
Table I 1 Acres and Percentages of Flood Areas and Agriculture Interface
WRIA Total Acres Total Acres of % Total of Flood
of Flood Area Agriculture Interface Acres in Agriculture
Kennedy 28,353 1,169 4%
Goldsborough
Kitsap 8,454 162 2%
Skokomish 16,702 1,537 9%
Dosewallips
Lower Chehalis 6,026 180 3%
Totals 59,535 3,048 5%
59 Washington Department of Ecology. (1987). Skokomish River Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plan:Draft Plan. (TC24.W2 C36 1987).
Washington DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page I66
WORK PLAN
Figure 12 2016 Aerial View of Skokomish River Valley and Skookum Creek
,?,,,, r
,--.. .' �y�yFOX.�.
•
�
. _ ..
!r ,,.,w1 ` ' 3 sem
r . ��
l •
�. 1•21 t 3 'AA, +i�c
-kt:ly ". ,. givtr
•
• +Y x' ; " f,w ( X960
i .
l.
11 j'f. e ''• S-
ou
r,. Skookum Cieek ` '` 1,
•
ty ,.00: . ' .
fir... ,',V _. ' il ••1•.
✓ 1
.0 V 0/AP/ /. ,„.... ...001..
r.,t / •, r ,/
. h
Source.Mason County Department of Public Works, GIS Division
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 167
WORK PLAN
Figure 13 Intersection Of Ag Lands And Flooded Areas Map
MASON COUNTY N
Agriculture and FFAs w4:- E
tl , ' 7
Legend .�■j f ., I'
M
Ag and FFA Intersect .i'^ "�`
1.111 Frequently Flooded Areas } r '
I—I Mason County Boundary i+. if!, r
= 2011 Agricultural Activities Baseline
i WRIAski
Waterbodies t
A r a v;L
Parcels
ice . t..1 4 7 r
Date:8/2/2018 - }°
+ -
4;
f
i or
r
•
M
h '
1 r
J
ZMason ' ;, •'
Conservation
iimp. District
0 3.25 6 5 13 Miles
Source:Mason County and WA Department ofAgnculture I t I
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 168
WORK PLAN
LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS
Landslide hazard areas cover most of the County, with the exception of the northwest corner. Again,
this is likely due to the location of the Olympic National Forest and the lack of parcel level data.
Classifying areas as potential landslide hazards is primarily a function of slopes and soils. This includes
areas with: indications of earth movement; artificially over-steepened or un- engineered slopes; slopes
containing soft or potentially liquefiable soils; over-steepened or otherwise unstable as a result of
stream incision, stream bank erosion and undercutting by wave action; slopes greater than 15% and
having hillsides with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or
bedrock and Springs or groundwater or any area with a slope of 40% or steeper and with a vertical
relief of ten or more feet except areas composed of
consolidated rock. An important measure of potential
Landslide areas generally present potential dangers to risk for landslide when development
public health and safety and, with few exceptions, occurs is land clearing and alteration
development would require the professional for development.
preparation of a geotechnical report or assessment to
determine under what conditions the development may proceed at a reasonable risk. Existing and
ongoing agriculture is one exemption provided it is operating under best management practices.
The bright yellow areas in the map (Figure 14) indicate landslide hazard areas, and are fairly wide-
spaced over the County.
Table 12 Acres and Percentages of Landslide Areas and Agriculture Interface
WRIA Total Acres of Total Acres of % Total of
Landslide Area Agriculture Interface Landslide Interface
Kennedy 25,501 204 1%
Goldsborough
Kitsap 17,805 33 0.2%
Skokomish 21,748 29 0.1%
Dosewallips
Lower Chehalis 19,130 23 0.1%
Totals 84,184 290 0.3%
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Plge 169
WORK PLAN
Figure 14 Intersection Of Ag Lands And Landslide Areas Map
MASON COUNTY N
Agriculture and LHAs w_'IKE
a
3
•
'f-,
me
Legend - rr. . IR," ' p , 4,ial ,
Ag and LHA Intersect `� r
Landslide Hazard Areas f ' ,, i,
I Mason County Boundary r ,.'•'-,y:' "c d��°.
ME 2011 Agricultural Activities Baseline ' ' rr r-,•Jr^°T ,`,
— _iir ,r i..
I I WRIAs - - • :'
Waterbodies , 1}" I. 'rt.,1' n= r1 i
Parcels K:' ' ^
Data:8/2/2018 4 ;.,:. :1'-r t ), �. c :t
f
.:45,,, ft.1,0**. i 1 '
■,tt ,. ,
..,
. { 'F_ :_ -, ,y-'- ti.
- •
i' j -
�, r
f I -,l
•
Mason ,.. - ' {�Jr t_r"*.
Conservation A
ftuir District
0 3 5 7 14 Miles
I I I I I i 1 1 I
Source:Mason County and WA Department ofAgnculture
Mason County- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X70
WORK PLAN
SEISMIC HAZARD AREAS
The bright yellow areas indicate where agriculture activity is located within the seismic areas; there
are approximately 7,589 acres. (Figure 15) Since seismic activity in Mason County occurs throughout,
most all of the agricultural lands are subject to seismic restrictions. These areas include all
landslide hazard areas, by definition, together with all other areas susceptible to ground failure such
as geologic faults; deep road fills and poorly compacted artificial fill; postglacial stream, lake or beach
sediments; river deltas; and bluffs. Seismic hazard areas present potential dangers to public health
and safety, and restricted development activities within them serves to prevent the acceleration of
man-made and natural geological hazards, and to neutralize the risk to the property owner or
adjacent properties. Types of seismic hazards include: surface faulting; ground shaking; earthquake-
related ground failure and landslides; lateral spreading; liquefaction; lurch cracks; rockfalls; differential
settlement; regional uplift; seiches60; and/or tsunamis. As with landslide hazard areas, development
must be evaluated with a geotechnical report or assessment. There is no exception for agricultural
activities in seismic areas and all structures must be designed in consideration of the ground motions
associated with a 475 year return period seismic event61 for a D-2 seismic zone.62
Seismic zones are generally classified by the International Building Code according to three basic
criteria: probable site ground motion, soil (site class), and building occupancy use.
Seismic hazard area development
standards focus on effects to buildings and
other facilities from intense ground
shaking and/or liquefaction.Attention to
seismically induced landslides could also
cause structural damage to buildings,
particularly on steeper slopes and shoreline
bluffs
60 A seiche is a standing wave in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water. Seiches and seiche-related phenomena have been observed on
lakes, reservoirs, swimming pools, bays, harbours and seas. The key requirement for formation of a seiche is that the body of water be at least
partially bouded,allowing the formation of the standing wave.
61 The level of earthquake chosen as the basis of a deterministic analysis is usually measured in terms of estimated return period. The return periods
commonly used are 72-year,475-year,and 975-year periods. These return periods correspond to S0, 10,and 5 percent probability of exceedance for
a 50-year period(which is the expected design life for a building). The 475-year return period(or 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years)
event is the most common standard used in the industry for assessing seismic risk,and it is also the basis for most building codes for seismic design.
https://Understanding the Language of Seismic Risk Analysis I IRMI.com
62 IRC R301.2(2);Soils is IRC Section 401.4.1,IBC Chapter 16&ASCE 7
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 71
WORK PLAN
Table 13 Acres and Percentages of Seismic and Agriculture Interface
WRIA Total Acres of Total Acres of % Total of Seismic
Seismic Area Agriculture Interface Acres in Agriculture
Kennedy 168,908 4,814 3%
Goldsborough
Kitsap 68,556 314 0.5%
Skokomish 71,883 1,714 2%
Dosewallips
Lower Chehalis 88,907 747 1%
Totals 398,254 7,589 2%
Magnitude 4.2 earthquake hits near Belfair
Updated: Feb 23. 2017- 10:55 AM
Cil
CL e#6 am
Source: Kiro7.Com February 201 7
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page I72
WORK PLAN
Figure 15 Intersection Of Ag Lands And Seismic Areas Map
MASON COUNTY
Agriculture and SHAs „„464...E
.4r is
Legend
Ir
Ag and SHA Intersect !
I 1 WRIAs
41!
Seismic Hazard Areas
1 Mason County Boundary
NM 2011 Agricultural Activities Baseline
Waterbodies
Parcels
Date:8/2/2018
Ilk—.,j—/-5'.
Mason
Conservation -
ftirr District
0 3.5 7 14 Miles
111111111
Source Mason County and WA Department ofAgnculture
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X73
WORK PLAN
EROSION HAZARD AREAS
Erosion hazards generally occur on slopes that exceed 15% and are underlain by soils which are
subject to severe erosion when disturbed. Such soils include any occurrence of River Wash
("Ra") or Coastal Beaches ("Cg") and the following when they occur on slopes 15% or steeper:
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam ("Ac" and "Ad"); Cloquallum silt loam ("Cd"); Harstine gravelly
sandy loam ("Hb"); Kitsap silt loam ("Kc"). In Mason County, there are approximately 16,856 acres
of land that qualify as erosion hazard areas; of this, 108 acres have agricultural activities occurring
on them. These areas can be seen in bright yellow on the map in
Figure 16. This is less than one percent of the total agricultural land **********
acreage in the County.
Erosion is a natural process in
Agriculture is not exempt from the development standards of the which the land surface is worn
Resource Ordinance in erosion areas. Considering the sensitivity away by the action of water,
of the soils, any clearing and grading activity must have a wind, ice or other geologic
geotechnical report prepared by a professional engineer. Structural processes. The most common
developments in these areas are also required to obtain a soil cause of erosion is water falling
erosion and sediment control plan as part of or in addition to the or flowing across the land.
geotechnical report. This is a unique requirement not included
with the landslide and seismic standards and likely why Mason
County chose to parse out the geological hazards for separate
consideration and protection measures. Areas of specific erosion concern are also subject to
limited operations between May and October, and avoiding the wet season. Property owners
conducting operations within erosion hazard areas shall not only provide a soil erosion and sediment
control plan for protection of the development area and disturbed surfaces, but shall also be
responsible to ensure that accelerated erosion does not occur during and after the project
construction.
Table 14 Acres and Percentages of Erosion and Agriculture Interface
WRIA Total Acres of Total Acres of %Total of Erosion
Erosion Area r' Iture,Interface Interface
A. .. .r ,.
Kennedy
8,177 59 I%
Goldsborough
Kitsap 7,05 I 7 0.1% -
Skokomish 1,559 42 3%
Dosewallips
Lower Chehalis 69 0.4 0.6%
Totals 16,856 108 1%
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Pege X74
WORK PLAN
Figure 16 Intersection of Ag Lands and Erosion Areas Map
MASON COUNTY N
Agriculture and EHAs --` w_.—A,
5
•
'ir 111111% -,,vol..V, - . E -t
Legend i - � .1,
•
Ag and EHA Intersect }?�; • .. i ' ''4
Ell Erosion Hazard Areas �-.i :J.:.�' ` �'
�++ / /
I I Wti
RIAs r
I Mason County Boundary /
11111 2011 Agricultural Activities Baseline 1
,
"Waterbodies w. ]t
Parcels 4 . ,,,► l
.. • f
Date:*/2/201r3 �;s , ; C .
- ir_re"'" 1/` -. C 1r '
: .. .,-%. . I 4: :.:. ''''ll' .
i
, _ '1 • - - ; , ,41 3: -.,-;-,_ '(.,
Mason
Conservation
iiimor District
0 3.5 7 11 Miles
Source:Mason County and WA Department ofAgncult. r I I
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 175
WORK PLAN
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA) are recognized for maintaining species in
suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that isolated populations are not
created. It does not mean maintaining all individuals of all species at all times, but does mean
intergovernmental cooperation and coordination is critically important in a region. The underlying
assumption is that impacts to fish and wildlife conservation areas shall be avoided or mitigated as
detailed in approved Habitat Management Plans as described in the Resource Ordinance. The intent
of these regulations is to:
I) Protect critical habitat features to support
genetically viable populations of fish and wildlife
species and allow for commercial and non-
commercial uses. These areas serve a critical role
2) Protect the biological, physical, and chemical in sustaining needed habitats
components of water quality for the benefit of and species for the functional
aquatic and terrestrial resources, as well as human integrity of the ecosystem, and
consumptive uses. which, if altered, may reduce
3) Ensure that natural stream and marine shoreline the likelihood that the species
functions such as flow patterns, production of will persist over the long term.
sediment and large woody debris are maintained with Mason County contains an
minimal interference or impact to private property.
abundance of marine,
4) Protect habitat for federal or state listed freshwater and upland habitat
for fish and wildlife.
endangered, threatened or sensitive fish and wildlife.
5) Encourage non-regulatory methods of habitat
retention whenever practical, o
through Columbian Black.Tailed Deer
ro-_,�z�,s,,,...;,,^.,C
education, and the Open Space Tax Program.
6) To supplement the Shoreline Master Program
for Mason County to preserve and protect " }
critical fish and wildlife habitat pursuant to
(WAC 365-190-080). It is the intent that the it
ordinance codified in this chapter will
compliment and supplement the Shoreline
Master Program.
7) To implement the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan and to achieve these
Courtesy Special Collections andArchitrs.University of Idaho Ubrary.SPEC QL-i$a9 t849
purposes consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
As discussed earlier in this Plan, Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas include both aquatic and terrestrial
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X76
WORK PLAN
areas within Mason County. The approximate location and extent of critical fish and wildlife habitat
areas are available by limited access from the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife's (VVDFW)
Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Program database. The map in Figure 17 illustrates Priority
Species Habitat in bright yellow. There is approximately 1,513 acres of agricultural land that
interfaces with the habitat, which is about 19%.
Mason County has a number of priority species habitats, both aquatic and terrestrial. The table
below describes the amounts of fish and wildlife habitat in the county together with how much of
it interfaces with agricultural lands. Since most of the County's agricultural activities are in WRIAs
14 and 16, it follows suit that most of the interface of habitat is also in those regions. Additionally,
while the production of shellfish in Mason County is first in the State, and fifth in the Nation, less
than 10% of shellfish habitat interfaces with agriculture.
Table 15 Acres and Percentages of Habitat and Agriculture Interface
WRIA Total Acres of Total Acres of % Total of Priority
Priority Habitats Agriculture Interface Habitat Interface
Kennedy
4,113 923 22%
Goldsborough
Kitsap 2,657 57 2%
Skokomish 21,392 533 2%
Dosewallips
Lower Chehalis -- -- --
Totals 27,798 1,513 5%
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X77
WORK PLAN
Figure 17 Intersection of Ag Lands and Priority Species Map
MASON COUNTY Pi
Agriculture and PHS0 �:-•
*--I --'' -,
s
/
L.g.ndall/
Ag and PHS Intersect iti
MI Priority Habitat Species
1 I WRIAs i
I I Mason County Boundary
= 2011 Agricultural Activities Baseline 4 - '.
Waterbodies ♦t' , -
Parcels I'"
Date:8/2/2013 _ / .
agad....4 4-- .iii,r- .
Vit' 'i_' ,
1 ':
Mason - yy`"•
,,
Conservation `"
NIIIIIIV District
0 3.25 63 13 Miles
I i i 1 I 1 1 1 I
Source:Mason County Assessor's Office,Mason County Future Land Use Map, WA Department of Agriculture,WA Department of Fish&Wildlife
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page I78
WORK PLAN
WETLANDS
Mason County is covered by approximately 54,650 acres of designated wetlands. Table 10 of
Chapter 18 indicates that agriculture overall only impacts approximately 2% of those; however
wetlands occur on nearly 15% of the entire County's agricultural lands. The Resource Ordinance,
in this case, regulates adjacent land uses in order to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce or compensate
for development impacts to maintain and enhance the biological and physical functions and values
with respect to water quality maintenance; stormwater and floodwater storage and conveyance; fish
and wildlife habitat; primary productivity, recreation, education and historic and cultural
preservation. When avoiding impacts is not reasonable, mitigation is implemented to achieve a no
net loss of wetlands in terms of acreage, function and value. What qualifies as a wetland is also
provided in the Resource Ordinance as adopted from state statutes.
Generally, wetlands are areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in soil
conditions. These include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Regulated wetlands include
those just mentioned, as well as ponds less than 20 acres and Wetlands created as mitigation, and
those modified for approved land use activities, including their submerged aquatic beds.
Designated wetlands not regulated are comprised of artificial man-made wetlands intentionally
created from non -wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -
lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape
amenities or those wetlands created after July I, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result
of the construction of a road, street or highway. The map in Figure 18 shows the WRIA divisions
in order to better see the location of all the County's wetlands as well as those on agricultural
land (bright yellow). There is a minimal amount of wetland and agriculture interface as evidenced by
this map; most of which are along the Skokomish River and Skookum Creek. The total amount of
interface between agriculture and critical areas of July 2011 is shown in the table below.
Table 16 Acres and Percentages of Wetland and Agriculture Interface
WRIA Total Acres of Total Acres of % Total of Wetland
Wetlands Agriculture Interface Interface
Kennedy 27,207 572 2%
Goldsborough
Kitsap 6,960 141 2%
Skokomish 13,916 446 3%
Dosewal li ps
Lower Chehalis 6,567 49 1%
Totals 54,650 1,206 2%
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X79
WORK PLAN
Figure 18 Intersection of Ag Lands and Wetlands Map
MASON COUNTY
Agriculture and Wetlands --- -
M w$ E
't:. • S
A.f
Legend S' ,..• .'r
Ag and Wetlands Intersect y-� "..''" ' s...,
Wetlands '
1 1 WRIAs ''fici: f,
1 I Mason County Boundary
® 2011 Agricultural Activities Baseline , _ t' ' / S''
Naterbodies 4 • - r,•
r,,i'
"•
Parcels — 5 1 , 7 . :<,
Date:8/2/2018 ..." _.,r. /l
!'. ‘,f, .••+. :, .,.... 4. :-.; -. t,„ - ..I l'''' •1.-"r'" ..,,_
... # • "=r w „ s: .. .... . /:
, _ .// . _..�, w�
4-it.Mason - ; - _ :� „
Conservation lc, _ - - k1
District
0 3 25 6.5 13 Miles
I I I I i i i 1 i
Source:Mason County Assessor's Office,Mason County Future Land Use Map,WA Department of Agriculture,National Wetlands Inventory
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 180
WORK PLAN
The table indicates that there is interface of critical areas and agricultural activities in four out of the
five WRIAs elected to be placed in the VSP; WRIA 21 (Queets Quinault) is in the Olympic
National Forest and without agriculture or adequate data for analysis. The map in Figure 19 shows
the largest concentration of critical areas in the Kenney Goldsborough WRIA in the southeast
portion of the County. With each critical area overlaid, the mosaic of colors shows the
unmistakable evidence of their presence. The reason for this may be the large amount of water in
that region including Oakland Bay, Totten Inlet, Hammersley Inlet, Skookum Creek and portions of
Hood Canal that provide favorable lands for agriculture.
Table 17 Acreage of Agriculture in Critical Areas by WRIA
Kennedy- Kitsap Skokomish- Lower
Critical Areas Goldsborough WRIA Dosewallips Chehalis
WRIA 14 15 WRIA 16 WRIA 22
CRITICAL AQUIFER 1806 244 1469 735
RECHARGE AREAS
FREQUENTLY FLOODED 1169 162 1537 180
AREAS
WETLANDS 572 141 446 49
GEOLOGICALLY
HAZARDOUS AREAS
Landslide Hazard Areas 204 33 29 23
Seismic Hazard Areas 4814 314 1714 747
Erosion Hazard Areas 59 7 42 0.4
FISH AND WILDLIFE
PRIORITY SPECIES 923 57 533 --
HABITAT
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 8 I
WORK PLAN
Figure 19 Mosaic of Critical Areas Map
MASON COUNTY
114-E
Critical Areas Mosaic ,
) ,•
Legend • r.-• i i
i
Mason CountyWRIAS ,!l • y _r.' } ) i
••
�/., l �y Jl r
Wetlands - !.
A �r ,�
Erosion Hazards .1% /'
1818 Priority Species Habitat �! __ £
Landslide Hazards R Ale_- , !( '
m Frequently Flooded Areas �.
OE CARAs {'( ^✓ i' I,4 /I ,�
Seismic Hazards �_�--� r/ ' /; L.
/tib
waterbodies — �� n i' ''
y ` r
=Mason County ` .. ',K - 0) J •( A i� _,
Parcels ' "--• "'-' i /
Date: 3/7/2018 * ' . •t,�, P. • ��
� � f J- kc . ... -'r.+- L''. , ,
i, ( i
- T
f+-�
1
W '
Mason t' ' _ (' � � /
Conservation ,1'. if-V.:„.\
,
District
I r t: Oi 1.75 15 7 Miles
Source:Mason County,FEMA, WA Fish and Wildlife,FEMA
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 182
WORK PLAN
19. GOALS AND BENCHMARKS
THE Mason County VSP outlines goals to meet the protection and enhancement benchmarks as
required in the Work Plan. The "protection" benchmark is specific to protecting critical areas by
preventing any further degradation of function or value already existing as of July 22, 2011. Although,
protecting agricultural activities from some of the risks associated with critical areas such as seismic
and frequently flooded areas is of importance and should be considered in the planning process when
possible. In this document, the viability of agricultural activities will mostly be those associated with
critical areas, and not necessarily all activities within the County at large. The Work Plan must rely
on voluntary stewardship by agricultural operators as the principal method of protecting critical
areas located on or adjacent to their activities; while not requiring any reduction or termination of
those activities. Successful achievement of these two benchmarks will create symbiotic relationships
between agriculture and critical areas. The overall goals of VSP, as understood and iterated in this
Work Plan, can be defined as:
1) Protect critical area functions and values on agricultural lands at a watershed level as they
existed as of July 22, 20I 1 (first benchmark, RCW 36.70A.703)
2) Encourage the implementation of voluntary actions that enhance critical areas on agricultural
lands (second benchmark, RCW 36.70A.700)
3) Enhance the viability of agriculture and reduce the conversion of farmland to other uses (third
benchmark, RCW 36.70A.725)
GOALS
The Work Group has comprised four goals in this Work Plan that are similar to those of VSP
stated above, but simplified for the purpose of creating understandable strategies to achieve them.
GOAL I Protect critical area functions and values on agricultural lands at a
watershed level as they existed as of July 22, 2011
GOAL 2 Enhance critical area functions and values through voluntary,
incentive-based measures.
GOAL 3 Ensure the viability of agriculture and reduce the conversion of
agricultural land into other uses.
GOAL 4 Establish baseline monitoring program to measure benchmarks
over a ten year period.
BENCHMARKS
The VSP requires that there be goals and measurable benchmarks to determine if the Work Plan's
implementation is in fact providing protection and enhancement of the County's critical areas. The
Benchmarks are designed in such a way as to allow District Staff to measure changes to the 2011
baseline interface that would indicate either continued protection or evidence of enhancement.
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 183
WORK PLAN
• 8,015 acres of agricultural activity
• 159 agricultural operators
• 7.5 farm plans (annually)
• 1:20 operators with farm plans (annually)
• 56 acres average farm size
Interface is defined in Chapter I "Definitions" and further discussed in Chapter 18 "Agricultural Lands
and Critical Areas Interface". An increase in interface can show two things — the amount of critical
area is increasing and the amount of agricultural activity within that critical area is decreasing. The
inverse is true for a decrease in interface —the amount of critical area is decreasing and the amount of
activity is increasing. Neither result, however, indicates a positive or negative affect to either the
critical area or the activity without on-the-ground investigation. Monitoring data, as discussed in the
Monitoring Program (Appendix 7) will determine the location of the change or changes for follow up
by District Staff.
PARTICIPATION BENCHMARKS
Operator participation is also a measurable used within the Benchmarks to determine if the Work Plan
is being promoted and if it's being implemented by enough landowners to ensure successful protection
and enhancement. The Work Plan has an outreach component that was created by the Work Group
to serve as an "idea-list" to educate the community on the VSP and rally support and volunteerism.
This benchmark will require the inclusion of additional data in order to be effectively measurable.
Information in the Plan's tables thus far is primarily based on acreage — both for agricultural activities
and for critical areas. This is a functional method for calculating changes in the landscape. However,
these changes only occur if the landowner is willing to proactively make these changes. Therefore,
measuring participation levels can be another informative way of determining if enough operators are
participating in order to meet the protection and enhancement goals. Statistical information is located
in Appendix 5 as extracted from the USDA's Census of Agriculture showing farming, farmer, and crop
data. For the purpose of this benchmark, the actual number of farms, farmers, and prepared farm plans
will be compiled from data received from the Washington Department of Agriculture, the Mason
County Assessor's Office, and the Mason Conservation District as of July 2011. In sum, the following
baseline numbers will be used in the participation benchmarks:
The matrix in Appendix 6 (Goals, Benchmarks, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management) establishes the
Plan's measurable Benchmarks needed to assess progress toward achieving these goals. Monitoring
techniques have been included and are a necessary tool to again illustrate how the Work Plan intends
to effectively measure the Benchmarks and meet the Goals throughout its implementation. A
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page I84
WORK PLAN
threshold for adaptive management has also been established for most of the monitoring techniques
to allow the District to evaluate how they are meeting goals and adjust for future decision making.
The outline below includes Goals I, 2 and 3 together with their respective benchmarks as they relate
to individual critical areas. A more detailed explanation of protection and enhancement immediately
follows.
CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS
GOAL I - Protect critical area functions and values on agricultural lands at a watershed level as
they existed as of July 22, 2011
PROTECTION BENCHMARKS:
• Maintain baseline acreage of Agriculture and Critical Area Interface
• Maintain BMP Implementation
PARTICIPATION BENCHMARKS:
• Maintain 7.5 completed farm plans (Individual Stewardship Plans) per year
• Maintain outreach to all operators annually
• Return rate of 15 ISP Checklists per year
GOAL 2 - Enhance critical area functions and values through voluntary, incentive-based measures.
ENHANCEMENT BENCHMARKS:
• 5% annual increase of BMP implementation (based on averaged annual
implementation over 5 year period of each BMP through the County)
PARTICIPATION BENCHMARKS:
• Increase annual number of completed Farm Plans (Individual Stewardship Plans) to
16
• Increase annual operator participation levels by 50%
• Return rate of 23 ISP Checklists per year
GOAL 3 - Ensure the viability of agriculture and reduce the conversion of agricultural land into
other uses.
