Restoration Plan (draft)

Restoration Plan (draft)
MASON COUNTY
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE
Restoration Plan
SMA Grant Agreement No. G1100004
Draft
Prepared by
ESA, Coastal Geologic Services,
Herrera Environmental
April 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.1 Plan Purpose and Scope..........................................................................................................1‐1 1.1.1 Format and Content – How to Use this Plan......................................................... 1‐2 1.2 Defining Restoration ................................................................................................................1‐3 1.2.1 Restoration versus Protection.................................................................................... 1‐3 1.2.2 Phasing of Restoration................................................................................................... 1‐5 1.2.3 No Net Loss and Shoreline Restoration.................................................................. 1‐6 1.2.4 Shorelines of Statewide Significance ....................................................................... 1‐7 1.3 Additional Studies ..................................................................................................................... 1‐8 1.3.1 Data Gaps ............................................................................................................................. 1‐8 Chapter 2.0 Restoration Vision and Goals.............................................................................. 2‐1 2.1 Restoration Vision..................................................................................................................... 2‐2 2.2 Restoration PLan Goals ...........................................................................................................2‐2 Chapter 3.0 Watershed Overview.............................................................................................. 3‐1 3.1 Marine Shorelines......................................................................................................................3‐1 3.2 WRIA 14a: Kennedy Goldsborough ...................................................................................3‐3 3.3 WRIA 15: Tahuya Peninsula .................................................................................................3‐4 3.4 WRIA 16/14b: Skokomish‐Dosewallips and South Shore ....................................... 3‐4 3.5 WRIA 22: Lower Chehalis ......................................................................................................3‐5 Chapter 4.0 Overview of Restoration Priorities .................................................................. 4‐1 4.1 Freshwater Restoration Potential ...................................................................................... 4‐1 4.2 Nearshore Restoration Potential ........................................................................................ 4‐1 4.2.1 Data Sets............................................................................................................................... 4‐2 4.2.2 Results................................................................................................................................... 4‐3 Chapter 5.0 Restoration Actions for Marine Nearshore Areas...................................... 5‐1 5.1 Programmatic Actions............................................................................................................. 5‐1 5.2 PSNERP Recommendations .................................................................................................. 5‐2 5.2.1 Hood Canal .......................................................................................................................... 5‐3 5.2.2 South Puget Sound........................................................................................................... 5‐3 5.3 Site‐Specific Restoration Opportunities ..........................................................................5‐3 5.3.1 Hood Canal .......................................................................................................................... 5‐4 5.3.2 South Puget Sound.........................................................................................................5‐11 Chapter 6.0 Restoration Actions for Lakes ............................................................................ 6‐1 6.1 Programmatic Actions............................................................................................................. 6‐1 6.2 Restoration Actions for Specific Lakes.............................................................................6‐2 6.2.1 Invasive Aquatic Vegetation and Water Quality ................................................. 6‐2 6.2.2 Dams and Reservoirs...................................................................................................... 6‐3 Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page i
6.2.3 Restoration Opportunities ........................................................................................... 6‐4 Chapter 7.0 Restoration Actions for Streams and Rivers................................................ 7‐1 7.1 Programmatic Actions............................................................................................................. 7‐1 7.2 Restoration Actions by WRIA............................................................................................... 7‐2 Chapter 8.0 Existing Restoration Programs and Partners.............................................. 8‐1 Chapter 9.0 Timelines, Benchmarks and Monitoring........................................................ 9‐1 9.1 Timelines and Benchmarks...................................................................................................9‐1 9.2 Potential Funding ......................................................................................................................9‐2 9.3 Obstacles and Challenges .......................................................................................................9‐3 9.4 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Strategies......................................................9‐3 Chapter 10.0 References............................................................................................................10‐1 LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Marine Restoration Figures Appendix B: Methods Appendix C: Potential Funding Sources LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1‐1. Mitigation versus Restoration in Shoreline Master Programs ................. 1‐6 Figure 4‐1. Conceptual link from shoreforms to stressors to restoration priorities ................................................................................................................................................... 4‐2 Figure B‐1. Relationship between nearshore process degradation and site potential. .................................................................................................................................................10‐4 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1‐1. Examples of Typical Protection and Restoration Actions........................ 1-4 Table 1‐2. Typical Restoration Phases and Actions.................................................... 1-5 Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page ii
Table 2‐1. Mason County Restoration Goals, Objectives, Actions, and Success Measures ......................................................................................................................... 2-4 Table 4‐1. Recommendations and Priorities for Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement in the Marine Shorelines of Mason County Based upon Coastal Processes......................................................................................................................... 4-4 Table 4‐2. Recommendations and Priorities for Protection, Restoration and Enhancement in Hood Canal Based upon Coastal Processes ..................................... 4-4 Table 4‐3. Recommendations and Priorities for Protection, Restoration and Enhancement in South Puget Sound............................................................................. 4-4 Table 5‐1. Miles of Shoreline Recommended for Different Strategies to Achieve Sediment Supply, Sediment Transport, and Tidal Flow.............................................. 5-4 Table 5‐2. Restoration Opportunities on Public Shores of Hood Canal..................... 5-6 Table 5‐3. Restoration Opportunities on Public Shores of South Puget Sound ...... 5-13 Table 6‐1. Restoration Actions for Mason County Lakes ............................................ 6-5 Table 7‐1. Restoration Actions for Mason County Rivers and Streams – WRIA 14a ........................................................................................................................ 7-5 Table 7‐2. Restoration Actions for Mason County Rivers and Streams – WRIA 15 ........................................................................................................................ 7-11 Table 7‐3. Restoration Actions for Mason County Rivers and Streams – WRIA 16/14b................................................................................................................ 7-15 Table 7‐4. Restoration Actions for Mason County Rivers and Streams – WRIA 22 ........................................................................................................................ 7-21 Table 8‐1. Potential Restoration Partner Organizations and their Roles in Future Restoration ..................................................................................................................... 8-2 Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page iii
Chapter 1.0
Introduction
This plan was prepared as part of Mason County’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) comprehensive update project. The County’s SMP contains policies and regulations that govern the use and development of the County’s freshwater rivers, lakes and marine shorelines 1 . The SMP is designed to protect shoreline ecological functions, provide for public access to public shorelines, and accommodate reasonable and appropriate uses of the shoreline. The SMP also must include a “real and meaningful” strategy to restore shoreline ecological functions where such functions are impaired. This restoration plan is a key element of the County’s shoreline restoration strategy as required in WAC 173‐26‐201(2)(f). It supplements the County’s Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (ESA et al. 2012), which documents general shoreline conditions throughout Mason County. This restoration plan was prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) with assistance from Herrera Environmental Consultants and Coastal Geologic Services (CGS) and in cooperation with Mason Department of Community Development. It was funded by a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) (Grant No. G1100004). The first complete version of this report was prepared in August 2012, following a presentation of the proposed methods to the County’s Joint Technical Advisory Committee in May 2012. The comment period for both the JTAC and Citizen’s Advisory Committee was extended to December 2012. This report was subsequently revised to reflect comments received. 1.1 PLAN PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This plan, in conjunction with the SMP policies and regulations, is designed to satisfy the shoreline guideline requirements for shoreline restoration planning. It provides a planning‐level framework for understanding how and where shoreline ecological functions can be restored in Mason County. The plan also describes how future restoration activities can be integrated with existing and ongoing restoration efforts including: the region‐wide effort to restore Puget Sound (which the Puget Sound 1
In this document, the term ‘shoreline’ is synonymous with ‘shorelines of the state.’ These are defined in
RCW 90.58 and generally include all streams with a mean annual flow of 20 cubic feet per second or more,
all marine shores, and lakes greater than 20 acres as well as the adjacent ‘shorelands’ that accompany these
waters. Shorelands means the lands extending 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark, floodways and
contiguous floodplains 200 feet from the floodway, and all associated wetlands. For a list of all of the
shorelines of the state in Mason County, refer to the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (ESA
et al. 2012).
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 1-1
Partnership is spearheading); the work of the Mason County Conservation District, Hood Canal Coordinating Council, South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group, Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group, and the regional recovery efforts for Puget Sound Chinook, bull trout, steelhead, and endangered southern resident killer whales (orca); and the diversity of other restoration efforts being implemented by federal and state agencies, Tribes, the City of Shelton, nongovernmental organizations, and private citizens. 1.1.1 Format and Content – How to Use this Plan
The format and content of this plan are designed to: 
Describe an overarching vision that guides future restoration efforts; 
Summarize the County’s shoreline restoration goals and objectives; 
Identify the freshwater and marine nearshore areas that are high priorities for restoration; 
Describe specific restoration opportunities and recommended actions for each watershed and waterbody; 
Identify potential partners and existing/ongoing restoration activities and describe opportunities to integrate this plan with those existing efforts; and 
Explain how future restoration efforts can be implemented in a way that maximizes effectiveness and achieves the greatest overall benefits. To understand and effectively implement this plan, restoration planners and practitioners are encouraged to review the vision, goals, and objectives in Chapter 2 to understand the desired restoration outcomes. Planners and practitioners should then consider the information in Chapter 3 identifying general areas of the County that have been identified as top priorities for restoration. Specific opportunities and actions in those areas and elsewhere in Mason County can be found in Chapters 4 through 7. Restoration projects can then be fully developed in cooperation with the partners and programs identified in Chapter 8 to maximize restoration benefits. The projects and actions described herein represent voluntary actions to restore marine and freshwater shorelines in Mason County. It is not the County’s intention to require restoration on private property or to commit privately owned land for restoration purposes without the willing cooperation and participation of the affected landowners. However, the County is eager to support and foster restoration actions on both public and private lands and encourages private landowners to help implement this plan. In addition, private landowners who are required to provide Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 1-2
mitigation for development‐related impacts may wish to implement actions noted in this plan to meet their mitigation obligations. 1.2 DEFINING RESTORATION
Restoration can be defined generally as returning an area to a previous condition by improving ecological structure and function. Restoration creates a net increase in the amount, size, and/or functions of an ecosystem or components of an ecosystem compared to a baseline condition (Thom et al. 2005a). The shoreline guidelines define restoration more specifically as follows: “The reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including but not limited to re‐vegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre‐European settlement conditions.” 2 The guidelines require that restoration goals, policies, and actions “be designed to achieve overall improvements in shoreline ecological functions over time, when compared to the status upon adoption of the master program.” 3 Inherent in these definitions is the concept of repairing past damage to natural resources and habitats, but not necessarily recreating historic conditions. Many researchers have cautioned that simply recreating the form or structure of a particular habitat without also addressing the ecosystem processes and their interaction with ecological functions may not fully achieve restoration goals or objectives (Stanley et al. 2005, Montgomery et al. 2003; Gersib 2001). As a result, this plan emphasizes the need to restore ecosystem processes so that restoration strategies are sustainable and successful in the long term. 1.2.1 Restoration versus Protection
Restoration is different from protection. For shorelines, the latter is achieved primarily through the SMP policies and regulations (as well as other County, state, and federal regulations) that safeguard resources from damage caused by use and development. Protection requires that development is prohibited in some areas and that, when development is allowed, it occurs in a way that mitigates adverse effects on the natural environment such that the net result of the development activity is no 2
WAC 173-26-020
3
WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 1-3
worse than the pre‐development condition. Protection also requires that deliberate measures are taken to ensure that natural ecosystem processes (such as net shore‐
drift, channel migration, large woody debris recruitment) continue with minimal impairment. Restoration, on the other hand, involves more than simply following and enforcing existing rules or maintaining existing conditions. It requires taking active steps to improve the condition of existing resources and replace resources that have been lost. Restoration measures are intended to supplement shoreline regulatory efforts such that environmental conditions improve over time. Table 1‐1 identifies and differentiates typical shoreline protection and restoration actions. The protection measures are addressed in the SMP (and/or required by other regulatory programs such as critical areas regulations and stormwater regulations). The restoration actions reflect a range of activities that are applicable to Mason County. This plan is built around this list or menu of common restoration actions as indicated in the subsequent chapters. This restoration plan emphasizes voluntary actions to restore shorelines considered degraded or impaired as required in WAC 173‐26‐201(2)(f). Table 1‐1. Examples of Typical Protection and Restoration Actions Examples of Protection Actions











Examples of Restoration Actions
Treating stormwater runoff using best
management or low impact development
Protecting associated wetlands through the
establishment of conservation easements
Minimizing development on coastal feeder
bluffs to protect steep slopes
Maintaining/repairing on-site septic systems
Protecting vegetation in buffers and setbacks
Protecting/preserving existing
trees/vegetation
Protecting water quality by limiting
pesticide/fertilizer use
Regulating groundwater withdrawals
Limiting construction of new docks,
bulkheads, and staircases
Clustering residential development
Preserving property through easement or
acquisition














Removing dikes and setting levees back
Replacing bulkheads with soft shore
stabilization (bio-stabilization)
Replanting/enhancing riparian/nearshore
vegetation
Planting/transplanting eelgrass, kelps and
other aquatic macrophytes
Replacing or enlarging blocked or
undersized culverts
Removing fill from wetlands, intertidal
habitats and floodplains
Removing invasive species
Reconnecting wetlands and floodplains
Replacing existing dock/pier decking with
open grating material to allow light
penetration
Replacing treated wood docks/piers with
concrete, steel and other materials
Removing derelict vessels, fishing gear,
creosote pilings and other in-water debris
Adding large woody debris or engineered log
jams to streams
Replacing pavement with pervious pavement
(such as parks/ boat launches)
Relocating public infrastructure outside of
floodplains and other sensitive habitats
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 1-4
1.2.2 Phasing of Restoration
Restoration typically occurs in phases, with each phase composed of one or more actions (Table 1‐2). The progression from planning to reporting can take weeks, months, or even years depending on the complexity and scope of the restoration effort. In general, the phases and tasks build on and inform one another. Yet in some cases, the progression of phases and actions is not linear but iterative, meaning that it may be necessary to go back and revisit goals or priorities during the implementation phase or do more construction in response to performance monitoring information. This is an adaptive management approach. This plan addresses and accomplishes most of the actions required in the restoration planning phase. Additional effort will be required to implement, monitor, manage, and report on the outcomes of this planning effort. Table 1‐2. Typical Restoration Phases and Actions Phase
Timeline
Actions
Beginning → →→ Completion
Planning
Visioning
Collecting background data
Setting goals
Defining objectives
Identifying priority areas
Identifying potential restoration measures
in priority areas
Identifying partners and collaborators
Identifying funding sources
Implementation
Selecting projects/sites
Developing conceptual designs/ plans
Preparing detailed design plans
Constructing project/site
Performance
Assessment /
Monitoring
Defining success criteria
Comparing to reference sites
Designing monitoring program
Collecting performance monitoring data
Adaptive Management
Adjusting design
Correcting problems (barriers to success)
Implementing contingency measures
Reporting
Publishing reports documenting project
effectiveness
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 1-5
1.2.3 No Net Loss and Shoreline Restoration
The concept of “no net loss” of shoreline ecological functions is an overarching principle required in the goals, policies, and regulations of the state’s shoreline guidelines. The Shoreline Management Act states: “permitted uses in the shoreline shall be designed and conducted in a manner that minimizes insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area.” The guidelines suggest that no net loss is achieved primarily through regulatory mechanisms including mitigation requirements, but that restoration incentives and voluntary actions are also critical to achieving no net loss. The distinction between “no net loss” of shoreline function during shoreline development and shoreline restoration is illustrated in Figure 1‐1 below. Figure 1‐1. Mitigation versus Restoration in Shoreline Master Programs (Source: Department of Ecology) The SMP requires that proponents of shoreline development fully mitigate impacts caused by their proposed developments, and although they are not required to improve conditions over and above the impacts of their development actions, they may elect to implement elements of this plan as mitigation for shoreline development if appropriate. Citizens, agencies, and other groups may also elect to implement portions of this plan irrespective of any proposed development activity or requirement to mitigate impacts. Components of this plan can also be implemented as part of future capital or resource management endeavors. As an example, a park improvement project could be designed to include removal of intertidal fill and restoration of nearshore habitat. All of these actions would have the effect of improving conditions over time, which is necessary for achieving no net loss of shoreline functions. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 1-6
1.2.4 Shorelines of Statewide Significance
The Shoreline Management Act designates certain shorelines as shorelines of statewide significance. These are generally described as including portions of Puget Sound and other marine water bodies, rivers west of the Cascade range that have a mean annual flow of 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) or greater, rivers east of the Cascade range that have a mean annual flow of 200 cfs or greater, and freshwater lakes with a surface area of 1,000 acres or more (RCW 90.58.030). The following are shorelines of statewide significance in Mason County: 1. Marine waters and shorelands (200 feet landward of the OHWM) of Hood Canal; 2. Marine waters of South Puget Sound seaward from extreme low tide; 3. Freshwater of Lake Cushman including shorelands; and 4. Skokomish River (downstream from the confluence of its North and South Forks) including shorelands. In determining that certain shorelines are of statewide significance, the Shoreline Management Act also determined that the interests of all of the people of the state shall be considered in the management of these shorelines. Because the shorelines of statewide significance of Mason County are a major resource from which all people in the state derive benefit, the SMP gives preference to uses that favor preservation and protection of the natural character and ecology of the shoreline and uses that increase public access and recreational opportunities. Specifically, RCW 90.58.020 gives priority to uses in the following order of preference: 1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest; 2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; 3. Result in long‐term over short‐term benefit; 4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; 7. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 1-7
1.3 ADDITIONAL STUDIES
All of the restoration opportunities mentioned in this report will require further investigation and analysis to fully assess feasibility and determine actual benefits and costs. In some cases, restoration actions are recommended that may involve private properties. This plan makes no claims as to the ownership or availability of any parcel of land for restoration purposes and does not recommend takings of any private land. Restoration activities described here would be undertaken on a voluntary basis with the express permission of private property owners. Additional study, collaboration, and project planning and design would be required to ensure consensus on the restoration priorities; acquire permission or easements; and develop detailed implementation plans, budgets, schedules, and monitoring programs. 1.3.1 Data Gaps
Due to data limitations many important ecological processes, features, and conditions could not be fully described in this plan. No single comprehensive restoration assessment has been conducted for all of the shores of Hood Canal or Southern Puget Sound. Additional data gaps include a County‐wide wetland inventory; restoration opportunities for many freshwater lakes, and comprehensive mapping of abandoned and derelict overwater structures. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 1-8
Chapter 2.0
Restoration Vision and Goals
This plan seeks to establish a basic framework for improving the quality and sustainability of Mason County’s shoreline resources over time in a collaborative and cohesive manner. This overarching goal is consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and with the developing regional strategy for restoring Puget Sound, which is embodied in Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 5372 signed by the State Legislature in May 2007. In ESSB 5372, the Legislature declared that: “Puget Sound, including Hood Canal and the waters that flow to it are a national treasure and a unique resource. Residents enjoy a way of life centered around these waters that depends upon clean and healthy marine and freshwater resources. Puget Sound is in serious decline…. This decline is indicated by loss of and damage to critical habit, rapid decline in species populations, increases in aquatic nuisance species, numerous toxics contaminated sites, urbanization and attendant storm water drainage, closure of beaches to shellfish harvest due to disease risks, low‐dissolved oxygen levels causing death of marine life, and other phenomena. If left unchecked, these conditions will worsen. Puget Sound must be restored and protected in a more coherent and effective manner. The current system is highly fragmented. Immediate and concerted action is necessary by all levels of government working with the public, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to ensure a thriving natural system that exists in harmony with a vibrant economy.” The Legislature directed the Puget Sound Partnership (the Partnership) to coordinate and lead the regional restoration effort. The Partnership has developed an "Action Agenda” that describes the steps needed to restore the Sound by 2020. In identifying specific restoration goals and objectives that the Action Agenda must achieve, the Legislature described the characteristics of a healthy and restored Puget Sound as follows: 
A healthy human population supported by a healthy Puget Sound that is not threatened by changes in the ecosystem; 
A quality of human life that is sustained by a functioning Puget Sound ecosystem; 
Healthy and sustaining populations of native species in Puget Sound, including a robust food web; Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 2-1

A healthy Puget Sound where freshwater, estuary, nearshore, marine, and upland habitats are protected, restored, and sustained; 
An ecosystem that is supported by groundwater levels as well as river and streamflow levels sufficient to sustain people, fish, and wildlife, and the natural functions of the environment; and 
Fresh and marine waters and sediments of a sufficient quality so that the waters in the region are safe for drinking, swimming, shellfish harvest and consumption, and other human uses and enjoyment, and are not harmful to the native marine mammals, fish, birds, and shellfish of the region. This plan seeks to achieve those same goals by contributing to the Puget Sound restoration effort and to the specific strategies being developed by the Partnership as part of the 2020 Action Agenda (Puget Sound Partnership 2008). This plan is also intended to be compatible with and incorporate the restoration goals already developed by other restoration planning entities in the region including, but not limited to, the Skokomish Tribe, the Squaxin Island Tribe, the Chehalis Tribe, the Hood Canal Coordinating Council, the South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group, the WRIA Action Plans, and many others. 2.1 RESTORATION VISION
The restoration vision for Mason County can be described as follows: The County will strive to restore, protect and enhance the shoreline resources and ecological processes that contribute to those resources through a combination of public actions and voluntary private actions. Restoration efforts, combined with protection of existing shoreline resources, will be targeted to create a net improvement in the shoreline ecosystem over time so as to benefit native fish and wildlife, and maintain public amenities for the people of Mason County, Washington. 2.2 RESTORATION PLAN GOALS
Mason County has the following restoration planning goals for the County’s shorelines: 1. To improve shoreline processes, functions, and values over time through voluntary and incentive‐based public and private programs and actions that are consistent with the SMP and other agency/locally adopted restoration plans; Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 2-2
2. To increase the availability, viability, and sustainability of shoreline habitats for salmon, shellfish, forage fish, shorebirds and marine seabirds, and other species; improve habitat quality for sensitive and/or locally important species; and support the biological recovery goals for federally protected species 4 ; 3. To integrate restoration efforts with capital projects and other resource management efforts including, but not limited to, shellfish closure response plans and water cleanup plans; 4. To encourage cooperative restoration actions involving local, state, and federal public agencies, Tribes, nongovernment organizations, and private landowners; 5. To participate in the Puget Sound Partnership and commit energy and resources to implementation of the Puget Sound Action Agenda; and 6. To prioritize restoration projects on shorelines of statewide significance. Table 2‐1 provides examples of measures that could be used to evaluate progress in meeting the above goals. However, detailed measures of success must be determined for each project through the establishment of project‐specific performance criteria. Similarly, the potential for restoration projects to improve specific ecological functions can only be determined case by case. Ideally, each project will be designed to ensure a high likelihood of success in restoring the functions that are targeted for that project. 4
Federal sensitive species include endangered, threatened, candidate, and species of concern. Definitions
of the federal designations can be found in the USFWS Glossary at
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/glossary.html.
The State of Washington designates priority species which require protective measures for their survival
due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial, or tribal
importance. Priority species include State Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, and Candidate species;
animal aggregations considered vulnerable; and species of recreational, commercial, or tribal importance
that are vulnerable. The state also designates priority habitats. Definitions of these designations are
provided at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm.
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 2-3
Table 2‐1. Mason County Restoration Plan Goals, Objectives, Actions, and Success Measures Goal
1. Improve shoreline
processes, functions,
and values over time
through voluntary and
incentive-based public
and private programs
and actions that are
consistent with the SMP
and other agency/locally
adopted restoration
plans.
Potential Restoration 5
Actions
Objective
Restore natural
sediment transport and
littoral drift.
Remove dikes.
Restore native riparian
and nearshore
vegetation.
Remove/replace
bulkheads.
Improve natural
hydrologic pathways.
Set back levees.
Replant riparian
vegetation.
Decommission
underused or abandoned
forest roads.
Restore wetlands.
Potential Measures of
Success
Acres of riparian
enhancement.
Linear feet of bulkhead
removed.
Acres of reconnected
floodplain.
Linear feet of road
decommissioned.
Acres of wetland
restored.
Acres of native
vegetation planted.
2. Increase the
availability, viability, and
sustainability of
shoreline habitats for
salmon, shellfish, forage
fish, shorebirds and
marine seabirds, and
other species; improve
habitat quality for
sensitive and/or locally
important species; and
support the biological
recovery goals for
federally protected
species.
