Nisqually River Basin Plan Update - Pierce County

1,327
-1

Published on

This is the presentation give by Roy Huberd, a planner with Pierce County's Surface Water Management Division, at the April 2010 Nisqually River Council meeting.

Published in: Education
1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,327
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Nisqually River Basin Plan Update - Pierce County

  1. 1. Nisqually River Basin PlanPC Economic and Infrastructure Development Committee Hearing<br />Pierce County Public Works and Utilities <br />Surface Water Management Division<br />March, 2010<br />
  2. 2. Nisqually River Basin Plan Overview<br />Surface Water Management basin planning process<br />Goals and objectives<br />What is unique about the Nisqually Basin <br />Review of problems<br />Summary of recommendations<br />Discussion of key recommendations <br />
  3. 3. Surface Water Management Basin Planning Process<br />One of 10 County basin plans<br />Will serve as “work plan” for Surface Water Management activities in the Nisqually Basin<br />Basin plan development and implementation are funded by stormwater fees collected from within the Nisqually Basin planning area<br />
  4. 4. Basins Plan Goals <br />Reduce flood hazards.<br />Improve fish & wildlife habitat.<br />Improve water quality.<br />Demonstrate coordinated & responsible use of public resources.<br />Provide information for the location & methods of new development.<br />Share and coordinate this plan with others.<br />
  5. 5. What Makes the Nisqually River Basin Plan Unique<br />Includes main stem Nisqually River (other basin plans do not)<br />Large size (240 square miles)<br />Mostly rural; limited growth<br />Extensive high-quality habitat <br />Numerous lakes<br />A union of three counties<br />
  6. 6. History of Planning Process<br />Began in 2006<br />Characterization completed in 2007<br />Draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement Conducted in 2007.<br />County Council Subcommittee Hearings held in August of 2008<br />Upper Nisqually Valley community concerns needed further consideration. Pierce County Surface Water Management conducted meetings held in Ashford.<br />
  7. 7. Planning Process<br />Ashford meeting issues addressed: The regional economic viability of the region. Long term maintenance of river levee in/out of west park entrance.<br />Coordination of Mount Rainier National Park/US Corp of Engineers/Pierce County.<br />Discussion of Mt. Rainier Gateway Levee protection to SR 706.<br />Clarification of the Channel migration zone study.<br />General Clarifying language in the characterization of the Upper Nisqually Valley Community.<br />
  8. 8. Planning Area<br />
  9. 9. Planning Area<br /><ul><li>240 square miles
  10. 10. 500 miles of streams
  11. 11. 23 subbasins</li></li></ul><li>Planning Area<br />Lower Nisqually<br />
  12. 12. Planning Area<br />Brighton Creek Sub basin<br />
  13. 13. Planning Area<br />Upper Brighton Creek<br />
  14. 14. Planning Area<br />Tanwax Lake<br />
  15. 15. Planning Area<br />Clear Lake<br />
  16. 16. Planning Area<br />Ohop Lake<br />
  17. 17. Planning Area<br />Lower Ohop Creek Valley<br />
  18. 18. Lower Ohop Restoration <br />
  19. 19. Lower Ohop Restoration <br />
  20. 20. Review of Problems:Flooding and Drainage<br />89 flooding and drainage problems identified<br />High risk for flooding along main stem<br />McKenna<br />Nisqually Park <br />Elsewhere, localized flooding <br />Small increases in impervious area<br />Conversion of forest to other pervious land covers (e.g., pasture, lawn)<br />Lake flooding, development around lakes<br />
  21. 21. Characterization Summary: Water Quality<br /><ul><li>51 Water Quality problems identified
  22. 22. “Polluted” water bodies designated by Ecology
  23. 23. Portions of Nisqually, Mashel, Ohop, Lynch, and Red Salmon creeks (bacteria and temperature)
  24. 24. Clear, Harts, Ohop lakes (phosphorus)
  25. 25. “Waters of Concern” include 13 lakes
  26. 26. Shellfish beds have been affected by bacteria
  27. 27. Overall, fewer water quality problems than other County basins</li></li></ul><li>Characterization Summary: Aquatic Habitat<br /><ul><li>92 problems identified