AGRICULTURAL VIABILITY BENCHMARKS:
• Maintain baseline acreage of Interface
• Maintain baseline acreage of Agricultural Activity
• Maintain 2011 annual average baseline of 7.5 completed Farm Plans
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 185
WORK PLAN
GOAL I - Protect critical area functions and values on agricultural lands at a watershed level as
they existed as of July 22, 201 I
PROTECTION BENCHMARKS:
• Maintain baseline acreage of Agriculture and Critical Area Interface
• Maintain BMP Implementation
PARTICIPATION BENCHMARKS:
• Maintain 7.5 completed farm plans (Individual Stewardship Plans) per year
• Maintain outreach to all operators annually
• Return rate of 15 ISP Checklists per year
GOAL 2 - Enhance critical area functions and values through voluntary, incentive-based measures.
ENHANCEMENT BENCHMARKS:
• 5% annual increase of BMP implementation (based on averaged annual
implementation over 5 year period of each BMP through the County, not all BMPs
have been implemented in recent past)
PARTICIPATION BENCHMARKS:
• Increase annual number of completed Farm Plans (Individual Stewardship Plans) to
16
• Increase annual operator participation levels by 50%
• Return rate of 23 ISP Checklists per year
GOAL 3 - Ensure the viability of agriculture and reduce the conversion of agricultural land into
other uses.
AGRICULTURAL VIABILITY BENCHMARKS:
• Maintain baseline acreage of Interface
• Maintain baseline acreage of Agricultural Activity
• Maintain 2011 annual average baseline of 7.5 completed Farm Plans (Individual
Stewardship Plans)
WETLANDS
GOAL I - Protect critical area functions and values on agricultural lands at a watershed level as
they existed as of July 22, 2011
PROTECTION BENCHMARKS:
• Maintain baseline acreage of Agriculture and Critical Area Interface
• Maintain BMP Implementation
Mason County--Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 186
WORK PLAN
PARTICIPATION BENCHMARKS:
• Maintain 7.5 completed farm plans (Individual Stewardship Plans) per year
• Maintain outreach to all operators annually
• Return rate of 15 ISP Checklists per year
GOAL 2 - Enhance critical area functions and values through voluntary, incentive-based
measures.
ENHANCEMENT BENCHMARKS:
• 5% annual increase of BMP implementation (based on averaged annual
implementation over 5 year period of each BMP through the County)
• Reduce agricultural and wetland interface to less than 2011 baseline by: (I)
maintaining and reconfiguring agricultural activities away from wetland areas; or (2)
restoring and enhancing wetlands in or near agricultural activity utilizing wetland
sensitive BMPs
PARTICIPATION BENCHMARKS:
• Increase annual number of completed Farm Plans (Individual Stewardship Plans) to
16
• Increase annual operator participation levels by 50%
• Return rate of 23 ISP Checklists per year
GOAL 3 - Ensure the viability of agriculture and reduce the conversion of agricultural land into
other uses.
AGRICULTURAL VIABILITY BENCHMARKS:
• Maintain baseline acreage of Interface
• Maintain baseline acreage of Agricultural Activity
• Maintain 2011 annual average baseline of 7.5 completed Farm Plans (Individual
Stewardship Plans)
EROSION HAZARD AREAS
GOAL I - Protect critical area functions and values on agricultural lands at a watershed level as
they existed as of July 22, 201 1
PROTECTION BENCHMARKS:
• Maintain baseline acreage of Agriculture and Critical Area Interface
• Maintain BMP Implementation
PARTICIPATION BENCHMARKS:
• Maintain 7.5 completed farm plans (Individual stewardship Plans) per year
Mason County--Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 187
WORK PLAN
• Maintain outreach to all operators annually
• Return rate of 15 ISP Checklists per year
GOAL 2 - Enhance critical area functions and values through voluntary, incentive-based measures.
ENHANCEMENT BENCHMARKS:
• 5% annual increase of BMP implementation (based on averaged annual
implementation over 5 year period of each BMP through the County)
• Reduce agricultural and erosion hazard area interface to less than 2011 baseline by:
(I) maintaining and reconfiguring agricultural activities away from erosion areas; or
(2) utilizing BMPs specific to erosion areas.
PARTICIPATION BENCHMARKS:
• Increase annual number of completed Farm Plans (Individual Stewardship Plans) to
16
• Increase annual operator participation levels by 50%
• Return rate of 23 ISP Checklists per year
GOAL 3 - Ensure the viability of agriculture and reduce the conversion of agricultural land into
other uses.
AGRICULTURAL VIABILITY BENCHMARKS:
• Maintain baseline acreage of Interface
• Maintain baseline acreage of Agricultural Activity
• Maintain 2011 annual average baseline of 7.5 completed Farm Plans (Individual
Stewardship Plans)
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS
GOAL I - Protect critical area functions and values on agricultural lands at a watershed level as
they existed as of July 22, 2011
PROTECTION BENCHMARKS:
• Maintain baseline acreage of Agriculture and Critical Area Interface
• Maintain BMP Implementation
PARTICIPATION BENCHMARKS:
• Maintain 7.5 completed farm plans (Individual Stewardship Plans) per year
• Maintain outreach to all operators annually
• Return rate of 15 ISP Checklists per year
GOAL 2 - Enhance critical area functions and values through voluntary, incentive-based measures.
ENHANCEMENT BENCHMARKS:
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 188
WORK PLAN
• 5% annual increase of BMP implementation (based on averaged annual
implementation over 5 year period of each BMP through the County)
• Reduce agricultural and fish and wildlife conservation area interface to less than 2011
baseline by: (I) maintaining and reconfiguring agricultural activities away from habitat
areas; or (2) utilizing BMPs specific to habitat areas
PARTICIPATION BENCHMARKS:
• Increase annual number of completed Farm Plans (Individual Stewardship Plans) to
16
• Increase annual operator participation levels by 50%
• Return rate of 23 ISP Checklists per year
GOAL 3 Ensure the viability of agriculture and reduce the conversion of agricultural land into
other uses.
AGRICULTURAL VIABILITY BENCHMARKS
• Maintain baseline acreage of Interface
• Maintain baseline acreage of Agricultural Activity
• Maintain 2011 annual average baseline of 7.5 completed Farm Plans (Individual
Stewardship Plans)
PROTECTION AND PARTICIPATION BENCHMARKS —
The benchmarks for Goals I and 3 involve maintaining baseline levels. In Goal I, the first
benchmark is maintaining baseline acreage of interface, which refers to the number of acres listed in
Table 38 (Appendix 6) for each critical area and WRIA. No increase or decrease reflects there has
been no change and thus the 2011 baseline is protected. The second benchmark refers to maintaining
BMP implementation. Table 38 also provides eight Best Management Practices, or BMPs, implemented
on land with agricultural activities and critical area interface. Each of the BMPs has an attribute
beneficial to that critical area. By maintaining the 2011 level of implementation (acres, feet, or units),
the level of protection it provides to the critical area has also been maintained.
Measuring Operator participation makes up the third and fourth benchmarks for participation, and will
use the 2011 information from the text box above. On average, there is approximately I farm plan
per 20 operators and approximately 159 total operators within the County. Considering that, if it
takes outreach to 20 operators to obtain one farm plan, then outreach efforts will require that 150
operators be contacted annually in order to maintain the 7.5 per year plan rate (7.5 farm plans x 20
operators per plan = 150 operators). With relatively low numbers of agricultural operations in the
County, the Work Group will need to widely spread broad efforts to reach out to everyone as much
as possible.
Part of those outreach efforts will include using the Individual Stewardship Plan Checklist found in
Appendix 9. The Checklist allows District Staff to obtain information about agricultural operations and
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 189
WORK PLAN
potential VSP participants. Promoting the Checklist to known operators could produce a return of
more than 159 of them within the first two years. The number of Checklists received should decline
after initial outreach efforts as fewer non-participating operators would remain.
This type of outreach is new to the District, as is the entire Stewardship Program. Therefore, again
using existing numbers estimates will be made as to how many Checklists will be received, and from
that how many will result in Individual Stewardship Plans. Some research into the return rate of
surveys, which are very similar in format to our Checklist, indicate that on average a 10-15% response
rate is most typical, with 30-40% being considered an acceptable rate.63 Related to the objective of
producing at least 7.5 plans per year, and at least 16 for enhancement, some assumptions have to be
made about operator response and participation rates to formulate a measurable participation
benchmark.
Assumptions:
159 operators receive the Checklist
Achieve Enhancement Participation Benchmark
23 operators return the Checklist (15% as high-end typical rate of return)
18 operators complete Individual Stewardship Plan (50% of those returning the Checklist)
Achieve Protection Participation Benchmark
15 operators return the Checklist (I 0% as low-end typical rate of return)
7.5 operators complete Individual Stewardship Plan (50% of those returning the Checklist
Using these assumptions, a participation benchmark of 15 checklists received annually with potentially
7.5 Stewardship Plans completed can be established for Goal I, and 23 checklists and 18 Plans can
established for Goal 2.
ENHANCEMENT BENCHMARKS
In Goals I and 2, there is an enhancement benchmark indicating a 5% annual increase of BMP
implementation. This percentage is a result of comparing BMPs (acres, feet, and units) over a five year
period in order obtain an average rate of increase. Maintaining the 2011 baseline would require no
increases to the amount of BMPs implemented, however enhancement would be additional efforts
made over time. The 5% annual increase in BMP implementation reflects a confident measure of
critical area enhancement.
The number of operators participating in the BMP implementation varies and cannot be easily
calculated from the total acres, feet and units. Similarly, whether or not the BMPs were part of a farm
plan is also not easily determined through evaluating the data obtained from existing records.
63 https://wwwsurveygizmo.com/resources/blog/survey-response-rates/
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 190
WORK PLAN
Participation levels will therefore be an extension, or multiplication, of what is known as was done for
the protection benchmarks.
Since outreach efforts cannot be increased beyond what is already needed to maintain the baseline,
which is to everyone, the increased number of participants will be the benchmark. For this, additional
assumptions will be made. Assuming one farm plan for each BMP implemented would be
approximately eight farm plans for each of the eight BMPs listed for the individual critical areas. This
number aligns with the average of 7.5 plans annually already established under the participation
benchmark. If the number and/or amount of BMPs are to be increased at least 5% annually, an increase
of at least one additional farm plan per year per BMP would be needed.
The 5% increase factor is not a large amount, and should be easily accommodated with a single
additional BMP or Plan. The addition of eight farms per year doubles the current average of 7.5 and
would thus require double the participants. If protection participation measures to assist in
maintaining the 2011 baseline need at least one plan per 20 operators, enhancement participation
measures would need at least two operators per 20 — a 50% increase. Therefore, the operator
participation benchmarks will be to increase annual farm plans to at least 16 per year, and increase
operator participation to at least two per 20 operators. Since these are assumptions made on static
information, the first two years of the Work Plan's implementation will dictate how and if adjustments
need to be made.
Participation is also being measured in the return rates of Individual Stewardship Plan Checklists. In
the preceding Chapter on Protection Benchmarks, the assumptions made for determining Checklist
benchmarks is discussed; these include those of Enhancement Benchmarks.
The last benchmark shown for some of the critical areas is a reduction in agricultural interface below
the 201 I baseline. There are two metrics for this described in Table 38 which include the reduction of
agriculture in or impacting the critical area and the increase of critical area in or near the agricultural
activity. Reducing the activity in a critical area does not mean loss of that activity; it means that it has
been reconfigured, relocated, or readapted within that critical area allowing for its enhancement. The
same is true for the increase or enhanced critical area, it is not at the expense of the agriculture but
instead creating a mutually beneficially rearrangement of location and/or activity.
Goal 3 involves ensuring the viability of agriculture and reducing the conversion of agricultural lands.
The benchmarks associated with this Goal measure the baseline levels of agriculture activities,
agricultural interface, and farm plans. Any changes in those numbers will trigger an adaptive
management action. Rates and percentages of change have not been established in these benchmarks,
but may be in the future. The goal is to ensure viability and reduce conversion, and because agriculture
is only 2% of the County's land use, and the average farm is less than 50 acres, District Staff intend to
monitor for any changes regardless of size.
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 9 I
WORK PLAN
Goals I through 3 have a schedule of benchmarks and adaptive management illustrated in Appendix 6,
and Goal 4 establishes a monitoring program more fully discussed in Appendix 7.
. \-- 1 .
1 ' (1. ,
I71
,1
CI #01 ....0".""
tole I"- _
ae..°.... ...f.... ....e.
•
ir,i( 0:
It titiolearir, ,... .-
,r: Iii 4
.T evels_
t,, .
' / y
I
t .)11Thli."
• �rZet ;t 0
444 4 ill I
3 .�
• y. • `
1
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 192
WORK PLAN
20. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
UNDER the VSP, instituting adaptive management is a necessary part of the process; it is
intended to ensure that the Work Plan can adapt to change in order to achieve the goals. Thus, it is
important to create a set of strategies and monitoring techniques that can be measured in terms of
success.
Breaking the process down into a logical sequence of events, this Chapter will analyze each critical
area by WRIA, the amount of agriculture interface, the types of BMPs and the threshold for adaptive
management. The Critical Areas Appendix provides fairly detailed information on each critical area,
obviating a reiteration of that full discussion here. Therefore, the following will serve as a conspectus;
demonstrating practical information of each critical area as it relates to agricultural activities in each
WRIA. Additionally, a table of BMPs most frequently implemented by the Conservation District in
Mason County is provided in Best Management Practices Appendix to illustrate their function and
applicability. BMPs, or conservation practices, are designed to address a particular resource concern
such as water quality or soil erosion. Monitoring the acreage totals can provide a certain level of
information regarding the amount of land coverage
_ retained, gained, or lost for both the agricultural
Adaptive management[is]an explicitly activity and its associated critical area. It cannot,
experimental or "scientific"approach to however, distinguish if either has been enhanced
managing conservation projects. It necessarily by a change in size, or the cause of the
incorporates research into conservation changes. The acreage or size of a critical area for some
action. Specifically, it is the integration will not change and therefore won't serve as a useful
of design, management,and monitoring
to systematically test assumptions in monitoring tool. In fact, fish and wildlife habitat and
order to adapt and learn. wetlands are the only critical areas where a reduction
or increase in size could be an indicator of impacts by
www.fosonline.org/what-we-do/what-is-am or from agricultural activities. Critical Aquifer
Recharge Areas, frequently flooded areas, and
geologically hazardous areas generally do not change their size or their location, making protection
measures geared more toward the agricultural operation than the critical area. Of course that is
not to say that agriculture could not also have an effect on any of those. Changes will have to be
ground-truthed to determine if they are the result of conservation practices imposed by agricultural
operators or by impacts of agricultural operations. The following Chapter looks at each critical area
in terms of its functions and values, what types of data will be used to measure the Program's
success, how the data will be measured, where adaptive management will be implemented, and
suggested options for Best Management Practices. The tables listing BMPs for each critical area
contain check marks for its applicability to critical protection and/or enhancement, and agricultural
viability.
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 193
WORK PLAN
WETLANDS
Functions and Values: Wetlands perform a variety of biological and hydrological functions that
can be directly impacted by development. These include removing nutrients, temporarily storing flood
and storm water, providing groundwater recharge, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, education and
historical and cultural significance.
Table 18 Acres of Wetland Interface By WRIA
WRIA Total Acres of Wetland Total Acres of Agriculture Interface
Kennedy-Goldsborough 27,207 572
Kitsap 6,960 141
Skokomish-Dosewallips 13,916 446
Lower Chehalis 6,567 49
What is going to be measured —The total number of wetland acres and wetland/agricultural
interface acres can be monitored with new data to indicate changes. Changes — increase or
decrease — would need to be ground-truthed to determine cause of change and if it is agriculture
related. Measuring the number of additional BMP/ISPs put into place post Plan approval can be an
indicator of additional protection or enhancement efforts. The District is not currently able to
measure water quality or quantity and have not included this as a determinant metric because of that.
How will it be measured — Wetland acreage will be measured using U.S. Fish & Wildlife's National
Wetlands Inventory as updated. District will download GIS data layers to compare against baseline.
As to BMPs, once the Work Plan is being implemented the data spreadsheets created as part of the
strategies will provide numbers and locations of agricultural operations to analyze any changes.
What is the adaptive management — Biennial analysis of the data showing that wetlands or
agricultural lands with wetlands are decreasing would trigger a review of conservation efforts, a site
visit (if possible) to determine cause, and a refocus of outreach.
Table 19 Best Management Practices for Wetlands
Best Management Practice Protection Enhancement Agricultural
Viability
Waste Facility Closure V V V
Composting Facility V V V
Constructed Wetland V
Dike V V V
Drainage Water Management V V V
Fencing V V
Filter Strip V V
Prescribed Grazing V V V
Riparian Forest Buffer V V
Structure For Water Control V V V
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 194
WORK PLAN
Best Management Practice Protection Enhancement Agricultural
Viability
Access Control V V
V
Watering Facility V V V
Wetland Creation V V
Wetland Enhancement V V
Wetland Restoration V V
Wetland Wildlife Habitat
V V V
Management
r
•
pt...
.460. . .
..10 • -I
t �4
�;'
i i a /, . /'N .: i 1,fl,,4#
.ii
,, t
f'' 11 it til ' : f ,
\ '' t: ii,/:::'/','1: ' '''.'t ' ' )'' '..I'''';',' "1 t . ' II l' '
/ t Fi f -
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 195
WORK PLAN
CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS (CARAs)
Functions and Values — These areas have a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable
water and are particularly vulnerable to contamination. Water stored in aquifers reaches the ground
surface through springs, wells, or by seepage into surface water features, including wetlands. Surface
waters replenish, "recharge", aquifers through seepage from streams, lakes, and wetlands, and from
precipitation that percolates through soil or rock. Groundwater provides virtually all of Mason
County's potable water.
Table 20 Acres of CARA Interface by WRIA
WRIA Total Acres of CARA Total Acres of Agriculture
Interface
Kennedy Goldsborough 36,703 1,806
Kitsap 4,004 244
Skokomish-Dosewallips 11,255 1,469
Lower Chehalis 69,122 735
What is going to be measured —The total number of agricultural interface acres can be monitored
with new data to indicate changes. Changes — increase or decrease — would need to be ground-
truthed to determine cause of change and if it is related to the operation's proximity to a critical
recharge area. Measuring the number of additional BMP/ISPs put into place post Plan approval can be
an indicator of additional protection or enhancement efforts.
How will it be measured — As previously discussed, the mapping of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
will likely not be updated in the foreseeable future. The size and location of those within the County
will remain static with no discernable tool for measuring changes. Therefore, for CARAs monitoring
will occur with respect to agricultural operations and BMPs. Once the Work Plan is being
implemented the data spreadsheets created as part of the strategies will provide a numbers and
locations of agricultural operations to analyze any changes.
What is the adaptive management — Biennial analysis of the spreadsheets showing agricultural
lands in proximity to CARAs that are decreasing would trigger a review of conservation efforts, a site
visit (if possible) to determine cause, and a refocus of outreach.
Table 21 Best Management Practices for CARAS
Best Management Practice Protection Enhancement Agricultural Viability
Waste Facility Closure ✓ ✓ ✓
Composting Facility ✓ ✓ ✓
Constructed Wetland ✓ ✓
Drainage Water Management ✓ ✓ ✓
Prescribed Grazing ✓ ✓ ✓
Riparian Forest Buffer ✓ ✓
Animal Mortality Facility ✓ ✓ ✓
Brush Management ✓ ✓ ✓
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 196
WORK PLAN
Best Management Practice Protection Enhancement Agricultural Viability
Conservation Cover ✓ ✓ ✓
Conservation Crop Rotation ✓ V V
Contour Buffer Strips V V
Contour Farming V V V
Cover Crop V V V
Field Border V V V
ic.=3„
, , , ', , '
, i, , ,,
lit
tilmill111111 111,1 mil Illi
(i 1i i\ 1
Aquifer
„. _ _.. ,
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X97
WORK PLAN
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS
Functions and Values — Fish and wildlife provide important recreational and economic benefits such
as hunting and fishing opportunities; the continued prosperity of the commercial and recreational fish
and shellfish industries depends on maintenance of excellent water quality and unpolluted habitats
for fish, shellfish, and their food sources. Wildlife provides educational opportunities about biological
and ecological processes, and maintaining the historical, cultural, and spiritual values of Native
American Tribes and the general public. The waters and shorelines of Mason County are an important
resource. In addition to their natural beauty and cultural value, they provide the base for a sizable
shellfish industry, aquaculture, and fish and wildlife habitat. Managed natural areas are important for fish
and wildlife habitat, scenic vistas, protection of sensitive plant species, and preservation of open space.
What is going to be measured —The total number of agricultural interface acres can be monitored
with new data to indicate changes. Changes — increase or decrease — would need to be ground-
truthed to determine cause of change and if it is agriculture related. Measuring the number of
additional BMP/ISPs put into place post Plan approval can be an indicator of additional protection or
enhancement efforts.
How will it be measured — District will download GIS data layers to compare against baseline. As to
BMPs, once the Work Plan is being implemented the data spreadsheets created as part of the
strategies will provide a numbers and locations of agricultural operations to analyze any changes.
Table 22 Acres of Priority Species Habitat by WRIA
WRIA Total Acres Priority Total Acres Agricultural
Habitat Interface
Kennedy Goldsborough 4,113 923
Kitsap 2,657 57
Skokomish-Dosewallips 21,392 533
Lower Chehalis -- --
What is the adaptive management — Biennial analysis of the data showing that agricultural lands
with associated habitat areas are increasing or decreasing would trigger a review of conservation
efforts, a site visit (if possible) to determine cause, and a refocus of outreach.
Table 23 Best Management Practices for Fish& Wildlife Habitat
Best Management Practice Protection Enhancement Agricultural
Viability
Brush Management V V V
Conservation Cover V V V
Conservation Crop Rotation V V V
Field Border V V V
Pest Management V V V
Pond V V V
Dike V V V
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 198
WORK PLAN
Best Management Practice Protection Enhancement Agricultural
Viability
Fencing V V V
Access Control V V V
Wetland Enhancement V V
Wetland Restoration V V
Wetland Wildlife Habitat ✓ V
_ Management
Animal Trails and Walkways V V V
Clearing and Snagging ✓ ✓ V
_ Dam V ✓ V
Aquatic Organism Passage V V
Hedgerow Planting V ✓ V
Range Planting V V V
Upland Wildlife Habitat ✓ V
Management
i.
I
s.` .- 7.1
416
l':.:1* . --'7-..7/!f.
4 'irk
JI hEelgrass
Source:WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife �;' iii
1
. f4 ,,' s i li
/ I t/
d
•
ATF T gab 4.. S. / ' lir i
Age 11
f
i
Source:Eelgrassrestorationbc
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page I99
WORK PLAN
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Functions and Values — Frequently flooded areas are lands in the flood plain subject to at least a one
percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year, or within areas subject to flooding due to
high groundwater. They include streams, rivers, lakes, coastal areas, wetlands, and areas where
high groundwater forms ponds on the ground surface.64 Alluvial soils, deposited by successive
flooding of river valleys, typically have high agricultural values ... because they contain a variety and
abundance of minerals necessary for plant growth not commonly found in soils which have developed
in place from a single parent rock source.65 The problems associated with the increasing annual
flooding were, among other things, attributed to soil erosion of bare, unprotected farm fields, and
damage to crops.
Table 24 Acres of Flooded Areas Interface By WRIA
WRIA Total Acres of Flood Area Total Acres of Agricultural
Interface Interface
Kennedy Goldsborough 28,353 1,169
Kitsap 8,454 162
Skokomish-Dosewallips 16,702 1,537
Lower Chehalis 6,026 180
What is going to be measured —The total number of agricultural interface acres can be monitored
with new data to indicate changes. Changes — increase or decrease — would need to be ground-
truthed to determine cause of change and if it is related to the operation's proximity to a flood area.
Measuring the number of additional BMP/ISPs put into place post Plan approval can be an indicator of
additional protection or enhancement efforts.
How will it be measured—As previously discussed, an updated mapping of Frequently Flooded Areas
was just completed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2016-2017 and will likely
not reoccur within the next ten years. The size and location of those areas within the County will
remain relatively static with no discernable tool for measuring changes. Therefore, for frequently
flooded areas monitoring will occur with respect to agricultural operations and BMPs. Once the
Work Plan is being implemented the data spreadsheets created as part of the strategies will provide a
numbers and locations of agricultural operations to analyze any changes.
What is the adaptive management — Biennial analysis of the spreadsheets showing agricultural
lands in proximity to flood areas that are decreasing would trigger a review of conservation efforts, a
site visit (if possible) to determine cause, and a refocus of outreach.
64 WAC 365-190-030(8)
b5 Washington Department of Ecology.(1987). Skokomish River Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plan:Draft Plan.
(TC24.W2 C36 1987). Washington DC:U.S.Government Printing Office
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 100
WORK PLAN
Table 25 Best Management Practices for Frequently Flooded Areas
Best Management Practice Protection Enhancement Agricultural Viability
Dam, Diversion ✓ ✓ ✓
Dike ✓ ✓ ✓
Fencing ✓ ✓
Dam ✓ V ✓
Channel Stabilization ✓ ✓
Stormwater Runoff Control ✓ ✓ ✓
Animal Mortality Facility ✓ ✓ ✓
Filter Strip ✓ ✓
�v
of
SI<okomish River Estuary
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1101
WORK PLAN
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
The following sections describe monitoring and adaptive management for geologically hazardous
areas as they can effectively be addressed in this Plan. Mason County has broken down these areas
into landslide hazards, seismic hazards, and erosion hazards. These types of critical areas, similar to
flooded areas, are managed with respect to protection of life and property as opposed to the critical
area itself. For instance, a farm located in a seismic area (which is nearly all of Mason County) will
not impact it but could be impacted by it. A home, barn or similar structure built in a seismic area
will need to meet engineering and design requirements for earthquakes. There are no BMPs that
necessarily address that issue, and the strict adherence to the International Building Code will remain
as the regulatory backstop for seismically hazardous areas. This is also true for landslide hazards
areas. An agricultural activity and operation can have an impact on a landslide area, however generally
in the sense that certain activities can lead to slide occurrence. Best management practices used in
this instance are those that act in the prevention of a landslide event. The regulations adopted in the
Resource Ordinance targeting safe and responsible action in landslide areas will remain in place as the
regulatory backstop. The following sections on Seismic and Landslide Hazardous Areas will discuss
each in terms of functions and values, but will not include any best management practices.