Reduce nearshore
shading of
kelp/eelgrass.
Restore stream
channels, channel
migration zones, side
channels, and
floodplains.
Enhance disturbed
tidelands and riparian
zones and support the
essential ecological
functions those areas
provide.
Restore wetland and
salt marsh habitats.
Improve water quality to
provide safe water for
fish and shellfish.
On a voluntary basis,
replace decking on
overwater structures with
open grating.
Number of culverts
replaced or number of
miles of stream open to
migration.
Design overwater
structures to
accommodate juvenile
salmon migration along
the shoreline by using
narrow walkways in the
intertidal and nearshore.
Number of creosote
structures/ pilings
removed.
Remove intertidal fill,
contaminated sediment,
creosote contaminated
logs, pilings and debris.
Improved water quality
measurements.
Replace or enlarge
blocked or undersized
culverts.
Reduced shellfish
closures.
Acres of
riparian/nearshore
enhancement.
Area of retrofitted
impervious surfaces.
Replant/enhance
riparian/nearshore
vegetation.
Remove invasive
species.
Add large woody debris
to stream channels.
Remove abandoned
overwater and in-water
structures.
Replace treated wood
5
These voluntary actions would supplement existing regulatory requirements and other protection actions
related to stormwater management, critical areas, septic system maintenance, etc. See Table 1-1.
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 2-4
Goal
Potential Restoration 5
Actions
docks/piers with
concrete, steel and other
materials.
Objective
Potential Measures of
Success
Retrofit existing
impervious surfaces to
include stormwater
treatment and flow
control.
3. Integrate restoration
efforts with capital
projects and other
resource management
efforts including, but not
limited to, shellfish
closure response plans
and water cleanup
plans.
Evaluate restoration
opportunities when
planning for parks,
transportation, and
other capital projects.
Replace paved parking
areas with pervious
pavement at parks/ boat
launches.
Number of restoration
actions implemented in
conjunction with other
projects.
Relocate public
infrastructure outside of
floodplains, migration
zones and other
sensitive areas.
Retrofit existing
impervious surfaces to
include stormwater
treatment and flow
control.
4. Encourage
cooperative restoration
actions involving local,
state, and federal public
agencies, Tribes,
nongovernment
organizations, and
private landowners.
Engage in coordinated
planning to identify and
scope restoration
projects.
Provide incentive to
landowners to restore
private properties.
Establish local
improvement districts to
facilitate and fund
restoration.
Provide bonus points to
landowners who restore
shorelines through an
open space taxation
program.
Number of collaborative
projects implemented.
Sponsor an annual
restoration planning
workshop with other
partners.
Number of landowners
participating in
stewardship workshops.
Work with restoration
partners to establish a
database and tracking
program for restoration
projects.
Fund or otherwise
facilitate a restoration
demonstration project
such as a soft shore
armoring project.
Create stewardship
programs and/or work
with existing stewardship
programs to educate
private landowners on
appropriate restoration
actions.
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 2-5
Number of projects
tracked via database.
Number of partners
participating in joint
efforts.
Goal
Objective
Potential Restoration 5
Actions
Potential Measures of
Success
5. Participate in the
Puget Sound
Partnership and commit
energy and resources to
implementation of the
Puget Sound Action
Agenda.
Engage in coordinated
planning with the
Partnership to identify
and prioritize restoration
projects.
Work with the
Partnership to implement
a restoration
demonstration project.
Number of collaborative
projects implemented.
6. Prioritize restoration
projects on shorelines of
statewide significance.
Identify projects on
shorelines of statewide
significance.
Prioritize resources for
restoration of shorelines
of statewide significance.
Number of projects
completed on shorelines
of statewide significance.
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 2-6
Chapter 3.0
Watershed Overview
The information in this chapter is summarized from the Mason County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report, which describes existing conditions of the county shorelines in detail (ESA et al. 2012). Mason County is located generally in the southwestern corner of the Puget Sound Basin in western Washington. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Mason County has a total area of 1,051 square miles, of which 961 square miles is land and 90 square miles (8.6 percent) is water. Elevations in the County range from 6,400 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the foothills of the Olympic Mountains, to sea level along the coastline of Puget Sound and Hood Canal. The County includes portions of five Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) as outlined below: 
WRIA 14a: Kennedy ‐ Goldsborough; 
WRIA 15: Tahuya Peninsula; 
WRIA 16/14b: Skokomish‐Dosewallips and South Shore of Hood Canal; 
WRIA 21: Queets‐Quinault; and 
WRIA 22: Lower Chehalis. The portion of WRIA 21 within Mason County is located entirely within federal land (Olympic National Park) and is not discussed further in this report. Also, lands within tribal ownership or in tribal trust, for example those owned by the Squaxin Island Tribe, are not governed by the County’s SMP and are not included in this plan. With the exception of WRIA 22, each of the remaining three basins includes both marine and freshwater shorelines. An overview of the marine shorelines of the County is provided below, followed by a summary of each of the four WRIAs. 3.1 MARINE SHORELINES
The marine shorelines in Mason County are located in WRIAs 14a, 15, and 16/14b. Marine shorelines cover about 217 linear miles including the inner shores of inlets, embayments, and estuaries. Mason County nearshore character varies considerably and is composed of numerous geomorphic shore types. Controlling factors within the Mason County marine landscape include climate, wave energy (exposure), sea level, topography, and bathymetry. Other variables influence Mason County marine shores including: net shore‐drift of sediment, bluff geology (stratigraphy), tidal Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 3-1
regime, and numerous fluvial systems, the largest of which are the Hamma Hamma and Skokomish Rivers. Mason County encompasses marine shorelines in two distinct areas of Puget Sound, including (1) southern Hood Canal (from near Triton Head south), and (2) the southern extent of the Southern Puget Sound sub‐basin from between the Pierce County line in northern Case Inlet to the heads of Hammersley, Totten and Little Skookum Inlets, including Oakland Bay, Pickering Passage, Peale Passage and Harstine Island. Several smaller islands are also encompassed within the County including Stretch, Reach, McMicken, and Hope Islands. Key management issues related to shoreline restoration in the nearshore areas of Mason County include the following: Hood Canal 
Low dissolved oxygen concentrations which contribute to adverse effects on fish and other marine organisms; 
Water quality degradation related to nutrient loading and high fecal coliform bacteria concentrations in marine waters; 
Modifications along the shoreline such as existing bulkheads and hardened armoring; 
Highways and transportation corridors (Highway 101) paralleling the shore with impervious surfaces which contribute to stormwater runoff and pollutant loading; 
Bridges and causeways creating constrictions at estuary mouths which impair tidal flow; 
Development near the shoreline resulting in reductions in forested canopy and habitat; 
Cumulative effects on aquatic resources related to construction of new residential docks and piers; and 
Removal of trees and clearing native vegetation on private properties for views. South Puget Sound 
Water quality degradation related to nutrient loading and high fecal coliform bacteria concentrations in marine waters; 
Water quality degradation in Oakland Bay related to dioxins and other contaminants in sediments; 
Modifications such as existing bulkheads and hardened armoring; Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 3-2

Highways and transportation corridors (SR 3) resulting in impervious surfaces which contribute to stormwater runoff and pollutant loading; 
Bridges and causeways creating constrictions at estuary mouths which impair tidal flow; 
Development near the shoreline resulting in reductions in forested canopy and habitat; 
Cumulative effects on aquatic resources related to construction of new residential docks and piers; 
Removal of trees and clearing native vegetation on private properties for views; 3.2 WRIA 14A: KENNEDY GOLDSBOROUGH
WRIA 14 covers approximately 244,000 acres at the southwest terminus of Puget Sound (Kuttel 2002). This watershed includes the major river drainages of Kennedy Creek and Goldsborough Creek. Of this area, approximately 85 percent of the WRIA is located in Mason County; the remainder of this WRIA is located in Thurston County. With the exception of the Black Hills in the extreme southwest portion of WRIA 14, the majority of this watershed is composed of low elevation hills and valleys. In 2008, the State Legislature passed a bill that split WRIA 14 into two separate areas for watershed planning. The bill (SB 6204) designated WRIA 14b as the portion of Kennedy‐Goldsborough that drains into the southern portion of lower Hood Canal. The legislation then states that the WRIA 16 planning efforts must include WRIA14b. No freshwater streams meeting the definition of shorelines of the state are found within WRIA 14b; however, two shoreline lakes drain to the south shore of Hood Canal in WRIA 14b. Principal drainages include Cranberry, Goldsborough, Kennedy, Mill, Sherwood, Johns, Deer, and Skookum Creeks. Despite the abundance of creeks, WRIA 14 has no major rivers. Numerous lakes are present. WRIA 14 includes the community of Allyn and the City of Shelton and its Urban Growth Area. The Squaxin Island Tribe Reservation encompasses the entirety of Squaxin Island; the Tribe also holds reservation and trust lands near the mouth and other areas of Skookum Creek. Land use in the Kennedy‐Goldsborough area is primarily forest (71 percent) with urban and agricultural use accounting for 4 percent each. Timber production was the dominant industry in WRIA 14a until the 1980s, when timber production slowed due to measures designed to protect the spotted owl. Since then, oyster and clam production have become other valuable local commodities (Vleming 2011). Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 3-3
Damming of streams and wetlands to create lakes, and shoreline modifications for residential development, have been common in WRIA 14a. These activities along with conversion of forestland to agricultural or residential land uses have altered the natural flow regime of many streams in the region. Dams and failed culverts may hinder salmonid migration in the Kennedy‐Goldsborough Basin. Marine shorelines of WRIA 14a are the shorelines of Case Inlet, Oakland Bay, and Totten Inlet, including islands such as Harstine and Squaxin. Marine shorelines of WRIA 14b include the south shore of Hood Canal. 3.3 WRIA 15: TAHUYA PENINSULA
WRIA 15 includes approximately 631,000 acres of the Kitsap Peninsula, most of which lies within Kitsap County. This area is locally known as the Tahuya Peninsula. Of this area, approximately 13 percent of the greater WRIA is located in Mason County, encompassing the Tahuya Peninsula from Belfair to Dewatto. The topography of WRIA 15 is generally low in elevation and gradient. Major water bodies in this watershed include the Union River, Tahuya River, Dewatto River, Rendsland Creek, and Mission Creek. Many small lakes also occur in the glacial till plain of Kitsap Peninsula. Development within the Tahuya Peninsula is relatively sparse, with residential uses occurring primarily along Hood Canal. The Tahuya State Forest, owned by DNR, occupies a large portion of the peninsula. Major land uses in WRIA 15 are forest resources, agriculture, residential, and urban services. The community of Belfair is located at the eastern end of Hood Canal. Although the degree of shoreline development is high in some areas, the upland watersheds have relatively low impervious surface areas, and predominantly forest or mixed forest/pasture land cover. This area generally lacks large urban/industrial development (Haring 2000; ESA Adolfson 2007). Another major impact is State Route 300 and North Shore County Road, which run along the entire shoreline. Anadromous salmonid distribution is limited in some WRIA 15 streams by the presence of natural barriers (falls and cascades), culverts, dams or tide gates, and reduced instream flows. The marine shoreline of Hood Canal borders the western and southern boundaries of WRIA 15 in Mason County. 3.4 WRIA 16/14B: SKOKOMISH-DOSEWALLIPS
AND SOUTH SHORE OF HOOD CANAL
WRIA 16 covers approximately 430,000 acres (WRIA 16 Planning Unit 2006). Of this area, approximately 56 percent of the WRIA is located in Mason County. This Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 3-4
watershed area contains the Dosewallips River, eastern shore of Hood Canal, the Skokomish River drainage and South Shore. The topography ranges from mountains in the western part of the basin to low‐elevation river valleys that drain to Hood Canal. The largest rivers in the Mason County portion of the watershed are the Skokomish and Hamma Hamma Rivers. Many smaller streams, some of which are intermittent, also flow directly into Hood Canal. For watershed planning purposes, WRIA 16 has been combined with WRIA 14b, which includes lands draining to the south shore of Hood Canal from the community of Union to the southern edge of the Belfair Urban Growth Area. Lake Cushman is a large reservoir formed in the 1920s by damming of the North Fork Skokomish River for hydroelectric power. Lake Kokanee and Kokanee Dam are also located on the North Fork. Numerous small dams are located on smaller streams throughout the WRIA (Correa 2003). The economy in WRIA 16 relies largely on shellfish harvesting, commercial forestry, tourism, Christmas‐tree farming, and some agriculture (WRIA 16 Planning Unit undated). Agriculture and residential development within the floodplains of many WRIA 16 watersheds have resulted in channelization of rivers and tributaries, draining of beaver ponds for livestock grazing, and logging in forested riparian zones. Forest practices in the watershed have caused adverse impacts on salmon habitat in WRIA 16 (Correa 2003). The Skokomish Tribe Reservation is located near the mouth of the Skokomish River on Hood Canal. The communities of Hoodsport, Potlatch, and Lilliwaup are located north of the reservation. WRIA 16 extends west into federally owned national park, national forest, and wilderness lands. WRIA 16 has approximately 8,000 permanent residents who reside mainly along the shore of Hood Canal (WRIA 16 Planning Unit 2006). In addition to the effects of residential development along the marine shoreline, a major impact to the nearshore environment is Highway 101 North, which extends north/south along the entire shoreline, and SR 106, which extends along the entire South Shore. 3.5 WRIA 22: LOWER CHEHALIS
WRIA 22 covers approximately 939,500 acres draining from the southwestern Olympic Mountains. Of this area, only 14 percent of WRIA 22 is located in Mason County. This watershed drains southerly to the Chehalis River. Major water bodies in the Mason County portion of WRIA 22 include the East Fork and Middle Fork Satsop River, Cloquallum Creek, and Decker Creek. These water bodies flow southward toward the mainstem Chehalis River, which in turn flows westerly to discharge to Grays Harbor on the Washington coast. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 3-5
The Mason County portion of WRIA 22 has a low population density and is mostly set aside for commercial forestry. Forest land in the Olympic National Forest occupies the northern part of the drainage in Mason County. No marine shorelines are present in the Mason County portion of WRIA 22. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 3-6
Chapter 4.0
Priorities
Overview of Restoration
This section provides a broad overview of the individual watersheds, sub‐basins, and shorelines that are considered high priority for restoration and how they were identified. Subsequent chapters provide information on specific restoration opportunities within these watersheds/reaches. 4.1 Freshwater Restoration Potential
The approach to developing the restoration plan for Mason County freshwater shorelines combined local site‐specific data with regional restoration and conservation priorities identified in WRIA salmon recovery plans, fish passage barrier inventories, riparian assessments, TMDLs, and other documents. The opportunities for freshwater restoration have been identified using a summary of information found in existing technical sources, where available. Restoration opportunities for shoreline streams and rivers have been identified by watershed lead entities, Tribes, Mason Conservation District, Ecology, South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group (SPSSEG) and others. Identification by the restoration community of specific restoration opportunities for freshwater lakes in the County is generally lacking. 4.2 Nearshore Restoration Potential
The approach applied to formulate the restoration plan for Mason County marine shorelines integrated marine/nearshore site‐specific data with regional restoration and conservation priorities. A comprehensive nearshore assessment has not been conducted for the Mason County nearshore environment. Therefore areas with nearshore restoration potential were compiled by relying on existing data. Data sets of previously identified restoration opportunities were compiled and augmented and then linked with regional restoration priorities. Site‐specific restoration opportunities were restricted to publicly owned shorelines and tribal lands. The overlap between the site‐specific restoration opportunity points and the regional priorities results in a County‐wide geodatabase of prioritized restoration opportunities that can be used for planning and linking with other restoration data. The shoreform‐scale recommendations can be used to link and prioritize other site‐
specific opportunities that may exist on privately‐owned shorelines. These combined results provide Mason County with a comprehensive database of Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 4-1
restoration actions on public shores that aim to address nearshore process degradation and salmon recovery. The details of each of the steps are described below. Figure 4‐1 summarizes the linkages between the shoreforms in which different nearshore processes occur and the stressors known to degrade them to highlight restoration opportunities, which were then, prioritized using regional recommendations from the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) (Cereghino et al. 2012). Shoreforms where processes predominate Stressors known to degrade processes Regional priorities to protect, restore, or enhance Figure 4‐1. Conceptual link from shoreforms to stressors to restoration priorities. 4.2.1 Data Sets
Several assessments have been conducted across individual portions of the County, most notably nearshore assessments for the Squaxin Island Tribe by Anchor QEA for a large portion of South Puget Sound (Oakland Bay and shores surrounding Harstine Island). The restoration opportunities resulting from these local assessments and other similar restoration assessments, such as those conducted by the Hood Canal Coordinating Council, are housed in the Habitat Work Schedule database and managed by the local Lead Entities. The Habitat Work Schedule system is a mapping and project tracking tool that allows Lead Entities to share their habitat restoration projects with the public. Lead Entities are local, watershed‐based organizations that develop local salmon habitat recovery strategies and then recruit organizations to do habitat restoration projects that will implement the strategies. Shoretype and stressor data as well as restoration recommendations resulting from Puget Sound‐wide assessments conducted by PSNERP were also used to identify and prioritize restoration priorities. These assessments included the “Puget Sound Change Analysis” (official report titled Historic Change and Impairment of Puget Sound Shorelines, Simenstad et al. 2010), the Strategic Needs Assessment: Analysis of Nearshore Ecosystem Process Degradation in Puget Sound (Schlenger et al. 2011), and Strategies for Nearshore Protection and Restoration in Puget Sound (Cereghino et al. 2011). Areas with restoration potential and specific restoration opportunities outlined in this report are the result of an approach that integrates the local higher resolution restoration opportunity data with the results of regional restoration strategies and opportunities. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 4-2
4.2.2 Results
The results of this analysis highlight marine shoreline areas in Mason County where restoration actions are needed related to impaired functions and processes along Hood Canal and South Puget Sound. Restoration opportunities are shown on the maps in Appendix A ‐ Maps; Map 4‐1 (Restore and Restore High all processes) and Map 4‐2 (Enhance and Enhance High all processes). The methods for this analysis are summarized in Appendix B ‐ Methods. Recommendations for the type of action (protect, restore or enhance) are applied to each type of process‐based restoration action (sediment supply, sediment transport, or tidal processes). Management measures that address each kind of restoration action are described in detail in the PSNERP document Management Measures for Protecting and Restoring the Puget Sound Nearshore (Clancy et al. 2009, http://pugetsoundnearshore.org/technical_papers/management_measures.pdf). Although the entire analysis of protection, restoration and enhancement was conducted for this effort (as described in Appendix B), only restoration and enhancement priorities were carried forward to inform the County’s restoration plan and strategy. Protection priorities and opportunities were not included in this plan as per direction from Ecology. Sediment supply can be restored by removing armor from bluff backed beaches. Sediment supply can also be enhanced with strategically placed beach nourishment. Sediment transport can be restored by removing armor, structures that infringe below Mean Higher High Water (MHHW), and other obstructions to littoral sediment transport such as groins and jetties. Sediment transport can be enhanced by implementing sediment bypassing around obstructions to littoral sediment transport, such as at a marina breakwater. Tidal processes can be restored and enhanced by removing armor, fill, and tidal barriers from tidal embayments and tidal wetlands. Results show that there are widespread opportunities to address sediment supply projects (assuming landowner willingness can be obtained) when compared to other forms of nearshore process restoration. Table 4‐1 below summarizes broad‐
scale restoration and enhancement types within the shores of Mason County. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 4-3
Table 4‐1. Recommendations and Priorities for Restoration and Enhancement in the Marine Shorelines of Mason County Based upon Coastal Processes Nearshore
Process
Sediment Supply
Sediment Transport
Tidal Processes
Miles
Shoreforms
Miles
Shoreforms
Miles
Shoreforms
Restore High
8.0
208
3.3
94
2.9
28
Restore
36.0
940
11.2
268
5.5
164
Enhance High
25.2
544
11.1
212
5.0
95
Enhance
23.5
574
6.2
146
1.3
68
Total
92.7
2266
31.8
720
14.7
355
Table 4‐2 below shows broad‐scale shoreline restoration and enhancement types within the shores of Hood Canal.
Table 4‐2. Recommendations and Priorities for Restoration and Enhancement in Hood Canal Based upon Coastal Processes Nearshore
Process
Sediment Supply
Miles
Sediment Transport
Tidal Processes
Shoreforms
Miles
Shoreforms
Miles
Shoreforms
Restore High
3.5
67
1.7
25
2.8
21
Restore
13.0
227
6.1
95
1.4
26
Enhance High
22.0
430
10.2
181
2.9
31
Enhance
12.5
280
3.3
70
0.3
12
51
1004
21.3
371
7.4
90
Total
Table 4‐3 below shows broad‐scale recommendations and priorities for restoration and enhancement within the shores of South Puget Sound. Shoreforms are not complete shoreforms but portions in which stressors occur for restoration/enhancement. Table 4‐3. Recommendations and Priorities for Restoration and Enhancement in South Puget Sound Nearshore
Process
Sediment Supply
Sediment Transport
Tidal Processes
Miles
Shoreforms
Miles
Shoreforms
Miles
Shoreforms
Restore High
4.5
141
1.6
69
0.1
7
Restore
23.0
713
5.1
173
4.1
138
Enhance High
3.2
114
0.8
31
2.0
64
Enhance
11.0
294
2.8
76
1.0
56
Total
41.7
1262
10.3
349
7.2
265
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 4-4
Chapter 5.0
Restoration Actions for
Marine Nearshore Areas
5.1 Programmatic Actions
Certain restoration actions could be broadly implemented on a programmatic basis to help achieve restoration goals. The following programmatic actions are recommended for marine shorelines within Mason County. Which County departments or other entities will take the lead on these actions will be determined in the future based upon funding and other County priorities. Mason County will continue to coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions on restoration activities. For example, many restoration actions are planned by Mason County Conservation District, which also coordinates restoration planning for Thurston County. Kitsap and Jefferson Counties are also likely collaborators for restoration actions in the Hood Canal portions of Mason County. Local Tribes including the Skokomish and Squaxin Island Tribes also have significant involvement in restoration activities in the area. Additional opportunities may exist to partner with not‐for‐profit groups such as the South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group. Opportunities to partner with City of Shelton on programmatic efforts should also be explored. 
Remove armoring and bulkheads from publicly owned marine sites including parks, wherever feasible. Replace with soft shoreline protection. These projects could be demonstration or pilot projects. 
For permitted shoreline structure replacements or repairs, encourage soft shoreline protection techniques and structure design standards to protect habitat. 
Remove any creosote treated wooden piles and structures from publicly owned parcels. Replace with concrete or steel if a structure is needed. Encourage removal and replacement of existing creosote treated piles by voluntary action. 
Supplement impaired feeder bluff contribution (mitigate for lost sediment supply) where possible, particularly where down‐drift forage fish spawning may benefit. 
Remove derelict overwater structures to restore aquatic habitat, and restore impacted substrates. All such removal would be on a voluntary basis. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 5-1

Identify derelict vessels for removal from nearshore areas. 
Encourage dike and tide gate removal, wherever feasible. 
Remove blockages to small tributaries to the nearshore such as culverts, fill, and other structures and debris. 
Retrofit stormwater identified by WSDOT and Mason County on on Highway 101, SR 106, SR 300 and North Shore County Roa. 
Replant/restore native riparian vegetation. 
Increase shoreline habitat structure along publicly‐owned properties where appropriate. This could include placing large boulders or logs and other large woody debris, or establishing native vegetation in disturbed areas including shrub and tree canopy to shade the nearshore zone. 
Coordinate purchase of development rights, conservation easements, property acquisition by Land Trusts, and land swaps with government agencies. 
Consider tax incentives for homeowners that complete significant restoration projects on private properties. 
Educate homeowners and businesses on the need to minimize use of pesticides (including herbicides and insecticides) and fertilizers and encourage the use of natural, slow‐release fertilizers such as compost. Due to the special concerns of excess nitrogen and phosphorous in Hood Canal, the use of fertilizers should be strongly discouraged in the proximity of water (lakes, rivers, streams or marine waters). 