  28. 28. Most of Nisqually main stem is in good condition
  29. 29. Some main stem reaches have been affected by bank hardening, lack of LWD, floodplain disconnection
  30. 30. Habitat in tributaries has been affected by ditching, lack of riparian trees, lack of LWD, elevated sediment loads, “flashier” flow regimes, elevated water temperatures
  31. 31. Fish barriers</li></li></ul><li>Planning Area<br />Nisqually River near McKenna<br />
  32. 32. Planning Area<br />Nisqually Park Levee<br />
  33. 33. Key Recommendations: McKenna Flood Mitigation<br />
  34. 34. Key Recommendations: McKenna Flood Mitigation<br />
  35. 35. Key Recommendations: McKenna Flood Mitigation<br />Range of Mitigation Measures<br />No action<br />Flood warning and emergency response<br />Elevating structures<br />Acquisition/relocation<br />Structural flood control – levees<br />By-pass canal<br />Dam management<br />Sand and gravel removal<br />
  36. 36. Key Recommendations: McKenna Flood Mitigation<br />Recommendations<br />Estimated cost between $6M and $10.2M <br />Update Nisqually River hydrology<br />Revise flood hazard mapping<br />Improve flood warning and emergency response<br />Continue community involvement and formulate alternatives<br />Survey flood-prone structures<br />Perform alternatives analysis, benefit-cost analysis<br />
  37. 37. Key Recommendations:Lake Management Program<br />Key Issues<br />Lakes are economically important <br />Quality of life, recreation, tax base<br />Water quality issues<br />Toxic algae, invasive plants, eutrophication, pathogens<br />Affect recreation, aesthetics, aquatic habitat<br />Limited monitoring data<br />To identify problems, track trends<br />Limited implementation funds<br />To perform detailed studies, identify sources of problems, fix problems<br />
  38. 38. Key Recommendations:Lake Management Program<br />Gaps<br />Monitoring to determine problems, identify which lakes need detailed studies & projects<br />TPCHD provides limited monitoring, lacks budget and staff to do more<br />Volunteers needed to increase monitoring frequency and areal extent<br />Education, outreach, technical assistance<br />Aquatic invasive species management<br />Funding for detailed lake studies and projects<br />
  39. 39. Key Recommendations:Lake Management Program<br />County-wide Recommendations<br />Annual Supporting Funding (not including FTE)<br />$85 K (PCWP) to support monitoring, outreach, etc.<br />$2.125 Million (PCWP) for lake projects & studies<br />$35 K (PCD) to support volunteer monitoring<br />
  40. 40. Key Recommendations:Lake Management Program<br />Nisqually Basin Recommendations<br />Phased implementation: start with Nisqually Basin<br />$25,000 in supporting funding (annually)<br />$1 Million for projects & studies (over 10 years) <br />$200,000 each for five 1st Tier Lakes<br />
  41. 41. Summary of Recommendations: Capital Improvement Projects <br />16 Property Acquisitions: $10,893,700 <br />McKenna Flood Mitigation: $10,200,000<br />9 Habitat Restoration: $4,192,880<br />11 Culvert Replacements: $2,736,300<br />3 Fish Passage: $1,197,200<br />1 Revegetation: $226,800<br />
  42. 42. Summary of Recommendations:21 Programmatic Measures <br />Costs over next 10 years (planning period)<br />County-wide: $4,393,500<br />Lake Management: $2,765,000<br />All others: $1,628,500<br />Nisqually Basin: $844,000<br />Main stem Flood Mitigation Planning: $350,000<br />Enhance Nisqually River Council Capacity: $375,000<br />All others: $494,000<br />
  43. 43. Summary of Recommendations: Studies <br />Aquatic restoration assessment: $1,080,000<br />Flood and CMZ hazard mapping: $ 573,000 <br />Fish passage assessment: $ 38,500<br />TOTAL $1,691,500<br />
  44. 44. Summary of Recommendations:Overall<br />41 Capital Improvement Projects (CIP)<br />21 Programmatic Measures<br />19 Studies<br />*Includes $10.2 million for McKenna flood mitigation<br />
  45. 45. Conclusions<br /><ul><li>Over 232 problems identified
  46. 46. 81 recommendations
  47. 47. Estimated total cost: $36,376,000
  48. 48. Final SWAB Review April 2008
  49. 49. DSEIS and Plan issued for public review May 2008
  50. 50. County council EID Public Hearing August 25, 2008</li>

×