As for the third category of geologically hazardous areas, erosion hazards, these are largely impacted
by land disturbing activity. Erosion hazard areas defined and mapped for this Plan are generally areas
with unstable soils and slopes, similar to landslide areas. However erosion can happen when activity
disturbs and exposes soils making them vulnerable to erosive forces. Agricultural activities can cause
these conditions, and there a number BMPs included in that section for review.
LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS
Functions and Values: A landslide is a rapid down slope movement of a mass of material such as
rocks, soil, or other debris. Landslide areas generally present potential dangers to public health and
safety; an important measure of potential risk for landslide when development occurs is land clearing
and alteration for development. Development activities can increase the risk by exposing soil
through clearing, altering natural drainage patterns, excavating the "toe" of slopes, or increasing soil
moisture content. Conversion of agricultural lands for development purposes not only depletes farm
land, but also increases the risk of landslides.
SEISMIC HAZARD AREAS
Functions and Values — Seismic Hazard Areas are areas susceptible to ground failure, including
mapped geologic faults; areas of poorly compacted artificial fill; areas with artificially steepened
slopes; post-glacial stream, lake or beach sediments; river deltas; areas designated as potential
Landslide Hazard Areas; bluff areas; and areas underlain by potentially liquefiable soils. They present
potential dangers to public health and safety, and restricted development activities within them serves
to prevent the acceleration of man-made and natural geological hazards, and to neutralize the risk to
the property owner or adjacent properties.
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 102
WORK PLAN
EROSION HAZARD AREAS
Functions and Values — Erosion Hazards are similar to Landslide Hazards in that they are both often
created by, or aggravated by development activities such as clearing and grading. Mason County is
underlain by soils which are subject to severe erosion when disturbed. The erosion process can be
accelerated by development activity that exposes and disturbs soils so they are more vulnerable to
erosive forces. Further, increased areas of impervious surfaces reduce the infiltration of rainfall,
increase stormwater runoff, and result in even greater erosion potential.
Table 26 Erosion Interface by WRIA
WRIA Total Acres of Erosion Total Acres of Agriculture
Area Interface
Kennedy- 8,177 59
Goldsborough
Kitsap 7,051 7
Skokomish- 1,559 42
Dosewallips
Lower Chehalis 69 .04
What is going to be measured —The total number of agricultural interface acres can be monitored
with new data to indicate changes. Changes — increase or decrease — would need to be ground-
truthed to determine cause of change and if it is related to the operation's proximity to an erosion
event. Measuring the number of additional BMP/ISPs put into place post Plan approval can be an
indicator of additional protection efforts. The enhancement column of the table below has been left
blank. As with geologically hazardous areas, there are protection measures to be taken to avoid
causing an event, with some of these measuring having the benefit of agricultural viability.
How will it be measured — As discussed in Chapter 4, the mapping of Erosion Hazard Areas will
likely not be updated in the foreseeable future. The size and location of those within the County will
remain static with no discernable tool for measuring changes. Therefore, for erosion hazards
monitoring will occur with respect to agricultural operations and BMPs. Once the Work Plan is
being implemented the data spreadsheets created as part of the strategies will provide a numbers and
locations of agricultural operations to analyze any changes.
What is the adaptive management — Biennial analysis of the spreadsheets showing agricultural lands
in proximity to erosion hazard areas that are decreasing would trigger a review of conservation
efforts, a site visit (if possible) to determine cause, and a refocus of outreach.
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1103
WORK PLAN
Table 27 Best Management Practices For Erosion Hazard Areas
Best Management Practice Protection Enhancement Agricultural Viability
Dam V ✓
Brush Management V ✓
Conservation Crop Rotation ✓ V
Field Border V
Pond ✓ V
Animal Trails and Walkways ✓ V
Clearing and Snagging V ✓
Range Planting ✓ V
Prescribed Grazing V ✓
Cover Crop V V
Heavy Use Protection Area V V
Roof Runoff Structure V
Water and Sediment Control Basin V
Mulching ✓ V
In many instances, utilizing a BMP is not appropriate, effective or even authorized to address issues
associated with a specific type of critical area. Therefore, this next Chapter will identify those
regulatory remedies that will remain in place as assurance that protection of critical areas is
ultimately successful.
•
•
_ _ a
- /r'�g t Y ,sem S -',r - .�1�. `�\(� - • d.�, _
••
•
Fes~ � .,► 1- � /Ti i`
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 104
WORK PLAN
21 . EXISTING REGULATORY BACKSTOPS
THE Mason County Code has incorporated in Title 8 (Environmental Policy) a chapter specific to
resource management, including critical areas, commonly known as the Resource Ordinance. The
VSP regulations as adopted under the Growth Management Act" provide an alternative approach to
protecting critical areas outside the Resource Ordinance, and afford this option only to agricultural
activity. However, there are some regulations previously adopted by Mason County that would serve
to further benefit the VSP process by providing a backstop to help achieve the Plan's benchmarks.
Those sections of the Mason County Code pertaining to Landslide Hazard Areas and Frequently
Flooded Areas will remain in effect, while all other regulations for critical areas in agricultural lands fall
under the Voluntary Stewardship Program. These two codes, together with other remaining local,
state, and federal regulations are briefly described below.
MASON COUNTY CODE
SECTION 8.52.140 MCC— LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS
Earlier discussions in this document broach the safety issues surrounding both Landslide Hazard and
Seismic Hazard areas. The Landslide section of the Resource
Ordinance is intended to identify areas that present potential
dangers to public health and safety, to prevent the acceleration Incorporate into the work plan
of natural geological hazards, to address off-site environmental any existing development
regulations relied upon to
impacts, and to minimize the risk to the property owner or achieve the goals and
adjacent property owners from development activities. The benchmarks for protection.
regulations adopted under this Section will remain in effect for
the overall protection of life and property. RCW 36.70A.120 I h
SECTION 8.52.150 MCC—SEISMIC HAZARD AREAS
As with Landslide Areas, the Seismic hazard section of the Resource Ordinance is intended to
identify areas that present potential dangers to public health and safety, and to prevent the
acceleration of man-made and natural geological hazards, and to neutralize the risk to the
property owner or adjacent properties from development activities. The regulations adopted under
this Section will remain in effect for the overall protection of life and property.
CHAPTER 14.22 MCC - FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION
Frequently Flooded Areas in Mason County are actually regulated under the Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance, which is incorporated under the Building Code and not part of the Resource
Ordinance. While there are BMPs that can effectively protect agricultural operations from potential
damage and loss, the regulations that guide development of any kind in frequently flooded areas
bb RCW 36.70A.710(I)(a) As an alternative to protecting critical areas in areas used for agricultural activities through development regulations
adopted under RCW 36.70A.060,the legislative authority of a county may elect to protect such critical areas through the program
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 105
WORK PLAN
remain in place. Additionally, Chapter 86.16 RCW provides for the administration of National
Flood Insurance Program regulation by local governments.
CHAPTER 14.04 MCC STATE BUILDING CODES ADOPTED AND CHAPTER 14.08 MCC
BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS
Mason County operates under the International Building Code and International Residential Code,
among others as required. These codes serve in a prescriptive manner that all structures be
constructed appropriately for life and safety. These include codes specifically targeted for structures
located in flood, landslide, and seismic hazard areas. The building codes adopted under Chapter 14
of the Mason County Code will remain in full force and effect for the protection of life and property.
CHAPTER 17.01 MCC - MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
The Development Regulations chapter of the Mason County Code guides zoning and land use for all
unincorporated areas. These regulations will remain in full force and effect.
CHAPTER 17.50 MCC - SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM USE REGULATIONS
Mason County's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) applies to all the lands and waters that are
designated in WAC 173-18, WAC 173-20, and WAC 173-22 to be under the jurisdiction of the
Shoreline Management Act of 1971. This Work Plan developed under the State's Voluntary
Stewardship Program will not replace those shoreline regulations. All regulations under the County's
SMP still apply.
OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS
All other applicable state and federal laws, including the Federal Clean Water Act, the Washington
Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48), the U.S. Endangered Species Act, and the Washington
State Environmental Policy Act remain in full force and effect.
ASSISTING STATE AGENCIES IN THEIR m_ ENDANGERED
MONITORING PROGRAMS SPECIES ACT OF
The Work Group and District Staff may provide available 1973
information and assistance to help state agencies align their
monitoring efforts with VSP monitoring and the goals and An Act to provide for the
benchmarks of the VSP Work Plan within staff capabilities and conservation of
endangered and
any existing funding. Watershed-scale monitoring reports will threatened species offish,
be made available to agencies and District staff will provide wildlife,and plants,and
assistance in interpreting the findings.' for other purposes.
I III
67 Stevens County VSP Work Plan
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
P c 1 0 6
WORK PI AN
011.
Sipe ow
4
•
„cis It kik
400
‘‘§:
.•
, e
•
••
Ip4
•
•
415
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1107
WORK PLAN
22. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
THE Work Plan must ensure that there is adequate and meaningful outreach and technical
assistance to the agricultural operators and agricultural community. Providing information on the VSP
to commercial and non-commercial agricultural operators is fundamental to the overall success of
not only the Work Plan, but in the protection and enhancement of Mason County's critical areas.
The Mason County Board of Commissioners determined that the most appropriate entity to facilitate
this process would be the Mason Conservation District ("District"). This organization has an
established relationship with the agricultural community and currently works with operators to
suggest a variety of best management practices dependent on the individual needs as well as
potential funding sources for implementation. The District also participates in a number of
community events, workshops and trainings that would provide many outreach opportunities to
educate the community on the VSP. The goals and benchmarks proposed in this Work Plan will
remain within the scope and capabilities of the District; this will ensure that no operator would be at
any disadvantage for being successful.
Rat' 110 pip
<."
U-PICK
mi.
beans- cucumbers
\* _
URGANIC -9273
.4\
11 9
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 108
WORK PLAN
23. OUTREACH STRATEGY
CREATING an understanding of how the Voluntary Stewardship Program can protect important
critical areas while enhancing agricultural activity is a crucial first step. The Program's success will be
dependent upon the knowledge, cooperation, and trust of the people and organizations involved. The
Work Group's outreach strategy will help provide knowledge and understanding to the community,
create integrity and reliability, and form important relationships. Group members hope to visit
landowners where they are, regardless of the kind or stage of their agricultural operation. The
approach taken with each landowner will be specific to the type of critical area as well as the type of
agricultural operation. Ultimately, achieving a solid level of understanding will lead to the successful
implementation of this Plan.
The Work Group held a special session just to brainstorm outreach ideas. As members of the
agricultural community, the Group is the most logical resource when it comes to strategizing
outreach techniques. The Work Group was asked a single question, "How can we get the word out
to the Ag Community about VSP?" A few bulleted items were used to provoke a thought process
and meaningful discussion. Initially the Facilitator broke the bullets into two categories: marketing and
building awareness. Marketing strategies include printed materials, local and regional events,
professional partnerships, and media. Utilizing digital communications, increasing visibility through
branding with a VSP logo, and designating VSP mentors can all contribute to building awareness.
During the Group's session, several ideas were presented and then organized into broader
categories. These included:
OUTREACH EVENTS
Targeting Individual Communities — Mason County is primarily rural, with only one incorporated city.
Throughout the landscape are pockets of small, informal communities with varied agricultural
products and needs. Reaching out to those communities in ways that are unique to their individual
situations will ensure that the VSP has a better chance of implementation.
Trained "Ambassadors" - This idea would be similar to a VSP Mentor. Either a District Staff person
or even a member of the Work Group could act as an expert on the Program and disseminate
information as opportunities occur. Farm tours would be another avenue for an Ambassador, or
Mentor, to educate citizens on methods already in practice. District Staff often make site visits for
several reason providing tag-along opportunities for the VSP Coordinator to meet and educate
members of the farming community.
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1109
WORK PLAN
Events — Local community fairs
provide an opportunity to reach a
larger number of people in a short Q " ,! 13 �-M=
period of time and in a single location. O
Events in Mason County include Tahuya N
1111
Days, Old Timers Historical Fair,
OysterFest, Hama Hama Oyster Rama,
Forest Festival, and Taste of Hood ^�
Canal. The District and Work Group
LL-
can partner with Chambers of
Commerce to explore the prospects
for participating in these events.
Farmers Markets — Mason County has
three farmers markets — Shelton,
Belfair and Harstine Island — selling O
locally grown food as well as locally ..
made products. An Ambassador or Mentor present at these markets would reach the growers and
consumers, and access a broader audience.
COMMUNITY BASED MEETINGS
Master Gardner Program & Small Farms — The WSU Extension Office hosts monthly meetings of the
Master Gardeners of Mason County. Partnering with WSU, a District Staff person, or Group
member, could distribute information on VSP to local small farmers and recreational growers
participating in those meetings.
Livestock Auctions — Mason County does not have an auction house for livestock or farm equipment;
however, there is such a facility in Chehalis just about one hour south of Shelton. The Chehalis
Livestock Market may provide for an opportunity to reach farmers who've traveled to auction events.
Additionally, that Market will also travel to a farm location to conduct auctions. Mason County
farmers hosting an auction on their property may allow District Staff or Work Group members to
attend for the purposes of distributing information.
Taking this Show on the Road — Many of the communities in Mason County have Fire Halls and
Granges that are easily accessible and often used by the surrounding residents. District Staff and
Group Members could organize an open house or workshop to talk about the Program and how
participation might affect them.
Service Clubs/Organizations —The Shelton Kiwanis and Rotary Clubs hold monthly meetings as well as
many fundraising events. A District Staff person or Work Group member could ask to attend a
monthly meeting to promote the program and distribute materials.
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1110
WORK PLAN
ADVERTISING
Piggyback Mailers — Whether it is a two sentence blurb, or a full page brochure, inserting VSP
information into mass distributed mailers could cover a larger audience. Utility companies, the
County Treasurer's Tax Statements, or even the local newspaper could serve as conduits for VSP
information.
Posters/Flyers — Creating handbills or posters about VSP, or announcing events where VSP will be
presented, could represent a visual and somewhat permanent display of information in locations
frequented by the farming community.
Parades — Yes, parades. Several organizations participate in
the Mason County Christmas Parade. Some simply walk in
groups with banners or flags, and others ride in cars, trucks,
and wagons. The District could partner with an ag-relevant
group to promote the Program, utilizing the same ride or join MCD PLANS FOR
a walking group. Or, with enough momentum and gumption, GOSNELL CREEK
the Program could be represented on its own with a "float" — RESTORATION
decorated vehicle and some enthusiastic walkers.
Reader Boards — There are several shopping centers in the KITSAP SUN
County that digital reader boards, as well as some banks and
schools. It may be possible to advertise public meetings or Arla Shepard Bull, Mason County
workshops promoting VSP on those boards. Life
WORKING WITH AG-RELATED BUSINESSES & The Mason Conservation District
ORGANIZATIONS will plant native vegetation
along Gosnell Creek, a tributary
Professional Partnerships — The District could explore of the salmon-bearing Mill Creek,
opportunities to partner with local agriculture and farming and build a bridge allowing for
businesses including retail/wholesale seed, farm equipment and safe crossing of people and
livestock across the creek. The
hardware distributors. For example, incentivized sales on bridge will eliminate a natural,
BMP related purchases would receive discounts. The buyer wet crossing and prevent
receives needed supplies for improving viability and protection sediment and animal waste from
critical areas, and the seller receives more business as more accumulating in the creek.
buyers are encouraged to participate.
Real Estate Market — People moving into Mason County, or is^'
just moving into a new home in the County are generally 4',..
working with a Realtor or real estate agent. New buyers '"'•
often receive "welcome" gifts when they purchase property
that includes information on utilities, schools, ublic ._
P safety and �.._
local amenities. The VSP could take advantage of this
tradition by inserting program materials and farmers market coupons into the mix. This would allow
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1111
WORK PLAN
the new owners to become familiar with their land, the agriculture community and their options for
responsible care and cultivation.
Into the Classroom — Agricultural sciences are included in many collage and primary school
curriculums, as well as in school sponsored programs like 4-H. The District could approach school
district staff to discuss options for promoting the Program in these types of classes. The census
numbers for agricultural operators reflect a decline in younger farmers. Bringing new approaches to
agricultural viability that includes environmental protection may actually encourage students to
consider farming in their future.
Beyond the Classroom — The University of Washington (SeaGrant) and the Washington State
University (Extension) both provide programs around the responsible stewardship of land and water.
Events held by both Universities could serve as a platform in which VSP information could be
combined with other related educational pieces.
Political Arena — Supportive local elected officials can be strong allies when it comes to making
community wide changes. In some case, changing laws is necessary to provide more flexibility to
farmers struggling to keep their operations viable. Reaching out to Commissioners and
Councilmembers early can secure their support for future endeavors. In addition, elected officials are
the ones most informed by their constituents of problems, including those in the agricultural
community. They can in turn provide necessary information to the District and Work Group
members on what some of the issues may be.
PRINT AND BROADCAST MEDIA - INTERNET AND WEBSITES
Live From Shelton — As one of Washington most rural counties, Mason County has one official
newspaper that is published once a week, and one radio station. The radio station, unfortunately for
the County's youth, is all talk. However, this station provides talking opportunities to its citizens
everyday ... especially those who have something good to share. The Daybreak morning show on
KMAS iFiberOne News Radio features representatives from various sects of the community being
interviewed live on the radio AND on by video from their website. One or two Work Group
members and/or District Staff can arrange to be interviewed on the radio to get information out to the
station's listeners.
In the Funny Papers — As mentioned above, Mason County as well as its single incorporated city,
has one official newspaper that comes out once a week— Shelton-Mason County Journal. The District
could approach the paper about running an ad or article featuring the program. Ads could be run
to announce meeting dates and locations, or events that feature the Program. An article illustrating
the Programs origin and its plotted course through agricultural community would provide written
documentation for reference, and increase media coverage.
Website — Having an accessible and current website of information will be crucial in a world of real
time everything. People want ... need ... to know what is up to date and relevant to them. The Web
is society's "go-to" for just about any piece of information, and this rural County's VSP should be
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1112
WORK PLAN
no exception. The District can provide a link from its home page, or generate a new address just for
VSP. The website should be easy to remember and even easier to navigate. It should provide
information important to the farmer or operator using it, including an email address for questions,
links to forms that can be filled in on line, project funding sources, and clear examples of what the
Program is intended to accomplish. It should minimize the use of acronyms and bureaucratic jibber
jabber. No matter how spectacular the Program is, if people are discouraged by an unfriendly or
overly burdensome website, their journey will end and so will the Program. The District may
consider a professional web designer to create a site that reads well, is informative and not
intimidating, and provides a logical flow of information.
Like Us — Social media is also a powerful tool. Using outlets such of Facebook or Twitter to
display finished projects and success stories, and announce events and tours will help keep the
Program in the foreground. People "liking" the site and following it on their own pages will make
it visible to others. Information will spread from a "nonpoint source" and reach a larger audience.
What's Trending — YouTube videos have become a popular outlet for entertainment and information.
The VSP can take advantage of this trend by giving the Program a "face", so to speak. Creating
videos that showcase types of available BMPs, how they work, what they look like on the ground,
and successful implementation on local farms gives the Program tangibility. Farmers and agricultural
operators not familiar with the BMPs discussed in this Work Plan may be unsure or even
intimidated by the practice and not fully understand its benefits. Showing a simple, and short,
demonstration video might help clarify the practice and increase interest. Videos of success stories
involving real farms and real people in this County will also inspire awareness and participation. One
person hosting all of the videos might even generate a local celebrity.
Agency Links — The County's VSP and Work Plan website could be linked with other agency and
organizations that play a roll or have an interest in both critical areas and sustainable farming. District
Staff can approach various representatives to determine the possibility and appropriateness of such
links.
BUILDING AWARENESS THROUGH BRANDING
Slogans and Logos — The Voluntary Stewardship Program is a mouthful, to say the least, and not
entirely descriptive of what it's about. The acronym, VSP, is even less helpful. Since the Program is
designed to reach the agricultural community and motivate them into making changes for critical
areas or for farms, or both, its needs a promotion that speaks to them. Many successful businesses
have slogans, logos and names that are easy to remember and immediately recognizable to the
community or the general public. The VSP needs to have something unique and relatable to first
draw attention, and second to become a familiar reference associated with the Work Plan's goals and
implementation.
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1113
WORK PLAN
SITE VISITS
Educating all District Staff on at least the basics of the Program allows them to offer possible assistance
on site visits that may be initially unrelated. Agricultural operators often seek advice from District
Staff without having any knowledge of critical areas that may be located on or adjacent to their
property. Once detected by a non-regulatory agency (which is a PLUS) then the property owner can
learn about some options for both critical area protection and agricultural viability.
CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS
District Staff are members of various civic and community
organizations in the course of general business that can ,(70/,49,i
( ® 6
provide regular opportunities to inform not only agricultural (IET? •
operators but people who may know some. Materials on the ® �� e
Program can be made available, as well as a District speakers 1 (-,
bureau describing the program, its benefits, and participation -
pathways. - f
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS \„rri"`
\ •
Mason County has a variety of elected and appointed citizen- .'.' -
groups that address community issues and concerns. An -:, •
informal presentation to these groups will also help
disseminate information to either an agricultural operator, or
owe
someone who knows one. .•44.
MATERIALS
The District can prepare simple, straightforward materials
that provide information about the VSP in an
understandable and helpful format. Certain aspects of VSP Figure 20 Shelton Farmers Market
can be confusing and bogged down with legal references; reaching
out with information that is void of bureaucratic terminology and complicated formulas will be the
most effective. Agricultural operators need information that is clear and relevant to their needs and
desires. Materials created must be sensitive to this in order to be effectively understood, or even
read beyond the first sentence.
SCHOOLS
Working with schools to educate children about their natural environment is something that the
District is regularly involved with. Realizing curriculum are set by the state to a specific set of
guidelines, there may be other ways to integrate farming and agricultural events or workshops to
engage the County's future work force. One of the items addressed by the Work Group during
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1114
WORK PLAN
the SWOT68 process was a noticeable lack of interest and engagement by youth in agriculture as a
profession. Reaching children at earlier ages might motivate even a few to continue their education
with an emphasis on farming and agriculture.
LANDOWNER MEETINGS
Members of the farming community may have casual meetings to discuss issues of particular
importance to operators with similar production needs or products. If permitted, District Staff could
use some of these informal meetings to broach the topic of VSP and provide assistance on joining the
program or taking advantage of other opportunities for District assistance.
LOCAL BUSINESSES/GOVERNMENT OFFICES
Materials can be distributed at local retailers of hardware, farm supplies, and other small businesses
patronized by the community. Government offices are also a place where citizen often go not
necessarily out of want, but out of need. Offices of the Mason County Treasurer, Auditor, and
Assessor are centrally located in downtown Shelton with a single shared lobby. Community
members visit these offices daily and materials may be made available to them in places noticeable
while waiting. The Auditor's office is of special importance as this office implements Open Space
Program that acts as a tax incentive program for agricultural property.
VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP OVERVIEW AND INDIVIDUAL PLAN CHECKLIST
Creating individual stewardship plans for landowners interested in participation in the Program is core
to its overall success. The Plans are designed around a site's specific critical area with
recommended conservation practices for protection and enhancement of that area, as well as
promoting agricultural viability. The Individual Plan Checklist was created to provide an easy to
complete set of questions that would help the District discover opportunities for Program
implementation through landowners' voluntarily provided information. The checklist guides the
landowners through a series of questions that determine which watershed the property is located in,
what types of critical areas may be on or near the property, and which conversation practices have
been implemented in the or which they are interested in implementing in the future. The District
can use this information to update monitoring tables, and to make contact with interested parties.
The checklist can also be completed and sent in completely on line from the District's website.
Additionally, the first portion of the checklist provides a scaled down overview of the Program, and
can be used and distributed independent of the checklist. This came from a suggestion from the
Work Group that a short and easily digestible version of the Plan be put together as a ready-to-go
hand out. Considering the amount of bureaucratic lingo contained in the Plan, this was a great
68 Strengths,Weaknesses,Opportunities,and Threats
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1115
WORK PLAN
suggestion and the Overview document was created. The Overview and Individual Plan Checklist is
attached in Appendix 9.
OUTREACH PRIORITIZATION AND SCHEDULE
The Work Group met on January 23, 2018 to prioritize the outreach efforts described above.
Through a collaborative effort by the Group members, the suggested ideas were individually
documented on large reading cards and displayed randomly on an exhibition board. Members then
wrote down their top three choices for year one and then beyond. The group was also asked to
"sign up" to assist with some of the events. The ideas were grouped by consensus, and the results
are reflected in the table below:
Table 28 First Year Outreach Efforts
FIRST YEAR WORK GROUP MEMBER
VOLUNTEER
Trained Ambassadors Larry Boltz, Myrn Stewart
Posters/Flyers Seth Elsen, Laurie Hager
Building Awareness through Branding Allan Borden, Laurie Hager, Seth Elsen
Civic Organizations ... no takers yet
Master Gardeners & Small Farms Allan Borden
Targeting Individual Communities Bill Short, Myrn Stewart, Laurie Hager,
Allan Borden
Agency Links Allan Borden, Seth Elsen
Website Seth Elsen, Laurie Hager
Social Media Seth Elsen, Laurie Hager
Individual Plan Checklist District Staff, Volunteers as available
The items chosen for the first year are those the Group determined to be foundational to future
outreach efforts. Establishing a recognizable name and making community connections will be a
necessary first step in securing the program's future success. The next list includes items the Group
intends to target for the second year, and years to follow. After the Program has received some
degree of recognition and standing as a result of the first year's outreach, the next series of events
and opportunities should prove to be more productive.
❖ Board & Commissions ❖ Service Clubs/Organizations
❖ Landowner Meetings ❖ Farmers Markets
❖ Schools ❖ Livestock Auctions
❖ Materials ❖ Parades
❖ Local Businesses/Government Offices ❖ Piggyback Mailers
❖ Live from Shelton (Radio) ❖ Events
❖ Political Arena ❖ Professional Partnerships
❖ Site Visits ❖ What's Trending
❖ In the Funny Papers (print media) ❖ Into the Classroom
❖ Taking the Show on the Road ❖ Beyond the Classroom
❖ Reader Boards ❖ Real Estate Market
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
P1 F., 1 116
WORK PLAN
..
.
{
rid
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 117
WORK PLAN
APPENDIX I CRITICAL AREAS
c
.EP c
• CIL\
� r
SP t
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 118
WORK PLAN
CRITICAL AREAS
CRITICAL Areas are established and regulated under WAC 365-190-030 (Washington Department
of Commerce) and RCW 36.70A.030 (Growth Management Act). Accordingly, jurisdictions planning
under the Growth Management Act (GMA) must designate critical areas and adopt regulations
protecting them. The following describes how all five critical areas are defined by both the State and
Mason County.