Educate property owners about shoreline vegetation maintenance (including preservation of native vegetation along stream/nearshore riparian corridors and integrated pest management techniques) to promote shore stabilization, wood recruitment, and good water quality. 5.2 PSNERP Recommendations
A Puget Sound‐wide nearshore strategy assessment was recently prepared by PSNERP that identifies sites where nearshore ecosystem services can best be protected and restored (Cereghino et al. 2012). This assessment included broad recommendations for Mason County’s marine shorelines. Ecosystem services refers to amenities that ecosystems provide that benefit the public such as clean water, recreational settings, habitat preservation, visual aesthetics, or storm protection. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 5-2
This section describes the general conclusions of the report as they relate to Hood Canal and South Puget Sound in Mason County. 5.2.1 Hood Canal
The Skokomish River is the largest river delta in Hood Canal. Both the Skokomish and Hamma Hamma Delta areas are considered high potential for restoration. Many of the beach systems identified by PSNERP in Hood Canal are considered high potential for restoration (Cereghino et al., 2012). However, about half of the beaches are substantially developed. The beaches in the Big Bend area, along with the west shore from the Skokomish delta north past Lilliwaup, have been identified as sites suitable for enhancement because they are substantially degraded. The remainder of Hood Canal is composed of high value potential beaches. In Mason County, beaches along the eastern shore of Hood Canal from Dewatto Bay north to the Kitsap County line are considered complex and minimally degraded. Two barrier embayment sites near the Union Creek coastal inlet are noted to have a high potential for restoration. The beaches from Dewatto north are also considered high potential embayment sites and area recommended for restoration. Coastal inlet sites on Hood Canal were also identified for restoration. The Union River estuary/Lynch Cove near Belfair is highly modified but one of the seven largest and most complex inlets in Puget Sound (Cereghino et al., 2012). On the other hand, Dewatto Bay is considered high value as an unaltered coastal inlet. Tahuya River estuary is considered to be among the most significant coastal inlets in Puget Sound with moderate degradation; this is slated for restoration. 5.2.2 South Puget Sound
South Puget Sound is a complex mosaic of inlets and embayments with short beaches. South Sound also has a very high number of high quality inlets draining large watersheds, with 24 of the overall Puget Sound’s 51 potential inlets considered high value and recommended for protection as determined by PSNERP (Cereghino et al, 2012). There are no large river deltas in the Mason County section of South Sound. High potential restoration opportunities for beaches in South Sound include the southern half of Harstine Island, the rest of Totten Inlet and along the shores north of Oakland Bay. 5.3 Site-Specific Restoration Opportunities
This section describes restoration opportunities for nearshore areas that were identified based on the methods described in Appendix B. The recommendations are described relative to the nearshore processes they would address and the regional priorities that they would help to achieve. The total length of shoreline Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 5-3
encompassed within the broad scale restoration and enhancement action areas (Table 5‐1) spans almost the entire Mason County shoreline. Additionally, 82 site‐
specific opportunities located largely in public ownership include specific restoration recommendations, which could likely be implemented in a shorter time than those requiring private landowner willingness (Appendix A: Maps 5‐1 and 5‐2). Many of these site‐specific opportunities are also located within priority areas for restoration or enhancement. Table 5‐1. Miles of Shoreline Recommended for Different Strategies to Achieve Sediment Supply, Sediment Transport, and Tidal Flow Restore
High
Priority
Restore
Enhance
High Priority
Enhance
Sediment Supply
16.0
71.4
25.2
23.5
Sediment Transport
6.2
22.0
11.1
6.2
Tidal Flow
3.6
10.6
5.0
1.3
Nearshore Process
Implementing these recommendations would complement other restoration and protection efforts encompassed in the SMP. Restoration and enhancement efforts are necessary to offset impacts of existing and future development, repair past damages, and improve the ecological baseline. Opportunities located on privately held residential parcels were not included in this plan. In lieu of those actions, broader strategy areas were outlined and prioritized which can be used to identify optimal sites for restoration where landowner willingness may be achieved. Because this effort was limited to lands in public ownership, many additional opportunities exist on privately owned land. Broad scale restoration target or action areas are linked with regional restoration and enhancement priorities which can be used to prioritize existing projects and identify additional opportunities that could be implemented if and when landowner willingness has been acquired. The methods used to delineate these restoration target areas are described in Appendix B. Target action areas were created for restoring sediment supply, sediment transport, and tidal processes. 5.3.1 Hood Canal
The nearshore areas of the Skokomish‐Dosewallips Rivers and the south shore of lower Hood Canal are located within WRIA 16 and portions of WRIA 14a, while the north and west shore of Hood Canal is encompassed by WRIA 15. Hood Canal is the focus of considerable restoration research, planning, and action after decades of nearshore process degradation, habitat loss, water quality issues (most notably depleted dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform), shellfish closures, and a general decline in nearshore ecosystem health. Restoration actions in Hood Canal are often Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 5-4
led by the Hood Canal Coordinating Council, which identified many of the potential restoration sites included in the restoration opportunity geodatabase. Forty‐four (44) restoration opportunities occur within residential marine shorelines of Hood Canal in Mason County. The greatest number of projects is located within WRIA 16. Many opportunities entail restoration or enhancement actions that would benefit multiple processes; however, they are categorized by the predominant process that would be restored. In total, 21 restoration opportunities were identified that would enhance or restore sediment supply or transport processes within Hood Canal. All of these opportunities are located within areas that have been identified as regional priorities for restoration (mapped by Cereghino et al. 2012 as “Restore” or “Restore High” or “Enhance High”). Most of these opportunities entail armor removal and beach nourishment to mitigate for lost sediment supply. Twenty tidal flow restoration opportunities were identified. Tidal flow restoration opportunities are predominantly culvert enhancement or opening tide channel constrictions associated with highways crossing embayment openings. Two tidal flow restoration opportunities entail historic coastal wetland restoration. Nine additional restoration opportunities were identified that were categorized as “other.” These opportunities are opportunistic actions that typically entail debris or creosote pile removal. Restoration opportunities are displayed in Appendix A: Maps 5‐1 and 5‐2 and shown in Table 5‐2. Details including the restoration opportunity name, what reach it is found within, and a general description of recommended restoration actions. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 5-5
Table 5‐2. Restoration Opportunities on Public Shores of Hood Canal Opportunity
Number
Reach
Name
Project Name
Project Description
Process
Type
Priority
MR-01
Triton Head lagoon
enhancement
Remove armoring inside of lagoon, improve channel outlet
(unknown ownership)
Tidal
restoration
2
MR-02
Hamma Hamma Causeway
Replacement and Estuary
Restoration
The goal of this proposed project is to restore tidal
connectivity in the Hamma Hamma estuary by replacing
the SR101 causeway/bridge with an elevated structure
that spans the entire delta.
Tidal
restoration
Restore
3
MR-03
Cabin Point/Lilliwaup
Sediment Supply
Restore sediment supply from feeder bluff
Sediment
restoration
Restore
4
MR-03
Eagle Creek Salt Marsh
Relocate SR101 to the west, and remove fill to reestablish
salt marsh and tidal connection to the lagoon
Tidal
restoration
Restore
5
MR-03
Jorsted Creek Sediment
Supply
Restore sediment supply from feeder bluff
Sediment
restoration
Restoration High
6
MR-03
Jorstad Creek debris
removal
Remove derelict piles (possibly treated with creosote), in
excess here (no clear ownership)
Other
restoration
7
MR-03
Jorstad Creek beach
enhancement
Enhance sediment supply with beach nourishment, create
pocket beach habitat (Mason County ownership)
Sediment
restoration
Restoration High
8
MR-03
Eagle Creek sediment
mitigation
Enhance sediment supply with beach nourishment or
landslide sidecasting waterward of road.
Sediment
restoration
Enhance High
9
MR-03
Lilliwaup North sediment
supply mitigation
Enhance sediment supply with beach nourishment or
landslide sidecasting waterward of road.
Sediment
restoration
Enhance High
10
MR-04
Lilliwaup South sediment
supply mitigation
Enhance sediment supply with beach nourishment or
landslide sidecasting waterward of road.
Sediment
Restoration
Enhance High
1
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 5-6
Opportunity
Number
Reach
Name
Project Name
Project Description
Process
Type
Priority
MR-04
Little Lilliwaup
Replace undersized culvert at SR101 with bridge
Tidal
restoration
Restore
12
MR-04
Lilliwaup Causeway
Replacement and Estuary
Restoration
The goal of this proposed project is to restore tidal
connectivity in the Lilliwaup estuary by replacing the
existing causeway with an elevated structure that spans
the entire delta.
Tidal
restoration
Restore
13
MR-04
South Lilliwaup armor
removal
Enhance sediment supply with beach nourishment
Sediment
restoration
Enhance High
14
MR-04
Skokomish delta bluff
sediment supply mitigation
Enhance sediment supply with beach nourishment or
landslide sidecasting waterward of road.
Sediment
restoration
Enhance High
15
MR-05
Hill Creek South
Remove bulkhead, fill and structures to south of Hill Creek
Sediment
restoration
Enhance High
16
MR-05
Hill Creek Estuary Function
Replace undersized culvert at Hill Creek to reestablish
estuary function
Tidal
restoration
Restore
17
MR-05
Hoodsport Pilings
Remove structure on pilings to the south of Hoodsport
Other
restoration
Restore
18
MR-05
Hoodsport Hatchery
Relocate part of Hoodsport Hatchery to reestablish
shallow water migration corridor
Other
restoration
Restore
19
MR-05
Hoodsport debris removal
Apparent right of way, remove any excess debris
Other
restoration
Restore
20
MR-05
Hoodsport beach
enhancement
Enhance habitat with large woody debris and riparian
vegetation planting, potential beach nourishment
Other
restoration
Restore
21
MR-05
Hoodsport culvert
replacement
Replace undersized culvert to reestablish estuary function
Tidal
restoration
Restore
11
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 5-7
Opportunity
Number
Reach
Name
Project Name
Project Description
Process
Type
Priority
MR-06
Potlatch fill and riprap
removal
Remove fill, riprap, and replace with include elevated boat
ramp, revegetation (TPU)
Sediment
restoration
Enhance High
23
MR-06
Skokomish estuary
restoration. Dike, road and
tide gate removal from
Skokomish flats
Skokomish Estuary Restoration , remove left bank dikes,
roads, tide gates, Skokomish Flats-15605
Tidal
restoration
Restore
24
MR-06
Potlatch fill removal
Fill removal, restore historic tide channels
Tidal
restoration
Restore
25
MR-06
Skokomish estuary
restoration - remove TPU
road and towers
Remove Tacoma Public Utilities access road & TPU
transmission towers
Tidal
restoration
Restore
26
MR-07
Big Bend Creek Barge
Remove derelict barge at mouth of Big Bend Creek
Other
restoration
Restore
27
MR-07
Twanoh State Park Boat
Ramp
Replace boat ramp with raised design to allow sediment
transport and enhance juvenile salmonid migration.
Sediment
restoration
Enhance High
28
MR-07
Narrows sediment mitigation
Enhance sediment supply with beach nourishment or
landslide sidecasting
Sediment
restoration
Enhance High
29
MR-07
Union beach enhancement
Elevate boat ramp, enhance sediment supply with beach
nourishment, forage fish spawning, add marine riparian.
Sediment
restoration
Enhance High
30
MR-07
Union rock removal
Remove armor from beach where possible and plant
riparian buffer
Sediment
restoration
Enhance High
31
MR-07
Twanoh SP beach
restoration
Twanoh State Park Beach Restoration & Soft Shore
Design (PARK)
Sediment
restoration
Enhance High
32
MR-07
South Hood Canal sediment
supply mitigation
Enhance sediment supply with beach nourishment.
Sediment
restoration
Enhance High
22
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 5-8
Opportunity
Number
33
Reach
Name
MR-07
Project Name
Project Description
Process
Type
Priority
Hood Canal sediment supply
mitigation
Enhance sediment supply with beach nourishment.
Sediment
restoration
Enhance High
Sediment
restoration
Enhance High
34
MR-08
Twanoh Falls Creek
Bulkhead Removal
The Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group and
partners propose to design, construct, and monitor a
shoreline restoration project on 400 feet of private
shoreline on the Southshore of Lower Hood Canal. The
Twanoh Falls Community Club has 250 feet of bulkhead
35
MR-08
Lakewood Creek
Restore the natural estuary of Lakewood Creek
(Springbrook Creek) and install a bridge under SR 106 to
allow tidal influence upstream
Tidal
restoration
Restore High
36
MR-08
Forest Beach nourishment
Enhance sediment supply and forage fish spawning areas
with beach nourishment or landslide sidecasting
Sediment
restoration
Enhance High
37
MR-08
Union River debris removal
Remove derelict piles (possibly treated with creosote) and
debris
Other
restoration
Restore
38
MR-10
West Shoofly Creek
sediment mitigation
Enhance sediment supply with beach nourishment or
landslide sidecasting, add marine riparian, forage fish
spawning.
Sediment
restoration
Enhance High
39
MR-10
Allyn riparian restoration
Enhance riparian
Other
restoration
Enhance
40
MR-11
Tahuya Causeway
Replacement and Estuary
Restoration
The goal of the proposed project is to restore tidal
connectivity in the Tahuya River estuary by replacing the
existing causeway with an elevated structure that spans
the entire delta.
Tidal
restoration
Restore
41
MR-12
Rendsland Creek delta
restoration
Remove all shore armor, reconnect natural stream flow
(Menard's Landing Co. PARK & St of Wash)
Tidal
restoration
Restore
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 5-9
Opportunity
Number
Reach
Name
Project Name
Project Description
Process
Type
Priority
42
MR-12
Red bluff debris removal
Remove old piles (possibly treated with creosote)
Other
restoration
Restore
43
MR-12
South Dewatto Bay stream
mouth enhancement
Stream mouth south of Dewatto Bay, enhance culvert,
riparian, reduce impact of road
Tidal
restoration
Restore
44
MR-12
South Dewatto Bay
sediment bypass,
nourishment
Enhance sediment supply with beach nourishment or
landslide sidecasting waterward of road.
Sediment
restoration
Restoration High
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 5-10
5.3.2 South Puget Sound
This section includes a summary of restoration opportunities found on marine shorelines of South Puget Sound within Mason County. This includes marine shorelines associated with Kennedy‐Goldsborough (WRIA 14a) including Case Inlet, Pickering Passage, Peale Passage, Harstine Island, Hammersley Inlet, Oakland Bay, Totten Inlet, and Little Skookum Inlet. Many restoration opportunities in South Puget Sound were identified in the Lead Entity (Mason County Conservation District) three‐year plan and the Habitat Work Schedule. The nearshore areas of South Puget Sound are the subject of considerable restoration focus; however, no single comprehensive restoration assessment has been conducted. Restoration actions are commonly led by the Mason County Conservation District, South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group, and the Squaxin Island Tribe. Because this effort was limited to publicly owned land and many additional opportunities exist on privately owned land, linear restoration target areas can be used to identify if/what restoration or enhancement opportunities can be implemented if and when landowner willingness has been acquired. Thirty (30) restoration opportunities occur within publicly owned shorelines of South Puget Sound in Mason County. Restoration opportunities are widely distributed throughout this portion of the County, with small clusters in northern Case Inlet, east Hammersley Inlet, and Oakland Bay. Most restoration opportunities entail armor removal, stream mouth enhancement, or removal of tide channel constrictions associated with road crossings. Many restoration or enhancement actions identified would benefit multiple processes; however, they are categorized by the predominant process that would be restored. In total, 15 restoration opportunities were identified that would enhance or restore sediment supply or transport processes within South Puget Sound. Most of these opportunities entail armor removal and beach nourishment to mitigate for lost sediment supply. All of these opportunities are located within priority areas for restoration and enhancement (Cereghino et al. 2012). Fourteen tidal flow restoration opportunities were identified. Tidal flow restoration opportunities are predominantly culvert enhancement or opening tide channel constrictions associated with highways crossings of embayment openings. Three tidal process restoration opportunities entail enhancement of lagoon connectivity. Only one “other” opportunity was identified, which entails creosote pile removal. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 5-11
These opportunities are displayed in Appendix A: Map 5‐2 and listed in Table 5‐3. Details including the restoration opportunity name, what reach it is found within, and a general description of recommended restoration actions. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 5-12
Table 5‐3. Restoration Opportunities on Public Shores of South Puget Sound Opportunity
Number
Reach Name
Project Name
Project Description
Process Type
Priority
45
MR-15
Point Victor tide
channel
enhancement
Replace with larger bridge span, PUBLIC
Tidal
restoration
Restore
46
MR-15
Point Victor culver
replacement
Replace potentially undersized culvert, PUBLIC
Tidal
restoration
Restore
47
MR-15
Point Victor
stream mouth
enhancement
Improve stream outlet as per SNAR, remove derelict
structures, PUBLIC
Tidal
restoration
Restore
48
MR-16
Port of Allyn armor
removal
Remove armor, nourish beach to recreate natural beach,
enhance riparian
Sediment
restoration
Enhance High
49
MR-16
Allyn armor
removal and
riparian restoration
Remove armor, nourish beach to recreate natural beach,
enhance riparian. Port of Allyn property
Sediment
restoration
Enhance High
50
MR-16
North Bay armor
removal
Remove armor/rock
Tidal
restoration
Restore
51
MR-17
Case Inlet pocket
estuary
enhancement
Case Inlet Pocket Estuary Connectivity Project, larger
bridge span (Right of Way)
Tidal
restoration
Restore
52
MR-18
Grapeview armor
removal and
riparian restoration
Remove armor, nourish beach to recreate natural beach,
enhance riparian
Sediment
restoration
Enhance
53
MR-19
Reach Island
nourishment
Enhance sediment supply with beach nourishment or
landslide sidecasting
Sediment
restoration
Enhance
54
MR-23
McLane Cove
Bridge constraint
Expand tidal constriction at upstream end of McLane Cove
Tidal
restoration
Restore
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 5-13
Opportunity
Number
Reach Name
Project Name
Project Description
Process Type
Priority
55
MR-25
Graham Point
debris removal
Remove derelict piles (possibly treated with creosote)
(PARK)
Other
restoration
Restore
56
MR-26
Pickering Pass
stream mouth
enhancement
Improve stream channel, estuary conditions (Right of Way)
Tidal
restoration
Restore
57
MR-27
Hammersley
sediment
enhancement
Enhance sediment supply with beach nourishment or
landslide sidecasting
Sediment
restoration
Enhance
58
MR-27
Hammersley
armor removal and
beach
enhancement
Remove armor, enhance sediment supply with beach
nourishment
Sediment
restoration
Enhance
59
MR-27
Hammersley Inlet
nourishment
Enhance sediment supply with beach nourishment,
enhance riparian, pull road end back from beach.
Sediment
restoration
Enhance
60
MR-28
Chapman Cove
culvert
enhancement
Install fully passable culverts for salmonids under County
Rd
Tidal
restoration
Restore High
61
MR-29
Oakland Bay
beach restoration
Remove parking lot from upper intertidal, remove shore
armor (Taylor Shellfish)
Sediment
restoration
Restoration
High
62
MR-29
Tide barrier
removal, restore
fringing marsh
Remove tidal barrier from public land and restore historic
tidal wetland area.
Tidal
restoration
Restore
63
MR-31
Shelton beach
restoration
Remove armor, nourish beach to recreate natural beach,
enhance riparian
Sediment
restoration
Enhance
64
MR-31
Shelton bluff
restoration
Remove armor, restore bluff sediment source
Sediment
restoration
Enhance
65
MR-32
Walker boat ramp
removal
Walker Boat Ramp Removal (PARK)
Sediment
restoration
Restore
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 5-14
Opportunity
Number
Reach Name
Project Name
Project Description
Process Type
Priority
66
MR-36
Skookum Inlet
dike removal
Skookum Inlet Dike Removal (unknown ownership)
Tidal
restoration
Restore High
67
MR-36
Arcadia South
armor removal
Remove shore armoring from public (Right of Way)
Sediment
restoration
Restore
68
MR-36
Arcadia North
armor removal
Remove shore armoring from public (Right of Way)
Sediment
restoration
Restore
69
MR-36
Deer Creek
stream mouth
culvert
enhancement
Enhance Deer Creek stream mouth with perched culvert
Tidal
restoration
Restore
70
MR-38
Windy Point armor
removal
Remove shore armoring from public (Right of Way)
Sediment
restoration
Enhance High
71
MR-39
Kennedy Creek
NAP Hwy 101
Modification
Nearshore
Restoration
Modify Hwy 101, which bisects the NAP, to restore
estuarine processes and functions to Oyster Bay in Totten
Inlet.
Tidal
restoration
Restore
72
MR-40
Dougall Point
lagoon and beach
restoration
Dougall Point Lagoon and Beach Restoration (PARK)
Tidal
restoration
73
MR-45
Brisco Point
pocket estuary
enhancement
Brisco Point Pocket Estuary Passage Restoration
(unknown ownership)
Tidal
restoration
Restore
MR-48
Remove armor
and derelict
building from park
shoreline
Remove armor on upper beach and derelict building (if still
there) replant riparian vegetation
Sediment
restoration
Restore
74
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 5-15
Chapter 6.0
Restoration Actions for Lakes
6.1 Programmatic Actions
The following programmatic actions are recommended for freshwater lake shorelines within Mason County. 
Educate property owners about proper vegetation/landscape maintenance to promote shore stabilization, large woody debris recruitment, and good water quality. 
Encourage low impact development practices for shoreline property owners. 
Encourage incentive programs for septic users to replace and increase setbacks for septic systems. 
Educate private property owners about the negative impacts of shore armoring and overwater structures. 
Maintain educational signage about invasive species and water quality protection at all public access points. 
Educate boaters about proper waste disposal methods, anchoring techniques, and other best boating practices to minimize habitat damage and prevent water quality contamination. 
Encourage incentive programs for shoreline property owners, such as transfer or purchase of development rights and tax incentives for shoreline restoration and protection, and the advantages of conservation easements to permanently protect shorelines. 
Provide incentives to encourage restoration as part of redevelopment activities which improve habitat or restore salmonid habitats. 
Remove armoring and bulkheads from publicly owned freshwater sites including parks, wherever feasible. Replace with soft shoreline protection if needed. 
Remove derelict docks, floats, or other overwater structures that are no longer in use. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 6-1

Encourage lake associations or stewardship organizations to control invasive aquatic weeds in freshwater lakes. 
Maintain or increase shoreline habitat structure along all publicly owned properties. This could include placing large boulders or logs and other large woody debris, establishing native vegetation in disturbed or altered areas including shrub and tree canopy to shade the lake’s riparian zone. 
Establish and support lake managements districts to provide a pathway for the development of conservation plans and restoration activities that improve shoreline habitat and water quality, where impaired. 
Encourage the development and implementation of lake‐specific integrated aquatic vegetation management plans (IAVMPs) to establish protocols for vegetation control (including native nuisance vegetation). The planning process should also be used to identify intact shorelines for conservancy areas and to provide education on lake shoreline management. 
Educate homeowners and businesses on the need to minimize use of pesticides (including herbicides and insecticides) and fertilizers and encourage the use of natural, slow‐release fertilizers such as compost. Due to the special concerns of excess nitrogen and phosphorous in Hood Canal, the use of fertilizers should be strongly discouraged in the proximity of water (lakes, rivers, streams, or marine waters). 6.2 Restoration Actions for Specific Lakes
This section describes restoration activities that would be applied to lakes due to specific impairments. In some cases the restoration activities are the same or similar to programmatic actions described previously. However, because specific impairments were identified for the reaches, the restoration activities have higher potential to improve ecological functions and may therefore support a higher prioritization. The following sections describe in more detail the potential restoration actions for several of the lakes that have known issues with invasive aquatic vegetation, water quality degradation, and operation of dams and reservoirs. 6.2.1 Invasive Aquatic Vegetation and Water Quality
Four lakes in WRIA 14a (Island, Limerick, Mason, and Spencer) were identified as having impairments associated with invasive aquatic vegetation. Two of the lakes Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 6-2
(Mason Lake and Lake Limerick) have approved Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Plans (IAVMPs) for plant management. Restoration activities for these lakes should include evaluating the success of recent control efforts and making adjustments to the control strategy, if needed. Island Lake and Spencer Lake have infestations of Eurasian water‐milfoil and swollen bladderwort, respectively. At a minimum, restoration activities should include a survey and evaluation of these lakes to determine control needs. It is worth noting that since there are only a handful of lakes in Mason County with invasive plant problems, it may be well worth the County’s efforts to eradicate these plants before they spread to other lakes in the County. Mason Lake is included on Ecology’s 303(d) list of impaired waters due to PCB levels in fish tissue. More monitoring and analysis are needed to guide future restoration actions. Haven Lake in WRIA 15 is included in Ecology’s 303(d) list of impaired waters due to PCBs and other contaminants detected in fish tissue samples. It was not identified as impaired due to invasive aquatic plants, but the native plants are considered to be at nuisance levels and an IAVMP is under development. Agency sponsorship, funding, and community outreach will be necessary to finalize and implement the planning effort. Fawn Lake in WRIA 14a is not included in Ecology’s 303(d) list of impaired waters, but there are known or suspected septic system problems in this lake that are believed to be contributing to fecal bacteria problems in Skookum Inlet. 6.2.2 Dams and Reservoirs
Lake Cushman and Lake Kokanee (in WRIA 16/14b) are not listed as impaired waters on Ecology’s 303(d) list. However, due to operational impacts associated with the dams that formed these reservoirs, restoration measures are currently in process. The reservoirs are managed by Tacoma Power under the recent relicensing agreement that includes restoration activities for fish, wildlife, and water quality (Tacoma Power 2011). Restoration activities include Staircase Road and day‐use site upgrades to protect water quality, monitoring dissolved gases, and development of a fish habitat enhancement and restoration plan for the North Fork Skokomish River basin. The projects associated with the plan include, but are not limited to, in‐
stream structure enhancements, side channel habitat development, and the removal of existing barriers to upstream migration in upper Big Creek and Dow Creek. In addition, there are guidelines for construction activities that are related to numerous planned site enhancements around the hydroelectric project. The construction mitigation plan includes measures to restrict the spread of invasive species and maintain native vegetation. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 6-3
Although there has been significant progress toward restoration as a result of the relicensing agreement, additional restoration activities that should be considered for Lake Cushman and Lake Kokanee would include programmatic actions described previously. For example, because there is public access to Lake Cushman, measures to educate lake users on the risks of spreading invasive species, and invasive species monitoring, would be appropriate. 6.2.3 Restoration Opportunities
Table 6‐1 presents restoration opportunities for lakes in Mason County by WRIA. All of the projects listed in the table are considered to have a high potential for success in improving the functions of lakes in the WRIA. However, the success of each restoration project ultimately depends on the actual project design and implementation. Fewer restoration opportunities were identified for freshwater lakes (versus rivers) in Mason County. Less information on lakes is generally known. Shoreline lakes not included in Table 6‐1 do not have identified restoration needs above and beyond programmatic restoration measures outlined above. The table also lists the recommended timing for each restoration opportunity as “short‐term” or “long‐term.” Short‐term (approximately 1‐5 years) restoration projects include those that could be implemented by local landowners and volunteers and that would benefit the areas that are most in need. Short‐term restoration efforts include habitat restoration and enhancement efforts in publicly owned areas of the County’s shorelines. These projects could be implemented in the near term, depending on grant cycles and coordination with volunteer and community organizations. Long‐term (approximately 5‐10 years) restoration projects could be those that require coordination with other jurisdictions or that cover larger land areas. These projects may be more difficult to implement and would likely require more planning and permitting.
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 6-4
Table 6‐1. Restoration Actions for Mason County Lakes Lake
WRIA
Existing Alterations
Restoration Opportunities*
Timing (short
term vs long term)
WRIA 14A
Lake Anderson
14A
Dams have artificially raised water levels. Land
conversion from pervious to impervious surfaces.
Numerous individual docks/piers associated with
single-family homes.
Restore trees to riparian zones where vegetation is lacking.
L
Trails End Lake
14A
There is a public boat launch at the south end of
the lake. Most residential homes have an individual
dock/pier.
Restore native trees.
L
Mason Lake
14A
Public boat launch.
Listed on Ecology’s 303 (d) list of impaired waters
for PCB in fish tissue
Water quality impaired by nutrients. Infestation of
Eurasian water milfoil and nuisance aquatic plants.
Dock proliferation and overwater structures.
Remove bulkheads and use soft-shore bank stabilization
where feasible.
Restore native trees in the riparian zone.
Maintain constant lake discharge (from the hypolimnion) to
Sherwood Creek to maintain adequate base flows and cold
water input.
Maintain signage at public access points and promote
public outreach to educate lake users on milfoil.
Conduct water quality sampling to identify current pollutant
levels and sources to inform future restoration actions.
S/L
Spencer Lake
14A
Public boat launch.
Infestation of swollen bladderwort.
Overwater structures and dock proliferation.
Develop an IAVMP that includes monitoring and
maintenance for swollen bladderwort and other potential
invasive plant infestations.
S/L
Cranberry Lake
14A
Riparian vegetation removal.
Restore forested riparian zone and associated wetlands
where degraded.
Monitor and control aquatic invasive species potentially
spreading from Lake Limerick.
S/L
Island Lake
14A
Eurasian water milfoil infestation.
Overwater structures.
Public boat launch.
Conduct aquatic plant survey and develop a control plan
for invasive species.
S/L
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 6-5
Lake
Fawn Lake
WRIA
14A
Existing Alterations
Restoration Opportunities*
Management of water flows to prevent flooding.
Dam operations.
Numerous individual docks and piers.
Failing septic systems; source of fecal coliform in
Little Skookum Inlet.
Develop a program for septic monitoring and repair.
Timing (short
term vs long term)
S/L
WRIA 15
Twin Lakes
15
Two public boat launches.
Consider interpretative signage at boat launches related to
lake water quality and habitat protection.
S/L
Wooten Lake
15
Public boat launch.
Individual docks/piers associated with most
residences.
Consider interpretative signage at boat launches related to
lake water quality and habitat protection.
Reduce impervious areas.
Install rain gardens to reduce stormwater runoff.
S/L
Haven Lake
15
Public boat launch.
Listed on Ecology’s 303 (d) list of impaired waters
for PCBs and hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue.
Several docks associated with residences.
Conduct water quality sampling to identify current pollutant
levels and sources to inform future restoration actions.
S/L
WRIA 16 / 14B
Lake Cushman
16/14B
Not sampled for Ecology's 303(d) list; found to
meet a 303(d) Category 2 listing for dioxin toxic
equivalency (TEQ) in fish tissue; exhibits distinct
summer temperature stratification. Boat launches,
overwater trail crossings. There are 125
docks/piers and one buoy mapped in this reach.
Restoration opportunities as allowed under the Cushman
Shoreline Management Plan dated July 2012.
S/L
Lake Kokanee
16/14B
Cushman hydroelectric project.
Restoration opportunities as allowed under the Cushman
Shoreline Management Plan dated July 2012.
S/L
WRIA 22
Nahwatzel Lake
22
Individual docks/piers associated with almost all
single-family houses.
Restore native trees on developed lots where feasible.
*Restoration Opportunities are identified based on the Mason County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (ESA et al., 2012).
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 6-6
S
Chapter 7.0
Restoration Actions for
Streams and Rivers
7.1 Programmatic Actions
The following programmatic actions are recommended for stream and river shorelines within Mason County. 
Encourage low impact development practices for shoreline property owners. 
Encourage incentive programs for septic users to replace and increase setbacks for septic systems. Continue to identify failing septic systems and notify landowners of the need for remedial actions. 
Educate private property owners about the negative impacts of shore armoring and overwater structures. 
Encourage incentive programs for shoreline property owners, such as transfer or purchase of development rights and tax incentives for shoreline restoration projects. 
Partnering with Mason Conservation District, consider developing p and implementing a County‐wide integrated pest management plan to identify appropriate control measures for each of the key invasive weed or invertebrate types and for different levels of infestation. 
Where shorelines have been modified, provide incentives to encourage redevelopment activities to include habitat restoration. 
Remove armoring and bulkheads from publicly owned freshwater sites including parks, wherever feasible. Replace with soft shoreline protection if needed. 
Work with Mason Conservation District and agricultural landowners to improve stewardship through public incentive programs such as Farm Plans Cost Share, Environment Quality Improvement Program, Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, and BMP construction. 
Work with WSDOT, DNR, and other agencies to identify undersized or poorly installed culverts and other road maintenance needs. Create a list of prioritized needs and track progress on completion. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-1

Retrofit stormwater systems using low impact development strategies. 
Encourage levee setback projects to allow for channel migration on rivers and provide off‐channel habitat for salmonids. 
Coordinate SMP restoration with salmonid recovery and watershed management plans to align with projects prioritized in salmon recovery plans. 
Remove culverts and blockages from smaller tributaries and replace with bridges to allow for fish passage and channel migration. 
Restore historical connections between rivers and floodplains, including associated wetlands or historic oxbows that may be disconnected from the river channel. 
Maintain or increase shoreline habitat structure along all publicly owned properties. This could include placing large boulders or logs and other large woody debris, establishing native vegetation in disturbed or altered areas including shrub and tree canopy to shade the river's riparian zone. 
Educate homeowners and businesses on the need to minimize use of pesticides (including herbicides and insecticides) and fertilizers and encourage the use of natural, slow‐release fertilizers such as compost. Due to the special concerns of excess nitrogen and phosphorous in Hood Canal, the use of fertilizers should be strongly discouraged in the proximity of water (lakes, rivers, streams, or marine waters). 
Educate property owners about proper vegetation/landscape maintenance (including preservation of native vegetation along stream/nearshore riparian corridors and integrated pest management techniques) to promote shore stabilization, large woody debris recruitment, and good water quality. 7.2 Restoration Actions by WRIA
The streams and rivers of Mason County have been the subject of numerous restoration efforts because of their important salmon runs and the effect of freshwater inputs on marine water quality and shellfish harvest areas. While many restoration projects and programs have been implemented (see Chapter 8), there are still numerous opportunities to build on these efforts. Some of the major issues related to shoreline functions of the County's streams and rivers include: Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-2

Water quality ‐ high stream temperatures, excess nutrients, fecal coliforms, excessive sediment. Several streams and rivers in the county are subject to Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) restrictions. 
Riparian vegetation ‐ lack of coniferous tree cover, noxious weeds (particularly knotweed). 
Fish passage barriers such as culverts on both upper tributaries and at the mouths of streams in the nearshore zone. 
Stream flows ‐ excessive peak flows and extreme summer low flows. 
Alterations to river estuaries that restrict tidal interaction (i.e., bridges and highways crossing over estuary mouths). 
Flooding on the Skokomish River ‐ the subject of an ongoing, multi‐year general investigation being undertaken by the Corps of Engineers, Mason County, the Skokomish Tribe, and several state, federal, and local government entities. Tables 7‐1 through 7‐4 present restoration opportunities for streams and rivers in Mason County by WRIA. All of the projects listed in the tables are considered to have a high potential for success in improving the functions of shorelines in the WRIA. However, the success of each restoration project depends on the ultimate project design and implementation. Restoration opportunities for streams or sections of streams located outside of the County lands in national forest have not been identified in this plan. This chapter focuses on restoration opportunities in the lower reaches of streams and rivers, below national forest and national park lands and in Mason County jurisdiction. Federally owned lands in the upper watersheds are largely forested and are managed by the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service. The National Park Service maintains natural habitats through preservation and their conservation measures protect downstream functions. The U.S. Forest Service has adopted a Riparian Reserve Program which provides for well functioning riparian habitat, and is working to decommission logging roads (Correa 2003). The tables below list the recommended timing for each restoration opportunity as “short‐term” or “long‐term.” Short‐term (approximately 1‐5 years) restoration projects include those that could be implemented by local landowners and volunteers and that would benefit the areas that are most in need. Short‐term restoration efforts include habitat restoration and enhancement efforts in publicly owned areas of the County’s shorelines. These projects could be implemented in the near term, depending on grant cycles and coordination with volunteer and community organizations. Long‐term (approximately 5‐10 years) restoration Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-3
projects could be those that require coordination with other jurisdictions or that cover larger land areas. These projects may be more difficult to implement and would likely require more planning and permitting. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-4
Table 7‐1. Restoration Actions for Mason County Rivers and Streams – WRIA 14a Water Body
Shoreline Alterations
Reach or
Location
Restoration Opportunities
Ecosystem
Functions
Addressed
Timing (short
term vs long
term)
Coulter Creek
Land conversion from pervious to
impervious surfaces.
Logging adjacent to the stream.
Diversion of water into the
hatchery.
Septic systems may be
contributing to an increase in
fecal coliform.
Development of South Kitsap
Industrial Area in the headwaters
of Coulter Creek.
Low summer flows may inhibit
fish passage.
Riparian vegetation removed
along powerline crossing of
tributaries.
Removal of dead woody material
for fire control.
All reaches
Retain standing and down dead woody
material in riparian zones for near-term
recruitment of LWD to creek channels.
Restore functional riparian areas at the
powerline/pipeline crossings of the
streams.
Water quality
Shade, stream
temperatures
Aquatic habitat
Riparian habitat
S/L
Sherwood Creek
Development and removal of
riparian habitat increasing stream
temperatures.
Lack of riparian vegetation along
lower stream reach in residential
area.
Warm water outflows from midsystem lakes cause downstream
reaches to be too warm for
juvenile coho salmon.
Lower to
middle reaches
Restore riparian tree cover.
Restore associated wetlands impacted by
logging.
Explore options to reduce temperatures of
discharges from mid-system lakes.
SPSSEG has been working to identify
properties and designs for LWD
placement.
Water quality
Shade, stream
temperatures
Aquatic habitat
Riparian habitat
S/L
Schumocher
Creek
Impassable culverts on
tributaries.
Removal of riparian vegetation.
All reaches
Restore forested riparian zones where
impacted by forestry and timber cutting.
Water quality
Shade, stream
temperatures
Aquatic habitat
Riparian habitat
S
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-5
Water Body
Shoreline Alterations
Reach or
Location
Restoration Opportunities
Ecosystem
Functions
Addressed
Timing (short
term vs long
term)
Deer Creek
Land conversion from pervious to
impervious surfaces.
Logging adjacent to the creek.
Culverts and other structures that
change the flow patterns and
block fish passage on tributaries.
Lack of riparian vegetation and
large woody debris.
Severe erosion and bank
armoring due to development.
High water temperatures.
All reaches
Restore riparian areas that have been
altered by agricultural uses or logging.
Replace LWD in channels.
Remove fish passage barriers on
tributaries.
Restore estuarine and nearshore habitats
at river mouth (see Chapter 5).
Shade, stream
temperatures
Aquatic habitat
Riparian habitat
Fish passage, delivery
of nutrients to upper
reaches
S/L
Cranberry Creek
TMDL quality assurance project
plan for temperature.
Fish passage barriers.
Low streamflows.
All reaches
Restore forested riparian zones where
impacted by logging.
Restore associated wetlands, especially
those near the Tacoma Power right of
way.
SPSSEG, Squaxin Island Tribe, and Wild
Fish Conservancy have been working to
identify properties and designs for LWD
placement.
Remove fish passage barriers.
Shade, stream
temperatures
Aquatic habitat
Riparian habitat
Fish passage, delivery
of nutrients to upper
reaches
S/L
Johns Creek
Land conversion from pervious to
impervious surfaces.
Logging adjacent to the creek.
Inadequate riparian vegetation to
maintain cool stream
temperatures.
Channelization and bank
armoring.
High fecal coliform
concentrations.
TMDL quality assurance project
plan for temperature.
Low streamflows.
Blockages to fish passage.
All reaches
Restore forested riparian zones where
altered by timber harvest and clearcutting.
Add large woody debris to stream
channel. Squaxin Tribe and others are
identifying landowners and developing
preliminary designs.
Restore hatchery site.
Restore Bay Shore Golf Course.
Consider retiring Bay Shore water right.
Restore stream base flows through public
education and limiting water withdrawals.
Repair or replace culverts to allow fish
passage.
Shade, stream
temperatures
Aquatic habitat
Riparian habitat
Fish passage, delivery
of nutrients to upper
reaches
Hydrology /
streamflows
S/L
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-6
Water Body
Goldsborough
Creek
North Fork
South Fork
Shoreline Alterations
Land conversion from pervious to
impervious surfaces.
Logging adjacent to the creek.
Lack of riparian vegetation and
instream large woody debris.
Portions of the channel from
Highway 101 downstream are
channelized and armored with
riprap.
Railroad lines within the
floodplain limit channel migration
and disconnect the stream from
wetlands.
Use of dams, culverts and weirs
to change flow patterns.
Warm water temperatures, fecal
coliforms.
Bank erosion and instability in
developed areas.
Water quality issues related to
forestry and agricultural uses.
Culverts block fish passage on
tributaries and limit spawning
habitat.
Reach or
Location
All reaches
Restoration Opportunities
Restore riparian wetlands on Capitol Land
Trust property along upper Goldsborough.
Remove artificial fill causing channel
constriction upstream of Hwy. 101
(identified as a potential project by
SPSSEG 2010).
Add large woody debris to stream
channels; the Squaxin Island Tribe and
others have been undertaking LWD
projects.
Stabilize eroding left bank of
Goldsborough Creek upstream of Hwy
101 and reduce sediment loss through
installation of a crib wall and LWD
(identified as a potential project by
SPSSEG 2010).
Restore riparian vegetation along
Goldsborough Creek in cooperation with
Mason Conservation District (identified as
a potential project by SPSSEG 2010).
Stabilize eroding bank on the Simpson
railroad grade and add LWD to create
pool habitat (identified as a potential
project by SPSSEG 2010).
Reconnect Goldsborough Creek with offchannel wetlands on other side of railroad
grade (identified as a potential project by
SPSSEG 2010).
Replace perched culverts on tributaries to
remove barriers to anadromous fish.
Coordinate restoration efforts with City of
Shelton.
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-7
Ecosystem
Functions
Addressed
Timing (short
term vs long
term)
Water quality
Shade, stream
temperatures
Aquatic habitat
Riparian habitat
Fish passage, delivery
of nutrients to upper
reaches
Hydrology /
streamflows
S/L
Water Body
Shoreline Alterations
Reach or
Location
Restoration Opportunities
Ecosystem
Functions
Addressed
Timing (short
term vs long
term)
Winter Creek
Logging operations.
Inadequate riparian vegetation to
maintain cool stream
temperatures.
Blockages to fish passage.
All reaches
Restore forested riparian zones where
altered by timber harvest and clearcutting.
Repair or replace culverts to allow fish
passage.
Shade, stream
temperatures
Riparian habitat
Fish passage, delivery
of nutrients to upper
reaches
S/L
Mill Creek
Culverts and other stream
crossing structures.
Land conversion of forested to
agricultural land.
Land conversion from pervious to
impervious areas.
Logging operations.
303(d) impairment for
temperature; Category 4C listing
for instream flow; TMDL for
temperature.
Warm water outflows from midsystem lakes cause downstream
reaches to be too warm for
juvenile coho salmon.
Inadequate riparian shade.
Deficient in large woody debris.
Land management activities
cause bank erosion and fine
sediment input.
All reaches
Replant native riparian vegetation,
particularly conifers.
Place LWD in spawning and rearing
reaches.
Explore options to reduce temperatures of
discharges from mid-system lakes.
Remove fish passage barriers.
Shade, stream
temperatures
Aquatic habitat
Riparian habitat
Fish passage, delivery
of nutrients to upper
reaches
S/L
Gosnell Creek
Riparian vegetation lacking along
lower 2 miles of stream.
Lower reach
Replant native riparian vegetation,
particularly conifers.
Shade, stream
temperatures
Riparian habitat
Aquatic habitat
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-8
S
Water Body
Shoreline Alterations
Reach or
Location
Restoration Opportunities
Ecosystem
Functions
Addressed
Timing (short
term vs long
term)
Skookum Creek
TMDL water quality
implementation plan for fecal
coliform bacteria and
temperature.
Livestock, hobby farms, and
failing septic systems contribute
fecal coliforms.
Extensive removal of riparian
vegetation for agriculture.
Unrestricted livestock access and
removal of riparian vegetation
increase erosion.
Lack of large woody debris and
habitat complexity.
Culverts impeding transport of
spawning gravels and fish
passage into tributaries.
Poor floodplain connectivity on
lower reach due to deeply incised
channel.
Low streamflows potentially due
to groundwater withdrawals.
Increased sediment load.
All reaches
Replace failing culverts on tributaries to
allow for fish passage.
Replant native riparian vegetation,
particularly conifers, to increase shade
and reduce water temperatures.
Add large woody debris to channel.
Augment base flows through the use of
regulations, public education, and limiting
water withdrawals.
Remove dikes and reconnect stream to
the floodplain.
Squaxin Island Tribe is working to restore
lower reach on Tribal land through riparian
plantings and LWD placement.
Continue efforts to reduce bacteria
contributions from livestock through best
management practices, riparian
restoration, and restricting livestock
access to streams.
Continue to address failing septic
systems.
Water quality
Shade, stream
temperatures
Aquatic habitat
Riparian habitat
Fish passage, delivery
of nutrients to upper
reaches
Hydrology /
streamflows
S/L
Kennedy Creek
One 303 (d) Category 5 listing for
dissolved oxygen; TMDL water
quality implementation plan for
fecal coliform bacteria.
Livestock, hobby farms, and
failing septic systems contribute
fecal coliforms.
Culverts block fish passage.
Lack of riparian canopy and
shading to stream.
All reaches
Replace failing culverts to allow for fish
passage.
Replant native riparian vegetation,
particularly conifers.
Green Diamond Resource Company to
address temperature issues through its
Habitat Conservation Plan in cooperation
with Squaxin Island Tribe.
Encourage landowners to develop farm
management plans to restore water
quality.
Restore estuarine and nearshore habitats
at river mouth (see Chapter 5).
Water quality
Shade, stream
temperatures
Aquatic habitat
Riparian habitat
Fish passage, delivery
of nutrients to upper
reaches
S/L
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-9
Sources for WRIA 14a: 
Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors ‐ Water Resource Inventory Area 14, Kennedy‐Goldsborough Basin (Kuttel 2002) 
EDT Analysis of Habitat Potential and Restoration Options ‐ Coho in South Puget Sound Streams (Mobrand 2004) 
Oakland Bay, Hammersley Inlet, and Selected Tributaries Fecal Coliform Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load ‐ Water Quality Improvement Report and Implementation Plan (Ecology 2011) 
An Analysis of Potential Factors Limiting Coho Salmon Populations in Mill and Sherwood Creeks, South Puget Sound, Washington (Stillwater Sciences 2007) 
Salmon Habitat Project Development in the Goldsborough Creek Basin (SPSSEG 2010) 
Squaxin Island Tribe Water Quality Assessment ‐ Clean Water Act 305(b) Report (Squaxin Island Tribe Natural Resources Department 2005) 
Skookum Watershed Fish and Wildlife/Riparian Habitat Acquisition and Protection Action Plan (Squaxin Island Tribe 2006) 
Tributaries to Totten, Eld, and Little Skookum Inlets: Fecal Coliform Bacteria and Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load ‐ Water Quality Improvement Report (Ecology 2006) 
Watertype Assessment Project Summary ‐ WRIA 14 Phase II (Wild Fish Conservancy 2011) 
Oakland Bay Riparian Area Assessment ‐ Final Project Report (Mason Conservation District 2010) Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-10
Table 7‐2. Restoration Actions for Mason County Rivers and Streams – WRIA 15 Reach or
Location
Restoration Opportunities
Ecosystem Functions
Addressed
Timing (short
term vs long
term)
Water Body
Shoreline Alterations
Dewatto River
Logging adjacent to the stream.
Excess fine sediment due to logging
and road building.
Residential development along the
lower portion of the stream.
Lack of mature riparian vegetation
and large woody debris.
Culverts and other structures that
change the flow patterns and disrupt
fish passage in tributaries.
Elevated stream temperatures.
All reaches
Restore fish passage through culvert
removal or replacement.
Restore riparian habitat through forest
rehabilitation and invasive plant
control.
Restore degraded habitats in
mainstem floodplain areas.
Restore sinuosity and natural channel
configuration in artificially confined
reaches by eliminating bank armoring,
possibly with bioengineering
techniques.
Restore stream channel and offchannel habitat complexity by adding
large woody debris and log jams.
Support improved road maintenance to
reduce sediment inputs.
Reduce impervious surfaces.