`Critical areas' include the following areas and ecosystems: (a) Wetlands; (b) areas with a
critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c)fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas; (d)frequently flooded areas; and (e)geologically hazardous areas. "Fish
and wildlife habitat conservation areas"does not include such artificial features or constructs
as irrigation delivery systems, irrigation infrastructure, irrigation canals, or drainage ditches
that lie within the boundaries of and are maintained by a port district or an irrigation district
or company.69
WETLANDS
As defined by State code, wetlands are
Decker Creek
...areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface water or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for '-., s 4�'V`', ' ;` , :;
,1 1
life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands `°a• '-` '
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, ' , •-' ` '4.- •
and similar areas.70 "' x , - '
In wetlands, the soil is at least periodically saturated i_
or covered with water." These water conditions ,... 1
support special kinds of plants called hydrophytes ` ' ,
(Greek for "water loving"). Soils that have been - t .. •,'/41. ,:� ` ��,
saturated for a sufficient length of time hold certain 4 1 r
properties and are referred to as hydric soils. An , -c*
area must exhibit all three of the following - __ t/' ,
i":;5;•
,1 '� t •': _ fru
'_.
characteristics in order to be classified a wetland: • ` , '
i ,
(I) inundation or saturation of the soil by water, (2) 0
the presence of wetland plants (hydrophytes), and ' 4:4*
•
69 RCW 36.70A.030(5)
70 RCW 36.70A.030(2 I)
71 RCW 36.70A.030(2I)
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1119
WORK PLAN
(3) the presence of hydric soils. Wetlands are classified by a rating system set forth in the
Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. A four-tier wetlands rating
system has been adopted as the rating system for Mason County. Wetland buffer widths, wetland
activities, and replacement ratios are based on this rating system. These four categories include:
WETLANDS CLASSIFICATION72
Category I Wetlands. Category I wetlands contain documented habitat for threatened or
endangered plant, animal, or fish species recognized by federal or state agencies; or
documented Natural Heritage wetland sites or high quality native wetland communities which
qualify as Natural Heritage wetland sites; or documented habitat of regional (Pacific Coast)
or national significance for migratory birds; or regionally rare wetland communities; or
wetlands with irreplaceable ecological functions; or documented wetlands of local
significance.
Category II Wetlands. Category II wetlands contain documented habitat recognized by federal
and state agencies for sensitive plant, animal, or fish species; or documented priority habitats
and species recognized by state agencies; or wetlands with significant functions which may
not be adequately replicated through creation or restoration; or wetlands with significant
habitat value;or documented wetlands of local significance.
Category III Wetlands. Category III wetlands are classed as category III when they satisfy no
category I,II, or IV criteria.
Category IV Wetlands. Category IV wetlands are less than one acre in size and hydrologically
isolated and comprised of one vegetated class that is dominated (more than eighty percent
areal cover) by one species from the list in Table 21 (WAC 173-183-71o(d)(ii)); or are less than
Iwo acres and hydrologically isolated with one vegetative class and more than ninety percent
of the areal cover is any combination of species. (WAC173-183-71o(d)(ii))
The Wetlands and WRIAs Map indicates all of the known wetlands in Mason County according to the
2011 National Wetlands Inventory; there are nearly 55,000 acres. Most of these areas are
associated with larger freshwater and saltwater systems. The alteration or destruction of wetlands
can eliminate or reduce a variety of biological and hydrological functions that wetlands perform.
Direct impacts may result from the clearing, grading or filling of land prior to new development. Of
equal important are the indirect impacts from new development, which may alter surface water flows,
or interrupt the infiltration of groundwater.
New development may increase volumes of sediment-laden runoff entering wetlands. This may
inhibit the wetlands' natural capacity to remove nutrients and process chemical and organic wastes. In
addition, increased sedimentation within wetlands may reduce their ability to temporarily store flood
waters and increase the risk and magnitude of downstream impacts. Wetlands may also often provide
groundwater recharge. Development activities in areas near or hydrologically connected to wetlands
in recharge areas could interrupt infiltration to the groundwater system.
72 WAC 173-183-710
Mason County--- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1120
WORK PLAN
1
,ry ! -,,ii.- J
1M s 1
7 ( - '--' . -- '
• N4'"sa`
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 121
. WORK PLAN
Figure 21 Wetlands Map
MASON COUNTY 1 .__�_�____ _ N
National Wetlands Inventory I "" / At%
S
ir
•,:: '
e.
Legend _• } ' ' I,
t
Wetlands 7
Waterbodies t I t
IMason County `
Parcels
I Mason County WRIAs J .I
Date 1113!2017 ♦". _V r,
:••r 4'-• ' , '�, j it
»,•+.
\ . ' ':
,t lam^ r,. j
`. •
y
t
Mason
Conservation 4- " .,
District f .
_ - 0 2 4 8I.files
I i I I I i i i
Source:National Wetlands Inventory
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 122
WORK PLAN
CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS
Groundwater exists in underground layers of porous rock or soil called aquifers. Water stored in
aquifers reaches the ground surface through springs, wells, or by seepage into surface water features,
including wetlands. Surface waters replenish, "recharge", aquifers through seepage from streams,
lakes, and wetlands, and from precipitation that percolates through soil or rock. Areas with a critical
recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, also called Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas or
CARAs, include areas where an aquifer that is a source of drinking water is vulnerable to
contamination that would affect the potability of the water, or is susceptible to reduced recharge.73
The Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas exist throughout Mason County and are mapped on Figure 23.
Potable water means water
suitable for drinking. Condensation Condensation
Groundwater provides virtually all S Horst Air
of Mason County's potable water. 7 ///
/ !w°orattbw++; k�
trorw Transpire 0 n �",/
Protecting aquifers and aquifer / •>b
recharge areas, therefore, is / dp"'�'O1
critical to maintaining Mason Precipitation :
County's water supply. The {
groundwater supplying most of
fwpuriton '. .
the County's water is obtained
Y
Ocean �C -.►through .,�
from the aquifers running
the coarser and more permeable
glacial and fluvial sedimentary '"'+9hflow
deposits. The older, Groundwater
undifferentiated sedimentary
deposits provide large quantities of Source. WA Department Of Ecology
water for industrial and municipal
wells. Bedrock forms the bottom of the groundwater layer although fractures and joints in the
relatively impermeable rocks may yield small quantities of water. Precipitation provides the primary
source of recharge for Mason County's groundwater. Precipitation within the County averages 64
inches annually. It increases rapidly towards the Olympic Mountains where, at Lake Cushman,
precipitation is in excess of 100 inches per year. Water levels in wells are typically within 125 feet of
the land surface. The quality of groundwater in an aquifer is inextricably linked to its recharge area.
Approximately 121,084 acres have been mapped as Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas in Mason County.
Urban development has two potential impacts on groundwater resources: 1) increases in impervious
surfaces reduce the volume of precipitation available to recharge groundwater, and 2) may introduce
pollutants into the groundwater system. When groundwater recharge is reduced, groundwater
73WAC365-190-030(3)
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 123
WORK PLAN
supplies may be depleted. In many instances, this is coupled with withdrawals of groundwater in
excess of recharge capacity. Potential long-term impacts include reduced capacity of water wells,
reduced flows in groundwater-fed streams, and depletion of water supplies to lakes or wetlands.
Pollutants can be introduced into the groundwater system through a variety of means. They include
failing septic systems, agricultural chemicals, animal waste, urban runoff, solid waste disposal, and
leaking underground storage tanks.
1 A
•
illa . to ‘i,....#.... . .111,,, ,.. , i _
•
. dr its:a ,.. i 41160-111,..;0:P,,,,,` -,.
it .V,'.7 ' e
44
4
' IllirvI ,
AgAITIFIS ,
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Pngc 1 124
WORK PLAN
Figure 22 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Map
MASON COUNTY r' "
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas lc_ !"-'`'-- w}t>-�..E
s
fr
Legend `' 4.
J Mascn County WRIAs
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Waterbodies -- ...i
I Mascn County
Parcels Is
Date 11/312017
.=_ It Ards. t•�T
�..t f.
...--.0....--.0. SLE,-i-, J
IAVI doe' r t n \-ww ..
` 7 ae.
�,.6.=1:111r114
.v r s r r :,
�+w. d �.F
rile SiE�M =iiia l� -. .
Iria
r. i,. .r■I-I / ii ;
/ "
Mason t ' Ier
I CYI-
Conservation t.. .
District � ' ti''' �
• 02 4 8hdes
_ '
I
Source:Mason County Department of Public Works,GIS Division
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 125
WORK PLAN
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS
Preservation of fish and wildlife habitat
is critical to protecting suitable
environments for animal species, and y
in providing an important part of the :
local quality of life for County .
residents and visitors. Fish and •
wildlife also provide important
recreational and economic benefits .•.
such as hunting and fishing
opportunities. The continued , q ,
prosperity of the commercial and t
•47,recreational fish and shellfish 4 '� '
industries depends on maintenance of
t . . ra lc
excellent water quality and unpolluted re e
habitats for fish, shellfish, and their '
food sources. Fish and wildlife habitat •3 .=
also provide significant social benefits. Mason County residents are accustomed to occasional
encounters with wildlife such as bald eagles, great blue heron and elk. Wildlife provides the
opportunity to educate the public about biological and ecological processes. Other less quantifiable
benefits include wildlife viewing, and maintaining the historical, cultural, and spiritual values of Native
American Tribes and the general public.
The Mason County Resource Ordinance guides management of the County's fish and wildlife habitat
through the regulation of conservation areas. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas include
both aquatic and terrestrial areas within the County. The approximate location and extent of critical
fish and wildlife habitat areas are displayed in the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife's
(WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Program database. The following categories are used in
classifying these critical areas:
I) Commercial and recreational shellfish areas;
2) Kelp and eelgrass beds; herring, sand lance, and smelt spawning areas;
3) Naturally occurring lakes and ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that
provide fish or wildlife habitat;
4) Streams;
5) Saltwater shorelines, and Lakes 20 acres and greater in surface area;
6) Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity;
7) State Department of Natural Resources natural area preserves and natural resource
conservation areas;
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1126
WORK PLAN
8) Areas with which federal or state endangered, threatened and sensitive species of fish and
wildlife have a primary association. Those species known to be found in Mason County shall be
listed in the Resource Ordinance. Protection of species habitats is determined by the state or
federal listing, and their actual presence near the site subject to review. Other listed and
protected species may be found in Mason County, which are not listed.
9) Other areas that contain habitats and species of local importance (which include juvenile
salmonid migration areas) as also listed. Species of local importance may include, but are not
limited to, state candidate and monitor species.
AQUATIC AREAS I Mason County includes three principal river systems and numerous lakes, small
rivers, and streams. The Skokomish
and Hamma Hamma Rivers are swiftly
flowing, deeply incised rivers that
originate high in the Olympic
Mountains and empty into Hood
Canal. The east and middle forks of
the Satsop River originate in the
Olympic Mountains, converge at the
;'- >:--r,t
_� southwestern corner of the county,
111.1111110.
',,; : � .�,. and flow southward into the Chehalis
10, .
- t lit River. All of the eastern part of the
*, , d T I ' _- County is drained by smaller streams
which flow only short distances before
.. Cranberry Lake reaching outlets to Puget Sound. Many
of the small streams support significant
' fisheries that include anadromous fish.
Other surface waters are made up of
numerous lakes and wetland areas, some of which include Cushman, Mason, Nahwatzel, Lost,
Isabella, Island, Cranberry, Limerick and Spencer Lakes.
The waters and shorelines of Mason County are an important resource. In addition to their
natural beauty and cultural value, they provide the base for a sizable shellfish industry, aquaculture, fish
and wildlife habitat. Water systems are typed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources
and the following table provides a general description of water type classifications currently in use.
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 127
WORK PLAN
Table 29 Water Typing System74
Type Description
Type "S" = Streams and waterbodies that are designated "shorelines of the state"as
Shoreline defined in Chapter 90.58.030 RCW(formerly Type i)
Type "F" Streams and waterbodies that are known to be used
ypby fish, or meet the
Fish physical criteria to be potentially used by fish. Fish streams may or may
not have flowing water all year; they may be perennial or season
ormerl T •e 2 or
Type "Np" = Streams that have flow year round and may have spatially intermittent
Non-Fish dry reaches downstream of perennial flow. Type Np streams do not meet
the physical criteria of a Type Fstream. This also includes streams that
have been proven not to contain fish using methods described in Forest
Practices Board Manual Section 13 (formerly Type 4)
Type "Ns" = Streams that do not have surface flow during at least some portion of the
Non-Fish year, and do not meet the physical criteria of a Type F stream (formerly
Seasonal Type 5)
TERRESTRIAL AREAS I All development activities have the potential to impact native plant and animal
species. Terrestrial Management Areas are those areas where the presence of state endangered or
state threatened terrestrial species have been identified. The Mason County Resource Ordinance
specifies that all development in these
areas shall be consistent with State and
Federal law.
There are also a number of publicly and
privately managed natural areas in
Mason County that have been '111,
designated as preserves or refuges. '.
These areas are important for fish and
wildlife habitat, scenic vistas, protection
of sensitive plant species, and S
preservation of open space. In Mason I •.
County, there are nearly 28,000 acresRi#1064
of habitat. The Priority Species Habitat
is mapped in Figure 23. ted Woo ® °' '_
4
74 WAC 222-I6-030
Mason County--Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 I28
WORK PLAN
Figure 23 WDFW Priority Species Habitat
MASON COUNTYr `_�— ;
WDFW Priority Species ---- it:
c1M+ til
Habitat Areas .,
.,..._______,_____
[ iv< •I
Legend
Waterbodies f
Priority Species Habitat
I Mason County
Parcels
I Mason County V RIAs l .
Date 1113;2017
1
l�rt... i
,' il
f z
i
rti,.
lr l
E
1 1
r
zMason i
Conservation ) I
`w District 'Z, de ' ,.
i
7 o z a a Mims
I � . I
Source:WA Department of Fish&Wildlife
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1129
WORK PLAN
FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Frequently flooded areas are lands in the flood plain subject to at least a one percent or greater chance
of flooding in any given year, or within areas subject to flooding due to high groundwater. These
areas include, but are not limited to, streams, rivers, lakes, coastal areas, wetlands, and areas where
high groundwater forms ponds on the ground surface.75 In Mason County they include areas
identified as potential or historic flood areas in the Department of Ecology's Coastal Zone Atlasor
areas identified as "Zone A" flood areas on the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance
Rate Maps. Areas in the County meeting these descriptions are mapped in Figure 24, Frequently
Flooded Areas.
Flooding in Mason County generally occurs from November through April. The greatest cause of
flooding is heavy rainfall combined with snow melt. The Mason County Flood Insurance Study lists
four areas as most susceptible to flooding. Those areas include the Skokomish, Tahuya and Union
Rivers, and Goldsborough Creek. The Skokomish River Valley floods several times annually. Many
homes, pastures and personal property were damaged over the years as well as lesser damage on a
more frequent basis. Flooding on the Tahuya River and Goldsborough Creek has been known to
cause some damage, whereas the Union River tends to have high flows, but minimal overbank
flooding.
Flooding of marine shorelines is caused by a number of factors, which can occur individually or in
combination. They include extreme high tides, waves generated by winds, tsunamis of distant origin,
and locally generated seismic waves
or boils. Wind-driven waves,
superimposed on extreme high f
, 71411
s
tides, represent the most common ...
form of coastal flooding. Mason
County protects frequently flooded
areas by concentrating urban
development on the least amount of Jr
land, considers the suitability of the
land for development through the ,
use of performance standards, and -
provides for significant open space
and resource use areas in
development within the Rural Area. 6r'
Skokomish River Flooding
7s WAC 365-I 90-030(8)
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 I 3 0
WORK PLAN
Figure 24 Frequently Flooded Areas Map
MASON COUNTY "
Frequently Flooded Areas --,--s-2..3,. .
~ 4-
-e
w--s.
s
j /
It 46!„. , .
ti •ri'
et,
Legend y
I Mason County WRIAS k V
Frequently Flooded Areas it 7 - I
Waterbodies
I Mason County ��
Parcels
Date: 11/3/2017
•- l
_ ry/!
- . ;; 0.
t"-- •
Ai
(2.#:();), - ea(q ."(\r-' :
IP A- .• --•:*/.4.'
. 4
1 -'� "N f
1i,
, . .k.
Mason
Conservation e....t-r-Y.-14. 7 .-
District
' 0 2 4 8 Miles
I I I r I II l l
Source:Mason County Department of Public Works,GIS Division
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1131
WORK PLAN
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Geologically hazardous areas are susceptible to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological
events, making them unsuitable for the siting of commercial, residential, or industrial development
consistent with public health or safety concerns.76 In many cases, hazards can be reduced or
mitigated by engineering, design or modified construction practices. Mason County's Resource
Ordinance identifies three types of Geologic Hazard Areas: I) Landslide Hazard Areas; 2) Seismic
Hazard Areas; and 3) Erosion Hazard Areas. Landslide Hazard Areas are lands that have an
increased potential for landslides and other earth movement. Seismic Hazard Areas are lands that
are particularly susceptible to damage from earthquakes and other seismic activity. Lastly, Erosion
Hazard Areas are lands that are more susceptible to excessive erosion.
LANDSLIDE HAZARD I A landslide is a rapid down slope movement of a mass of material such as
rocks, soil, or other debris. The speed and distance of movement, as well as the amount of material,
vary greatly and depend on a combination of geologic, topographic and hydrologic factors. Especially
susceptible to landslide hazards are marine bluffs and unconsolidated glacial deposits on steep hillsides
(greater than 40%). The risk of landslide occurrence depends on a number of factors including soil
vulnerability, slope, and the degree of water saturation. Development activities can increase the risk
by exposing soil through clearing, altering natural drainage patterns, excavating the "toe" of slopes, or
increasing soil moisture content. An important measure of potential risk for landslide when
development occurs is land clearing and alteration for development.
Conversion of agricultural lands not only depletes farm land, but also
increases the risk of landslides. Potential impacts to Mason
County can be assessed based on the relative amount of land
converted to urban .
uses during the 20- >,
year planning under �� '
each of the l
alternatives. . .
- /.- - -'. w-... •-• ..
Laa Hwy 101: -a1o'h ' . anal
76 RCW 36.70A.030(9)
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1132
WORK PLAN
Figure 25 Landslide Hazard Areas Map
MASON COUNTY I I "
Landslide Hazards Areas i , w.4
s
V
7 ;
,:r r i r
r / rAr,
egend �� �/•'• i yr yid ��/f ..
�Mason County V'JRIAs _ �
Landslide Hazards Areas ..--;:ofgo/2> 4. ' -. f
S wr- r yk
Waterbodies "` • C
1' 1
I Mason County ` ., • � / / t
Parcels }+ p
Date- 1113/2017 • �, f �,; -�, �I
j • r
N t J )rA ,.,,', :i!y1.
. , i..,
, . ,
.7 .,/ .y.,
i •
f . C
_ - . t,.. , .
, L, • '7. CN.d - (4 Jet' , /A ,,' I 1.k.
'\ )- ; v - - ---- ..4.4.":-.-3.1...i.•- lfri.
:)/4 _._ . ; .1k. ..'•._... " N.z .; 7-1 •
Mason ‘‘ .4 r� . -1
I
Conservation I .:417.:* r' •: ,• -
\low District / r.•
AIL '-. Y
a 0 2 4 B Miles
Source:Mason County Department of Public Works, GIS Division
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 133
WORK PLAN
SEISMIC HAZARD I Seismic Hazards occur in areas subject to severe risk of earthquake damage as a
result of seismic induced settlement or soil liquefaction. These areas include soils containing high
organic content (e.g., wetland soils), areas of loose sand and gravel, artificial fills, landslide deposits, and
fine-grained soils with high water tables. Seismic Hazard Areas are areas susceptible to ground failure,
including mapped geologic faults; areas of poorly compacted artificial fill; areas with artificially
steepened slopes; post-glacial stream, lake or beach sediments; river deltas; areas designated as
potential Landslide Hazard Areas; bluff areas; and areas underlain by potentially liquefiable soils.
Mapped Seismic Hazard Areas (Figure 26) cover the majority of the County. The northwest portion
of the County is Olympic National Forest which is presumably also susceptible to seismic activity
however parcel data for that area is not available for inclusion on this map.
Seismic hazard area development standards focus on effects to buildings and other facilities from
intense ground shaking and/or liquefaction. Attention to seismically induced landslides could also
cause structural damage to buildings, particularly on steeper slopes and shoreline bluffs. In addition,
the critical area regulations do not allow significant public buildings in seismic hazard areas; and the
future land use plan directs most growth away from these areas.
Earthquake near Belfair
shakes Puget Sound area
EpcenMrM42
47 463'N 123 OW*
VC
4.
leS
*1$° C4 dit'iMtitt0104
-1 ci'
..uacark unbi
na
'Shelton !awn*
fs..t�n
VI€�wrno�
Source:www.Olympian.Com
Mason County--Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1134
WORK PLAN
Figure 26 Seismic Hazard Areas Map
r—=
MASON COUNTY I ---- "
Seismic Hazard Areas ` E
I
r �
Legend
Mason County W RIAs
Waterbocties
Seismic Hazard Areas
Parcels
J Mason County
Date: 11/3/2017
•
Mason �`
Conservation
\! District
2 4 B 1.liles
Source:Mason County Department of Public Works,GIS Division
Mason County--Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 135
WORK PLAN
EROSION HAZARD I Erosion is a natural process in which the land surface is worn away by the
action of water, wind, ice or other geologic processes. The most common cause of erosion is water
falling or flowing across the land. Factors contributing to erosion hazard are soil type and slope.
Mason County is underlain by soils which are subject to severe erosion when disturbed. Such soils
include, but are not limited to, those for which the potential for erosion is identified in the Soil Survey
of Mason County, USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1960, or any subsequent revisions or addition to
this source. Erosion hazards generally occur on erosive soils where slopes exceed 15%. The erosion
process can be accelerated by development activity that exposes and disturbs soils so they are more
vulnerable to erosive forces. Further, increased areas of impervious surfaces reduce the infiltration of
rainfall, increase stormwater runoff, and result in even greater erosion potential. Increased runoff,
erosion, and sedimentation may adversely affect the physical and biological characteristics of streams
and other water resources. Erosion Hazards are similar to Landslide Hazards in that they are both
often created by, or aggravated by development activities such as clearing and grading. The
comprehensive plan controls the hazards through the critical areas regulations and by concentrating
development in suitable areas. Erosion Hazard Areas as mapped in Figure 27.
. / /- f ' IR+ ‘- $-. ' .' ' -\ t'
k 7 • ;,----- r; ... ' . •.,,,,, ' ..:ik.,.
. , .,,,,,,- ,_ ., ,,, ,. -. ,., _ ,...„ . ,..... ..
.,. ,
..,, ..._ ,..,,,,„ 16, .
,o/ . _ +„,_ 3t ,, 4,......,m, ?..,, -4 /.7, 'mow_4-l !
„....„,,,r5
.9 r ... : '
(Jy. .. -, `"- -
Erosio to . , . 1P eer Cr
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1136
WORK PLAN
Figure 27 Erosion Hazard Areas Map
MASON COUNTY -�'t_E
Erosion Hazard Areas 1 w ,s,'
s
•
l' r )3: '.
r
. , 4 '.;t4....,1.7 i's L I,
Legend 1 4,),fe
1 ><
NI Erosion Hazards Areas /` 1
=Mason County WRIAs I - Af ./ ''t
Waterbodies ,. ' �, '' /' '
Mason County - .� , J f - -y ,/` ;,/� k, .
Parcels ."_`Nr $ I/ = r r
Date: 11/3/2017 .. ' ~ s
r , 1/ i
, « it
r!
j Mason - i
I
Conservation
4iikup. District ; '
-�
0 2 4 81dlles
. i I I
Source:Mason County Department of Public Works,GIS Division
Mason County-Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 137
WORK PLAN
APPENDIX 2 EXISTING PLANS
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 138
WORK PLAN
EXISTING PLANS
The following describes portions of watershed plans as they pertain to agriculture, and its interface
within the areas.
ANNAS BAY CLOSURE RESPONSE STRATEGY, APRIL 2007. The Annas Bay Shellfish Protection
District encompasses approximately 190 developed parcels with 30 of those along shorelines. The
district contains one small animal feeding operation (<60 animals) adjacent to the Skokomish River,
Fi Jure 2 111a of Annas Bay Shellfish Protection District
Figure 28 Annas Bay N ' k. -----
Shellfish Protection VV E y `
District Map 00
S --�� 4 C.4
q Nq
a t t 1 Pull�lch C
0 5.a00
FM �� ' ~talc Park u
f ^—
06........
Indian � � amu Bay
11111.
........--c— 1 ' 1 la "
, sr• 0 A vi ,;,,,
....„-- fr I. jr, 4ilzt
<' >, , --4I, ,J
`. ,alutc
�� X1' , Kl
,0 r I R.nunlan
. i
/ --,' Purdy CaloR„' I/"o a"; /
40
Z
al".01F 4110F411
Ile
lir
/r — titteama
,\ / 41#0 ®\ItclltiJt 1lnu.u.m I h4n.t
✓- l:roNin= 1rra�
rv � ,,...0.4 (I..%SS
.� nuinl
t
� Cm
. .htnmal '
lii n„AJ.lit ltd MNI1.+MMcJ
r -IlneIr iIi.1
Li SYtd.om,hInhankcettmm
__12.--
Source:Annas Bay Closure Response Strategy
Mason County- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1139
WORK PLAN
and several hobby farms. It is bordered on the west by Highway 101 and runs south from Potlatch
State Park to Brockdale Road; it then follows the ridgeline north to Union. At Union, the district lies
adjacent to the Lower Hood Canal Shellfish Protection District, which extends on both sides of the
canal to Belfair.
Annas Bay was downgraded by the Washington Department of Ecology in 2005 due to high levels
of fecal coliform bacteria from non-point sources. Fecal coliform are bacteria found in the feces of
warm-blooded animals and can be used to detect the potential presence of disease-causing organisms
in water. Failing septic systems, livestock, pet waste, human recreational activities, and wildlife
(including seals) are potential sources of fecal coliform bacteria in the watershed. This triggered the
creation of a shellfish protection district and a protection program.
Pollution sources of concern include farm animal waste, pet waste, wildlife waste, and human sources.
Improper livestock manure handling and storage
can contribute to fecal coliform pollution. In
addition, livestock in the vicinity have access to
• ;��� riparian areas and surface waters which can
o�
q transport waste to shellfish beds. Strategies
,atiort Yon(erlisitot et outlined in the Plan included monthly and bi-
mish Pork Hood(mal Manna monthly water sampling, sanitary surveys of on-
Public Boat launch= site sewage septic systems, dye tests, and
I(National Park l livestock inventories. Pollution control options
for agricultural sources include development and
implementation of farm plans that protect water
Annus Buy C quality and technical and cost-share assistance
to help landowners implement best management
1,11,‘ � practices including riparian fencing, waste
storage structures, tree planting, erosion
control and gutters, downspouts and outlets.
4414%, The Plan also had a public outreach and
k Grill education component to provide the
community with information and resources as
well as oyster meat sampling, interactive field
t* trips for local schools, and workshops.
-45 ,'v The Annas Bay Strategy included nearly all the
91�
Slcokomish ltlbal components of the VSP Work Plan making it a
Headquarters potential resource for historical data. The
groundwork put in place for protecting water
quality aligns with the goals of VSP and
relationships cultivated during that process
could at some point be further built upon.
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 140
WORK PLAN
The Work Group could reach out periodically to Mason County Public Health for new
opportunities; however most of the activities associated with the Plan were complete in 2007.
BIG BEND SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICT, APRIL 2017. In September 2015, Washington
Department of Health downgraded 17 acres of shellfish growing beds from Approved to Conditionally
Approved in the Big Bend Area of Hood Canal. This area is largely developed along the marine
shoreline and relatively Figure 29 Big Bend Shellfish Protection District Map
undeveloped in the uplands.
As a Conditionally Approved
area, 5-day closures in Big !• .4) N
•9X, .--A,
Bend are triggered with . 1 •�
rainfall of 0.75 in or greater �€ rI
within 24 hours. Additionally ,
fir, SSD
.:�� .t� +
two sections within the area,
;
H and I (pink and green ._ '! ' - ,."
respectively in the map •
i ' E 309-
below), are seasonally closed - . j` _92 'g'
from May-September due to ;; f=� . „ ' •
•point source pollution from ,, it. -If. •' •
the nearby marina. �, — ;e '= Y
With the establishment of ••4'•'_ ` ` +yt. �s'%
the Big Bend Shellfish '` "r.,� '� 1'- -.
Protection District (SPD) in a . ,�"�' J �`, :
February 2016, Mason _ _
CountyPublic Health in ,-'�` - `'
collaboration with other local __ -
agencies developed a plan to .. ` . ---- ' - •c ••--•
identify, investigate and c1 .
monitor fecal contamination - V p
from adjacent shoreline and "d "r i liii. .
upland runoff affecting Big d°Bend sP°°°`R°..' `1. {. r _
• SYDat Sdompr Statures : �•• �.r
Bend to work towards an ttc.a.c '+.,
a
"approved" status for this He:,H ; ,,� . -
-,:•, 14C•w b .. •t
area. At this time, the SPD is •
_ e,,,�
meeting water quality __v �
standards. However Big
Bend is considered a high risk area so reclassification cannot occur until on the ground monitoring,
investigation and capacity building have occurred. The lower tolerance for risk exists for this area due
to a high presence of older shoreline on-site systems, general water quality trends in Hood Canal and
Mason County- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1141
WORK PLAN
stormwater management. The activities associated with this Plan's Work Plan Matrix were been
completed in 2016 and no new information is known to be available for use in the VSP.
MCLANE COVE SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICT, MAY 2016. McLane Cove is a small
embayment at the northeast end of Pickering Passage. Pickering Passage is located in the South Puget
Sound region and extends from Case Inlet in the North to Peale and Squaxin Passages and
Hammersley Inlet at the southern end. One of the perennial streams has been named McLane Creek
in previous Department of Health reports and has been variously categorized within the reports as
seasonal or perennial. The area has traditionally supported clams and oysters harvest. The drainage
area of these streams has been used to define the McLane Cove Clean Water District.
Pleel at- 4.4eriizr... 0
170
40_: 15 Irk
®�
P, / '� • :711
00. A MIN
� a l I
ler t'f. N. 18
AGE
PI GKERING . P
O
In 1990, a Shoreline Sanitary Survey found potential sources of untreated fecal pollution entering
McLane Cove from farm animals. By 1996, re-evaluation of McLane Cove found that agricultural
practices had been improved. However, this area continues to fail National Shellfish Sanitation
Program (NSSP) water quality standards for Approved classification. Strategies for improvement
included in the Plan's immediate goals are to reduce water pollution, meet state and federal water
quality standards for commercial shellfish, and ensure that water quality standards are maintained.
This would be accomplished by a variety of measures including identifying agriculture sites and
providing corrective assistance, if needed. It is unclear from this Plan what measures are currently
being taken to address potential farm related pollution. However, again working with the Health
Department to access previously observed contaminated sites and existing water quality information
could produce more outreach options.
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1142
WORK PLAN
McLane Cove Shellfish Protection District
. or
Fr.. e4F. . , ... , , i_ . ..
k• 7'i :,, d.
11- fir r /
•
br
1•-
41
..1 •
v �. 41. .! • `• ''`47•
•
� , . f! Y [ i '�+yr3 Sr .1:::
y • el re _
y _• i + ; t. J , ' N
Figure 30 McLane Cove Shellfish Protection District Map
Source:McLane Cove Shellfish Protection District Plan
OAKLAND BAY ACTION PLAN, AUGUST 2007. Oakland Bay is a small, relatively broad and
shallow estuary approximately four miles long and 3/4 of a mile wide with water depths averaging 1 0-
35 feet. (Figure 33) A large area of the foreshore is exposed to air at low tides. This inter-tidal
zone is predominately mud flats with narrow deeper channels. Due to the restrictive nature of
Hammersley Inlet, the long narrow waterway linking the bay to the Puget Sound Basin, the water in
Oakland Bay has high refluxing, low flushing and high retention rates. There are nine major
creeks: Deer, Cranberry, Campbell, Johns, Uncle John, Malaney, Shelton, Mill and Goldsborough.
The drainages of these creeks, together with the shoreline drainage have been used to define the
Oakland Bay Action Plan Focus Area.
Development on the shoreline and upland areas of Oakland Bay has been gradually expanding over the
years. Most development in the area is residential with some industry and commercial activity,
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 143
WORK PLAN
especially along the west and south sides of the bay. In most of the area on-site sewage systems treat
residential waste. The Shelton Wastewater Treatment Plant serves all residences and commercial
establishments within its service area along the south end of the bay. In 2007 there were about 102
agricultural activities with potential to impact the growing area are located in the watershed."
At the time of the plan, Oakland Bay water quality research and improvement efforts typically showed
non-point sources of pollution to include on-site sewage systems, storm water, livestock, pets, and
wildlife. Similar to McLane Cove, the Plan's primary goals were to reduce water pollution, meet state
and federal water quality standards, and ensure that water quality improvements are maintained.
However, unlike McLane Cove, the Oakland Bay plan had more detailed strategies described to meet
that goal. Most of Oakland Bay's pollution problems over the years have been sourced back to
sewage and sewer impacts since 1955. At that time, the evaluation of potential impacts from livestock
had been included as a nonpoint pollution source for fecal coliform bacteria. The Departments of
Ecology and Agriculture were to participate in water quality complaints to determine if agricultural
practices are in fact impactful. Strategies for improvement included organized agency involvement and
accountability, monitoring and performance measures, and overall changes at the policy and
permitting levels. Correcting water contamination from agricultural sources would involve providing
technical help to agricultural landowners, requiring conservation plans or environmental permits for
new agricultural buildings, and the County's response to water quality complaints that involve land use
in critical areas. Similar to the Annas Bay Strategy, the Plan for Oakland Bay closely aligns with the
VSP goals. In 2007 Mason County formed the Oakland Bay Clean Water District and appointed an
Advisory Committee. This Committee continues to hold meetings facilitated by the Mason County
Health Department. The Work Group and the District should become involved to a reasonable
extent in this Committee's activities and agenda, and share resources to further the VSP goals.
WRIA 14 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DRAFT PLAN, FEBRUARY 20061 (Kennedy—
Goldsborough Watershed). WRIA 14 is divided into five sub-basins--Case Inlet, Goldsborough,
Kennedy, Skookum, and South Shore. This Draft Plan was complete in 2006 however the Planning
Group was unable to reach consensus and it was ultimately not approved. The map in Figure 31 shows
the original boundaries of WRIA and was included in the Draft Plan. In 2008, however the WRIA
was divided into two parts — WRIA 14a and b. WRIA 14b is now included in WRIA 16 for Planning
purposes.
77Berbells,S.2003.2003 Shoreline Survey of the Oakland Bay Shellfish Growing Area.Department of Health.Olympia,WA.
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Source:WA Department of Ecology
Page 1 144
WORK PLAN
tt i._ T.�..,.a..some'd�»..�. Figure 32 shows the
'�' :"mo"°"""°'""'e"^� "^° portion of WRIA 14
f r3 ' +� r....�.1,.n.«.ossarw..s wnu i�
i �'. Na4 , { .............. a,,. sa.nww
r �. _. ,
° h��, �:r y'��� °"°""°"'°'°°°'"""' that is now considered
i L. A, j. 4 14b in blue cross
r,!" ` / • i` , ` , f,,,/,„,..; ,: I hatch. It contains that
' O:,, , Y ��;," � r,; w portion of Kennedy-
.. '•: P.O.(
Goldsborough that
''fib '3''' `yl ` drains into the
-1�. K-4..' N southern portion of
tom.
•''r -,4, ' the lower Hood Canal.
lb
`y( ,r°f i WRIA 14, t•
�' Like other parts of
south Puget Sound,
WRIA 14 KsnnidrOoldsborouph Creeks WRIA 14 features an
....... .•,} ,..Pm extensive network of
•
4,,,,..._
^V"" ' streams that issue
.._ iv....,.•
4 'j± : nO......_... a.. from springs,
1}'�'` . , ' ;• j =:�-. wetlands, small lakes,
•
,r.'. '. -:"--•e• . Olympia','-:1141 and surface water
Figure 31 WRIA 14 Kennedy Goldsborough Creeks Map
• • - -- , drainages. These
streams flow into shallow bays and inlets. Principal drainages include Cranberry, Goldsborough,
Kennedy, Mill, Sherwood, Johns, Deer, and Skookum Creeks. Despite its abundance of creeks, WRIA
14 has no major rivers.
The quality of water in many of WRIA 14's streams, lakes, and nearshore areas has been degraded in
the past. Five marine areas, including parts of Oakland Bay and Hammersley Inlet, have been on the
Department of Ecology's 303 (d)78 list of impaired waters because of fecal coliform bacteria levels
and/or stream temperatures. Likewise, 14 creeks in WRIA 14 have in the past been included on
the 303(d) list for fecal coliform, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and/or pH. WRIA 14 is also
home to many shellfish species, and water quantity and quality issues can have profound implications
for fish and shellfish habitat.
The limiting factors analysis conducted for WRIA 14 indicates that salmonid habitat has been
degraded by land use practices associated with forest management, removal of large woody
debris (LWD), development, and agriculture.79 Other issues include culvert problems,
78Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List The federal Clean Water Act, adopted in 1972, requires that all states restore their waters to be
"fishable and swimmable." Washington's Water Quality Assessment lists the water quality status for water bodies in the state. This assessment
meets the federal requirements for an integrated report under Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d
79Kuttel, M. 2002. Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Water Resource Inventory Area 14, Kennedy-Goldsborough Basin, Final Report—November
2002.Olympia,WA:Washington State Conservation Commission
ource:gis.co.mason.wa.us
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1145
WORK PLAN
nearshore habitat and riparian degradation, loss of channel complexity, and high
sedimentation levels.8°
The statute requires that watershed planning be a three-pronged comprehensive strategy toward
improvement, with production agriculture being just one of those prongs. (RCW 90.82.043(2)) The
scope of planning must include water quantity elements as provided in RCW 90.82.070, and may
include water quality elements as contained in RCW 90.82.090, habitat elements as contained in
RCW 90.82.100, and instream flow elements as contained in RCW 90.82.080. Each of these was
addressed in the WRIA 14 Plan with specific reference to the impacts of agricultural activity on fish
and shellfish habitat.
The draft plan did concede, however, that the data was insufficient to draw conclusions as to overall
water quality and quantity, and that a comprehensive water-resource monitoring program would be
needed. Recommendations from the Plan included education and smart management of "leaving"
water (storm water, sewage water, construction site water, residentially used water, irrigation water,
agriculture water, etc.) and "staying" water (conservation, low impact development, re-use, minimal
— water use, native vegetation, etc.) Without
the necessary data to suggest a nexus
• National Park between high levels of fecal coliform
' that may be found in this watershed and
agricultural activities, and considering
t
P the primary objective of these state
"°'°""m"-"• mandated plans is water "quantity",
Olympic
National
Fenn! there is a minimal amount of
- ii. identifiable action in this plan for
agricultural and critical area interface.
/ The planning efforts in WRIA 14a have
' not continued since that draft Plan; and
--\..
the recommendations provide a fairly
- universal approach to protection that
w can be incorporated in VSP for activity
`"" in that WRIA. Thisplanning effort does
not provide useful platform from which
'- 1 the VSP Work Plan can build.
WRIA 16 WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT PLAN, MAY 2006
Figure 32 WRIA Map with 14b (Skokomish-Dosewallips Watershed,
including 14b) The Skokomish-Dosewallips watershed is located on the eastern slope of the
8OWRIA 14 Watershed Management Plan,Kennedy-Goldsborough Watershed,Final Draft/February 2006
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1146
WORK PLAN
Olympic Peninsula, along the western and southern shores of Hood Canal. WRIA 16 includes
several rivers and streams that flow from headwaters in the Olympic Mountains down to Hood
Canal. The largest rivers in the watershed are the Skokomish, Dosewallips, Hamma Hamma, and
Duckabush Rivers. The southern shore of Hood Canal, between Union and the western outskirts of
Belfair, is also considered in this plan. Although technically part of the neighboring Kennedy-
Goldsborough watershed (WRIA 14b), Hood Canal's southern shore was considered here through
agreement with the WRIA 14 Planning Unit to help consolidate planning for Hood Canal and the
nearshore environment.
Five sub-basins are officially part of WRIA 16, and the sixth, the South Shore sub-basin, is officially part
of WRIA 14. The six sub-basins are the Dosewallips River, Duckabush River, Hamma Hamma River,
Finch/Lilliwaup Creeks, Skokomish River (including the North Fork, South Fork, and mainstem); and
South Shore.
WRIA I 6's streams and nearshore environment provide habitat for fish, shellfish, and other aquatic
animals and organisms. 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. Removal of large woody debris has reduced habitat
quality in many streams in WRIA 16.
Floodplain connectivity, channel complexity, and riparian conditions have all been degraded by
development. Riparian areas have been developed for residential or agricultural use, thereby removing
vegetation that helped control runoff and sedimentation, shaded streams and helped keep stream
temperatures cool, provided a source of large woody debris, provided habitat for terrestrial animals,
and naturally protected streambanks from erosion.
The WRIA 16 Plan recommends that those farms in or adjacent to critical areas of the WRIA have
a current farm plan. Farm plans should consider seasonal restrictions on animal pastures to protect
streams and floodplains from manure. It also recommends that local conservation districts seek
funding to I) prepare farm plans, 2) provide financial assistance to help landowners implement
agricultural best management-practices, and 3) evaluate how effectively the farm plans and best
management practices are being implemented.
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 147
WORK PLAN
As written, the WRIA 16 Plan reads as a precursor to VSP and as such fully supports the Program's
goals. The Plan's recommendations can be mirrored as a countywide strategy of best management
practices targeted toward real problems areas. Having an established foundation of needs can
facilitate the Work Plan's focus and future monitoring. However, the Plan has no schedule of
activities and no established funding source to implement any of the recommendations made within it.
This Plan does offer interest strategies for watershed planning, however would not provide a
foundation from which VSP could build.
Figure 33 WR1A 16 Skokomish Dosewallips Map
i
Oty.1 Mammal Foram
' c;
Duck sh I -
Olympic N anal Pao% -�� '
'` - / ,..` }`
- - ., - x /' . /• I
MaRnma Manreit•
i''''
•' 1I
c.
NS• yEIIN
' 6
I
•
Ilf r , • E
— , - 4. ‘"1— - i 1 i
dympk Notional co /'
• 7,f 1'r" (WRIA 141
0 40
. rill*
Source:WA Department of Ecology
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1148
WORK PLAN
HOOD CANAL INTEGRATED WATERSHED PLAN, MAY 2014 IThe Hood Canal Coordinating
Council (HCCC) partnered with a diverse array of organizations, agencies, and individuals to initiate
the development of The Hood Canal Integrated Watershed Plan (IWP). The IWP was intended to
be a comprehensive strategic framework for advancing a shared regional vision by integrating the full
range of existing and future natural resource management efforts across all relevant jurisdictions. The
scope of this document was scaled down from its original intent to something more feasible. The
2014 IWP was intended to (a) establish five-year strategic priorities for the HCCC to implement and
guide regional actions towards the Vision and (b) establish a framework for accountability of strategy
implementation, identification of strategic gaps, and continuous evaluation and adaptive management.
The overall vision of the IWP is "humans benefit from and coexist sustainably with a healthy Hood
Canal". Achieving that vision is focused on a sub-set of focal components, pressures, and strategies.
There are five local components: shellfish, commercial shellfish harvesting, forests, forestry, and
salmon, and the primary pressures impacting them are development, transportation corridors, climate
change and ocean acidification, and wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff. The plan outlines
a series of strategies to address these pressures and how to improve or reduce their impacts on the
focal components over a period of several months to several years. The strategies, targeting the
HCCC as well as other regional entities, include changes to policies and regulations; ecological
restoration, remediation, or enhancement efforts; and outreach, education and communication.
The IWP is a five-year plan with goals for annual monitoring reports and website interaction.
Some commonalities exist between this Plan and the VSP goals, and building a relationship with this
group would be overall
beneficial. However, placing
a large emphasis on the Hood Canal Coordinating Council
strategies within this plan will .,.,
likely not boost Mason "`
County VSP efforts.
HOOD CANAL COORDINATING COUNCIL'S HOOD CANAL REGIONAL POLLUTION
IDENTIFICATION AND CORRECTION, ANIMAL WASTE POLLUTION SOURCE
IDENTIFICATION STRATEGY, MARCH 2014 I Agricultural animals, livestock, pets and wildlife are
all valuable economic or recreational resources in Washington State. Agriculture is a cornerstone of
Washington State's economy, and Mason County has an annual market value of more than $40,000,000
in crops and livestock sales. There were approximately 377 farms in the County in 2012 with
livestock sales representing 94% of the total market value. This means that there were
approximately 5,000 cattle, hogs, sheep, and poultry covering approximately 24,000 acres of farmland
in Mason County and generating hundreds of thousands of pounds of animal waste. Animal fecal
waste is a public health risk as it can contain pathogenic bacteria and viruses that cause human
diseases. Livestock and agricultural waste pathogens include Campylobacter spp., Cryptosporidium
parvum, Listeria spp., Salmonella spp., and Escherichia coli. Water Pollution and Pathogens Fecal
pollution of surface waters is caused by human and animal waste discharged or leaked to the ground or
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 149
WORK PLAN
surface waters. During rain events, flowing surface water picks up pollutants like fecal waste, and
quickly transports them to streams, bays, beaches and lakes.
Animal waste in the Hood Canal Action Area is primarily a non-point pollutant because it comes
from many sources instead of a single point source. Non-point pollution is best addressed through
effective public education and outreach that increases awareness about Puget Sound pollution and
motivates residents to adopt new behaviors that prevent pollution from entering surface and
stormwater. Washington State has been clear that agricultural activity AND water quality are both
state priorities. This agricultural waste strategy is being developed to respond to this clear and
compelling state guidance. Portions of that strategy include,
• The Puget Sound Partnership's on-line resource center has a section on reducing pollution
from human and animal waste that includes runoff from farms with livestock.
• The Washington Conservation Commission is working with local conservation districts to
complete hundreds of conservation plans and install practices to prevent pollution.
• WSU Extension's website has a link to Livestock Management and Water Quality, a
publication that provides livestock owners and managers with techniques to address water
quality problems. They are developing a unique Small Farms Program to address Mason
County food and farm issues. The program focuses on teaching and implementing site—specific,
best available science approaches that builds a vibrant and sustainable agriculture industry that
is integrated with natural resource conservation efforts.
• Conservation districts encourage landowners to incorporate best management practices
(BMPs) that increase farm productivity and protect water quality. They provide free technical
assistance to agricultural landowners, supporting farmers as they implement practices to
protect water quality. Services include site visits, farm planning, manure management guidance,
and designing small-scale to engineered waste storage and compost structures. When possible,
cost-share funds are provided to assist landowners to implement eligible manure management
practices; and assist livestock owners with appropriate, site- and watershed-specific livestock
management strategies through farm planning, technical assistance and facilitating available
BMP cost-share implementation opportunities to prevent pathogen and nutrient pollution from
manure and mud runoff.
Successful education and outreach programs prevent pollution by developing approaches that result in
measurable adoption of specific behaviors. The social marketing process uses marketing principles
and techniques to influence public behaviors and has been used effectively to protect and improve
Puget Sound water quality.
The HCCC's Strategy is a clear framework that supports the VSP efforts toward water quality and
pollution prevention with respect to animal waste. This aligns with BMPs currently promoted and
practiced by the District for waste management, and the strategies run parallel to those incorporated
into the Work Plan. Working with the HCCC will further improve the overall success of the Program
through a consolidation of outreach efforts.
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 150
WORK PLAN
APPENDIX 3 SWOT ANALYSIS
‘15' )))
a
ido
11 , ,f./,h/ 7%,
Ai IP.
fG
4.iituril
Ca . 0e. .
'J
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1151
WORK PLAN
SWOT ANALYSIS
EARLY in the process the Work Group did a SWOT81 analysis exercise. This exercise looks at
those factors within and outside of the County that impact the future viability of agriculture and
reduce the conversion of farmland to other uses. Individual group members completed a four-part
worksheet and provided the following responses to each category:
STRENGTHS within our county WEAKNESSES within our county
that could enhance the future that might hinder the future
viability of agriculture viability of agriculture
OPPORTUNITES from outside our THREATS from outside our
county that could enhance the county that might hinder the
future viability of agriculture future viability of agriculture
STRENGTHS
• Ag science classes being taught in school
• Moving Mason Forward program to have a collective and collaborative impact on making a
healthy environment
• Local markets are strong for local produced goods— location dependent
• State and local elected officials who are pro-agriculture
• Mason Conservation District and WSU Extension Office provide a robust series of programs
with highly qualified and educated staff for technical assistance
• Affordable land costs
• Workforce development programs
• HOPE—school and community gardens
• Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group is an excellent resource
• Strong community; sense of family
• Good professionals available
WEAKNESSES
• No livestock/cattle auction
81SWOT analysis is an initialism for Strengths, Weaknesses,Opportunities,and Threats—and is a structured planning method that evaluates those
four elements of a project or business venture.A SWOT analysis can be carried out for a product,place,industry,or person. Source:Wikipedia>wild
>SWOT analysis
Mason County--Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1152
WORK PLAN
• No processing or cold storage facilities
• Youth culture is disinterested in, or disengaged from, farming activities
• No focus on early education; employing youth raises safety concerns and employer liabilities
• Transportation costs of operation
• Non-agricultural political influences
• No staffing capacity
• Lack of local support—fairs, 4-H, etc.
• Lack of financing and working capital; assistance not available due to financial constraints
• There is no integration of common interests between agriculture and aquiculture
• Topography
• Amount of publically owned land
• Lack of nurseries, lack of marketing
OPPORTUNITIES
• Technology; improved communications
• Create a dialogue of common interests between agriculture and aquiculture
• Demand in the aquaculture market
• Pacific Mountain Private Industry Council — programs for employment in Mason County
• HOPE Gardens
• USDA Food and Nutrition programs to assemble wellness programs; Farm to Table, Farm to
School
• Collaborate with Enterprise for Equity, making connections
• Utilize educational institutions—create internships for students to work on farms
• South Sound Food System Network — assist in attracting processors, people interested in
sustainability
• Farm to Table
• Economic Development Council Strategic Plan for Agro-Tourism
• Multi-purpose/-use lands
THREATS
• State legislature's reductions on small farm tax exemptions
• Climate change
• Aging operators—losing people to work or take over farms
• Increase in number of restrictions for the transportation of livestock
• Water allocation and availability issues
• Non-Agricultural political influence—Waters of the United States
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 153
WORK PLAN
APPENDIX 4 REGULATORY CONTEXT
. .
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 154
WORK PLAN
REGULATORY CONTEXT
THE VSP does not "limit the authority of a state agency, local government, or landowner to carry
out its obligations under any other federal, state, or local law." (RCW 36.70A.702(5)) Outside of the
Critical Areas Ordinance, all applicable local development regulations (for example, County's Buildings
and Construction Code) still apply.
As with local regulations, all state and federal regulations still apply under the VSP. Indeed, one
objective of the VSP is to "improve compliance with other laws designed to protect water quality
and fish habitat." (RCW 36.70A.700(2)(f)) Voluntary enhancements under the VSP can also support
agricultural viability by reducing regulatory risks and increasing regulatory certainty for agricultural
operators.
Mason County enrolled the entirety of the unincorporated areas in the VSP in 2012. So long as the
County participates in the VSP, regulatory requirements under the County's Critical Areas Section of
the Resource Management Ordinance (Chapter 8.52 MCC82) will not apply to "agricultural activities."
Participation in the VSP is defined as developing and implementing an approved work plan that
protects critical areas and maintains agricultural viability under the timeline established by the state.
The Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A) refers to the Shoreline Management Act (RCW
90.58) for the definition of"agricultural activities".
CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE
The VSP applies only where critical areas and agricultural activities overlap in unincorporated areas of
the County. Critical areas are defined under the GMA and include fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas, wetlands, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas (landslide,
seismic, and erosion hazards), and areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable
water (critical aquifer recharge areas).
The approach to developing and implementing the VSP differs from the regulatory approach to
protecting critical areas under the Resource Ordinance. Key differences between the Resource
Ordinance and VSP are highlighted below:
82 Mason County Code
Mason County--Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 155
WORK PLAN
RESOURCE ORDINANCE VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP
PROGRAM
Approach Protection regulatory Voluntary participation in individual
provisions, such as buffers, and stewardship plans
enforcement
Protection Preserve the functions and Prevent the degradation of functions
Standard values of the natural and values existing as of July 22, 201 I
environment, or safeguard the (RCW 36.70A.703(8))
public from hazards to health
and Safety (WAC 365-196-830)
Scale Site-by-Site Basis Collective, watershed basis
Monitoring None required Monitoring required demonstrating
that objective benchmarks are critical
area protection are met. Progress
reports are submitted every five
years to demonstrate progress.
Adaptive Periodic updates to the Adaptive management required if
Management Resource Ordinance are measurable benchmarks are not met.
required based on best
available science
Responsible Mason County VSP Watershed Work Group and
Party(ies) Washington Conservation
Commission
Other County, Continue to apply Continue to apply
State, and
Federal
Regulations
Table 30 Differences between VSP and Resource Ordinance
Although the critical areas provisions do not apply under the VSP, the remaining sections of the
Resource Ordinance and Agricultural Resource Lands Chapter (Section 8.52.061 MCC) continue to
apply.
Section 8.52.061 MCC, Agricultural Resource Lands, designates Mason County Agricultural Resource
Lands Agricultural Lands of Long-Term Commercial Significance and Open Space Agricultural
Property. These lands may not be converted to non-agricultural uses. The zoning ordinance (Chapter
17.03 MCC) provisions establish required building setbacks for lands adjacent to designated
agricultural lands. These setbacks are intended to prevent potential constraints on agricultural
practices imposed by adjacent incompatible uses. These provisions continue to apply.
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
The Mason County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) has jurisdiction over shorelines of the state
as defined therein. Within that jurisdiction (at minimum, within 200 feet of the ordinary high water
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1156
WORK PLAN
mark of "shorelines of the state"), both the local county SMP and VSP will apply. SMP regulations do
not change with a VSP, and apply the same as before. A local VSP work plan does not replace the
shoreline regulations of an SMP. VSP work plans identify voluntary practices to promote existing
agricultural activities while protecting critical areas, as an alternative to a regulatory approach. All
existing regulations, including SMPs and water quality regulations (e.g. Clean Water Act), still apply.
Voluntary measures to improve existing and ongoing farm practices are welcome, whether they
apply to land-based agriculture or aquaculture. However, under the Shoreline Management Act,
aquaculture is not agriculture, and there are specific regulations and permit requirements that will
continue to apply.83
•
•
•
Hope Island Marine Staze.Y.Par
Source:www.parks.state.wa.us
83 WAC I 73-26-241(3)(b)
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 157
WORK PLAN
APPENDIX 5 FARMS AND CROPS
Jr. '' ' ..c:!..
r
,T- , ot.,,i,-.)st. is,,,_.00
4440i-,
')1
44, la gilt
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 158
WORK PLAN
FARMS, CROPS AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY
THE National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) of the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) publishes the Census of Agriculture every five years.
It is the only source of uniform, comprehensive agricultural data for every State and county or
county equivalent. Census of agriculture data are routinely used by farm organizations,
businesses, State departments of agriculture, elected representatives and legislative bodies at
all levels of government,public and private sector analysts, the news media, and colleges and
universities.84
FARMS
The census provides a snapshot view of agriculture
as reported by farms and ranches throughout the '' 1 ? ,ws4 lit*f.'"6. ,,n.,
United States, and here in Mason County. The - :, kz +,-
definition of a farm is where the road divides, so to ., ., gid"` " .> <
speak, in this analysis. The census information is "`� " , ' 1 /` N
based on farms as defined by the USDA. "The 4, : . `+ ', i's "'4
census definition of a farm is any place from which a.• "4t t.:• 't ;.,rte:
$1,000 or more of agricultural products were !' ;c' IV-- ,�<.S'' *
produced and sold, or normally would have been '', .A , ; - ,
sold, during the census year."85 This is quite - Y
different from how the County gathers data on .,. .Y =
agriculture, and why the analysis will vary. The �` A� - '1 "� 11'1*.
census data on farms will provide specifics on a farm
and farm operator level, while the agricultural lands information from the County will be less defined
and categorized more broadly.
The farm data collected for this baseline evaluation is from the 2012 Census of Agriculture, with
comparisons to the 2007. The reason for the additional information is to show trends as well as the
current condition. The County covers approximately 614,056 acres, depending on the source of
the information. Utilizing the USDA's Census, of that total just under 4% of those acres are
farms. Close to the same percentage as the 2007 data no matter which total land acreage you
calculate from.
84USDA NASS,2012 Census of Agriculture,Ag Census Web Maps
8SUSDA NASS 2012 Census of Agriculture,Introduction
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1159
WORK PLAN
Table 31 Total Farm as Percent Total Land, 2007-2012
Agricultural activity 201 `: 2007 %A86
Land Area—acres 614,056 615,017 0%
Land Area— Farm acres 23,743 25,185 -6%
Percent of Acreage as Farms 3.9% 4.1% -5%
Conservation Lands — Farms 3 5 -50%
Conservation Lands—acres 137 86 59%
Conservation Farm Land describes the number of farms that have land enrolled in Conservation
Reserve, Wetlands Reserve, Farmable Wetlands or Conservation Reserve Enhancement Programs.
There are 50% fewer farms in 2012 with conservation land than there were in 2007; however, there is
nearly 60% more acres enrolled in conservation programs.
At first blush the next table shows a decline in almost every farm category. However, a closer look
at the first two items — farms and farm acres — indicates that while there are 20% fewer farms in
Mason County in 2012 than in 2007, the acreage only decreased by 6%. This could imply that there
may be fewer farms, but the size of those farms have increased or that many farms in 2007 that did
not stay farms in 2012 were smaller in acreage having less impact on the overall decrease in total farm
acres. What the above table ultimately reveals is that farms between 10 and 500 acres — mid size
farms — have drastically disappeared while the very small and the very large farms have survived and
even increased in numbers.
Table 32 Number Of Farms By Acreage, 2007-2012
Agricultural Activity 2012 2007 %A The market value of farm products sold
Farms 377 471 -20% over the past several years falls in line
Farm Acres 23,743 25,185 -6%
Average Farm Acreage 63 53 19% with the decreasing statistics of
Farms I to 9 acres 159 149 7% agriculture across the board so far. The
Farms 10-49 acres 157 227 -31% USDA classifies farms by gross sales, and
Farms 50 to 179 acres 45 70 -36% from that we can look at another way to
Farms 180 to 499 9 19 -53% visualize farming in Mason County. Small
Farms 500 to 999 4 4 0% family farms are those defined as having
Farms 1,000 acres or more 3 2 50% gross annual sales less than $250,000. In
2012, 361 out of 377 farms were classified
as small; this is 96% of all farms in Mason County. Of the remaining, only 13 farms grossed more
than $500,000 annually. This is an 18% increase in larger commercial family farms since 2007, and
a 23% increase in sales. The only other notable increase was in farms with annual gross sales of
between $20,000 and $25,000, and between $100,000 and $250.000. There is no immediately apparent
explanation for this limited improvement.
86%,6=percent delta or percent"change in"
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1160
WORK PLAN
Table 33 Number of Farms by Market Value, 2007-2012
FARMS BY MARKET 2007 % A
Less Than $1,000 144 177 -19%
Value Of Sales $27,000 $28,000 -4%
$1,000 - $2,499 54 70 -23%
Value Of Sales $89,000 $115,000 -23%
$2,500 - $4,999 47 55 -15%
Value Of Sales $169,000 $196,000 -14%
$5,000 -$9,999 39 52 -25%
Value Of Sales $264,000 $356,000 -26%
$10,000 - $19,999 26 34 -24%
Value Of Sales $337,000 $462,000 -27%
$20,000 - $24,999 12 8 50%
Value Of Sales $264,000 $176,000 50%
$25,000 - $39,999 9 13 -31%
Value Of Sales $280,000 $406,000 -31%
$40,000 - $49,999 3 12 -75%
Value Of Sales $130,000 $525,000 -75%
$50,000 - $99,999 10 15 -33%
Value Of Sales $693,000 $944,000 -27%
$100,000 - $249,999 17 15 13%
_ Value Of Sales $2,803,000 $2,144,000 31%
$250,000 - $499,999 3 9 -67%
Value Of Sales $1,081,000 $3,369,000 -68%
$500,000 Or More 13 I I 18%
Value Of Sales $34,665,000 $28,243,000 23%
Croplands and Livestock/Poultry Farms are a subset of farms in the Census and more narrowly
defined. Total croplands - harvested or not - have declined as well since 2007 at similar rates to
farms in general. Livestock also shows a decline with the exception of poultry which appears to be
holding steady if not slightly increasing.
87 USDA NASS,2012 Census ofAgriculture,2012 Census Volume 1, Chapter 2:County Level Data
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 1 6 I
WORK PLAN
Table 34 Crops and Livestock Numbers and Values, 2007-2012
Agricultural Activity 2012 2007 %A
Croplands— Farms 180 233 -23%
Livestock: Cattle, Hogs, Sheep— Farms 144 208 -31%
Livestock: Poultry— Farms 101 99 2%
Market Value—Crops $2,513,000 $1,606,000 56%
Market Value-Livestock, Poultry, etc. $38,296,000 $35,357,000 8%
Market Value of Products - Total $40,809,000 $36,963,000 10%
Another interesting notation of these farm statistics, similar to that of overall farm increase in farm
size, is that while the number of farms in Mason County is shrinking, the profits are growing. There
has been an increase of 10% in total market value of agricultural products between 2007 and 2012.
Table 35 Farm Operators, 2007-2012
Agricultural Activity 2012 2007 %0 Panning in a different farm
Farm Operators 635 794 -20% direction, the census data
Farm Operator's Primary Occupation 153 165 -7% also looks at patterns in
Farm Operator's Not Primary Occupation 224 306 -27%
<_ 2 Years on Present Farm 14 18 -22% farm operators and
3-4 Years on Present Farm 17 40 _58% operations. In 2012 there
5-9 Years on Present Farm 70 88 _20% were 635 farm operators
>_Years on Present Farm 276 325 -15% in the County for 377
Average Years on Present Farm 18.2 18.I 1% farms. Most farms have
Under 25 Years of Age 4 0 400% one (178) or two (159)
25-34 Years of Age 25 12 108% operators; there were
35-44 Years of Age 24 61 -61% four farms that actually
45-54 Years of Age 61 143 -57% had five or more
55-59 Years of Age 52 86 -40% operators.
60-64 Years of Age 67 49 37%
65-69 Years of Age 80 46 74% The number of farm
>_ 70 Years of Age 64 74 -14% operators has decreased
Average Age 58.9 56.8 4% from 794 in 2007. This
Internet Access 300 325 -8% follows suit with the
decrease in farms almost
exactly — 20%. The same distribution of farms to farms operators hasn't deviated much from 2007
to 2012, with the majority of farms having only one or two operators.
III Farm operation as a primary occupation applied to 153 of the total in 2012, a
decrease of 7% over the prior five years. The decrease in farm operation as
something other than a primary occupation took a far greater decrease of nearly
30% during that same time frame. Farms with operators being present for a
period of four or fewer years have substantially decreased, with the least amount
of change in those operators present more than ten years. The average number
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1162
WORK PLAN
of years has remained constant, however, at just about 18 years. The highest degree of change can be
seen in the age of farm operators. In 2007 there were very few operators under the age of 35; now,
however, this age group has increased by more than 400%. The decrease in age groups has
impacted the mid-age range with about 60% fewer operators between the ages of 35 and 59. The
trend takes another upturn with the over 60 age group increasingly becoming operators by 37% to
74%. The average age of an operator is closer now to 60 than 50 as it was in 2007. This shows
farming an as occupation for the younger families just starting out, and the retirees starting on a second
career.
As an aside point of interest, there are 8% fewer farms that have internet access in 2012 than 2007.
This is the opposite of what one might expect considering the direction of technology; however it
may in fact be a reflection of an older generation at the helm.
CROPS
Not only has the size and number of farms changed over the past five years, but the pattern continues
in a similar fashion with the amount and types of crops and livestock. Overall the number of cattle
farms has decreased by nearly 40%, while the number of cattle has increased by 11%. This mirrors
some of the same trends seen in earlier discussions. The amount of farms decreasing leaving the
remaining farmers challenged to meet product demands. The number of beef cattle farms has also
decreased 40% since 2007 and the number of beef cattle by 30%. Dairy, or milk, cattle farms have
increased substantially by 83%. Interestingly however, with the addition of dairy farms, the number of
milk cattle decreased by more than 50%. Although not to the same degree, the same reductions in
both farms and livestock can be seen in hogs, pigs, sheep, and lambs. Mason County has a variety of
other kinds of livestock including horses, ponies, mules, donkeys, alpacas, llamas, rabbits and poultry.
Poultry farms have slightly increased ... 2% ... with the number of poultry actually decreasing by 37%,
same as with the milk cattle.
Table 36 Number Of Crop And Livestock Farms, 2007-2012
CROPS FARMS % A LIVESTOCK % L
2012 2007 2012 2007
Cattle and Calves 90 148 -39% 2218 2002 11%
Beef 65 108 -40% 791 1133 -30%
Milk I I 6 83% 21 43 -51%
Hogs and Pigs 17 23 -26% 62 98 -37%
Sheep and Lambs 37 46 -20% 3 I 5 538 -41%
Goats 42 275
Milk 16 89
Angora 0 0
Meat 31 186
Horses and Ponies 97 466
Mules, Burros and Donkeys 12 33
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 163
WORK PLAN
CROPS FARMS % A LIVESTOCK %
2012 2007 2012 2007
Poultry 102 100 2% 2846 4495 -37%
Alpaca 17 204
Llamas 16 40
Rabbits, Live 12 45
Other Livestock 3
Source: USDA Census of Agriculture
There are also a variety of other types of poultry in the County, the numbers and locations of which
are withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual farms. These include chukars (partridge), ducks,
emus, geese, peacocks,
quail and roosters.
2012 Farm Land Use Percentages
There are not many
crops in Mason County,
and what is here is
1296 lb,
relatively small
■Cropland compared to some of
1596 WoodlandState's eastern
counties. These pie
Pasture charts illustrate the
Other uses percentage of land
53% used as cropland verses
other farm uses.
2007 Farm Land Use Percentages
1496 Ilk
•Cropland
19% Woodland
Pasture
Other uses
43%
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1164
WORK PLAN
According to the USDA's Census of Agriculture88, cropland
...includes cropland harvested, other pasture and grazing land that could have been used for
crops without additional improvements, cropland on which all crops failed or were
abandoned, cropland in cultivated summer fallow, and cropland idle or used for cover crops
or soil improvement but not harvested and not pastured or grazed.
Conversely, woodland, which comprises the majority of Mason County's farm use, is categorized to
include
...natural or planted woodlots or timber tracts, cutover and deforested land with young
growth which has or will have value for wood products and woodland pastured.Land covered
by sagebrush or mesquite was reported as Permanent pastureland and rangeland or other
land. Land planted for Christmas tree production and short rotation woody crops was
reported in Cropland harvested, and land in tapped maple trees was reported as Woodland
not pastured.89
The ratios of land use make sense when considering the types of crops and agricultural products are
grown here. The majority of what is grown in Mason County is hay, with 65 forage farms in 2012 — a
16% increase since 2007. The second largest crop, excluding Christmas trees, is berries increasing 9%
over the past five years. Mason County is also the 2"d largest production of cut Christmas Trees and
short rotation woody crops in the State, and the 3rd largest cut flowers and florist greens.90 Snap
beans made an impressive 175% increase from eight farms to 22. Large increases are also seen in
broccoli, cabbage, carrots, onions, pumpkins, squash, sweet corn and tomatoes. Sharp declines have
also occurred leaving some products no longer farmed in Mason County — asparagus, corn, eggplant,
lettuce, mustard greens, and fresh cut herbs. There are also a number of orchards in the County,
although about 30% less than in 2007. Apples, sweet and tart cherries, grapes, pears, and plums are all
grown here.
Table 37 Types and Size of Crops, 2007-2012
Crops Farms % Acres %d
2012 2007 2012 2007
Forage (hay) 65 56 16% 2474 2063 20%
Vegetables 28 28 0 88 83 6
Asparagus 0 4 -100 I -100
Corn 0 4 -100 5 -100
Snap Beans 22 8 175 5 3 67
Beets 6 6 0 I I 0
Broccoli 4 I 300 0.5
88 USDA NASS,2012 Census of Agriculture,2012 Census Volume I,Chapter 2:County Level Data
89 USDA NASS,2012 Census of Agriculture,2012 Census Volume I,Chapter 2:County Level Data.Available at
www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_l,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Washington
9°USDA NASS,2012 Census of Agriculture,2012 Census Volume I,Chapter 2:County Level Data.Available at
www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_I,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Washington
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1165
WORK PLAN
Crops Farms %a Acres %
2012 2007', 2012 2007
Cabbage 2 I 100
Carrots 15 6 150 3 1 200
Cucumbers & Pickles 14 12 17 2 4 -50
Eggplant 0 2 -100
Garlic 2 3 -33
Herbs, fresh cut 0 6 -33
Lettuce 0 5 -100 I -100
Mustard greens 0 I -100
Onions II 3 267 2 0.5 300
Peas, green II 5 120 I I 0
Peppers, Bell 1 3 -67
Potatoes 10 14 -29 2 2 0
Pumpkins 10 8 25
_Squash 4 3 33 2
Sweet corn 17 9 89 43 45 -4
Tomatoes 14 12 17 I 2 -50
Other vegetables 6 9 -33 4 5 -20
_Orchards 21 31 -32 19 54 -65
_Apples 15 5
Sweet cherries 9 4
—Tart cherries 3 I
Grapes 14 7
Pears 7 2
Plums & prunes 4
Berries 25 23 9 12 9 33
Blackberries & dewberries 8 2
Blueberries, tame 15 6
Currents 1
Raspberries, red 8 2
Strawberries 5
Other berries 2
Aquatic plants 0 2 -100
Bulbs, corms, rhizomes, and 2 2 0
tubers
Cuttings, seedlings, liners, and 0 I -100
plugs
Floriculture & bedding crops 16 18 -I I 178 116 53 _
Bedding/garden plants 7 8 -13 I -100
Cut flowers & cut florist 10 16 -38 176 115 53
greens
Foliage plants, indoor 2 I 100
Mason County--Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 166
WORK PLAN
i Farms %a Acres %
2012 2007
Potted flowering plants 4 I 300
Greenhouse vegetables and 3 I 200
herbs
Greenhouse tomatoes 2 1 100
Mushrooms 0 I -100
Nursery stock crops 10 19 -47 10 31 -68
Vegetable seeds I -100
Vegetable transplants I I 0
Cut Christmas trees 40 50 -20 1026 934 10
Short rotation woody crops 6 5 20 23 62 -63
While shorelands are not subject to the VSP and therefore aquaculture is not included in these
statistics, it is remarkable to note that Mason County is 1 s` in the state and 5th in the nation for
production.
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 167
WORK PLAN
APPENDIX 6 GOALS , BENCHMARKS ,
MONITORING , AND ADAPTIVE
MANAGEMENTS
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 168
WORK PLAN
Table 38 Goals I And 2,Benchmarks and Adaptive Management
GOAL I —PROTECT
CRITICAL AREA GOAL 2—
FUNCTIONS AND ENHANCE
TOTAL VALUES ON CRITICAL AREA BEST JULY 2011 BMP
AGRICULTURAL FUNCTION AND
VALUES THROUGH MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
AGRICULTURE JULY 201 I
CRITICAL &CRITICAL BASELINE LANDS AT A VOLUNTARY, PRACTICES BASELINE
AREA WRIA AREA JULY 2011 ACRES OF WATERSHED LEVEL INCENTIVE-BASED
BASELINE CRITICAL AS THEY EXISTED MEASURES
INTERFACE AREA IN AS OF JULY 22,2011
WRIA TRIGGER
BENCHMARKS (MONITORING
Protection,Enhancement and Participation
PROGRAM— ACTIONS
APPENDIX 7)
Determine reasons
Brush Management 53 Acres for reduced BMPs
Kennedy
and options for
Goldsborough 1,806 36,703
reinstatements
WIRA 14
5%annual increase of Heavy Use 24 Units
BMP implementation Protection Area Meet with District
Maintain baseline acreage Staff to determine
(based on averaged
of Agriculture and if lack of available
Critical Area Interface annual implementation Herbaceous Weed <5%annual increase funding is
over 5-year period of Control in BMP preventing BMP
Kitsap 244 4,004 Maintain BMP each BMP through the implementation
WRIA IS Implementation County) implementation
Nutrient <7 completed Determine if
Critical 83 acres P
Aquifer Maintain 7.5 farm plans Increase annual number Management ISPs/year landowners in
9 of Farm Plans(Individual
Recharge per year these areas are not
g Stewardship Plans)to 16
Areas Restoration of < 15 ISP Checklists receiving outreach
Maintain outreach to all 24 acres receive/year information
Skokomish operators annually Increase annual Rare Communities
Dosewallips 1,469 11,255 operator participation Outreach methods Meet with other
WRIA 16 levels by 50%
Return rate of IS ISP Tree Shrub not reaching all technical
Checklists per year Establishment 132 acres operators assistance
Return rate of 23 ISP
Checklists per year providers to
ascertain level of
Composting 7 units landowner interest
Lower Facility and possible
Chehalis 735 69,122 roadblocks
WRIA 22
Prescribed Grazing 20 acres Re-evaluate
benchmarks
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1169
WORK PLAN
GOAL I –PROTECT GOAL 2–
CRITICAL AREA ENHANCE
FUNCTIONS AND CRITICAL AREA
TOTAL VALUES ON FUNCTION AND BEST JULY 2011 BMP
AGRICULTURE JULY 201 I AGRICULTURAL VALUES THROUGH MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
CRITICAL &CRITICAL BASELINE LANDS AT A VOLUNTARY, PRACTICES BASELINE
AREA WRIA AREA JULY 2011 ACRES OF WATERSHED LEVEL INCENTIVE-BASED
BASELINE CRITICAL AS THEY EXISTED MEASURES
INTERFACE AREA IN AS OF JULY 22,201 I
WRIA TRIGGER
BENCHMARKS (MONITORING ACTIONS
Protection,Enhancement and Participation PROGRAM–
APPENDIX 7)
Locate area(s)of
5%annual increase of Fence 22,383 feet change and follow
up with
KennedyBMP implementation landowners to
Goldsborough 1,169 28,353 (based on averaged
WIRA 14 annual implementation determine
contributingover 5-yearperiod ofNutrient Any changes in
factors
each BMP through the Management 83 acres interface(future
County,not all BMPs years monitoring will Determine reasons
have been implemented — — determine how much
for reduced BMPs
Maintain baseline acreage in recent past) change will warrant and options for
of Agriculture and Restoration of 24 acres adaptive p
Reduce agricultural and Rate Communities reinstatements
management)
Critical Area Interface gement)
Kitsap 162 8,454 Maintain BMP flood area interface to Meet with District
Frequently WRIA 15 Implementation less than 2011 baseline <5%annual increase Staff to determine
9 Y by maintaining and in BMP
Flooded Maintain 7.5 farm plans if lack of available
reconfiguring Filter Strip implementation
Areas per year
ear agricultural activities funding is
Maintain outreach to all away from those areas <7 completed preventing BMP
operators annually implementation
Return rate of 15 ISP ISPs/year
Increase annual number Stormwater Runoff
Checklists per year Determine if
Skokomish of Farm Plans(Individual Control < 15 ISP Checklists landowners in
Stewardship Plans)to 16 receive/year
Dosewallips 1,537 16,702 these areas are not
WRIA 16 Increase annual Outreach methods receiving outreach
operator participation Dikes not reaching all information
levels by 50% operators
Meet with other
Return rate of 23 ISP technical
Lower Checklists per year assistance
Chehalis 180 6,026 Dam,Division 499 feet providers to
WRIA 22 ascertain level of
landowner interest
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1170
WORK PLAN
GOALI —PROTECT
GOAL 2—
CRITICAL AREA ENHANCE
FUNCTIONS AND CRITICAL AREA
TOTAL VALUES ON FUNCTION AND BEST JULY 2011 BMP
AGRICULTURE JULY 2011 AGRICULTURAL VALUES THROUGH MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
CRITICAL
&CRITICAL BASELINE LANDS AT A VOLUNTARY, PRACTICES BASELINE
AREA WRIA AREA JULY 2011 ACRES OF WATERSHED LEVEL INCENTIVE-BASED
BASELINE CRITICAL AS THEY EXISTED MEASURES
INTERFACE AREA IN AS OF JULY 22,201 I
WRIA TRIGGER
BENCHMARKS (MONITORING
PROGRAM— ACTIONS
Protection,Enhancement and Participation
APPENDIX 7)
and possible
Channel roadblocks
Stabilization Re-evaluate
benchmarks
5%annual increase of Locate area(s)of
BMP implementation Fence 22,383 feet change and follow
(based on averaged up with
Kennedy Any changes in
annual implementation landowners to
Goldsborough 572 27,207 _ interface(future
over 5-year period of determine
WIRA 14 years monitoring will
each BMP through the contributing
Maintain baseline acreage County) Access Control 10 acres determine how much factors
of Agriculture and change will warrant
Critical Area Interface Reduce agricultural and adaptive Determine reasons
wetland interface to less management) for reduced BMPs
Maintain BMP than 2011 baseline by: and options for
Implementation Filter Strip <5%annual increase
(I)maintaining and reinstatements
reconfiguring in BMP
Wetlands Kitsap 141 6,960 Maintain 7.5 farm plans Implementation
p
WRIA 15 per year agricultural activities ImMeet with District
away from wetland <7 completed Staff to determine
Maintain outreach to all areas;or(2)restoring Watering Facility ISPs/year if lack of available
operators annually and enhancing wetlands funding is
in or near agricultural < 15 ISP Checklists preventing BMP
Return rate of 15 ISP activity utilizing wetland receive/year implementation
sensitive BMPs
Checklists per year Composting 3 units Determine if
Skokomish Increase annual number Facility Outreach methods landowners in
Dosewallips 446 13,916 of Farm Plans(Individual _. not reaching all these areas are not
WRIA 16 Stewardship Plans)to 16 operators receiving outreach
Waste Storage 5 units information
Increase annual Structure
operator participation I Meet with other
1
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1171
WORK PLAN
GOAL I –PROTECT GOAL 2–
CRITICAL AREA ENHANCE
FUNCTIONS AND CRITICAL AREA
TOTAL VALUES ON FUNCTION AND BEST JULY 201 I BMP
AGRICULTURE JULY 2011 AGRICULTURAL
VALUES THROUGH MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
&CRITICAL BASELINE LANDS AT A PRACTICES BASELINE
VOLUNTARY,
CRITICAL WRIA AREA JULY 2011 ACRES OF WATERSHED LEVEL
INCENTIVE-BASED
AREA BASELINE CRITICAL AS THEY EXISTED
INTERFACE AREA IN AS OF JULY 22,201 I MEASURES
WRIA TRIGGER
BENCHMARKS (MONITORING
PROGRAM– ACTIONS
Protection,Enhancement and Participation
APPENDIX 7)
levels by 50% technical
Return rate of 23 ISP Wetland Wildlife assistance
Checklists per year Habitat 2.5 acres providers to
Lower Management ascertain level of
Chehalis 49 6,567 landowner interest
WRIA 22
and possible
Prescribed Grazing 20 acres roadblocks
Re-evaluate
benchmarks
5%annual increase of Locate area(s)of
Maintain baseline acreage BMP implementation Brush Management 53 acres Any changes in change and follow
of riculture and (based on averaged interface(future up with
Kennedy annual implementation years monitoring will landowners to
Goldsborough 59 8,177 Critical Area Interface over 5-year period of determine how much determine
WIRA 14 each BMP through the change will warrant contributing
Maintain BMP County) Conservation adaptive factors
Implementation Cover 1 acres management)
Erosion Reduce agricultural and <5%annual increase Determine reasons
Hazards Maintain 7.5 farm plans erosion hazard area — in BMP for reduced BMPs
Areas per year interface to less than implementation and options for
Maintain outreach to all
2011 baseline by:(I) Prescribed Grazing 20 acres <7 completed reinstatements
operators annually maintaining and ISPs/year
Kitsap reconfiguring < 15 ISP Checklists Meet with District
WRIA 15 7 7,051 agricultural activities receive/year Staff to determine
Return rate of 15 ISP away from erosion Outreach methods if lack of available
Checklists per year areas;or(2)utilizing Heavy Use not reaching all funding is
specific to erosion Protection Area 24 units
BMPs
operators preventing BMP
areas implementation
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1172
WORK PLAN
GOAL I —PROTECT
CRITICAL AREA GOAL 2—
FUNCTIONS AND ENHANCE
TOTAL VALUES ON CRITICAL AREA BEST JULY 201 I BMP
AGRICULTURAL FUNCTION AND
VALUES THROUGH MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
AGRICULTURE JULY 201 1
&CRITICAL BASELINE LANDS AT A VOLUNTARY, PRACTICES BASELINE
CRITICAL WRIA AREA JULY 2011 ACRES OF WATERSHED LEVEL INCENTIVE-BASED
AREA BASELINE CRITICAL AS THEY EXISTED
INTERFACE AREA IN AS OF JULY 22,2011 MEASURES
WRIA TRIGGER
BENCHMARKS (MONITORING
Protection,Enhancement and Participation
PROGRAM— ACTIONS
APPENDIX 7)
Increase annual number Determine if
of Farm Plans(Individual Field Border landowners in
Skokomish Stewardship Plans)to 16 these areas are not
Dosewallips 42 1.559 receiving outreach
WRIA 16 Increase annual information
operator participation Roof Runoff
levels by 50% Structure 26 units Meet with other
technical
Return rate of 23 ISP assistance
Checklists per year i providers to
' ascertain level of
Diversion 499 feet landowner interest
Lower and possible
Chehalis 0.4 69 roadblocks
WRIA 22
Re-evaluate
Mulching 7 acres benchmarks
Maintain baseline acreage 5%annual increase of Any changes in Locate area(s)of
Fish and of Agriculture and BMP implementation Fencing 22,383 feet interface(future change and follow
Critical Area Interface (based on averaged years monitoring will up with
Wildlife Kennedy annual implementation determine how much landowners to
Habitat Goldsborough 923 4,113 Maintain BMP over 5 year period of change will warrant determine
Conservation WIRA 14 Implementation each BMP through the adaptive contributing
Areas County) Conservation management) factors
Maintain 7.5 farm plans Cover I acre
per year Reduce agricultural and <5%annual increase Determine reasons
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1173
WORK PLAN
GOAL I —PROTECT
GOAL 2—
CRITICAL AREA ENHANCE
FUNCTIONS AND CRITICAL AREA
TOTAL VALUES ON FUNCTION AND BEST JULY 2011 BMP
AGRICULTURE JULY 2011 AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
LANDS ATA VALUES THROUGH PRACTICES BASELINE
CRITICAL &CRITICAL BASELINEVOLUNTARY,
AREA WRIA AREA JULY 2011 ACRES OF WATERSHED LEVEL INCENTIVE-BASED
BASELINE CRITICAL AS THEY EXISTED MEASURES
INTERFACE AREA IN AS OF JULY 22,2011
WRIA TRIGGER
BENCHMARKS (MONITORING
Protection,Enhancement and Participation
PROGRAM— ACTIONS
APPENDIX 7)
fish and wildlife in BMP for reduced BMPs
Maintain outreach to all conservation area implementation and options for
operators annually interface to less than Prescribed Grazing 20 acres reinstatements
2011 baseline by:(I) <7 completed
Kitsap 57 2,657 Return rate of 15 ISP maintaining and ISPs/year Meet with District
WRIA IS Checklists per year reconfiguring Staff to determine
agricultural activities < 15 ISP Checklists if lack of available
Heavy Use
away from habitat areas; protection Area j 24 units receive/year funding is
or(2)utilizing BMPs preventing BMP
specific to habitat areas Outreach methods implementation
not reaching all
Increase annual number operators Determine if
of Farm Plans(Individual Field Border landowners in
Skokomish Stewardship Plans)to 16 these areas are not
Dosewallips 533 21,392 receiving outreach
WRIA 16 Increase annual information
operator participation Roof Runoff
levels by 50% Structure 26 units Meet with other
technical
Return rate of 23 ISP assistance
Checklists per year providers to
ascertain level of
Diversion 499 feet landowner interest
Lower and possible
Chehalis -- -- roadblocks
WRIA 22 Re-evaluate
benchmarks
Mulching 7 acres
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1174
WORK PLAN
Table 39 Goal 3 Benchmarks and Ada•tive Mana ement
GOAL 3—ENSURE THE VIABILITY
AGRICULTURE& TOTAL BASELINE OF AGRICULTURE AND REDUCE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
CRITICAL AREA ACRES OF THE CONVERSION OF
CRITICAL AREA WRIA BASELINE INTERFACE AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO TRIGGER
(ACRES) ACTIVITY IN WRIA OTHER USES (MONITORING ACTIONS
PROGRAM—
BENCHMARKS APPENDIX 7)
Kennedy
Goldsborough 1,806 4,856 Locate area(s)of reduction to follow
WRIA 14 up with Landowners to determine
contributing factors
Maintain baseline acreage of Interface <4,254 baseline acres of Meet with District Staff to determine
Kitsap WRIA 15 244 364 interface status of funding programs that may
Maintain baseline acreage of Agricultural impact preservation or expansion of
Critical Aquifer <8,015 baseline acres of
Recharge Areas Activity agricultural activities agriculture,and the completion of
Skokomish Farm Plans
Dosewallips 1,469 1,959 Maintain 2011 annual average baseline of 7.5 <7.5 annually completed
WRIA 16 completed Farm Plans Meet with County Officials to
Farm Plans determine if policy or regulation
amendments have been made that
Lower Chehalis 735 835 may impact preservation or expansion 1
WRIA 22 of agriculture
Kennedy Locate area(s)of reduction to follow
up with Landowners to determine
Goldsborough 1,169 4,856
WRIA 14 contributing factors(e.g.why farming
activity is expanding or moving into
>3,048 baseline acres of flooded areas)
Maintain baseline acreage of Interface interface
Kitsap WRIA 15 162 364 Meet with District Staff to determine
Maintain baseline acreage of Agricultural status of funding programs that may
Frequently Activity <8.015 baseline acres of impact preservation or expansion of
Flooded Areas agricultural activities
Skokomish agriculture,and the completion of
Dosewallips 1,537 1,959 Maintain 2011 annual average baseline of 7.5 Farm Plans
<7.5 annually completed
WRIA 16 completed Farm Plans Farm Plans
Meet with County Officials to
determine if policy or regulation
Lower Chehalis 180 835 amendments have been made that
WRIA 22 may impact preservation or expansion
of agriculture
Kennedy Maintain baseline acreage of Interface > 1,206 baseline acres of Locate area(s)of reduction to follow
Wetlands Goldsborough 572 4,856 interface up with Landowners to determine
WRIA 14 Maintain baseline acreage of Agricultural contributing factors(e.g.why farming
Activity <8,015 baseline acres of activity is expanding or moving into
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 175
WORK PLAN
GOAL 3–ENSURE THE VIABILITY
AGRICULTURE& TOTAL BASELINE OF AGRICULTURE AND REDUCE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
CRITICAL AREA ACRES OF THE CONVERSION OF
CRITICAL AREA WRIA BASELINE INTERFACE AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO TRIGGER
(ACRES) ACTIVITY IN WRIA OTHER USES (MONITORING ACTIONS
PROGRAM–
BENCHMARKS APPENDIX 7)
agricultural activities wetlands)
Maintain 2011 annual average baseline of 7.5
Kitsap WRIA 15 141 364 completed Farm Plans <7.5 annually completed Meet with District Staff to determine
Farm Plans status of funding programs that may
impact preservation or expansion of
Skokomish agriculture,and the completion of
Dosewallips 446 1,959 Farm Plans
WRIA 16
Meet with County Officials to
determine if policy or regulation
Lower Chehalis 49 835 amendments have been made that
WRIA 22 may impact preservation or expansion
— -----___– –-_— of agriculture
Locate area(s)of reduction to follow
Kennedy up with Landowners to determine
Goldsborough 204 4,856 contributing factors(e.g.why farming
WRIA 14 activity is expanding or moving into
>290 baseline acres of landslide hazard areas)
Maintain baseline acreage of Interface interface
Kitsap WRIA 15 33 364 Meet with District Staff to determine
Maintain baseline acreage of Agricultural status of funding programs that may
Landslide Hazard <8,015 baseline acres of
Activity impact preservation or expansion of
Areas agricultural activities
Skokomish agriculture,and the completion of
Dosewallips 29 1,959 Maintain 2011 annual average baseline of 7.5 Farm Plans
WRIA 16 completed Farm Plans <7 5 annually
Plans completed
— _ Meet with County Officials to
determine if policy or regulation
Lower Chehalis 23 835 amendments have been made that
WRIA 22 may impact preservation or expansion
of agriculture
Kennedy >7,589 baseline acres of Locate area(s)of reduction to follow
Maintain baseline acreage of Interface
interface upwith Landowners to determine
RIA Goldsborough14 4,814 4,856 contributing factors
Seismic Hazard Maintain baseline acreage of Agricultural <8,015 baseline acres of
Areas Actrvlty agricultural activities Meet with District Staff to determine
Kitsap WRIA 15 314 364 Maintain 2011 annual average baseline of 7.5 status of funding programs that may
<7.5 annually completed impact preservation or expansion of
completed Farm Plans Farm Plans agriculture,and the completion of
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 176
WORK PLAN
GOAL 3—ENSURE THE VIABILITY
AGRICULTURE& TOTAL BASELINE OF AGRICULTURE AND REDUCE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
CRITICAL AREA ACRES OF THE CONVERSION OF
CRITICAL AREA WRIA AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO TRIGGER
BASELINE INTERFACE AGRICULTURAL
(ACRES) ACTIVITY IN WRIA OTHER USES (MONITORING ACTIONS
PROGRAM—
BENCHMARKS APPENDIX 7)
Skokomish Farm Plans
Dosewallips 1,714 1,959 Meet with County Officials to
WRIA 16
determine if policy or regulation
amendments have been made that
Lower Chehalis may impact preservation or expansion
WRIA 22 747 835 of agriculture
Locate area(s)of reduction to follow
Kennedy
up with Landowners to determine
Goldsborough 59 4,856 contributing factors(e.g.why farming
WRIA 14
activity is expanding or moving into
< 108 baseline acres of erosion hazard areas)
Maintain baseline acreage of Interface
Kitsap WRIA 15 7 364 interface Meet with District Staff to determine
Erosion Hazard Maintain baseline acreage of Agricultural 8,015 baseline acres of status of funding programs that may
Activity impact preservation or expansion of
Areas agricultural activities
Skokomish agriculture,and the completion of
Dosewallips 42 1,959 Maintain 2011 annual average baseline of 75 Farm Plans
WRIA 16 completed Farm Plans 7.5 annually completed
Farm Plans Meet with County Officials to
determine if policy or regulation
Lower Chehalis 0.4 835 amendments have been made that
WRIA 22 may impact preservation or expansion
of agriculture
Kennedy Locate area(s)of reduction to follow
Goldsborough 923 4,856 up with Landowners to determine
WRIA 14 > 1,513 baseline acres of contributing factors(e.g.why farming
Maintain baseline acreage of Interface interface activity is expanding or moving into
Fish and Wildlife Maintain baseline acreage of Agricultural habitat areas)
Habitat Kitsap WRIA 15 57 364 Activity <8.015 baseline acres of
Conservation agricultural activities Meet with District Staff to determine
Areas status of funding programs that may
Maintain 2011 annual average baseline of 7.5 <7.5 annually completed impact preservation or expansion of
Skokomish completed Farm Plans Farm Plans agriculture,and the completion of
Dosewallips 533 1,959 Farm Plans
WRIA 16
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1177
WORK PLAN
GOAL 3—ENSURE THE VIABILITY
AGRICULTURE& TOTAL BASELINE OF AGRICULTURE AND REDUCE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
CRITICAL AREA ACRES OF THE CONVERSION OF
CRITICAL AREA WRIA AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO TRIGGER
BASELINE INTERFACE AGRICULTURAL
(ACRES) ACTIVITY IN WRIA OTHER USES (MONITORING ACTIONS
PROGRAM—
BENCHMARKS APPENDIX 7)
Meet with County Officials to
Lower Chehalis determine if policy or regulation
WRIA 22 835 amendments have been made that
may impact preservation or expansion
of agriculture
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 178
WORK PLAN
APPENDIX 7 MONITORING PROGRAM
)
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 179
WORK PLAN
Table 40 Monitoring
ACTIONS
RESOURCE (Specific
MONITORING INFORMATION FOR MONITORING Actions based MONITORING MONITORING
TOOLS MONITORING TOOLS OBTAINING RESOURCE CONTACT THRESHOLD on Critical SCHEDULE RESPONSIBLE
PROVIDE MONITORING Areas,See PARTY
TOOLS Tables 38 and
39)
• Locate area(s)
of change and
follow up with
landowners to
determine
contributing
factors.
• Determine
reasons for
reduced BMPs
and options
for
"BMP" reinstatements
• Meet with
Best Management • Type of BMP District Staff
Practices,or • Intended result of to determine if
Conservation BMP at site lack of
Practices,are • Size,location and type Mason Less than 5% available
specific on the of Ag Operation annual increase in funding is
ground activities • Conservation District Staff Annually District Staff
Origin of the request District Database BMP preventing
designed to both for assistance implementation BMP
improve • Type and size of implementatio
agricultural Critical Area on site n
activities and • Determine if
protect critical landowners in
areas
these areas
are not
receiving
outreach
information
• Meet with
other technical
assistance
providers to
ascertain level
of landowner
interest and
possible
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1180
WORK PLAN
ACTIONS
RESOURCE (Specific
MONITORING INFORMATION FOR MONITORING Actions based MONITORING MONITORING
MONITORING TOOLS OBTAINING RESOURCE CONTACT on Critical RESPONSIBLE
TOOLS PROVIDE MONITORING THRESHOLD Areas,See SCHEDULE PARTY
TOOLS Tables 38 and
39)
roadblocks
• Locate area(s)
of change and
follow up with
landowners to
• Type of practices determine
contributing
• Proposed
factors.
"ISP" impact/effect on Ag •
Determine if
Operation landowners in
Individual • Size,location and type
these areas
Stewardship Plans of Ag Operation Mason Less than 7 are not
target the goals of • Proposed monitoring Conservation District Staff completed ISP receiving Annually District Staff
this Work Plan by techniques District Database per year outreach
targeting • Original of the request information
agricultural for assistance
roe • Meet with
activities with • Site visits to
critical areas property other technical
can ground-truth assistance
critical areas and BMP providers to
implementation ascertain level
of landowner
interest and
possible
roadblocks
• Annual
• Type of Project Lead Entity monitoring to
• Type of Critical Area Habitat Work
Restoration and on site Schedule observe
Conservation • Intended result of the No threshold for enhancement
Projects for Project Washington State Habitat Work Schedule enhancement projects;the Annually District Staff
salmon habitat • Amount/size of Recreation and only tools lack of such
Critical Area Conservation projects would
not necessarily
• Proposed Monitoring Office trigger any
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1181
WORK PLAN
ACTIONS
RESOURCE (Specific
MONITORING INFORMATION FOR MONITORING Actions based MONITORING MONITORING
MONITORING TOOLS OBTAINING RESOURCE CONTACT on Critical RESPONSIBLE
TOOLS PROVIDE MONITORING THRESHOLD Areas,See SCHEDULE PARTY
TOOLS Tables 38 and
39)
needed actions
• Determine
NAIP High • Change in land cover contributing
Resolution Aerial • Changes to critical Any changes in factors of
Imagery Change areas Washington agriculture and change Every 2—5 years,
• Determine if depending on
Detection—a •
Type of change Department of Habitat Science Division critical area District Staff
digital analysis of occurring Fish and Wildlife interface from amount of future releases of
land cover • Patterns/locations of 2011 baseline change information
changes change triggers action
based on
Table 38
Local Jurisdictions • Determine
Maps: contributing
CAAs • Increase or decrease Any changes in factors of
R
Geologically in critical areas Mason County, agriculture and
change Every 5—10
Hazardous Areas • Changes to ag lands Department of GIS Division critical area • Determine if years,depending District Staff
Frequently • Type and location of Public interface from amount of on County's
Flooded Areas changes occurring 2011 baseline change update schedule
Future Land Use triggers action
Map based on
I Table 38
• Determine
contributing
Any changes in factors of
Critical Areas • change —
Increase or decrease agriculture and Annually
U.S.Fish and • Determine if
mapping data: in size of wetlands www.fws.gov/wetlands. critical area USFWS updates District Staff
Wetlands • Location of wetlands Wildlife Service interface from amount of maps biannually
2011 baseline change
triggers action
based on
Table 38
• Determine
Critical Areas Any changes in contributing
mapping data: factors of
• Increase or decrease Washington agriculture and
Fish and wildlife change
habitat •
in size of areas Department of www.wdfw.wa.gov/mapuing/phs critical area • Annually District Staff
• Location of areas Fish and Wildlife interface from Determine if
conservation amount of
areas 2011 baseline change
g
triggers action
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1182
WORK PLAN
ACTIONS
RESOURCE (Specific
MONITORING INFORMATION FOR MONITORING Actions based MONITORING MONITORING
TOOLS MONITORING TOOLS OBTAINING RESOURCE CONTACT THRESHOLD on Critical SCHEDULE RESPONSIBLE
PROVIDE MONITORING Areas,See PARTY
TOOLS Tables 38 and
39)
based on
Table 38
• Determine if
reductions are
in or adjacent
Designated • Number,location and Any reduction of to critical
Mason County
Agricultural size of agriculturalwww.co.mason,wa.us/assessor/index.php designated areas Annually District Staff
Lands land Assessor's Office agricultural lands • Determine
contributing
factors for the
reduction
• Determine if
agricultural
Changes in farm Any changes to lands are
•
Census of demographics U.S.Department the agricultural increase or
Agriculture (number of farms,size of Agriculture www.agcensus.usda.gov demographics in decreasing, Every 5 years District Staff
of farms,crops,etc.) the County and if those
changes are
related to
critical areas
• Determine if
agricultural
Agricultural Land • Any changes to lands are
g Changes in size and Washington State the agricultural increase or
Use Crop Survey location of agricultural Department of www.agr.wa.gov/pestfert/natresources/aglanduse.aspx decreasing, —Every 3 years District Staff
Data activities Agriculture demographics in
the County and if those
changes are
related to
critical areas
• Determine
Washington State Any documented nexus
303 d Listings httos://fortress.wa.Yov/ecy/approvedwaa/ApprovedSearch.aspx between
( ) g Polluted water sites Department of increases in water Annually District Staff
Ecology pollutants pollutants and
agricultural
activities,if any
Source Water Washington State Any • Determine
bttpsJ/fortress.wa.gov/doh/eh/maps/SWAP/index.htnil
Assessment • Drinking water sites Department of contaminated agricultural Annually District Staff
Program Health drinking water activities are
sources in source of
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1183
WORK PLAN
ACTIONS
RESOURCE (Specific
MONITORING INFORMATION FOR MONITORING Actions based MONITORING MONITORING
MONITORING TOOLS OBTAINING RESOURCE CONTACT on Critical RESPONSIBLE
TOOLS PROVIDE MONITORING THRESHOLD Areas,See SCHEDULE PARTY
TOOLS Tables 38 and
39)
proximity to contaminants
agricultural
activities
Coastal Change Any land cover • Determine
NOAA Office of changes nexus of
Analysis Program
Coastal associated with changes in Every 5 years
Regional Land • Land cover changes https://coast.noaa,gov/digitalcoast/data/ccapregional.html critical areas and relation to District Staff
Management
Cover agricultural agricultural
activities activities,if any
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1184
WORK PLAN
APPENDIX 8 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
*Or
Ape
•
Ne),- •
romg
4110
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 185
WORK PLAN
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
This table is a compilation of 29 Best Management Practices (BMPs) used by the District in Mason
County; the first seven are the most commonly used. The information provided includes the
Conservation Practice number as listed by the National Resource Conservation Service together with
a description of the practice and its purpose. Many of these BMPs can be applied to different areas
and are multi-functional in their ability to protect and enhance critical areas. In formulating the goals
and benchmarks of this Plan, the Work Group drew from these options to apply the most effective
BMPs for each. Each County will have a unique set of goals based on the types of agricultural activities
practiced and the types of critical areas prevalent in those areas. In Mason County, agriculture
primarily focuses around pastures and hayfields which are maintained very differently from crops and
orchards, for instance.
BEST NRCS91D ,, I. PURPOSE
MANAGEMENT ,,.- _,
PRACTICE I BMP
I FENCING 382 Constructed barrier to Facilitates conservation
animals or people objectives by providing means
to control movement of
animals and people, including
vehicles
HEAVY USE 561 Used to stabilize ground Provide a stable, non-eroding
PROTECTION AREA surface frequently or surface for areas frequently
intensively used by used by animals, people,
people, animals, or vehicles; protect/improve
vehicles water quality
SUBSURFACE DRAIN 606 Conduit installed Remove or distribute excessive
beneath the ground soil water
surface to collect and/or
convey excess water
COMPOSTING 317 Structure/device to Reduce pollution potential and
FACILITY contain and facilitate improve handling
controlled aerobic characteristics of organic waste
decomposition of solids; produce soil
organic material by amendment that adds organic
microorganisms into matter and beneficial
biologically stable organisms, provides slow-
organic material suitable release plant-available
nutrients, and improves soil
91 United States Department of Agriculture,Natural Resource Conservation Service,Conservation Practice Number
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 186
WORK PLAN
BEST NRCS91 DEFINITION PURPOSE
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE I BMP
as a soil amendment condition
5 USE EXCLUSION 472 Exclusion of animals, Monitor, manage intensity of
(ACCESS CONTROL) peopOle, vehicles, and/or use by animals, people,
equipment from an area vehicles, equipment with other
practices of conservation plan
6 FILTER STRIP 393 A strip or area of Reduce suspended solids and
herbaceous vegetation contaminants in runoff; reduce
that removes dissolved contaminants in
contaminants from runoff; reduce suspended
overland flow. solids and contaminants in
irrigation tailwater
7 #" WASTE STORAGE 313 A waste storage Temporarily store wastes,
STRUCTURE (FACILITY) impoundment made by wastewater, and contaminated
constructing an runoff as storage function
embankment and/or component of agricultural
excavating a pit or waste management system
dugout, or by fabricating
a structure
8 PASTURE/HAYLAND 512 Establishing adapted Improve/maintain livestock
PLANTING (FORAGE and/or compatible nutrition and/or health;
AND BIOMASS species, varieties, or provide/increase forage supply;
PLANTING) cultivars of herbaceous reduce soil erosion and
species suitable for improve soil and water quality;
pasture, hay, or biomass produce feedstock for biofuel
production or energy production; increase
carbon sequestration
9 IRRIGATION SYSTEM: 441 Frequent application of Efficiently and uniformly apply
MICRO-IRRIGATION small quantities of water irrigation water and maintain
on or below the soil soil moisture; prevent
surface: as drops, tiny contamination of ground and
streams, or miniature surface water
spray through emitters
or applicators placed
along a water delivery
line
I0 PRESCRIBED GRAZING 528 Managing harvest of Improve/maintain desired
vegetation with grazing plants species composition;
and/or browsing animals improve/maintain quantity and
quality of forage, water,
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 187
WORK PLAN
BEST NRCS9' DEFINITION PURPOSE
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE I BMP
riparian and watershed
functions, and food/cover for
wildlife; reduce accelerated soil
erosion; mange fine fuel loads
FIELD BORDER 386 A strip of permanent Reduce wind/water erosion;
vegetation established at protect soil/water quality;
the edge or around the provide wildlife food and cover
perimeter of a field and pollinator or other
beneficial organism habitat;
increase carbon storage;
improve air quality
12` IRRIGATION SYSTEM: 442 A distribution system Efficient, uniform water
SPRINKLER that applies water by application; improve plant
means of nozzles condition, productivity, health,
operated under pressure vigor; prevent entry of
excessive nutrients, organics,
other chemicals in water;
improve soil condition; reduce
particulate matter emissions;
reduce energy use
IIRRIGATION WATER 430DD A pipeline and This practice may be applied as
CONVEYANCE— (430) appurtenances installed part of a resource management
PIPELINE: HIGH to convey water for system to achieve one or more
PRESSURE PLASTIC storage or application, as of the following purposes:
(IRRIGATION PIPELINE) part of an irrigation
Conveyance of water from a
water system. source of supply to an
irrigation system or storage
reservoir. Reduce energy use.