Water quality
Shade, stream
temperature
Riparian habitat
Aquatic habitat
Hydrology / stream flows
Fish passage, nutrient
transport to upstream
reaches
S/L
Rendsland
Creek
Land conversion from pervious to
impervious surfaces, primarily at the
mouth of the stream.
Logging adjacent to the stream at
the upstream extent.
Culverts that change the flow
patterns and block fish passage.
High road density in watershed.
Portions of the stream go dry in the
summer.
All reaches
Remove blockages to fish passage.
Restore estuarine and nearshore
habitats at river mouth (see Chapter
5).
Water quality
Shade, stream
temperature
Riparian habitat
Aquatic habitat
Fish passage, nutrient
transport to upstream
reaches
S/L
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-11
Water Body
Tahuya River
Reach or
Location
Shoreline Alterations
Forestry and associated roads
contributing to increased peak
winter flows, decreased summer
flows, and increased sedimentation.
Culverts and other structures alter
flow regime and block fish passage
on tributaries.
Outlet control structure on Lake
Tahuya has altered the hydrologic
regime, impacting coho runs
downstream.
Channelization and bank armoring
in residential and agricultural areas
on lower reaches.
Localized areas of high fecal
coliform related to improper farming
practices.
Lack of mature native vegetation
and presence of invasive vegetation
in riparian areas.
Poor large woody debris
recruitment.
Some tributaries go dry during
summer; low flows may be
worsened by ongoing development
and exempt wells.
High stream temperatures due to
lack of shade.
Off-road vehicle stream crossings in
Tahuya State Forest are a sediment
source.
All reaches
Restoration Opportunities
Restore degraded habitats in
mainstem floodplain downstream of
Tahuya State Forest.
Restore estuarine and nearshore
habitats at river mouth (see Chapter
5).
Restore sinuosity and natural
channel/floodplain configuration in
artificially confined reaches of
mainstem.
Restore stream channel habitat
complexity by adding key large woody
debris and log jams in mainstem and
tributaries. (Hood Canal Salmon
Enhancement Group has sponsored
several LWD placement projects.)
Plant and maintain riparian areas on
both public and private properties.
Reduce sediment from roads.
Continue knotweed control efforts
(e.g., Hood Canal Salmon
Enhancement Group projects)
Work with Kitsap County on joint
projects in the upper Tahuya
watershed.
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-12
Ecosystem Functions
Addressed
Water quality
Shade, stream
temperature
Riparian habitat
Aquatic habitat
Hydrology / stream flows
Timing (short
term vs long
term)
S/L
Water Body
Shoreline Alterations
Reach or
Location
Restoration Opportunities
Ecosystem Functions
Addressed
Mission Creek
Logging adjacent to the stream.
Land conversion from pervious to
impervious surfaces.
Culverts and other structures that
change the flow patterns and block
fish passage.
Channelization and bank armoring.
Adjacent residential development.
Documented issues with fecal
coliform especially during summer
low flow and in the fall.
Invasive vegetation.
All reaches
Restore riparian vegetation where
degraded.
Continue knotweed control efforts
(Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement
Group has sponsored projects).
Remove fish passage blockages.
Water quality
Riparian habitat
Aquatic habitat
Fish passage, nutrient
transport to upstream
reaches
Union River
Water supply reservoir/diversion in
upper watershed.
Bridges that constrict streamflows.
Channelization and bank armoring.
Conversion of forest lands to
impervious surfaces.
Elevated water temperatures and
low dissolved oxygen.
Floodplain constriction by levees,
residential development, hobby
farms in lower reaches.
Riparian vegetation on lower
reaches is narrow and fragmented.
Invasive knotweed.
Lack of conifers in riparian zone for
LWD recruitment.
Elevated fecal coliform bacteria.
All reaches
Considered a high priority for
knotweed control (HCCC 2009).
Restore degraded habitats in
mainstem floodplain areas.
Restore estuarine and nearshore
habitats at river mouth (see Chapter
5).
Restore stream channel habitat
complexity by adding key large woody
debris and log jams in mainstem and
lower tributaries.
Fix remaining fish passage barriers.
Plant and maintain riparian areas on
both public and private properties.
Reduce sediment from roads.
Water quality
Shade, stream
temperature
Riparian habitat
Aquatic habitat
Fish passage
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-13
Timing (short
term vs long
term)
S/L
S
Sources for WRIA 15: 
Landscape Assessment and Conservation Prioritization of Freshwater and Nearshore Salmonid Habitat in Kitsap County ‐ 2003 Kitsap Salmonid Refugia Report (May and Peterson 2003) 
Salmon Habitat Recovery Strategy for the Hood Canal and Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca (HCCC 2005) 
Habitat Conditions and Water Quality for Selected Watersheds of Hood Canal and the Eastern Strait of Juan De Fuca (PNPTC 2001) 
Historical Changes Affecting Freshwater Habitat of Coho Salmon in the Hood Canal Basin, Pre‐1850 to the Present (PNPTC 1996) 
Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors ‐ Water Resource Inventory Area 15 (East) ‐ Final Report (Haring 2000) 
Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors ‐ Water Resource Inventory Areas 15 (West), Kitsap Basin and 14 (North), Kennedy‐Goldsborough Basin (Kuttel 2003) 
Hood Canal Regional Knotweed Control Strategy ‐ Draft (HCCC 2009) Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-14
Table 7‐3. Restoration Actions for Mason County Rivers and Streams – WRIA 16/14b Reach or
Location
Restoration Opportunities
Ecosystem Functions
Addressed
Timing (short
term vs long
term)
Water Body
Existing Alterations
Hamma Hamma
River
Removal of large wood from the
lower watershed, reducing
channel complexity and juvenile
fish habitat.
Adjacent residential development
in the lower reach.
Culverts and other structures that
alter flow regime.
Fill and bank armoring in the
lower reach restrict river
connectivity to floodplain.
Roads, residential development,
and agriculture have degraded
and limited fish access to habitat
in the estuary and instream.
Excessive fine sediment loading
due to landslides in the upper
watershed.
Lack of native riparian vegetation;
invasive knotweed.
Upper and
lower reaches
Considered a high priority for knotweed
control (HCCC 2009).
Revegetate riparian areas that lack
native vegetation.
Restore estuarine and nearshore
habitats at river mouth (see Chapter 5).
Restore natural channel-forming
processes and floodplain connectivity in
artificially confined reaches of lower
mainstem by removing riprap and
levees.
Restore stream channel habitat
complexity by adding key large woody
debris and log jams. (Hood Canal
Salmon Enhancement Group is working
on adding LWD to lower channel and
estuary.)
Support efforts to decommission and/or
repair logging roads (identified as a
project by HCCC 2012 work plan).
Water quality
Shade, stream
temperature
Riparian habitat
Aquatic habitat
S/L
Jefferson Creek
Logging practices
All reaches
Restore riparian areas where
degraded.
Riparian habitat
S
Waketickeh
Creek
Logging practices.
Culverts and other structures that
alter flow regime.
Fill placed behind riprap/armoring
along both sides of the lower
floodplain.
All reaches
Revegetate riparian areas.
Repair undersized culverts.
Remove riprap to reconnect stream to
floodplain.
Shade, stream
temperature
Hydrology / stream
flows
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-15
S/L
Water Body
Lilliwaup Creek
Lilliwaup
Swamp
Reach or
Location
Existing Alterations
Lack of large woody debris
leading to low channel habitat
complexity.
Adjacent residential development
in the lower floodplain.
Lower reach straightened and
dredged to route floodwaters
away from homes on the east
side of the creek.
Lack of riparian vegetation in
lower reaches.
Invasive knotweed.
Culverts and other structures that
alter flow regime.
Fill and bank armoring in the
lower reach.
Roads in the upper watershed
have caused sediment transport.
Roads and residential
development have degraded fish
access to habitat in the estuary
and in riparian areas.
Culverts and other structures limit
fish passage in tributaries and
block transport of woody debris.
Fish passage barriers in upper
reaches.
All reaches
Restoration Opportunities
Restore mainstem floodplain habitat
downstream of the falls/anadromous
fish barrier.
Restore estuarine and nearshore
habitats at stream mouth (see Chapter
5.)
Restore stream channel and floodplain
habitat complexity by adding key large
woody debris and log jams.
Plant and maintain riparian areas on
both public and private properties.
Considered a high priority for knotweed
control (HCCC 2009).
Support efforts to address mass
wasting, improve road maintenance to
reduce sediment inputs, and restore
wetlands in upper watershed.
Restoration project on lower floodplain
identified in HCCC 2012 work plan.
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-16
Ecosystem Functions
Addressed
Riparian habitat
Aquatic habitat
Shade, stream
temperature
Timing (short
term vs long
term)
S
Water Body
Skokomish
River
NF Skokomish
SF Skokomish
Reach or
Location
Existing Alterations
Increased sediment delivery in
upper South Fork; reduced
sediment transport in North Fork.
Causes may include logging and
low flows from hydropower
diversion.
Loss of Chinook adult migration,
spawning, incubation, and
juvenile habitat quality and
quantity.
Blockage of upper North Fork to
anadromous fish by Cushman
Dan (1920s).
Levees disconnected river from
floodplain, preventing excess
sediment from being distributed
across floodplain.
Lower reaches experiencing
channel aggradation, flooding,
and elevated groundwater.
Bed instability due to
channelization/dikes and storm
flows.
Loss of channel complexity due to
removal of LWD, draining of side
channels.
Lack of riparian vegetation.
Culverts and other structures that
alter flow regime.
Fill and bank armoring.
Conversion of pervious to
impervious surfaces.
Water quality problems from
septic systems and livestock.
Warm water temperatures due to
water withdrawals including
hydroelectric.
All reaches
Restoration Opportunities
Plant and maintain riparian areas with
native vegetation, particularly conifers.
Considered a high priority for knotweed
control (HCCC 2009).
Reconnect freshwater wetlands and
side channels. Removal of abandoned
roads to reconnect mainstem to
wetlands and floodplains on lower
Skokomish identified as project on
HCCC 2012 work plan.
Continue to participate in Skokomish
General Investigation to manage
flooding in the lower watershed.
Restore stream channel habitat
complexity by adding key large woody
debris and log jams.
LWD and riparian plantings on SF
identified as project on HCCC 2012
work plan.
Support Snohomish Watershed Action
Team efforts in restoring upper
watershed through road
decommissioning and repair.
Restore habitat in mainstem floodplain
areas downstream of federal ownership
(Mason Conservation District)
Restore estuarine and nearshore
habitats at river mouth (see Chapter 5).
Restore sinuosity and natural
channel/floodplain configuration in
artificially confined reaches by setting
back levees and removing armor.
Removal of levee at NF/SF confluence
identified as project on HCCC 2012
work plan.
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-17
Ecosystem Functions
Addressed
Water quality
Shade, stream
temperatures
Aquatic habitat
Riparian habitat
Hydrology /
streamflows
Fish passage, delivery
of nutrients to upper
reaches
Timing (short
term vs long
term)
S/L
Water Body
Reach or
Location
Existing Alterations
Restoration Opportunities
Ecosystem Functions
Addressed
Timing (short
term vs long
term)
McTaggert
Creek
A diversion of the upper portion of
McTaggert Creek sends the
majority of its flow through Deer
Meadow Creek and onward into
Kokanee Reservoir.
All reaches
Diversion dam removal and culvert
replacements identified as projects on
HCCC 2012 work plan.
Fish passage, delivery
of nutrients to upper
reaches
L
Frigid Creek
Fish passage barriers.
All reaches
Removal of fish passage barriers on
upper Frigid Creek identified as a
project on HCCC 2012 work plan.
Fish passage, delivery
of nutrients to upper
reaches
L
Brown Creek
Lower reaches impacted by
timber harvest related to an
abandoned hydroelectric project
and road building close to the
channel.
Debris flows that contribute
sediment to upper reaches.
All reaches
Continue road decommissioning in
upper watershed.
Continue instream habitat and riparian
restoration.
Continue slope stabilization activities.
Fish passage, delivery
of nutrients to upper
reaches
Aquatic habitat
Riparian habitat
S/L
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-18
Water Body
Reach or
Location
Existing Alterations
Restoration Opportunities
Ecosystem Functions
Addressed
Timing (short
term vs long
term)
Vance Creek
Channel straightening, levees,
riprap, and other bank protection.
Extensive logging in upper
watershed.
Skokomish Valley Road Bridge
near river mile 0.1 creates a
constriction during floods that
impedes flow conveyance and
traps wood upstream of the
bridge span.
Upper Vance Creek bridge
prevents downstream movement
of sediment and wood.
All reaches
Remove or breach levees on lower
reaches.
Construct log jams that will increase the
availability of deep in-channel pools.
Revegetate streambanks.
Expand bridge openings to improve
flood conveyance and transport of LWD
to Skokomish River and potentially allow
a more dynamic confluence between
Vance Creek and the Skokomish River.
Designate a buffer for riparian corridor
and channel migration.
Reconnect abandoned meanders to
function as side channels.
Increase quantity of wetlands, egress
channels, and spring-fed channels to
generate more functioning off-channel
habitat.
Restoration on lower Vance Creek
identified as a project on HCCC 2012
work plan.
Water quality
Shade, stream
temperatures
Aquatic habitat
Riparian habitat
Hydrology /
streamflows
Fish passage, delivery
of nutrients to upper
reaches
S/L
Aristine Creek
Big Creek
Price Lake
Outlet
Logging practices
All reaches
Support efforts to decommission and/or
repair logging roads
Riparian habitat
S/L
Dry Creek 02
Minimal to no alterations
All reaches
None identified
N/A
N/A
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-19
Sources for WRIA 16/14B: 
Vance Creek Geomorphology and Modeling Report (Reclamation 2011) 
Restoring the Skokomish Watershed: A Three‐Year Action Plan (Skokomish Watershed Action Committee 2006) 
Geomorphic Analysis of the Skokomish River, Mason County, Washington (Reclamation 2009) 
Salmon Habitat Recovery Strategy for the Hood Canal and Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca (HCCC 2005) 
Recovery Plan for Skokomish River Chinook Salmon (Skokomish Tribe and WDFW 2010) 
Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors ‐ Water Resource Inventory Area 16, Dosewallips‐Skokomish Basin (Correa 2003) 
Watershed Management Plan ‐ Skokomish‐Dosewallips Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA 16) Including the WRIA 14 South Shore Sub‐basin (WRIA 16 Planning Unit 2006) 
Mid Hood Canal Chinook Recovery Planning Chapter (WDFW and Point No Point Treaty Tribes 2005) 
Hood Canal Regional Knotweed Control Strategy ‐ Draft (HCCC 2009) Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-20
Table 7‐4. Restoration Actions for Mason County Rivers and Streams – WRIA 22 Water Body
Cloquallum
Creek
Existing Alterations
Excessive sedimentation from
high road density, off-road
vehicle activity, and livestock.
Increased stormwater runoff.
Removal of riparian vegetation in
rural residential and agricultural
areas along lower part of stream.
Varying riparian widths in upper
watershed where logging occurs.
Conversion of pervious to
impervious surfaces.
Riparian areas contain
predominantly alder regrowth
with a sparse distribution of
conifers.
Low potential LWD recruitment.
Riprap and other bank
protection.
Reduction of large woody debris
and side channels has reduced
the amount of juvenile salmonid
rearing habitat.
Off-road vehicle activity.
Channel incision is likely to occur
due to past splash dam activities.
Reach or
Location
All reaches
Restoration Opportunities
Correct barrier culverts.
Control invasive species.
Install riparian fencing to exclude or
reduce livestock access.
Interplant conifers in deciduous
dominant areas when appropriate.
Revegetate open riparian areas with
native plants.
Reduce impervious surfaces.
Restore natural hydrology by reducing
stormwater discharge directly to
streams.
Restore wetlands for water storage.
Reconnect, enhance, and/or restore
potential off-channel, floodplain, and
wetland habitat.
Remove hard armoring (riprap) or
implement bioengineering techniques in
place of riprap.
Minimize motor vehicle access to
streams.
Install log jams and key pieces of large
wood.
Decommission logging roads.
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-21
Ecosystem Functions
Addressed
Water quality
Shade, stream
temperatures
Aquatic habitat
Riparian habitat
Fish passage, delivery
of nutrients to upper
reaches
Timing (short
term vs long
term)
S/L
Water Body
EF Satsop River
MF Satsop River
Rabbit Creek
Existing Alterations
Reach or
Location
Restoration Opportunities
Ecosystem Functions
Addressed
Lack of coniferous forest in
riparian zones, particularly in
agricultural areas.
Sedimentation due to upstream
culverts and logging roads.
Control of invasive noxious
weeds, primarily knotweed.
Splash dams changing flow
patterns, increase channel
instability, and channel incision.
Logging practices in the upper
watershed resulting in removal of
trees from riparian areas and an
increase in sedimentation from
logging roads.
Numerous undersized road
crossings on tributaries that
block fish passage and inhibit the
movement of streambed material
downstream.
High road density contributes
high amounts of sediment.
Instream vehicle activity causes
erosion and degrades salmon
habitat.
Lack of LWD.
Riprap bank protection on EF.
Low summer flows and high
peak flows.
All reaches
Correct barrier culverts.
Reduce impervious surfaces.
Restore natural hydrology by reducing
stormwater discharge directly to
streams.
Restore wetlands for water storage.
Control invasive species.
Interplant conifers in deciduous
dominant areas where appropriate.
Revegetate open riparian areas with
native plants.
Eliminate motor vehicle access to
streams.
Reduce road densities by abandoning
and/or decommissioning roads to
reduce sediment loading.
Install log jams to improve instream
channel structure and habitat diversity.
Remove hard armoring (riprap) or
implement bioengineering techniques.
Reduce impervious surfaces.
Reduce stormwater discharge directly to
streams (rapid runoff).
Restore wetlands for water storage.
Water quality
Shade, stream
temperatures
Aquatic habitat
Riparian habitat
Fish passage, delivery
of nutrients to upper
reaches
Extensive loss of riparian
vegetation.
Warm water temperature.
All reaches
Restore riparian vegetation.
Riparian habitat
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-22
Timing (short
term vs long
term)
S/L
S
Sources for WRIA 22: 
The Chehalis Basin Salmon Habitat Restoration and Preservation Strategy for WRIA 22 and 23 (Grays Harbor County Lead Entity 2011) 
Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors ‐ Chehalis Basin and Nearby Drainages, Water Resource Inventory Areas 22 And 23 (Smith and Wenger 2001) 
Lower Chehalis Riparian Assessment (Grays Harbor County 2003) Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 7-23
Chapter 8.0
Existing Restoration
Programs and Partners
Numerous agencies and organizations are planning and implementing restoration efforts in Mason County. Most restoration efforts are undertaken because citizens, Tribes, nongovernment entities, and local, state, and federal resource agencies collaborate to solve problems and achieve shared goals. Continued collaboration at all levels is needed if the goals of this plan are to be achieved. Table 8‐1 provides a summary of government, Tribal, and nonprofit organizations involved in programs that affect shorelines in Mason County. Agencies and organizations are listed in alphabetical order. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 8-1
Table 8‐1. Potential Restoration Partner Organizations and their Roles in Future Restoration Partner Agency or
Organization
Bonneville Environmental
Foundation
Model Watershed Program
www.b-e-f.org/watersheds/
Capitol Land Trust
www.capitollandtrust.org
Chehalis River Basin Land Trust
www.chehalislandtrust.org
Ducks Unlimited
Mission and Scope
Role in Future Restoration Efforts
Supports science-based watershed
restoration initiatives that demonstrate
strong community engagement and strive
to implement a long-term restoration
approach.
Potential source of funding for restoration
projects.
Conserves important wildlife habitat and
natural areas by accepting donations of
properties and conservation easements,
and by working with partners to purchase
lands.
Currently owns property with high habitat
value at river mouths in Mason County.
Potential partner for acquisition of
conservation easements or properties for
restoration.
Mission is to conserve, protect, and restore
ecologically significant lands within the
Chehalis River basin.
Potential partner in acquisition of lands or
conservation easements.
Works to protect waterfowl wintering areas
in Puget Sound and coastal Washington.
Potential partner for restoration projects
benefiting waterfowl (e.g., wetlands,
estuarine areas).
Through the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund Program, provides funds to states
and Tribes who make loans to
communities, individuals, and others for
high-priority water quality activities.
Through the Nonpoint Source
Implementation Grant (319) Program, to
funds designated state and tribal agencies
to implement their approved nonpoint
source management programs. Also
provides grants through the Wetland
Protection, Restoration, and Stewardship
Discretionary Funding Program.
Potential funding for water quality
improvement programs, wetlands
protection and restoration, estuary
management efforts, wildlife habitat
restoration, streambank buffer zones,
nonpoint source pollutant control.
www.ducks.org/washington
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10: Pacific Northwest
Grants Administration Unit
www.yosemite.epa.gov/R10/HO
MEPAGE.NSF/webpage/Grants
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 8-2
Examples of Past and Ongoing
Projects
Acquisition of 100 acres of riparian
and wetland areas along
Goldsborough Creek.
DU has conserved 4.5 million acres
in the United States. Protected,
restored or enhanced more than
10,000 acres of habitat in Skagit,
Snohomish and Whatcom Counties.
Partner Agency or
Organization
Forterra (formerly Cascade Land
Conservancy)
Mission and Scope
Role in Future Restoration Efforts
Examples of Past and Ongoing
Projects
Conserves natural and working
landscapes in the Olympic and central
Cascade regions.
Potential partner for acquisition of
conservation easements or properties for
restoration.
Protection and restoration of 56acre preserve on Union River.
Conserves rural landscapes, natural
habitats, and open spaces in Kitsap,
Mason and western Pierce Counties by
accepting donations of properties and
conservation easements, and by working
with partners to purchase lands.
Potential partner for acquisition of
conservation easements or properties for
restoration.
Protection and restoration of 66acre Klingel Wetland on north shore
of Hood Canal.
A watershed-based council of
governments designated as the regional
recovery organization for Hood Canal and
eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca summer
chum salmon, and the lead entity for
salmon recovery in the Hood Canal
watershed.
Regional collaboration between county
governments and Tribes on issues
affecting Hood Canal water quality and
habitat.
Summer Chum Recovery Plan
(2005), Hood Canal Watershed
Strategic Plan (2009). Established a
technical advisory council for
rehabilitation of aquatic habitats in
Hood Canal, addressing stormwater
and land use, onsite septic systems,
and habitat. Created a draft Hood
Canal Regional Stormwater Retrofit
Plan in 2011.
Goal is to determine the sources of low
dissolved oxygen in Hood Canal and its
effect on marine life. HCDOP is a
partnership of 28 organizations that
conducts monitoring and analysis and
develops potential corrective actions.
Provides analyses and recommendations
to improve dissolved oxygen in Hood
Canal.
www.forterra.org
Great Peninsula Conservancy
www.greatpeninsula.org
Hood Canal Coordinating
Council
www.hccc.wa.gov
Hood Canal Dissolved Oxygen
Program
www.hoodcanal.washington.edu
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 8-3
Partner Agency or
Organization
Hood Canal Salmon
Enhancement Group
www.hcseg.org
Interagency Committee for
Outdoor Recreation
Washington Wildlife Recreation
Program
www.rco.wa.gov/grants/wwrp.sht
m
Long Live the Kings
www.lltk.org
Mission and Scope
Role in Future Restoration Efforts
Mission is to protect and restore salmon
populations and aquatic habitat. Partners
with other organizations to plan, fund,
implement, and monitor fishery
enhancement and habitat restoration
project. HCSEG is one of 14 regional
enhancement groups established by the
Washington state legislature.
Potential partner for salmon restoration
projects.
Provides funding for a broad range of land
protection and outdoor recreation,
including park acquisition and
development, habitat conservation,
farmland preservation, and construction of
outdoor recreation facilities.
Potential funding source for habitat
conservation and recreation projects in
shoreline areas.
Promotes coordinated, scientificallycredible, and transparent changes to
harvest, hatchery, and habitat
management to protect and restore wild
salmon.
Potential partner for salmon restoration
projects.
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 8-4
Examples of Past and Ongoing
Projects
Removal of over 50 fish passage
barriers, reestablishing over 80
miles of stream habitat. Sponsored
Union River estuary restoration,
lower Tahuya River LWD
placement, knotweed control,
Hamma Hamma LWD and offchannel restoration.
Involved in several salmon recovery
projects including the Hood Canal
Steelhead Project, Lilliwaup
Hatchery, Lilliwaup Creek
Restoration Project, Hood Canal
Summer Chum Recovery, Hamma
Hamma Winter Steelhead Project,
Hamma Hamma Chinook
Conservancy Project, and Hamma
Hamma Smolt Trap.
Partner Agency or
Organization
Mason Conservation District
www.masoncd.org
Mason County Noxious Weed
Control Board
http://county.wsu.edu/mason/nrs/
noxious
Mason County Small Farms
Program
http://county.wsu.edu/mason/agri
culture
Mason County Water Quality
Program
http://www.co.mason.wa.us/healt
h/environmental/water_quality/in
dex.php
Mission and Scope
Role in Future Restoration Efforts
Mission is to promote the sustainable use,
conservation, and restoration of natural
resources.
Technical, financial, and educational
resources for shoreline landowners to
assist with riparian management plans
and forest management.
Enforces the state noxious weed control
regulations and refines the state noxious
weed list to include species present in
Mason County.
Provide guidance on methods of weed
control; enforce weed control
requirements.
Partnership between the Mason
Conservation District and WSU Mason
County Extension to foster farm
stewardship and develop local food
markets
Helps landowners with farm conservation
plans, funding for BMPs, education.
Purpose is to protect public health by
preventing pollutants from entering
groundwater and surface water, monitoring
for pollutants, and correcting sources of
pollution.
Collects data on water quality issues,
obtains grant funding for restorative
actions.
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 8-5
Examples of Past and Ongoing
Projects
Partner with the Mason County
Noxious Weed Control Board and
Hood Canal Coordinating Council to
survey noxious weeds in southern
Hood Canal riparian areas.
Coordinates the WRIA 14 Salmon
Habitat Recovery Committee.
Assists agricultural landowners in
the Skokomish watershed with best
management practices.
Administered the Oakland Bay
riparian assessment.
Partner Agency or
Organization
National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation
http://www.nfwf.org/
NOAA Restoration Center
Community-based Restoration
Program
Northwest Region
www.habitat.noaa.gov/restoratio
n/programs/crp.html
Natural Resources Conservation
Service
www.apfo.usda.gov/FSA/webapp
?area=home&subject=copr&topi
c=crp
Mission and Scope
Role in Future Restoration Efforts
Administers grant programs for projects
that improve and restore native salmon
habitat, remove barriers to fish passage, or
for the acquisition of land/ conservation
easements on private lands where the
habitat is critical to salmon species. Grant
programs include: Bring Back the Natives:
A Public-Private Partnership for Restoring
Populations of Native Aquatic Species;
Five-Star Restoration Matching Grants
Program; Marine Debris Prevention and
Removal Program; Puget Sound Marine
Conservation Fund; The Migratory Bird
Conservancy; and the Community Salmon
Fund.
Potential funding source for salmon
habitat enhancement projects, removal
marine debris.
A financial and technical assistance
program that helps communities
implement restoration projects.
Administers NOAA CRP 3-Year
Partnership Grants, NOAA CRP Project
Grants, American Sportfishing
Association’s FishAmerica Foundation
Grants, National Fish & Wildlife
Foundation/National Association of
Counties Coastal Counties Restoration
Initiative, and American Rivers funding for
dam removal or fish passage projects.
Potential source of funding and technical
assistance for salmon habitat
enhancement projects.
Provides technical assistance to
agricultural landowners through the
Conservation Reserve Program, a
voluntary program where landowners
receive annual rental payments and costshare assistance to set aside vegetated
areas. Acreage enrolled in the CRP is
planted to vegetative covers that control
erosion and provide wildlife habitat.
Assistance to agricultural landowners for
BMPs and riparian restoration projects.
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 8-6
Examples of Past and Ongoing
Projects
Partner Agency or
Organization
Oakland Bay Clean Water
District - Friends of Oakland Bay
www.co.mason.wa.us/oakland_b
ay
People for Puget Sound
www.pugetsound.org
Point No Point Treaty Council
www.pnptc.org
Puget Sound Nearshore
Ecosystem Restoration Project
(PSNERP)
http://www.pugetsoundnearshore
.org/
Puget Sound Partnership
www.psp.wa.gov/
Examples of Past and Ongoing
Projects
Mission and Scope
Role in Future Restoration Efforts
District was formed in 2007 in response to
degraded water quality at north end of
Oakland Bay. Goal is to reduce water
pollution and ensure the bay is safe for
fishing, recreation, cultural, and economic
uses.
Provides information to residents on
topics such as low impact development,
shellfish safety, and marine water quality.
Nonprofit organization founded in 1991 to
protect the health of Puget Sound. Key
programs address community-based
restoration, oil spill prevention, stormwater
management, toxics, septic systems,
public involvement and education.
Community and volunteer support for
shoreline restoration and education
projects.
1,200 miles of Puget Sound
shoreline protected; 46 miles of
shoreline restored, working with
2,000 volunteers; 20 salt marshes,
beaches and estuaries restored.
Created in 1974 to coordinate fisheries
harvest management, stock assessment
and enhancement, and habitat
preservation between jurisdictions to
ensure successful tribal treaty rights.
Source of technical information and
potential partner for restoration projects.
Produced numerous technical
studies on Hood Canal watershed
natural resource issues.
Identify significant ecosystem problems in
Washington State's Puget Sound basin,
evaluate potential solutions, and restore
and preserve critical nearshore habitat.
The Estuary and Salmon Restoration
Program uses state capital funds and
NOAA Restoration Center resources to
fund restoration and protection projects
that benefit salmon and the nearshore
environment in Puget Sound.
Make recommendations for restoration
actions. Potential funding source for
nearshore restoration projects.
Identified areas of nearshore
degradation and restoration
opportunities in Mason County.
Restore and protect Puget Sound by
implementing the Puget Sound Action
Agenda.
Secure funding, develop detailed
implementation plans, adopt benchmarks
to measure progress, prepare Integrated
Ecosystem Assessment for Puget Sound,
work with watershed groups to incorporate
salmon recovery planning, etc.
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 8-7
Partner Agency or
Organization
Salmon Recovery Funding Board
(SRFB)
www.rco.wa.gov/boards/srfb.sht
ml
Skokomish Tribe
www.skokomish.org
Skokomish Watershed Action
Team
http://hccc.wa.gov/Groups/SWAT
/default.aspx
South Puget Sound Salmon
Enhancement Group
www.spsseg.org
Mission and Scope
Role in Future Restoration Efforts
Examples of Past and Ongoing
Projects
Supports salmon recovery by funding
habitat protection and restoration projects
and related programs and activities that
produce sustainable and measurable
benefits for fish and their habitat.
Distributes funds through two grant
programs: SRFB grants, and Family Forest
Fish Passage Program grants.
Potential funding source for salmon
recovery projects.
Has funded numerous projects in
Mason County including Union
River estuary restoration, Lower
Tahuya River LWD placement,
knotweed control, Hamma Hamma
LWD and off-channel restoration.
Mission is to protect the Skokomish Tribe's
treaty rights through effective management
that will preserve and enhance the natural
and cultural resources of the Tribe and
perpetuate tribal fisheries resources for
future generations.
Potential partner for salmon and aquatic
habitat restoration projects.
Conducts ongoing water quality
monitoring.
Partnered with WDFW to develop
the Skokomish River Chinook
Recovery Plan.
Mission is to work toward common
ecological and economic goals in the
Skokomish River watershed through
collaborative basin restoration projects.
Members include over two dozen federal,
state, and local agencies; nonprofit
organizations; businesses; utilities; Tribes;
and others. Mason County is a participant
in SWAT.
Collaborative efforts to rehabilitate logging
roads in upper Skokomish watershed.
Flat Stewardship Project used
commercial timber thinning to
generate funds for
decommissioning of LeBar Creek
Road and stream restoration.
Mission is to protect and restore salmon
populations and aquatic habitat in WRIAs
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and parts of 15.
Partners with other organizations to plan,
fund, implement, and monitor fishery
enhancement and habitat restoration
project. SPSSEG is one of 14 regional
enhancement groups established by the
Washington state legislature.
Potential partner for salmon habitat and
aquatic restoration projects and public
education/ volunteers.
Has sponsored or co-sponsored
over 170 projects including
restoration of spawning/ rearing
habitat, riparian restoration,
nearshore restoration, and fish
passage improvement.
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 8-8
Partner Agency or
Organization
Squaxin Island Tribe Natural
Resource Department
www.squaxinisland.org
The Nature Conservancy
www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/reg
ions/northamerica/unitedstates/w
ashington/index.htm
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Projects
www.nws.usace.army.mil/Public
Menu/Menu.cfm?sitename=cw&
pagename=cap
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Basinwide Restoration New
Starts General Investigation
www.nws.usace.army.mil
Mission and Scope
Role in Future Restoration Efforts
Examples of Past and Ongoing
Projects
Works to sustain and enhance tribal
resources; participates in natural
resources enhancement and protection
programs.
Partner for water quality monitoring and
restoration projects.
Worked with the state to develop
TMDLs for water bodies draining to
Hood Canal; completed restoration
projects on Skookum Creek;
developed a restoration plan for
Skokomish River Chinook salmon in
cooperation with WDFW.
Established an EDT analytical
framework for restoration and
management of habitat for
Goldsborough, Skookum, McLane
and Johns Creek.
Conservation organization working around
the world to protect ecologically important
lands and waters for nature and people.
Land acquisition and protection; public
involvement and education.
Protected more than 119 million
acres of land, 5,000 miles of rivers,
more than 100 marine conservation
projects globally.
Under the authority provided by Section
206 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996, the Corps may plan, design
and build projects to restore aquatic
ecosystems for fish and wildlife. The
process for Section 206 projects begins
after a nonfederal sponsor requests Corps
of Engineers assistance under the
program. The Corps provides project
design and construction management.
There is a cost sharing agreement with the
local sponsor.
Potential source of funding and technical
assistance for large-scale aquatic
restoration projects.
In partnership with WDFW, the
Corps removed a 35-ft dam
structure on Goldsborough Creek
and restored the creek to a more
natural gradient for fish passage
and other critical habitat needs
(completed in 2001). Improved fish
habitat on approximately 13 miles of
mainstem and 20 miles of tributary
stream length.
Provides funding for projects related to
coastal ecosystems, fish and wildlife, flood
management, land management and
planning, outdoor recreation, general
restoration, riparian areas, water quality,
and wetlands through cost sharing with
local sponsor.
Potential funding source for large-scale
restoration projects.
Skokomish River Basin General
Investigation is ongoing. Mason
County and the Skokomish Tribe
are cost-sharing, nonfederal
sponsors.
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 8-9
Partner Agency or
Organization
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Washington Fish and Wildlife
Office
http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/
Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife
www.wdfw.wa.gov/grants/
Washington Department of
Natural Resources Small Forest
Landowner Office
www.dnr.wa.gov/businesspermit
s/topics/smallforestlandowneroffi
ce/pages/fp_sflo_overview.aspx
Mission and Scope
Role in Future Restoration Efforts
Administers the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program, Puget Sound Program,
National Fish Passage Program,
Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund, and North American
Wetlands Conservation Act Grants
Program.
Potential source of funding and technical
assistance for wetlands and wildlife
conservation projects, barrier culvert
removal, off-channel habitat, restoration of
native vegetation.
State agency with a dual mandate from the
Washington Legislature to: (1) Protect and
enhance fish and wildlife and their
habitats; (2) Provide sustainable, fish and
wildlife-related recreational and
commercial opportunities. Administers
grant programs (Aquatic Lands
Enhancement Account Volunteer
Cooperative Projects Program and
Landowner Incentive Program) for the
protection, enhancement or restoration of
habitat.
Technical assistance for fish and wildlife
enhancement projects. Potential grant
funding source. Permitting for in-water
restoration work.
The Family Forest Fish Passage Program
will pay qualified landowners up to 100%
for replacing blocked culverts. The Forest
Riparian Easement Program also pays
qualified landowners 50 to 100% of the
value of timber they leave in riparian zones
in exchange for a 50-year easement.
Potential funding source for fish passage
and riparian vegetation improvement
projects on forest lands.
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 8-10
Examples of Past and Ongoing
Projects
Maintains list and maps of Priority
Habitats and Species throughout
the state and provides management
recommendations. Screens forest
practices applications, hydraulic
project approvals, and provides
SEPA review.
Partner Agency or
Organization
Washington State Department of
Ecology
Water Quality Program
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/w
qhome.html
Washington State Department of
Health
Office of Shellfish and Water
Protection
www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/sf/default.h
tm
Washington State Department of
Natural Resources
Aquatic Lands Restoration
Funding
Aquatic Resources Division
Mission and Scope
Role in Future Restoration Efforts
Administers several grant programs to
address aquatic invasive vegetation and
water quality, including: Aquatic Weeds
Financial Assistance Program, Freshwater
Algae Control Program, Centennial Clean
Water Fund, State Revolving Loan Fund,
Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants
Program. Coastal habitat funding
programs include the Coastal Protection
Fund and Coastal Zone Management
Administration/ Implementation Awards.
Potential funding source for projects to
control invasive aquatic vegetation,
improve water quality, protect and restore
coastal habitat.
Mission is to improve the health of people
in Washington State by ensuring shellfish
are safe to eat, beaches are safe for
swimming, and on-site sewage and
reclaimed water systems are properly
managed.
Provides monitoring data and advisories
about marine water quality and biotoxins.
Provides funding for removal of creosote
piles, removal of derelict vessels and other
clean up in the nearshore environment.
Potential funding source for nearshore
restoration projects.
www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScien
ce/Topics/AquaticCleanUpRestoration/Pages/aqr_restor
ation_program.aspx
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 8-11
Examples of Past and Ongoing
Projects
Through EPA grants, assists Mason
County in contacting residents and
updating the County's onsite
sewage system database; also
working with the Hood Canal
Coordinating Council to establish a
regional program to correct sources
of pathogen and nutrient pollution.
Partner Agency or
Organization
Wild Fish Conservancy
www.wildfishconservancy.org
WSU Mason County Extension
www.county.wsu.edu/mason
Mission and Scope
Role in Future Restoration Efforts
Examples of Past and Ongoing
Projects
Promotes technically and socially
responsible habitat, fisheries, and hatchery
management to sustain wild fish. Conducts
research and monitoring in rivers, lakes,
and nearshore habitats throughout the
region.
Potential partner for salmon and aquatic
habitat restoration projects.
Mason County Water Type
Assessment on 45 miles of streams
in WRIA 14. Designed LWD
placement projects for USFS
reaches of Dosewallips and
Duckabush Rivers. Restored natural
shoreline on lower Dosewallips
floodplain and estuary.
Provides practical guidance for protecting
streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries,
and marine waters.
Provides information and technical
guidance.
Provides information on numerous
water-related topics such as rain
gardens, septic system
maintenance, shoreline protection..
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 8-12
Chapter 9.0
Monitoring
Timelines, Benchmarks and
As a long‐range planning effort without dedicated funding, it is difficult to articulate a firm strategy for accomplishing the goals of this plan. Under the Shoreline Management Act, the County is required to review, and amend if necessary, its SMP once every eight years (RCW 90.58.080(4)). At the time of the update, the County is required to report progress toward meeting its restoration goals, but there is no requirement or timeframe for specifically implementing the restoration plan. 9.1 Timelines and Benchmarks
In the context of the SMP update, restoration planning is a long‐term effort. The SMP guidelines include the general goal that local master programs “include planning elements that, when implemented, serve to improve the overall condition of habitat and resources within the shoreline area” (WAC 173‐26‐201(c)). As a long‐range policy plan, it is difficult to establish meaningful timelines and measurable benchmarks in the SMP by which to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration planning or actions. Nonetheless, the legislature has provided an overall timeframe for future amendments to the SMP. In 2003, Substitute Senate Bill 6012 amended the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.080) to establish an amendment schedule for all jurisdictions in the state. Once Mason County amends its SMP (on or before June 30, 2013), the County is required to review, and amend if necessary, its SMP once every eight years (RCW 90.58.080(4)). During this review period, the County should document progress toward achieving shoreline restoration goals. The review could include the following elements: 
Reevaluating adopted restoration goals, objectives, and policies; 
Summarizing both planning efforts (including application for and securing grant funds) and on‐the‐ground actions undertaken in the interim to meet those goals; and 
Revising the SMP restoration planning element to reflect changes in priorities or objectives. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 9-1
9.2 Potential Funding
Implementing restoration activities identified in this plan will be a challenge given Mason County’s economic situation. Similar to other local governments in Washington State, the County has been working hard to provide basic services with tighter budgets. A funding mechanism to support these voluntary actions has not yet been identified and funds are not currently dedicated. At present, shoreline restoration is almost entirely dependent on grant funding, which depends upon the availability and award of state and federal monies. The County’s ability to devote any general funds to the implementation of this plan is doubtful, but potential internal funding sources do exist. One potential funding mechanism would be the establishment of a shoreline restoration program organized like or integrated with a capital improvement program (CIP). Similar to an infrastructure CIP, a shoreline restoration CIP would be evaluated and updated regularly. A restoration CIP could be focused on site‐specific projects and could be funded through grants or County general funds. For example, funds could be dedicated to support bulkhead removal, beach cleanup, and riparian enhancements in the shoreline jurisdiction. Further, existing CIP projects, such as stormwater facility and road improvements, could be evaluated to determine if their design could advance shoreline restoration goals. Special Districts or local improvement districts (LIDs) could also be established to help fund and/or implement restoration projects. A Special District is a local unit of government authorized by law to perform a single function or a limited number of functions, and including but not limited to, water‐sewer districts, irrigation districts, and transportation districts. LIDs are primarily a means of financing needed capital improvements. LIDs allow improvements to be financed and paid for over a period of time through assessments on the benefitting properties. They require the approval of the local government and benefited property owners. LIDs involve the sale of bonds to investors and the retirement of those bonds via annual payments by the property owners within a district. Both of the models would provide a potential mechanism for achieving some of the goals of this plan. A variety of outside funding sources are also available for restoration projects in Puget Sound; these are listed in Appendix C: Potential Funding Sources. Funding opportunities have generally increased since the implementation of Governor Gregoire’s Puget Sound Initiative in 2005, though the process by which organizations are able to obtain funds is typically quite competitive. Sources listed in Appendix C do not represent an exhaustive list of potential funding opportunities, but are meant to provide an overview of the types of opportunities available. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 9-2
9.3 Obstacles and Challenges
The preparation of this shoreline restoration plan is a required part of the County’s SMP update. However, there are a number of potential complicating factors between the development of a county‐wide shoreline restoration plan and on‐the‐ground implementation of its programs and projects. Some of these challenges are summarized below: 
Lack of funding: Designing, carrying out, and monitoring the success of restoration efforts can be an expensive undertaking, particularly at larger (e.g., watershed or reach) scales. In general, funding for restoration is limited to grant dollars and allocation of these monies is competitive. 
Landowner participation: Ownership of Mason County’s shorelines is highly variable. Landowners in areas identified as priorities for restoration efforts may be unwilling or unable to participate in those efforts, while others may be willing to participate in future projects. All of the actions described in this plan are designed to be implemented on a voluntary basis. 
Project permitting: Obtaining necessary permits from local, state, and federal regulatory agencies can require substantial time and effort. Although encouraged and allowed by the SMP, complicated restoration projects may take a year or more to secure permits. 