Develop renewable energy
systems (i.e., inpipe
hydropower.)
14 RECREATION TRAIL 568 Trail: constructed path Provide/improve animal access
AND WALKWAY (575) with vegetated or to forage, water,
(TRAILS AND earthen surface. working/handling facilities,
WALKWAYS) Walkway: constructed shelter; Facilitate improved
path with artificial grazing; Protect ecologically
surface. Trail/walkway: sensitive, erosive sites; Provide
facilitate movement of pedestrian/off-road vehicle
animals, people, or access to agricultural,
construction, maintenance
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1188
WORK PLAN
BEST NRC 41 •-_ ,:FINITION PURPOSE
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE I BMP •
offroad vehicles operations; provide for
recreational activities or access
to recreation sites.
SURFACE DRAINAGE— 607 A graded channel on the Intercept excess surface and
FIELD DITCH field surface for shallow subsurface water from
collecting excess water a field, conveying it to a surface
main or lateral; collect excess
irrigation water for a tailwater
reuse system.
16 SURFACE DRAINAGE — 608 An open drainage ditch Convey excess surface or
MAIN OR LATERAL for moving excess water shallow subsurface water from
collected by a field ditch field ditch to safe outlet;
or subsurface drain to a convey excess subsurface
safe outlet. water from subsurface drain to
safe outlet
WASTE FACILITY 367 A rigid, semi-rigid, or Protect clean water in existing
COVER (ROOFS AND flexible manufactured or planned animal waste
COVERS) membrane, composite handling or storage area;
material or roof improve waste management
structure placed over a and utilization; capture biogas
waste management emissions from an existing or
facility, agrichemical planned animal waste storage
handling facility, or an facility; protect clean water by
on-farm secondary excluding it from a chemically
containment facility contaminated area
8 WATERING FACILITY 614 A means of providing Supply daily water
drinking water to requirements; improve animal
livestock or wildlife. distribution; provide water
source as alternative to
sensitive resource
et HEDGEROW 422 Establishment of dense Food, cover, corridors for
PLANTING vegetation in a linear terrestrial wildlife, and aquatic
design to achieve a organisms that live in streams;
natural resource improve water quality and
conservation purpose. aquatic habitat in ditches and
channels; living fences;
boundary delineation; intercept
airborne particulate matter;
reduce chemical drift, odor
movement; increase carbon
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 189
WORK PLAN
BEST NRCS91 DEFINITION PURPOSE
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE I BMP
storage in biomass and soils;
contour guidelines; screens and
barriers to noise, dust;
improve landscape appearance
20 HERBACEOUS WEED 315 The removal or control Enhance accessibility quantity,
CONTROL of herbaceous weeds quality of forage and/or
including invasive, browse; restore or release
noxious and prohibited plant communities and wildlife
plants habitats consistent with the
ecological site; protect soils,
control erosion; reduce fine-
fuels fire hazard and improve
air quality
ierRIPARIAN FOREST 391 An area predominantly Create shade to lower,
BUFFER trees and/or shrubs maintain water temperatures;
located adjacent to and provide source of detritus and
up-gradient from large woody debris; reduce
watercourses or water excess amounts of sediment,
bodies. organic material, nutrients and
pesticides in surface runoff and
in shallow ground water flow;
reduce pesticide drift; restore
riparian plant communities;
increase carbon storage in
plant biomass and soils.
STREAM HABITAT 395 Maintain, improve, Provide suitable aquatic
IMPROVEMENT & restore physical, habitat; maintain stream
MANAGEMENT chemical, biological corridor ecological processes
functions of stream, and and hydrological connections
associated riparian zone of diverse stream habitat types
important to aquatic species
TREE/SHRUB 612 Establishing woody Establish woody plants for:
ESTABLISHMENT plants by planting
forest products; habitat; long-
seedlings or cuttings, term erosion control and
direct seeding, or natural water quality; treat waste;
regeneration
store carbon in biomass;
reduce energy use; develop
renewable energy systems;
improve restore natural
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1190
WORK PLAN
BEST NRCS91 DEFINITION PURPOSE
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE I BMP
diversity; enhance aesthetic
•
24 TREE/SHRUB SITE 490 Treatment of areas to Encourage natural
PREPARATION improve site conditions regeneration; permit artificial
for establishing trees establishment of woody plants
and/or shrubs
WETLAND 657 The return of a wetland Restore: conditions conducive
RESTORATION and its functions to a to hydric soil maintenance;
close approximation of wetland hydrology; native
its original condition as it hydrophytic vegetation; original
existed prior to fish and wildlife habitats
disturbance on a former
or degraded wetland site
ROOF RUNOFF 558 A structure that will Protect surface water quality
STRUCTURE collect, control and by excluding roof runoff from
convey precipitation contaminated areas; protect
runoff from a roof structure foundation from
water damage or soil erosion
from excess water runoff;
increase infiltration of runoff
water; capture water for other
use
- STREAM CROSSING 578 A stabilized area or Access to another land unit;
structure constructed Improve water quality by
across a stream to reducing sediment, nutrient,
provide a travel way for organic, and inorganic loading;
people, livestock, reduce streambank and
equipment, or vehicles streambed erosion
28 NUTRIENT 590 Managing the amount Budget, supply, and conserve
MANAGEMENT (rate), source, placement nutrients; minimize agricultural
(method of application), nonpoint source pollution;
and timing of plant properly utilize manure or
nutrients and soil organic byproducts; protect air
amendments quality; maintain or improve
the physical, chemical, and
biological condition of soil
SILVOPASTURE 381 An application Provide forage for livestock
ESTABLISHMENT establishing a and wood products; Increase
combination of trees or carbon sequestration; improve
illishrubs and compatible water quality; reduce erosion;
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1191
WORK PLAN
BEST NRCS91 DEFINITION .- -, PURPOSE
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE I BMP
forages on the same enhance wildlife habitat; reduce
acreage fire hazard; provide shade for
livestock; develop renewable
energy systems
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 192
WORK PLAN
APPENDIX 9 VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP
OVERVIEW AND INDIVIDUAL STEWARDSHIP
CHECKLIST
Mason County--Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1193
WORK PLAN
WHAT IS THE VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP
PROGRAM ?
The Voluntary Stewardship Program, or "VSP", was adopted in 2011 under the Washington Growth
Management Act as an alternative to traditional critical areas regulations. Communities develop a
WORK PLAN that focuses on incentives to encourage good ecosystem stewardship instead of
regulatory approaches to protect critical areas on agricultural lands. Important Critical areas generally
support clean water, sustainable populations of salmon and shellfish, and healthy populations of plants
and wildlife for next generations. Under this Program, farmers can operate successful agricultural
businesses while taking the initiative to improve the environment on their land. These initiatives are
known as Best Management or Conservation Practices, and are already in use by farmers throughout
the County.
Where agricultural intersects with critical areas, the Program provides incentives for agricultural
landowners and operators to voluntarily enhance the condition of critical areas through best
management practices. A successful steward ship program would enable the community to apply
cooperation, innovation, and effective action for the advancement of agriculture and the
environment.
THE VSP WORK PLAN
Mason County's WORK PLAN for the Program that includes goals, benchmarks, monitoring and
adaptive management for protecting and enhancing critical areas through voluntary, site- specific
stewardship practices. The WORK PLAN is also focused on maintaining and enhancing the long-term
viability of agriculture and reducing the conversion of farmland to other uses. Specifically the PLAN has
four goals:
GOAL I protect critical area functions and values on agricultural lands at
a watershed level as they existed as of July 22, 2011
GOAL 2 enhance critical area functions and values through voluntary,
incentive-based measures.
GOAL 3 ensure the viability of agriculture and reduce the conversion of
agricultural land into other uses.
GOAL 4 establish baseline monitoring program to measure benchmarks
over a ten year period.
The PLAN also establishes measurable Benchmarks to assess progress toward achieving these goals.
Monitoring techniques have been included and are a necessary tool to again illustrate how the Work
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1194
WORK PLAN
Plan intends to effectively measure the Benchmarks and meet the Goals throughout its
implementation. A threshold for adaptive management has also been established for most of the
monitoring techniques to allow the District to evaluate how they are meeting goals and adjust for
future decision making.
Fortunately, the majority of work associated with the WORK PLAN, its implementation and
monitoring, is the responsibility of the Conservation District. You, the volunteer, are only as obligated
as you choose to be utilizing a variety of available best management practices.
Implementation of the Program only requires voluntary stewardship as the primary method of
protecting critical areas. It may not require an agricultural operator to discontinue agricultural
activities,92 or to even participate in the Program. Agricultural operators volunteering to participate
may withdraw from the program at any time.
Commercial and noncommercial agricultural operators participating in the Program and implementing
an individual stewardship plan consistent with the WORK PLAN are presumed to be working toward
the protection and enhancement of critical areas. Operators participating in the program may be
eligible to receive funding and assistance under watershed programs.
There are many funding opportunities for farmers regardless of whether or not they participate in this
program. Some of those are listed later.
WHAT ARE CRITICAL AR EAS?
Not everyone is familiar with what or where critical areas are in Mason County. The Program
recognizes five different critical areas according to the Growth Management Act, and all five can be
found here. These include: critical aquifer recharge areas (CARA), frequently flooded areas, wetlands,
fish &wildlife habitat conservation areas, and geologically hazardous areas.
In Mason County, geologically hazardous areas are divided into three subcategories: landslide hazard,
seismic hazard, and erosion hazard areas. The following table indicates the total acreage of each critical
area in the County and its proportional interface with agricultural lands.
Acres and Percenta•es of A•riculture and Critical Area Interface
Critical Total Total Acres Acres Of % Of Total % Of Total
Area "CA" Acres Of Of Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture CA
CA Interface Interface Interface
CARA 121,084 8,015 4,254 53% 3%
Flooded 59,535 8,015 3,048 38% 5%
Areas
92Legally existing prior to July 22,2011
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 195
WORK PLAN
Critical Total Total Acres Acres Of % Of Total % Of Total
Area "CA" Acres Of Of Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture CA
CA Interface Interface Interface
Landslide 82,683 8,015 290 4% 0.3%
Areas
Seismic 398,254 8,015 7,589 95% 2%
Areas
Erosion — 16,856 8,015 108 1% I%
Areas
Fish & 27,798 8,015 1,513 19% 5%
Wildlife
Wetlands 54,650 8,015 1,206 15% 2%
Critical areas, as denoted above, support clean water and healthy plant and wildlife populations. Each is
different in its make-up and functions, as well as its associated protection measures. Below are brief
descriptions of all five:
Iti4
. . .#.A. , 471. "_ Surface waters replenish, "recharge",
w4
�n
e'�� 'c aquifers through seepage from
.
k,„. streams, lakes, and wetlands,and from
precipitation that percolates through
;.: --- soil or rock.Areas with a critical
_L - -• l ` recharging effect on aquifers used for
' potable water,also called Critical
Aquifer Recharge Areas or CARAs.
"'`1".' Critical Aquifer Photo:Oakland Bay,Courtesy of WA Department
Recharge AReas of Ecology
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1196
WORK PLAN
i Frequently flooded areas are lands
, in the flood plain subject to at least
. . ' '' a one percent or greater chance of
•' flooding in any given year, or
5 ° : ,' °i ' within areas subject to flooding
.a4 i
due to high groundwater.
Photo:Tahuya River, Courtesy of The
Lunkers Guide
Frequently Flooded
Areas
'_= Landslide areas are at risk for a
,3 " rapid down slope movement of a
} i%. ,3j;.:__ �.. mass of material such as rocks,
1 x a soil, or other debris. The
a
occurrence depends on a number
of factors including soil
vulnerability, slope, and the degree
of water saturation.
Photo:Highway 106 Landslide, Courtesy of
Landslide Hazard Areas KOMO 4 News
J
or
Seismic hazards occur in areas
• subject to severe risk of
earthquake damage as a result of
seismic induced settlement or
' *04 liquefied soils.
‘ ill* , i , ' ', ili I h
11) Photo:Courtesy of www.nbcrightnow.com
Seismic Hazard Areas
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1197
WORK PLAN
Erosion hazard areas are where
= the land surface is worn away by
� the action of water, wind, ice or
• °t � t.' , other geologic processes. The
most common cause of erosion is
water falling or flowing across the
v-^•,,� -.F:. .i. • ,fi land.
•
•
•
Photo:Bulkhead, Courtesy of Mason CD
rosion Hazard Areas
• 40
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas (FWHCA) are
recognized for maintaining species in
I suitable habitats within their natural
• geographic distribution so that
4401 . isolated populations are not created.
• 1 t. They are both aquatic and terrestrial
.�• r areas within the County.
•
Fish &Wildlife Habitat Photo:Courtesy of BeautifulWashington.com
Conservation Areas
Generally, wetlands are areas
inundated or saturated by surface
or groundwater at a frequency and
1111111111106.,_ duration sufficient to support a
prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions..
Photo:Thelar Wetlands, Courtesy of
Tre"orcom
Wetlands
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 I98
WORK PLAN
To give you an idea of where these areas are, this Critical Areas Mosaic Map illustrates a pattern of
these areas across the County.
MASON COUNTY ,"
nti
Cc Areas Moss ✓J / wY_ ..r
4 /
/
Legend . -, /
r
-MasonComity WRlAs /: rr- r''f
W tiara s C r ° I' l` S
�ErosiorHezeris '`� •
i /:'; J _
MN
Prionty Species Habitat J % f . �, t t
Landslide Hama
J J�. i .• 11.•. `J
�Frequend/FIo�dsdAlves / /"
IM CARAs c t If •1 A� `
I1 ,i
,.,
seismic Hearns ^' , /, +': -•, ,,• `1
Waterbodies (1 i'_ - ! Ef.l/', '.',70 ! !;
=Mason Ca linty 1/ti q l •,( • ,)._1.+SZt,` : ,. •j71
""Ti� - , f
Parcels ,j'
Cate 1'/72717 ':.{r% rte/` �� r /
1/4- ,i-,-:71-..tif (
_ ,
„, , ..., .. ..„, 4:..-{O' .,'
I.
Masan f I.
�� is
iK.Conservation ;
District 1 ,
�- 1�
:
blfra e43 C t a 4 a r.!1.•
To find out if your agricultural operation has a critical area located on it, and to learn more about
voluntary practices, the District has created a Checklist93 that evaluates the WORK PLAN's goals
together with the needs and objectives of the individual operator.
93 The Mason County VSP ISP checklist contains a compilation of original and borrowed materials from checklists approved for other jurisdictions,
including Pacific,Thurston,Yakima,and Grant-our thanks and acknowledgement of their work.
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 199
WORK PLAN
PROPERTY INFORMATION
The following checklist can be used to initiate an Individual Stewardship Plan94 (ISP) under the Voluntary
Stewardship Program. This is a site-specific plan for individual agricultural operations that identifies
agricultural activities and conservation practice options based on the Natural Resources Conservation
Service's (NRCS) conservation planning procedures. The ISP details conservation practices that
promote agricultural business viability while protecting and voluntarily enhancing critical areas.
Completion of this survey is the first step to helping the agricultural community in Mason County to
meet its participation standards under the Program. This ISP survey will be used to assess trends in
implementation of practices that support agricultural viability and critical area protection, and the
individual results of this survey will be held in confidentiality by the Mason Conservation District.
External reporting of the ISP results will only occur at the watershed scale.
Your name:
Phone number or email address:
Today's date:
Agricultural business address:
Name of person who manages your farm:
Number of acres in agricultural production:
What products do you produce?
94The Washington State Conservation Commission believes that Individual Stewardship Plans are similar to Farm Plans developed by Conservation
Districts and are confidential and exempt from disclosure.Policy Advisory#01-1 7 RCW 42.56.270(17)
Mason County--Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X200
WORK PLAN
_
SKOKOMEH-DOSEW
AUIPS WRLA 16
KIISAW WRIA b
KE'Z'.H -COL OROtIO-i WRIA H •
LOW9t CItf1AIJS WRIA 22
,.I
) 7-I 0 2 4 8 Miles
WHAT WRIA IS YOUR AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN?
Kennedy-Goldsborough - WRIA 14 O
Kitsap - WRIA 15 O
Skokomish-Dosewallips- WRIA 16 O
Lower Chehalis - WRIA 22 O
For online maps and to look up your parcel you can go to http://www.geodata.org/
IDENTIFY POTENTIAL CRITICAL AREAS ON, O R NEAR, PRO PERT Y:
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas O
Wetlands O
Frequently Flooded Areas O
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1 20 I
WORK PLAN
Geologically Hazardous Areas
Landslide Hazard O
Seismic Hazard O
Erosion Hazard O
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas O
VSP is a voluntary and non-regulatory program. Checking one or more critical areas that may
potentially be located on or adjacent to the property does not constitute an official determination of
such a feature. It is helpful in filling out the rest of the checklist. If you are unsure you can contact the
VSP Coordinator at (360) 427-9436, ext. 104 or you can email Badkins@masoncd.org for assistance.
IDENTIFY YOUR CURRENT PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS
THAT ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND AGRICULTURAL
VIABILITY:
EQIP - Environmental Quality Incentives Program O
CStP - Conservation Stewardship Program O
EWP - Emergency Watershed Protection Program O
EWP FPE - Floodplain Easement 0
FRPP - Farm & Ranchland Protection Program O
CREP - Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program O
ECP - Emergency Conservation Program O
Disaster Assistance Program (includes LFP- Livestock Forage Program) 0
Mason County Open Space Tax Program O
Existing farm plan through the conservation district or NRCS O
Other:
Try your best to answer the questions and Mason Conservation District Staff can help you with the
rest. District staff can perform a site visit to verify the actual extent and location of critical areas on
your property and help you develop an ISP for implementing conservation practices and maintaining or
improving the long-term viability of your agricultural operation. This can be done through the use of
online mapping tools and visual identification.
Using the examples below, begin identifying conservation practices that you are already doing or that
you are interested in discussing with the District to meet objectives of the VSP. The examples are only
a few of those commonly used that might be implemented in an ISP. Please indicate which conservation
practices you are already doing (after the July 22, 201 I baseline) or that you would like to implement,
or if it is not applicable to your operation.
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1202
WORK PLAN
For more information, criteria, and other practices please use the link in the footnote below to view
the conservation practice standard in the Field Office Technical Guides.95
Fencing Facilitates conservation objectives by
providing means to control movement of
animals and people, including vehicles.
=' I did this after July 22, 2011
0
.
r ,:r
1 "' I am interested in this O
Heavy Use Protection Area Provides a stable, non-eroding surface for
areas frequently used by animals, people, and
vehicles; protects/improves water quality.
1 I did this after July 22, 2011 0
I am interested in this 0
•I
95https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1203
WORK PLAN
Subsurface Drain s A pipe installed beneath the ground surface
to collect and/or convey excess water.
_ I did this after July 22, 2011 0
- ` " "�. I am interested in this
Composting Facility
Reduces pollution potential and improves
•
handling characteristics of organic waste
solids; produce soil amendments that add
organic matter and beneficial organisms,
'" provides slow release plant available
. , nutrients, and improves soil condition.
did this after July 22, 201 I 0
t*rx
oorNmmv-
am interested in this O
Access Control
Monitor, manage intensity of use by animals,
people, vehicles, equipment with other
.+ i practices of conservation plan.
I did this after July 22, 2011 0
�. I am interested in this O
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1204
WORK PLAN
Filter Strip Reduces suspended solids and dissolved
contaminants in runoff; reduces suspended
" solids and contaminants in irrigation
tailwater.
did this after July 22, 2011 0
I am interested in this 0
t
Waste Storage Structure FAcility Temporarily store wastes as storage
function component of agricultural waste
management system.
I did this after July 22, 2011 0
Jr
„ M1r.aar ... I am interested in this 0
a.tpd` ,a`e 4}
tc t w s y 4a.
{ ,*, . semy. J. -,,:� 4- a �#i' - K 1
by lh ,0.-A�,,, ef . _
at
Pasture/Hayland Planting Improve/maintain livestock nutrition and
health; provide/increase forage supply;
reduce soil erosion and improve soil and
water quality; produce feedstock for biofuel
or energy production; increase carbon
sequestration.
I did this after July 22, 2011 0
I am interested in this 0
Mason County-- Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X205
WORK PLAN
Micro-Irrigation System Efficiently and uniformly apply irrigation
water and maintain soil moisture.
r of „r..' T
toi
c ,.•n{; I did this after July 22, 2011 0
•
5,1r,
� ;= �%_.:, ' •. I am interested in this 0
. �- ' .•
; ~�!�
;rf I
Prescribed Grazing Improve/maintain desired plant species
composition; improve/maintain quantity and
quality of forage, water, riparian and
., watershed functions, and food/cover for
wildlife, reduce accelerated soil erosion;
manage fine fuels loads.
V
41, . :_, x I did this after July 22, 2011 O
I am interested in this O
Field Border Reduce wind/water erosion; protect
. soil/water quality; provide wildlife food and
cover and pollinator or other beneficial
organism habitat; increase carbon storage;
improve air quality.
S,,
y
'• I did this after July 22, 2011 O
,Ia �I. � * 7-',' , S
` ',.,. s , _ tt• . .c,+ 3.�� I am interested in this 0
'r
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1206
WORK PLAN
Sprinkler Irrigation System Efficient, uniform water application; improve
plant condition, productivity, health, vigor;
improve soil condition; reduce particulate
matter emissions; reduce energy use.
I did this after July 22, 2011 O
I am interested in this O
Water Conveyance Pipeline Conveyance of water from a source of
.,, supply to an irrigation system or storage
reservoir, reduce energy use, develop
•"`=+`' renewable energy systems.
{
t_ t • ! did this after July 22, 2011 O
i, I am interested in this O
•, .< t
-
Recreation Trail and Walkway A Trail is a constructed path with a
vegetated or earthen surface. A walkway is a
-.. 1 contrasted path with an artificial surface. A
trail/walkway is used to facilitate the
movement of animals, people, or off-road
vehicles.
I did this after July 22, 2011 O
I am interested in this O
Mason County—Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1207
WORK PLAN
Surface Drainage - Field Ditch Intercept excess surface and shallow
subsurface water from a field, conveying it to
a surface main or lateral; collect excess
irrigation water for a tailwater reuse system.
4.111
r '
R 'y
'31* I did this after July 22, 2011 0
I
-•aK •,_ I am interested in this 0
Surface Drainage - Main or Lateral Convey excess surface or shallow subsurface
water from field ditch to safe outlet; convey
excess subsurface water from subsurface
,t I ‘ 4111411131. 11
drain to safe outlet.
• . . 111 "
Lateral Drairs
I did this after July 22, 2011
0
I am interested in this O
Waste Facility Cover Protect clean water in existing or planned
animal waste handling or storage area;
improve waste management and utilization;
protect clean water by excluding it from a
t
. chemically contaminated area.
A'
maI did this after July 22, 2011 0
y,
I am interested in this 0
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1208
WORK PLAN
Watering Facility Supply daily water requirements; improve
animal distribution; provide water source as
alternative to sensitive resource.
I did this after July 22, 2011 O
I am interested in this O
Hedgerow Planting Establishment of dense vegetation in a linear
design to achieve a natural resource
conservation purpose.
• I did this after July 22, 2011 O
I am interested in this O
Herbaceous Weed Control Enhance accessibility, quantity, quality of
forage and/or browse; restore or release
plant communities and wildlife habitats
consistent with the ecological site; protect
soils, control erosion; reduce fine-fuels fire
hazard and improve air quality.
41)4' I
I did this after July 22, 2011 O
a I am interested in this O
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page X209
WORK PLAN
Riparian Forest Buffer Create shade to lower, maintain water
temperatures; reduce excess sediment,
organic material, nutrients and pesticides in
runoff; reduce pesticide drift; restore
riparian plant communities; increase carbon
storage in plant biomass and soils.
I did this after July 22, 2011•
O
- I am interested in this O
Stream Habitat Management Provide suitable aquatic habitat; maintain
w,.11.114111F, stream corridor ecological processes and
hydrological connections of diverse stream
, : habitat types important to aquatic species.
�� J
a
.
•
I did this after July 22, 20111
O
I am interested in this O
1-•
I
y i
Tree/Shrub Establishment Establish woody plants for:forest products,
habitat, long-term erosion control and water
quality, treat waste, store carbon in biomass,
reduce energy use, develop renewable
4
- • A energy systems, improve and restore natural
diversity, and enhance aesthetics.
' I did this after July 22, 2011 O
I am interested in this O
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1210
WORK PLAN
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation Encourage natural regeneration; permit
artificial establishment of wood plants.
r x
io
` INN r I did this after July 22, 2011 0
i ,` . 0
Itio:
�4► w ✓
y
Wetland Restoration Restore conditions conducive to hydric soil
maintenance, wetland hydrology, native
hydrophytic vegetation, original fish and
. wildlife habitats.
I did this after July 22, 2011 0
I am interested in this 0
estoration After rests
Roof Runoff Structure Protect surface water quality by excluding
roof runoff from contaminated areas;
1 +'• protect structure foundation from water
1 M \ ,,t. damage or soil erosion from excess water
jrunoff; increase infiltration of runoff water;
Ir A. capture water for other uses.
Iill
i I did this after July 22, 2011 0
j.
7. � =
�, 7, ,. I am interested in this 0
sl A i
Mason County— Voluntary Stewardship Program
Page 1211
WORK PLAN
Stream Crossing
k Access to another land unit; improve water
- quality by reducing sediment, nutrient,
, organic and inorganic loading; reduce
- streambank and streambed erosion.
i \
g
\....
� `•� I did this after July 22, 2011 0
I am interested in this 0
The VSP is designed to promote the viability of agriculture over the long term and to avoid unnecessary
local critical area regulations due to the prevalence of conservation practices undertaken by willing
producers. Farmer and agricultural operators may find funding programs, as previously discussed, and
request a field visit to obtain advice on improving viability and to recommended conservation practices.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE
If you have any questions or would like more information on how to get involved, contact the VSP
Coordinator or visit the VSP website at www.masoncd.org/vsp. Critical areas exist throughout the
County. You can direct questions about the presence of critical areas on your property or any
questions on how to get involved to the Mason County VSP Coordinator:
Barbara Adkins, AICP
Special Programs Manager
Mason Conservation District
450 W. Business Park Road
Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 427-9436, ext 104
Badkins@masoncd.org
Mason County--Voluntary Stewardship Program