Climate change: Rising temperatures and sea levels have the potential to dramatically alter Mason County’s shoreline jurisdiction, processes, and functions over time. Depending on the scale of change and time period over which changes occur, restoration priorities could shift substantially within a relatively short period of time. Future restoration should be designed to consider sea level rise and future water elevations in shoreline areas of Mason County. 9.4 Monitoring and Adaptive Management
Strategies
The SMP guidelines for restoration planning state that local programs should “…appropriately review the effectiveness of the projects and programs in meeting the overall restoration goals” (WAC 173‐26‐201(2)(f)). Monitoring of the progress of any restoration plan is an important step in documenting progress and managing change in the shoreline environment. Phase 3 of the SMP guidelines restoration framework (based on Palmer et al. 2005) provides a general roadmap for assessing restoration actions and revising the approach to meeting restoration goals. It includes the following objectives: Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 9-3


Adaptively manage restoration projects; Monitor post‐restoration conditions; and 
Use monitoring and maintenance results to inform future restoration activities. As defined by Salafsky et al. (2001), adaptive management is “the integration of design, management, and monitoring to systematically test assumptions in order to adapt and learn.” Testing assumptions involves first thinking about the situation at a specific location and developing a specific set of assumptions about what is occurring at that site and what actions one might be able to use to affect these events. For example, if a bulkhead has been placed in the marine nearshore environment in such a fashion as to block shore‐drift behind it, then restoration may include removal of the bulkhead and long‐term sediment monitoring to determine whether natural net shore‐drift is restored. Restoration practitioners can then implement these actions and monitor the actual results to see how they compare to the ones predicted by the set of assumptions. Adaptation, in turn, is about taking action to improve a project based on the results of monitoring (Salafsky et al. 2001). Adaptation involves changing assumptions and interventions to respond to new information obtained through monitoring efforts. As in our previous example, if a catastrophic landslide occurs within the reach formerly deprived of sediment, it may no longer be necessary to perform beach nourishment on a recurring basis within that reach. Ongoing monitoring would make clear the necessity of adapting to changed circumstances; namely, the unexpected addition of a new sediment source within the drift cell feeding the scoured beach. At this time, Mason County does not have dedicated staff or funds to monitor or evaluate restoration projects systematically, and will rely on efforts by organizations involved in restoration activities to supply information on progress toward restoration goals, objectives, and priorities. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 9-4
Chapter 10.0
References
Cereghino, P. J. Toft, S. Simenstad, E. Iverson, S. Campbell, C. Behrens, J. Burke, and B. Craig. 2011. Strategies for Nearshore Protection and Restoration in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Technical Report 2012‐01. Available: http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/technical_papers/psnerp_strategies_
maps_lowres.pdf. Cereghino, P., J. Toft, C. Simenstad, E. Iverson, S. Campbell, C. Behrens,J. Burke. 2012. Strategies for nearshore protection and restoration in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Report No. 2012‐01. Published byWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Clancy, M., I. Logan, J. Lowe, J. Johannessen, A. MacLennan, F.B. Van Cleve, J. Dillon, B. Lyons, R. Carman, P. Cereghino, B. Barnard, C. Tanner, D. Myers, R. Clark, J. White, C. A. Simenstad, M. Gilmer, and N. Chin. 2009. Management Measures for Protecting the Puget Sound Nearshore. Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Report No. 2009‐01. Published by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Correa, G. 2003. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors, Water Resource Inventory Area 16 Dosewallips‐Skokomish Basin Final Report. Washington State Conservation Commission. P.O.Box 47721, Olympia, WA 98504‐7721. pp. 257. ESA Adolfson. 2007. Pierce County Shoreline Master Program Update. Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. Prepared for Pierce County Planning and Land Services. ESA, Coastal Geologic Services, and Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2012. Draft Mason County Shoreline Master Program Update. Inventory and Characterization Report. SMP Grant Agreement No. G1100004. Prepared for Mason County. Gersib, R. 2001. The Need for Process‐Driven, Watershed‐based Wetland Restoration in Washington State. Proceedings of the Puget Sound Research Conference 2001. Haring, D. 2000. Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors, Water Resource Inventory Area 15 (East) Final Report. Washington State Conservation Commission. P.O. Box 47721, Olympia, WA 98504‐7721. pp. 364. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 10-1
Kuttel, Michael, Jr. 2002. Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors, Water Resource Inventory Area 14, Kennedy‐Goldsborough Basin. Washington State Conservation Commission. P.O. Box 47721, Olympia, WA 98504‐7721. pp. 134. Kuttel, Michael, Jr. 2003. Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Water Resource Inventory Areas 15 (West), Kitsap Basin and 14 (North), Kennedy‐
Goldsborough Basin. Washington State Conservation Commission. P.O. Box 47721, Olympia, WA 98503‐7721. pp. 312. Montgomery, D. R., S. Bolton, D. B. Booth, and L. Wall, editors. 2003. Restoration of Puget Sound rivers. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Puget Sound Partnership (PSP). 2008. Puget Sound Action Agenda: Protecting and Restoring the Puget Sound Ecosystem by 2020. December 1, 2008. Available: http://www.psp.wa.gov/downloads/ACTION_AGENDA_2008/Action_Agenda
.pdf. Accessed August 2012. Salafsky, N., R. Margoluis, K. Redford. 2001. Adaptive Management: A Tool for Conservation Practitioners. World Wildlife Fund, Inc. Washington, DC. Schlenger, P., A. MacLennan, E. Iverson, K. Fresh, C. Tanner, B. Lyons, S. Todd, R. Carman, D. Myers, S. Campbell, and A. Wick. 2011. Strategic Needs Assessment: Analysis of Nearshore Ecosystem Process Degradation in Puget Sound. Prepared for the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project. Technical Report 2011‐02. Schlenger, P., A. McLennan, E. Iverson, K Fresh, C. Tanner, B. Lyons, S. Todd, R. Carman, D. Myers, S. Campell, and A. Wick. In prep. Strategic Needs Assessment Report. Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project. Simenstad, C., Ramirez, M., Burke, J., Logsdon, M., Shipman, H., Tanner, C., Davis, C., Fung, J., Bloch, P., Fresh, K., Campbell, S., Myers, D., Iverson, E, Bailey A., Schlenger, P., Kiblinger, C., Myre, P., Gertsel, W.I., and A. MacLennan. 2010. Historic Change and Impairment of Puget Sound Shorelines, Atlas and Interpretation of Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project Change Analysis. Stanley, S., J. Brown, and S. Grigsby. 2005. Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems: A Guide for Puget Sound Planners to Understand Watershed Processes. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #05‐06‐027. Olympia, Washington. Tacoma Power. 2011. Cushman Hydro Project. Available: http://www.mytpu.org/tacomapower/power‐system/hydro‐
power/cushman‐hydro‐project/Default.htm. Accessed: June 7, 2011. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 10-2
Thom RM, GD Williams, and HL Diefenderfer. 2005. "Balancing the Need to Develop Coastal Areas with the Desire for an Ecologically Functioning Coastal Environment: Is Net Ecosystem Improvement Possible?" Restoration Ecology 13(1):193‐203. doi:10.1111/j.1526‐100X.2005.00024.x Vleming, J. 2011. Mason County Profile. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/esd/employmentdata/reports‐
publications/regional‐reports/county‐profiles/mason‐county‐profile. Accessed: June, 6, 2011. WRIA 16 Watershed Planning Unit. Undated. Prioritized List of Sanitary Facility Needs at Popular Recreation Sites on Hood Canal. Prepared by the WRIA 16 Watershed Planning Unit in Coordination with WDFW. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Page 10-3
APPENDIX A
Marine Restoration Figures
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Appendix A
JEFFERSON
Mason County Shoreline Master Program - Restoration Plan
KITSAP
Map 4-1: Recommended Restoration Strategies - Restore
GRAYS
HARBOR
Maggie Lake
South Puget Sound
Hood Canal
MR-10
Hood Canal
Devereaux Lake
Hood
Canal
Á
-
MR-08
Hood Canal
Á
-
Cabin Creek
THURSTON
ALLYN
Coon Lake
MR-11
Hood Canal
PIERCE
Oakland
Bay
MR-14
MR-12
Hood Canal
Case
Inlet
Shelton
MR-15
Lake Anderson MR-16
Trails End Lake
TAHUYA
Legend
Lena Creek
Recommended Restoration Strategies
MR-17
Process, Strategy
MR-07
Hood Canal
UNION
Sediment Supply (SS)
MR-01
SS, Restore High
MR-19
Reach Island
Jefferson Creek
Hamma Hamma River
Benson Lake
Mason Lake
GRAPEVIEW
SS, Restore
Sediment Transport (ST)
ST, Restore High
Waketickeh Creek
MR-20
MR-21
Stretch Island
MR-02
Washington Creek
TF, Restore High
TF, Restore
MR-22
MR-23
Case
Inlet
MR-24
SMP Update Waterbodies
Major Roads
Lake Limerick
Railroads
MR-41
Cranberry Lake
MR-42
MR-25
Blacksmith Lake
SMP Update Streams
MR-40
Panther Lake
Melbourne Lake
ST, Restore
Tidal Flow (TF)
Unnamed Lake - T23-R01W
SPENCER LAKE
Shelton City Limits
MR-43
Indian Reservations
MR-03
UGA | Rural Activity Center Boundaries | Hamlets
Lilliwaup Swamp
DEER CREEK
Spencer Lake
MR-47
Wilderness Areas
Olympic National Forest
MR-13
Twin Lakes
Dewatto River
Price Lake outlet
Island Lake
BAY SHORE
Phillips Lake
Olympic National Park
MR-29
Lilliwaup Creek
Price Lake
MR-48
McMicken Island
Lake Bennettsen
LILLIWAUP
SMA Grant Agreement No. G1100004
Task 4.1
SHELTON UGA
Lake Wooten
Coordinate System: State Plane NAD1983 (Ft)
Washington South FIPS 4602
MR-30
MR-04
Haven Lake
Union River
Timber Lake
Mission Creek
Oakland
Bay
Union River
Erdman Lake
MR-26
MR-46
MR-28
NOTE: Map data shown here are the property of the sources listed
below. Inacuracies may exist, and ESA implies no warranties or
guarantees regarding any aspect of data depiction.
MR-44
Tahuya River
BELFAIR
Tee Lake
MR-12
MR-27
MR-31
Data Sources: PSNERP (Cereghino et al), 2012.
Mason County, 2011 (2010); Ecology, 2009; WDNR, 2007
MR-05
MR-32
MR-33
Squaxin Island
Indian
Reservation
Forbes Lake
MR-45
HOODSPORT
Devereaux Lake
Maggie Lake
MR-10
MR-34
Rendsland Creek
MR-08
Fawn Lake
Totten
Inlet
ALLYN
Coon Lake
TAHUYA
POTLATCH
Trails End Lake
MR-11
MR-35
Hope Island
Lake Anderson
DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
MR-36
Hood Canal
Skokomish River *
UNION
TAYLOR TOWN
Skookum
Inlet
MR-37
MR-07
Squaxin Island
Reservation and Trust Lands
MR-06
Oyster Bay
MR-38
Skokomish
Indian
Reservation
Mason Lake
Benson Lake
GRAPEVIEW
Sherwood Creek
Recommendations referenced in Cereghino et al 2012:
MR-39
Schumacher Creek
Skokomish River *
Path: S:\GIS\Projects\210xxx\210570_MasonCoSMP\Projects\Restoration\4-2 Rec Restoration Strategies - Restore.mxd (MJL; 06/29/11)
MR-39
The data used to make this map have been tested for accuracy,
and every effort has been made to ensure that these data are
timely, accurate and reliable. However, Mason County makes no
guarantee or warranty to its accuracy as to labeling, dimensions, or
placement or location of any map features contained herein. The
boundaries depicted by these data are approximate, and are not
necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. These
data are intended for informational purposes and should not be
considered authoritative for engineering, navigational, legal and
other site-specific uses. Mason County does not assume any legal
liability or responsibility arising from the use of this map in a manner
not intended by Mason County. In no event shall Mason County be
liable for direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special, or tort
damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, loss of
anticipated profits or benefits arising from use of or reliance on the
information contained herein. The burden for determining fitness for
use lies entirely with the user and the user is solely responsible for
understanding the accuracy limitation of the information contained
in this map.
Map 4-1: Restoration Strategies
Restore
Marine Shorelines
Mason County
Shoreline Master Program
April 2013
Mason County Shoreline Master Program - Restoration Plan
JEFFERSON
Map 4-2: Recommended Restoration Strategies - Enhance
KITSAP
South Puget Sound
Hood Canal
Maggie Lake
GRAYS
HARBOR
Devereaux Lake
MR-10
Hood Canal
MR-08
Hood Canal
MR-11
Hood Canal
Oakland
Bay
Recommended Restoration Strategies
Process, Strategy
MR-07
Hood Canal
Sediment Supply (SS)
MR-01
SS, Enhance High
MR-19
Reach Island
Hamma Hamma River
GRAPEVIEW
Benson Lake
Mason Lake
Waketickeh Creek
Washington Creek
MR-20
MR-21
Stretch Island
MR-02
MR-22
MR-23
MR-24
Panther Lake
Blacksmith Lake
Unnamed Lake - T23-R01W
SPENCER LAKE
MR-03
DEER CREEK
Price Lake outlet
Lilliwaup Creek
Price Lake
LILLIWAUP
Lake Wooten
Lake Bennettsen
SMP Update Streams
SMP Update Waterbodies
Railroads
MR-42
MR-25
Shelton City Limits
MR-43
Indian Reservations
UGA | Rural Activity Center Boundaries | Hamlets
Spencer Lake
MR-47
Wilderness Areas
MR-48
McMicken Island
Phillips Lake
SHELTON UGA
Olympic National Park
SMA Grant Agreement No. G1100004
Task 4.1
Coordinate System: State Plane NAD1983 (Ft)
Washington South FIPS 4602
MR-30
Union River
Mission Creek
Oakland
Bay
Union River
Timber Lake
MR-26
MR-46
MR-28
NOTE: Map data shown here are the property of the sources listed
below. Inacuracies may exist, and ESA implies no warranties or
guarantees regarding any aspect of data depiction.
MR-44
Tahuya River
Tee Lake
TF, Enhance High
TF, Enhance
MR-29
Erdman Lake
MR-12
BAY SHORE
Island Lake
Haven Lake
MR-04
ST, Enhance
Tidal Flow (TF)
Olympic National Forest
Twin Lakes
Dewatto River
ST, Enhance High
MR-40
MR-41
Lilliwaup Swamp
MR-13
Case
Inlet
SS, Enhance
Sediment Transport (ST)
Major Roads
Lake Limerick
Cranberry Lake
Melbourne Lake
Á
-
Legend
MR-17
Jefferson Creek
PIERCE
THURSTON
Lake Anderson MR-16
Lena Creek
Case
Inlet
Shelton
ALLYN
Coon Lake
Trails End Lake
TAHUYA
UNION
Á
-
MR-15
MR-14
MR-12
Hood Canal
Cabin Creek
Hood
Canal
BELFAIR
MR-27
MR-31
MR-05
MR-32
MR-33
Data Sources: PSNERP (Cereghino et al), 2012.
Mason County, 2011 (2010); Ecology, 2009; WDNR, 2007
Squaxin Island
Indian
Reservation
Forbes Lake
MR-45
HOODSPORT
Maggie Lake
Devereaux Lake
MR-10
Rendsland Creek
MR-34
MR-08
Coon Lake
TAHUYA
POTLATCH
Trails End Lake
MR-11
ALLYN
Lake Anderson
Hood Canal
Skokomish River *
UNION
TAYLOR TOWN
MR-35
Hope Island
DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
MR-36
Skookum
Inlet
MR-37
MR-07
Squaxin Island
Reservation and Trust Lands
MR-06
Oyster Bay
Skokomish
Indian
Reservation
Skokomish River *
Totten
Inlet
Fawn Lake
Mason Lake
Schumacher Creek
GRAPEVIEW
Benson Lake
Sherwood Creek
Path: S:\GIS\Projects\210xxx\210570_MasonCoSMP\Projects\Restoration\4-3 Rec Restoration Strategies - Enhance.mxd (MJL; 06/29/11)
MR-38
Recommendations referenced in Cereghino et al 2012:
MR-39
MR-39
The data used to make this map have been tested for accuracy,
and every effort has been made to ensure that these data are
timely, accurate and reliable. However, Mason County makes no
guarantee or warranty to its accuracy as to labeling, dimensions, or
placement or location of any map features contained herein. The
boundaries depicted by these data are approximate, and are not
necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. These
data are intended for informational purposes and should not be
considered authoritative for engineering, navigational, legal and
other site-specific uses. Mason County does not assume any legal
liability or responsibility arising from the use of this map in a manner
not intended by Mason County. In no event shall Mason County be
liable for direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special, or tort
damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, loss of
anticipated profits or benefits arising from use of or reliance on the
information contained herein. The burden for determining fitness for
use lies entirely with the user and the user is solely responsible for
understanding the accuracy limitation of the information contained
in this map.
Map 4-2: Restoration Strategies
Enhance
Marine Shorelines
Mason County
Shoreline Master Program
April 2013
Mason County Shoreline Master Program - Restoration Plan
JEFFERSON
Map 5-1: Restoration Opportunities - Sediment Supply Restoration - Detailed View
KITSAP
GRAYS
HARBOR
Hood
Canal
Á
-
Case
Inlet
Shelton
Oakland
Bay
PIERCE
Á
THURSTON
Legend
Sediment Supply and Transport
Priority
Enhance High
Enhance
Restoration High
Restore
SMP Update Streams
SMP Update Waterbodies
Major Roads
H o o d
C a n a l
Railroads
Shelton City Limits
Indian Reservations
UGA | Rural Activity Center Boundaries | Hamlets
Wilderness Areas
Olympic National Forest
Olympic National Park
SMA Grant Agreement No. G1100004
Task 4.1
Coordinate System: State Plane NAD1983 (Ft)
Washington South FIPS 4602
NOTE: Map data shown here are the property of the sources listed
below. Inacuracies may exist, and ESA implies no warranties or
guarantees regarding any aspect of data depiction.
Data Sources: PSNERP (Cereghino et al), 2012.
Mason County, 2011 (2010); Ecology, 2009; WDNR, 2007
DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
Recommendations referenced in Cereghino et al 2012:
This map does not include all of the marine restoration
opportunities in Mason County.
For more locations, see Map 5-2.
Path: S:\GIS\Projects\210xxx\210570_MasonCoSMP\Projects\Restoration\5-1 Restoration Opportunities - Sediment Supply Restoration.mxd (MJL; 05/22/12)
The data used to make this map have been tested for accuracy,
and every effort has been made to ensure that these data are
timely, accurate and reliable. However, Mason County makes no
guarantee or warranty to its accuracy as to labeling, dimensions, or
placement or location of any map features contained herein. The
boundaries depicted by these data are approximate, and are not
necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. These
data are intended for informational purposes and should not be
considered authoritative for engineering, navigational, legal and
other site-specific uses. Mason County does not assume any legal
liability or responsibility arising from the use of this map in a manner
not intended by Mason County. In no event shall Mason County be
liable for direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special, or tort
damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, loss of
anticipated profits or benefits arising from use of or reliance on the
information contained herein. The burden for determining fitness for
use lies entirely with the user and the user is solely responsible for
understanding the accuracy limitation of the information contained
in this map.
Map 5-1: Restoration
Opportunities
Sediment Supply Restoration
Mason County
Shoreline Master Program
April 2013
Mason County Shoreline Master Program - Restoration Plan
JEFFERSON
Map 5-2: Restoration Opportunities
KITSAP
South Puget Sound
Hood Canal
Maggie Lake
GRAYS
HARBOR
Devereaux Lake
MR-10
Hood Canal
MR-08
Hood Canal
MR-11
Hood Canal
Oakland
Bay
Legend
MR-07
Hood Canal
Restoration Opportunities
Process Restoration, Priority
MR-01
MR-19
Reach Island
Hamma Hamma River
GRAPEVIEW
Benson Lake
Mason Lake
Waketickeh Creek
MR-20
MR-21
Stretch Island
MR-02
MR-24
Panther Lake
Blacksmith Lake
Unnamed Lake - T23-R01W
SPENCER LAKE
MR-03
DEER CREEK
sediment restoration, Restore
Lilliwaup Creek
LILLIWAUP
Lake Wooten
SMP Update Waterbodies
MR-40
Railroads
MR-42
MR-25
Shelton City Limits
MR-43
Indian Reservations
UGA | Rural Activity Center Boundaries | Hamlets
Spencer Lake
MR-47
Wilderness Areas
MR-48
McMicken Island
Phillips Lake
Olympic National Park
MR-29
Lake Bennettsen
SHELTON UGA
Mission Creek
SMA Grant Agreement No. G1100004
Task 4.1
Coordinate System: State Plane NAD1983 (Ft)
Washington South FIPS 4602
MR-30
Union River
Erdman Lake
Oakland
Bay
Union River
Timber Lake
MR-26
MR-46
MR-28
NOTE: Map data shown here are the property of the sources listed
below. Inacuracies may exist, and ESA implies no warranties or
guarantees regarding any aspect of data depiction.
MR-44
Tahuya River
Tee Lake
BAY SHORE
Island Lake
Haven Lake
MR-04
tidal restoration, Restore
SMP Update Streams
Olympic National Forest
Twin Lakes
Dewatto River
MR-13
Case
Inlet
MR-41
Lilliwaup Swamp
MR-12
sediment restoration, Restoration High
Major Roads
Lake Limerick
Cranberry Lake
Price Lake outlet
sediment restoration, Enhance
tidal restoration, Restore High
MR-22
Price Lake
sediment restoration, Enhance High
tidal restoration, Enhance High
MR-23
Melbourne Lake
Á
THURSTON
MR-17
Washington Creek
BELFAIR
MR-27
MR-31
MR-05
MR-32
MR-33
Data Sources: PSNERP (Cereghino et al), 2012.
Mason County, 2011 (2010); Ecology, 2009; WDNR, 2007
Squaxin Island
Indian
Reservation
Forbes Lake
MR-45
HOODSPORT
Maggie Lake
Devereaux Lake
MR-10
Rendsland Creek
MR-34
MR-08
Coon Lake
TAHUYA
POTLATCH
Trails End Lake
MR-11
ALLYN
UNION
TAYLOR TOWN
MR-35
Hope Island
DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
MR-36
Skookum
Inlet
MR-37
MR-07
Squaxin Island
Reservation and Trust Lands
MR-06
Oyster Bay
Skokomish
Indian
Reservation
Skokomish River *
Totten
Inlet
Fawn Lake
Lake Anderson
Hood Canal
Skokomish River *
PIERCE
Lake Anderson MR-16
Lena Creek
Jefferson Creek
Case
Inlet
Shelton
ALLYN
Coon Lake
Trails End Lake
TAHUYA
UNION
Á
-
MR-15
MR-14
MR-12
Hood Canal
Cabin Creek
Hood
Canal
Mason Lake
Schumacher Creek
GRAPEVIEW
Benson Lake
Sherwood Creek
Path: S:\GIS\Projects\210xxx\210570_MasonCoSMP\Projects\Restoration\5-2 Restoration Opportunities.mxd (MJL; 06/29/11)
MR-38
Recommendations referenced in Cereghino et al 2012:
MR-39
MR-39
The data used to make this map have been tested for accuracy,
and every effort has been made to ensure that these data are
timely, accurate and reliable. However, Mason County makes no
guarantee or warranty to its accuracy as to labeling, dimensions, or
placement or location of any map features contained herein. The
boundaries depicted by these data are approximate, and are not
necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards. These
data are intended for informational purposes and should not be
considered authoritative for engineering, navigational, legal and
other site-specific uses. Mason County does not assume any legal
liability or responsibility arising from the use of this map in a manner
not intended by Mason County. In no event shall Mason County be
liable for direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special, or tort
damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, loss of
anticipated profits or benefits arising from use of or reliance on the
information contained herein. The burden for determining fitness for
use lies entirely with the user and the user is solely responsible for
understanding the accuracy limitation of the information contained
in this map.
Map 5-2: Restoration
Opportunities
Marine Shorelines
Mason County
Shoreline Master Program
April 2013
APPENDIX B
Methods
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Appendix B
Appendix B outlines the method by which restoration opportunities were identified within the marine shorelines of Mason County. This methodology, prepared by Coastal Geologic Services (CGS), integrates the best available technical information for the County’s shorelines along Hood Canal and South Puget Sound. The first step in this approach was to create a single database of existing restoration opportunities that could be linked with the regional restoration and conservation priority data. The initial step of building the restoration opportunity database was integrating all nearshore restoration opportunities from the Hood Canal Coordinating Council and Mason County Conservation District. Additional restoration opportunities were added to the database from the PRISM database and the local limiting factors reports (Kuttel et al. 2002, 2003, Correa 2003, Haring 2000). The restoration opportunities that were located outside privately‐owned residential properties were then selected and exported to create a new data set. The opportunities that are encompassed within private residential property were excluded from this document, to allow for greater restoration focus on the publicly owned shores and to eliminate complexities that could arise from including restoration recommendations on private property in this public planning document. Large scale restoration/protection priority areas were identified so that those opportunities occurring on private properties can be integrated into this same prioritization approach with some simple geospatial data processing. Each of the opportunities was then reviewed to identify the nearshore processes that would benefit from the recommended restoration action. This information was added to the attribute table. Each action was also attributed with the source of the restoration opportunity as well as other general information including reach location and subbasin. The database of restoration opportunities was augmented by identifying additional restoration/enhancement actions on publicly owned shores within the county. GIS queries using data from WDFW, Mason County, and data sets from the PSNERP projects listed above were created to focus the identification of new restoration opportunities on areas with nearshore process degradation. The queries used are described further below. Restoration opportunities were delineated in areas where there is an opportunity to address process degradation and/or benefit nearshore habitats such as forage fish spawning areas, outside of privately owned parcels. These new restoration opportunities were similarly attributed, with the source of the opportunity reported as Coastal Geologic Services. The strategic needs assessment geodatabase, a product of PSNERP, mapped degradation of nearshore processes along Puget Sound shorelines. The strategic needs assessment process degradation data were disaggregated to identify the Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Appendix B
dominant drivers of process degradation throughout Mason County. Analysis of degradation results showed that the dominant drivers of process degradation were process units in which sediment supply, transport, and accretion were degraded as well as tidal flow and tide channel processes. Based on these results, restoration actions that address degraded tidal or sediment processes or actions that could enhance or restore historic tidal wetlands were highlighted as target restoration actions for the County. Using the PNSERP change analysis geodatabase, “action areas” were identified in which sediment supply, sediment transport, and tidal flow (including tidal wetland) process‐based restoration could be conducted throughout the County. This was done by linking the stressors that degrade sediment and tidal nearshore processes with the shoreforms in which the subject nearshore processes are taking place. For example, tidal processes predominantly take place in tide‐dominated systems such as tidal embayments, which include closed lagoon marshes, open coastal inlets, barrier estuaries, and barrier lagoons. The occurrence of stressors such as tidal barriers, shore armoring, and nearshore fill directly degrade tidal processes in these systems in which they predominantly occur. Therefore, removing these stressors from tidal embayment shoreforms would enhance and restore tidal processes. Removing fill and armor from a historic barrier lagoon represents a great tidal process restoration action. Tidal process restoration target areas were created in GIS by selecting all tidal embayment shoreforms with co‐located stressors that are known to degrade tidal processes. Sediment processes predominantly take place in areas exposed to waves, which erode and transport sediment. The shoreforms in which these processes predominate in the Puget Sound region include bluff backed beaches and barrier beaches that occur within the transport zones and divergent zone process unit components. Removing stressors such as shore armor and nearshore fill along bluff backed beaches can restore sediment supply processes. Similarly, removing these stressors from barrier beaches can restore natural sediment transport regimes. Where armor removal is infeasible due to land ownership or major infrastructure, sediment processes can be enhanced by strategically conducting beach nourishment to mitigate for lost sediment supply. Sediment process restoration target areas were created in GIS by selecting all armored and filled bluff backed beaches and barrier beaches. Similar to all restoration action areas, protection areas were also identified throughout the County. Converse to the restoration action areas, protection areas for sediment supply included all bluff backed beaches that are not currently armored. Sediment transport protection action areas included barrier beaches that Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Appendix B
are not armored. Tidal flow protection action areas included tidal embayment shoreforms in which no stressors were present that are known to degrade tidal processes. All restoration and protection (shoreform‐scale) action areas and site‐specific restoration opportunities were then assigned a recommended priority, based on the results of a recent Sound‐wide nearshore strategy assessment produced by PSNERP (Cereghino et al. 2012). This assessment report describes the detailed approach for how these recommendations were created. In general, recommendations are a composite ranking of site potential, degradation, and risk. Results of the ranking were clustered and assigned one of three strategic approaches: Protect, Restore, or Enhance. A set of sites within each of the strategies was then identified as providing a greater value of ecosystem services and therefore having higher site potential (Figure 4‐2). Thus the final spectrum of recommended priorities is tiered, with protection priorities and high protection priorities, restoration priorities and high restoration priorities, and enhancement priorities and high enhancement priorities. Areas ranked as “Protect High” should be considered the greatest priority action areas throughout the County, followed by areas ranked “Protect.” Similarly, restoration should be ranked a higher priority than enhancement, as restoration projects generally have a higher certainty of success (achieving anticipated response) as compared to enhancement projects, due to the greater overall ecosystem health as compared to the more degraded areas targeted for enhancement. Shoreforms ranked as “Restoration High” should be considered a higher priority than those ranked as “Restore” (and similarly with shoreforms ranked “Enhance High” and “Enhance”, respectively). Figure 4‐2 below shows the relationship between nearshore process degradation and site potential associated with recommendations and strategies outlined by PSNERP. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Appendix B
Figure B‐1. Relationship between nearshore process degradation and site potential. (Source: Cereghino et al. 2012) As previously mentioned, these action‐oriented and prioritized shoreforms can be used to prioritize and highlight other restoration opportunities that may exist throughout Mason County. Higher valued priority actions should be targeted first as they are more likely to provide larger scale benefits to nearshore ecosystem functions, goods and services (Cereghino et al. 2012). Although the entire analysis of protection, restoration and enhancement was conducted for this effort, only restoration and enhancement priorities were carried forward to inform the County’s restoration plan and strategy. Protection priorities were not included under the direction of Ecology. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Appendix B
APPENDIX C
Potential Funding Sources
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Appendix C
Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation Washington Wildlife Recreation Program 1111 Washington St. SE PO Box 40917 Olympia, WA 98504 360‐902‐3000, [email protected] The WWRP provides funds for the acquisition and development of recreation and conservation lands. WWRP funds are administered by account and category. The Habitat Conservation Account includes critical habitat, natural areas, and urban wildlife categories. The Outdoor Recreation Account includes local parks, state parks, trails, and water access categories. Letters of intent are usually due March 1. Applications are usually due May 1. Washington State Department of Ecology Post Office Box 47600 Olympia, Washington 98504‐7600 [email protected] www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/grants/index.html Grant programs administered by Washington State Department of Ecology are described below. 
Aquatic Weeds Financial Assistance Program: This program provides funding for technical assistance, public education and grants to help control aquatic weeds. Grant projects must address prevention and/or control of freshwater, invasive, non‐native aquatic plants. The types of activities funded include: Planning, education, monitoring, implementation, pilot/demonstration projects, surveillance and mapping projects. Grant applications are accepted from October 1 through November 1 of each year during a formal application process. 
Freshwater Algae Control Program: This program provides funding to local governments to manage algae problems. The program targets blue‐green algae (also known as cyanobacteria) due to the potential for these algae to produce toxic blooms. The program will pay for algae identification and toxicity testing and supports on online database for results. This program has about $250,000 in funding per year and provides small grants of up to $50,000 for managing algae. Ecology is currently revising funding guidelines for this program. 
Water Quality Program: The Department of Ecology's Water Quality Program administers three major funding programs that provide low‐interest loans and grants for projects that protect and improve water quality in Washington State. Ecology acts in partnership with state agencies, local governments, Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Appendix C
and Indian tribes by providing financial and administrative support for their water quality efforts. As much as possible, Ecology manages the three programs as one; there is one funding cycle, application form, and offer list. The three programs are: The Centennial Clean Water Fund, The State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF), and The Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants Program (Section 319). 
Local governments, Native American tribes, special purpose districts, and non‐profit groups are eligible for funding. Grants and loans are available for point source and nonpoint source projects. This includes, but is not limited to, treatment facilities, stream and salmon habitat restoration, and water quality monitoring. 
Coastal Protection Fund: This account is funded primarily by oil spill penalties levied against responsible parties. Restoration efforts undertaken with these funds are diverse and include land acquisition, fish barrier removal, and environmental education projects. 
Coastal Zone Management Administration/Implementation Awards: This program assists states in implementing and enhancing Coastal Zone Management (CZM) programs that have been approved by the Secretary of Commerce. Funds are available for projects in areas such as coastal wetlands management and protection, natural hazards management, public access improvements, reduction of marine debris, assessment of impacts of coastal growth and development, special area management planning, regional management issues, and demonstration projects with potential to improve coastal zone management. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, WA 98501‐1091 360‐902‐2806. http://wdfw.wa.gov/volunter/vol‐7.htm 
Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) Volunteer Cooperative Projects Program: The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) accepts grant applications from individuals and volunteer groups conducting local projects to benefit fish and wildlife. Grants have ranged from $300 to $75,000 in past years to help volunteers pay for materials necessary for projects approved by the agency. Funding cannot be used for wages or benefits. Examples of past projects include habitat restoration, improving access to fish and wildlife areas for disabled people, fish and wildlife research, public education and fish‐rearing projects that can benefit the public. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Appendix C

Landowner Incentive Program: The Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) is a competitive grant program designed to provide financial assistance to private landowners for the protection, enhancement or restoration of habitat to benefit species at risk on privately owned lands. At risk species depend on specific ecosystems for survival. These ecosystems include riparian areas, wetlands, oak woodlands, prairies and grasslands, shrub steppe and nearshore environments. Through Washington’s LIP, individual landowners are eligible to apply for up to $50,000 in assistance. In addition, $50,000 is typically set aside for small grants. Any individual applying for these small grant funds may apply for up to $5,000. A 25% non‐federal contribution is required, which may include cash and/or in‐kind (labor, machinery, materials) contribution. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW, #900 Washington, DC 20036 Kathleen Pickering 202‐857‐0166 www.nfwf.org Non‐profit organizations, local, state or federal government agencies are eligible to apply for funds for community‐based projects that improve and restore native salmon habitat, remove barriers to fish passage, or for the acquisition of land/ conservation easements on private lands where the habitat is critical to salmon species. Specific grant programs are listed below. 
Bring Back the Natives: A Public‐Private Partnership for Restoring Populations of Native Aquatic Species: The Bring Back the Natives initiative (BBN) funds on‐the‐ground efforts to restore native aquatic species to their historic range. Projects should involve partnerships between communities, agencies, private landowners, and organizations that seek to rehabilitate streamside and watershed habitats. Projects should focus on habitat needs of species such as fish, invertebrates, and amphibians that originally inhabited the waterways across the country. Twelve to fifteen grants averaging $60,000 are awarded annually. 
Five‐Star Restoration Matching Grants Program: The Five‐Star Restoration Program provides modest financial assistance on a competitive basis to support community‐based wetland, riparian and coastal habitat restoration projects that build diverse partnerships and foster local natural resource stewardship through education, outreach and training activities. 
Marine Debris Prevention and Removal Program: The NOAA Marine Debris Program (NOAA MDP), codified by the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act (33 U.S.C. 1951 et seq.) coordinates, strengthens, and enhances the awareness of marine debris efforts within the agency and Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Appendix C
works with external partners to support research, prevention, and reduction activities related to the issue of marine debris. The NOAA MDP mission is to support a national and international effort focused on preventing, identifying and removing the occurrence of marine debris and to protect and conserve our nation’s natural resources, oceans, and coastal waterways from the impacts of marine debris. 
Puget Sound Marine Conservation Fund: In spring 2005, the United States charged an international shipping company with violating numerous federal pollution laws after inspections and actions taken by the Washington Department of Ecology and the Coast Guard identified the violations. As part of the settlement, the courts ordered $2,000,000 in community service payments to be made to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation) to be invested in conservation projects in the area of environmental impact. 
The Migratory Bird Conservancy: The MBC will fund projects that directly address conservation of priority bird habitats in the Western Hemisphere. Acquisition, restoration, and improved management of habitats are program priorities. Education, research, and monitoring will be considered only as components of actual habitat conservation projects. 
Community Salmon Fund: NFWF has established local partnerships throughout Washington State through the Community Salmon Fund program to engage landowners, community groups, tribes, and businesses in stimulating smaller‐scale, community‐oriented habitat restoration and protection projects to aid in salmon recovery. Grants made under this program are administered by NFWF. There are currently three Community Salmon Fund partnership programs. NFWF has partnered with the Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) to administer a statewide Community Salmon Fund program that is coordinated with the individual Lead Entity groups. Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) http://www.rco.wa.gov/srfb/board/board.htm The Salmon Recovery Funding Board supports salmon recovery by funding habitat protection and restoration projects. It also supports related programs and activities that produce sustainable and measurable benefits for fish and their habitat. SRFB distributes funds through two grant programs: SRFB grants, and Family Forest Fish Passage Program grants. The grants from SRFB range from $10,000 to nearly $900,000. They were awarded to organizations in 28 counties for work ranging from planting trees along streams to cool the water for salmon, to replacing culverts that prevent salmon from migrating to spawning habitat, to restoring entire floodplains. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Appendix C
Depending on the grant program, eligible applicants may include municipal subdivisions (cities, towns, counties, and special districts such as port, conservation, utility, park and recreation, and school), tribal governments, state agencies, nonprofit organizations, regional fisheries enhancement groups, and private landowners. To be considered for funding, projects must be operated and maintained in perpetuity for the purposes for which funding is sought. All projects require lead entity approval and must be a high priority in the lead entity strategy or regional recovery plan. Grants are awarded by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board based on a public, competitive process that weighs the merits of proposed projects against established program criteria. NOAA Restoration Center Community‐based Restoration Program Northwest Region Jennifer Steger, Director [email protected] http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ The NOAA Community‐based Restoration Program (CRP) is a financial and technical assistance program that helps communities implement restoration projects. Specific opportunities are listed below. 
NOAA CRP 3‐Year Partnership Grants: These grants fund national and regional habitat restoration partnerships for up to 3 years that provide sub awards for individual grass‐roots restoration projects. Typical awards range from $100,000 to $2,000,000. 
NOAA CRP Project Grants: These grants fund grass‐roots marine and coastal habitat restoration projects that will benefit anadromous fish species, commercial and recreational resources, and endangered and threatened species. Typical awards range from $30,000 to $250,000. 
American Sportfishing Association’s FishAmerica Foundation Grants: Since 1998, NOAA CRP has partnered with the FishAmerica Foundation to provide funding for fisheries habitat restoration projects nationwide. Grants will fund marine and anadromous fish habitat restoration projects that benefit recreationally fished species. Typical awards range from $5,000 to $50,000. 
National Fish & Wildlife Foundation/National Association of Counties Coastal Counties Restoration Initiative: In partnership with NOAA CRP, this grant program funds innovative, high quality county‐led or supported projects that support wetland, riparian and coastal habitat restoration projects. Typical awards range from $25,000 to $100,000. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Appendix C

American Rivers, provides funding for dam removal or fish passage projects to individuals and organizations such as civic associations and conservation groups; state, local and tribal governments; and other commercial and non‐
profit organizations. The partnership funds projects that benefit anadromous fish and support the restoration of habitat for anadromous species. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Lands Restoration Funding Aquatic Resources Division 360‐902‐1100 Fax 360‐902‐1786 [email protected] DNR is encouraged that revitalizing the health of Puget Sound and other aquatic lands has become a high priority for the Governor and the people of the state. DNR provides funding for removal of creosote piles, removal of derelict vessels and other clean up in the nearshore environment. Funding is typically awarded to restoration projects between 2004 and 2007 ranged from $8,000 to $35,000. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Topics/AquaticClean‐
UpRestoration/Pages/aqr_aquatic_clean_restoration.aspx. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 600 Capital Way N. Olympia, WA 98501 [email protected] The Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP) is a protection and restoration funding opportunity being developed by the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership to support the transition from opportunistic project funding to strategic and sustained nearshore ecosystem restoration in Puget Sound. The ESRP uses state capital funds and NOAA Restoration Center resources to fund restoration and protection projects that benefit salmon and the nearshore environment in Puget Sound. Projects are selected for their ability to provide long‐term protection of restoration of ecosystem processes. ESRP provides phased funding to incrementally support large and complex projects. Projects that rank well through a regional competition are considered for annual funding. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Appendix C
Environmental Protection Agency Region 10: Pacific Northwest Grants Administration Unit Bob Phillips [email protected] (206) 553‐6367 The Environmental Protection Agency funds a variety of projects that aim to safeguard the natural environment and protect human health. Potential opportunities specific to watershed protection and restoration are listed below. 
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program: Under this program, EPA provides grants or “seed money” to all 50 states plus Puerto Rico to capitalize state loan funds. The states, in turn, make loans to communities, individuals, and others for high‐priority water‐quality activities. Projects funded by the low‐interest loans may include wetlands protection and restoration, estuary management efforts – including wildlife habitat restoration – and development of streambank buffer zones. 
Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant (319) Program: Clean Water Act Section 319(h) funds are provided only to designated state and tribal agencies to implement their approved nonpoint source management programs. State and tribal nonpoint source programs include a variety of components, including technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, demonstration projects, and regulatory programs. Each year, EPA awards Section 319(h) funds to states in accordance with a state‐by‐state allocation formula that EPA has developed in consultation with the states. 
Wetland Protection, Restoration, and Stewardship Discretionary Funding: This program provides support for studies and activities related to implementation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for both wetlands and sediment management. Projects can support regulatory, planning, restoration or outreach issues. Typical grant awards range from $5,000 to $20,000. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Appendix C
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Nell Fuller 911 NE 11th Avenue Portland, OR 97232‐4181 (503) 231‐2014 [email protected] 
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program: This program provides technical and financial assistance to private landowners and Tribes who are willing to work with USFWS and other partners on a voluntary basis to help meet the habitat needs of Federal Trust Species. The Partners Program can assist with projects in all habitat types which conserve or restore native vegetation, hydrology, and soils associated with imperiled ecosystems such as longleaf pine, bottomland hardwoods, tropical forests, native prairies, marshes, rivers and streams, or ecosystems that otherwise provide an important habitat requisite for a rare, declining or protected species. The typical grant award is approximately $25,000. 
Puget Sound Program: The Puget Sound Program was established to protect, restore, and enhance the natural resources of Washington’s coastal ecosystems. USFWS works closely with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Estuary Program, and their State partner, the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats in Puget Sound, an “estuary of national significance”. Partnerships with other agencies, Native American Tribes, citizens, and organizations are emphasized. 
National Fish Passage Program: Each year the Service solicits and inputs select fish passage projects into the Fisheries Operational Needs System database. Projects are prioritized and selected based upon the benefits to species and the geographical area. Typical projects include barrier culvert removal or replacement with a fish passable culvert or bridge, and re‐
opening oxbow and off channel habitats. Typical funding amounts range from $30,000 to $110,000 with a minimum 25% cost share requested. 
Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund: Grants offered through the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund support participation in a wide array of voluntary conservation projects for candidate, proposed and listed species. These funds may in turn be awarded to private landowners and groups for conservation projects. 
North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants Program: The North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989 provides matching grants to organizations and individuals who have developed partnerships to carry out wetlands conservation projects in the United States, Canada, and Mexico for the benefit of wetlands‐associated migratory birds and other wildlife. The Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Appendix C
Standard Grants Program supports projects in Canada, the United States, and Mexico that involve long‐term protection, restoration, and/or enhancement of wetlands and associated uplands habitats. The Small Grants Program operates only in the United States; it supports the same type of projects and adheres to the same selection criteria and administrative guidelines as the U.S. Standard Grants Program. However, project activities are usually smaller in scope and involve fewer project dollars. Grant requests may not exceed $75,000, and funding priority is given to grantees or partners new to the Act’s Grants Program. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Projects Mr. John R. Kennelly, Chief Planning Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New England District 696 Virginia Road Concord, Massachusetts 01742‐2751 Under the authority provided by Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, the Corps may plan, design and build projects to restore aquatic ecosystems for fish and wildlife. The process for Section 206 projects begins after a non‐federal sponsor requests Corps of Engineers assistance under the program. When funding is available, the Corps of Engineers prepares a Preliminary Restoration Plan (PRP) paid for by the federal government. The PRP is a 3 to 5 page document used to determine whether federal involvement is appropriate. It describes the project benefits and contains an initial schedule and budget. The Final PRP contains a letter from the non‐federal sponsor indicating that they understand their obligations for cost sharing and obtaining any necessary real estate. If the sponsor agrees to move forward with the project, the Corps prepares a feasibility study, then plans and specifications. The Corps then manages construction of the project. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Appendix C
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Basinwide Restoration New Starts General Investigation Bruce Sexauer P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98134 (206) 764‐6959 Funding for projects related to coastal ecosystems, fish and wildlife, flood management, land management and planning, outdoor recreation, general restoration, riparian areas, water quality, and wetlands is provided through this program at a 65:35 cost share. Studies on the same topics are funded at a 50:50 cost share. Washington Department of Transportation City Fish Passage Grant Program Cliff Hall (360) 705‐7499 [email protected] The City Fish Passage Barrier Removal and Habitat Restoration Grant Program provides $2 million to be used towards city fish passage barrier removal projects, with complimenting habitat restoration and stormwater components. The intent of the City Fish Passage Barrier Removal and Habitat Restoration Grant program is to integrate clean water with salmon restoration efforts and compliments the WSDOT ESA response. Grant funding may vary from year to year; check with the Program Manager at WSDOT for more detailed information. Washington Department of Natural Resources Small Forest Landowner Office (SFLO) PO Box 47000 1111 Washington Street SE Olympia, WA 98504‐7000 (360) 902‐1000 The Family Forest Fish Passage Program will pay qualified landowners up to 100% for replacing blocked culverts. The Forest Riparian Easement Program also pays qualified landowners 50 to 100% of the value of timber they leave in riparian zones in exchange for a 50‐year easement. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Appendix C
Ducks Unlimited Matching Aid to Restore State Habitat (MARSH) (916) 852‐2000 [email protected] The MARSH program was instituted in 1985 to develop and protect waterfowl habitat in the United States. This reimbursement program provides matching funds for wetland acquisition and habitat restoration and enhancement in each state based on Ducks Unlimited (DU's) income within that state. Projects submitted for MARSH funding must significantly benefit waterfowl. Normally, all projects must be on land under the control of a public agency or private cooperator with which DU has an approved memorandum of understanding. Control must be through ownership, lease, easement, or management agreement. Control must be adequate for protection, maintenance, and use of the project throughout its projected life. Trout Unlimited Embrace‐A‐Stream 406‐543‐1192 www.tu.org Embrace‐A‐Stream (EAS) is the flagship grant program for funding Trout Unlimited’s conservation efforts to conserve, protect, and restore coldwater fisheries and their watersheds. Trout Unlimited annually raises money from TU members, corporate and agency partners, and foundations to distribute as small grants to local TU projects. The goal of EAS is to conserve coldwater fisheries through innovative grassroots conservation projects. Successful projects are based on sound science, benefit the resource, strengthen the local TU chapter and council, and help build the constituency for protecting trout and salmon. TU volunteers are actively involved in project work and are expected to provide matching funds. An Embrace‐A‐Stream Committee comprised of TU volunteer representatives and scientific advisors evaluates all proposed projects. Bonneville Environmental Foundation Model Watershed Program (503) 248‐1905 http://www.b‐e‐f.org/watersheds/ The Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF) supports science‐based watershed restoration initiatives that demonstrate strong community engagement and strive to implement a long‐term restoration approach. BEF accepts letters of inquiry on an open basis, and there is no official cycle for the review and solicitation of proposed Model Watershed Projects. Any individual, organization, tribe, or local government in the Pacific Northwest may submit a letter of inquiry. Awards range from $5,000 to $40,000 annually for up to a 10‐year period. Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Appendix C
Other Potential Sources
A number of private foundations, businesses, and other organizations administer grant programs with the intent of restoring habitat and ecosystems. Organizations with focal areas including Puget Sound, watershed protection, and habitat conservation include: 
The Russell Family Foundation (www.trff.org/home.asp); 
Northwest Fund for the Environment (www.nwfund.org/); 
The Bullitt Foundation (www.bullitt.org); 
The Compton Foundation (www.comptonfoundation.org); 
The Acorn Foundation (www.commoncounsel.org); and 
The Hugh and Jane Ferguson Foundation (http://www.foundationcenter.org/grantmaker/ferguson/). Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan – April 2013
Appendix C
September 15th, 2015
ERRATA SHEET
Mason County Shoreline Restoration Plan, dated April 2013
Information provided in this Errata Sheet is intended to correct information provided in the April
2013 “Restoration Plan” prepared for Mason County’s Shoreline Master Program update by
Environmental Science Associates (ESA), Coastal Geologic Services, and Herrera Environmental.
Revision #1
Part 3.0 (fourth paragraph) excludes lands within tribal ownership or in tribal trust, however part
4.2 (second paragraph) states, “Site‐specific restoration opportunities were restricted to publicly
owned shorelines and tribal lands.” The following change represents the clarified language:
The portion of WRIA 21 within Mason County is located entirely within federal land
(Olympic National Park) and is not discussed further in this report. Also, lLands within
tribal ownership or in tribal trust, for example those owned by the Squaxin Island Tribe,
are not governed by the County’s SMP and are not included in this plan., however
restoration projects on those lands may be included in this plan.
Revision #2
Part 5.3.2 (second paragraph) states that there is no comprehensive assessment tool for South
Puget Sound, which is in error. The following change represents the corrected language:
Many restoration opportunities in South Puget Sound were identified in the Lead Entity
(Mason County Conservation District) three‐year plan and the Habitat Work Schedule.
Also, the WRIA 14 technical team produced the Nearshore Project Selection Tool (NPST)
which spatially mapped the entire South Sound shorelines and prioritized High Priority
shorezone units for restoration and preservation for juvenile salmonids. The nearshore
areas of South Puget Sound are the subject of considerable restoration focus; however, no
single comprehensive restoration assessment has been conducted. Restoration actions
are commonly led by the Mason County Conservation District, South Puget Sound Salmon
Enhancement Group, and the Squaxin Island Tribe.
However, where the Restoration Plan states that there is no comprehensive assessment tool for
the entire County, it is correct.
Revision #3
Table 5‐3 contains restoration project “MR‐32 Walker Boat Ramp Removal (Opportunity # 65)”,
which was completed before Mason County has adopted the updated Shoreline Master Program.
This project should be excluded from Table 5‐3.
Page 1 of 2
Revision #4
Table 8.1 should include the South Sound Local Integrating Organization “Alliance for a Healthy
South Sound” and “Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.” The table should exclude “People for
Puget Sound,” which no longer exists. In addition, the information regarding Squaxin Island Tribe’s
past and ongoing projects is error in Table 8.1. The Squaxin Island Tribe does not perform work in
Hood Canal watershed. The following table shows the revised language (excluding the unchanged
rows).
Partner Agency or
Organization
Alliance for a Healthy
South Sound (AHSS)
Mission and Scope
Role in Future
Restoration Efforts
Examples of Past and
Ongoing Projects
Supports coordinated
and collaborative
decision‐making aimed
at restoring and
protecting the
ecological and socio‐
economic health of
South Puget Sound.
Responsible for Action
Agenda
implementation.
Assistance with septic repair
grant and loan programs and
with stormwater pollution
prevention programs.
Assists member tribes in
their role as natural
resources co‐managers
and provides a forum
for tribes to address
shared natural
resources management
issues.
Provides watershed‐
and stock‐level habitat
information (SSHIAP)
to assist tribal, state,
and local planners in
prioritizing habitat
protection and
restoration measures.
Maintains nearshore data
exchange, fish distribution,
and Puget Sound steelhead
habitat databases. Subawards
federal salmon and habitat
restoration funding to tribes.
People for Puget
Sound
www.pugetsound.org
Nonprofit organization
founded in 1991 to ...
Community and
volunteer support ...
1,200 miles of Puget Sound
shoreline ...
Squaxin Island Tribe
Natural Resource
Department
Works to sustain and
enhance tribal
resources; participates
in natural resources
enhancement and
protection programs.
Partner for water
quality monitoring and
restoration projects.
Worked with the state to
develop TMDLs for water
bodies draining to Hood Canal;
cCompleted restoration
projects on Skookum Creek;
developed a restoration plan
for Skokomish River Chinook
salmon in cooperation with
WDFW. Eestablished an EDT
analytical framework for
restoration and management
of habitat for Goldsborough,
Skookum, McLane and Johns
Creek;. and partnered on
TMDL’s for Oakland Bay and
its tributaries.
http://www.healthysout
hsound.org/
Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission
http://nwifc.org/
www.squaxinisland.org
Page 2 of 2
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement