This document summarizes the history and context of Capitol Lake planning in Washington state. It discusses the various proposals that have been considered over time to manage the lake and sediment accumulation, including maintaining the lake, restoring an estuary, or creating a dual basin estuary. It also outlines some of the technical, economic, environmental, and regulatory considerations of each alternative. Moving forward, the state legislature will need to decide on a long-term management strategy, but permitting for major changes could take 4-6 years.
Network for Sustainable Hydropower Development for Mekong Region with the support of MRC-GIZ Cooperation Programme from the Research Center for Environmental and Hazardous Substance Management of Khon Kaen University gave a presentation on Trans-Boundary Issue.
Network for Sustainable Hydropower Development for Mekong Region with the support of MRC-GIZ Cooperation Programme from the Research Center for Environmental and Hazardous Substance Management of Khon Kaen University gave a presentation on Trans-Boundary Issue.
Three presentations from Session 34 of the Greater Mekong Forum on Water, Food and Energy, co-hosted by IWRP, the GIZ-MRC Network for Sustainable Hydropower Development in the Mekong countries, the Natural Heritage Institute and Deltares. The Mekong region is undergoing significant change in water resources development for multiple purposes, including hydropower, agriculture, fisheries production and navigation. This also requires the management of the river and its life- and livelihood-giving ecosystems for long term sustainability. Without coordinated development and effective river basin management, the Mekong Basin is exposed to many risks to water resources and associated ecosystems, including floods and drought, deterioration of water quality, reduction of sedimentation loads and extinction of many aquatic species. This session provided an opportunity to recognize these challenges in river basin management and identify development and management needs to tackle these issues.
Flood and drought mitigation - Matt MachielseYourAlberta
Matt, Assistant Deputy Minister with Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development presented at Alberta’s Watershed Management Symposium: Flood and Drought Mitigation. He explained key findings from the Government of Alberta’s flood mitigation engineering studies are presented, along with next steps for major flood mitigation projects.
Lesotho - Land & Water management for good IWRMShammy Puri
Lesotho needs to urgently put in place integrated catchment management. If not all soil, all agriculture and all cattle will be seriously affected in less than 10 years. What to do? In this project I have suggested a 'way ahead' to the water Sector Coordinating Committee. The message is in the power point.
Concerns for Aggregate pits and groundwater protection in Ontario. Reviewing risks to Ontario's GDP and farmland and moraine systems in Southwestern Ontario.
The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact was signed into federal law with great fanfare in 2008. However, states must do more to realize the Compact’s potential to better manage Great Lakes waters in and outside of the basin through comprehensive water conservation and efficiency programs, improved data sharing and more comprehensive permitting.
Three presentations from Session 34 of the Greater Mekong Forum on Water, Food and Energy, co-hosted by IWRP, the GIZ-MRC Network for Sustainable Hydropower Development in the Mekong countries, the Natural Heritage Institute and Deltares. The Mekong region is undergoing significant change in water resources development for multiple purposes, including hydropower, agriculture, fisheries production and navigation. This also requires the management of the river and its life- and livelihood-giving ecosystems for long term sustainability. Without coordinated development and effective river basin management, the Mekong Basin is exposed to many risks to water resources and associated ecosystems, including floods and drought, deterioration of water quality, reduction of sedimentation loads and extinction of many aquatic species. This session provided an opportunity to recognize these challenges in river basin management and identify development and management needs to tackle these issues.
Flood and drought mitigation - Matt MachielseYourAlberta
Matt, Assistant Deputy Minister with Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development presented at Alberta’s Watershed Management Symposium: Flood and Drought Mitigation. He explained key findings from the Government of Alberta’s flood mitigation engineering studies are presented, along with next steps for major flood mitigation projects.
Lesotho - Land & Water management for good IWRMShammy Puri
Lesotho needs to urgently put in place integrated catchment management. If not all soil, all agriculture and all cattle will be seriously affected in less than 10 years. What to do? In this project I have suggested a 'way ahead' to the water Sector Coordinating Committee. The message is in the power point.
Concerns for Aggregate pits and groundwater protection in Ontario. Reviewing risks to Ontario's GDP and farmland and moraine systems in Southwestern Ontario.
The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact was signed into federal law with great fanfare in 2008. However, states must do more to realize the Compact’s potential to better manage Great Lakes waters in and outside of the basin through comprehensive water conservation and efficiency programs, improved data sharing and more comprehensive permitting.
Electricity retailing: location-based approach for quality customer experiencesHervé Senot
My round-up of challenges and opportunities for Australian electricity retailers in the brave new world of data analytics, increasing customer expectations and distributed energy generation / storage. Presentation delivered at SSSI conference in September 2014.
A well-designed IT Service Delivery Model is critical to achieving success in IT management and operations. Many IT organizations focus on optimizing their technology assets -- the infrastructure and applications. However, in our experience, business value is achieved most effectively when technology assets and the IT service delivery model are integrated and work together seamlessly.
Sue Patnude (DERT), John Konovsky (Squaxin Island Tribe) and Doug Myers (People for Puget Sound) give a presentation about the benefits of restoring the Deschutes River estuary in Olympia, WA.
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.
Muskegon Lake, located in Muskegon, Mich., has been listed as a Great Lakes Area of Concern due to a significant loss of wildlife habitat and degraded water quality. This presentation will discuss how an organized grassroots effort has successfully received state and federal funding to implement large-scale ecological restoration projects throughout the lake.
Rabbit Branch at Collingham Drive Stream Restoration Information Meeting - Ju...Fairfax County
The goal of the stream restoration project is to build an ecologically sound restoration that balances water quality benefits with riparian function and park user experience.
New efforts in planning for large scale ecosystem restoration in the Sacramen...Cory Copeland
The Delta Stewardship Council (Council) is responsible for promoting the coequal goals of providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystem that forms the upper portion of the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary. The Council is responsible for writing an enforceable Delta Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh. After a multi-year development process that included extensive public engagement and scientific synthesis, the Council, in 2020, authorized initiation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review of its proposed amendment to the Delta Plan focused on ecosystem protection, restoration, and enhancement. The amendment consists of six new and revised ecosystem performance measures, an updated narrative which includes four new and revised policies and 14 recommendations, and seven technical and regulatory appendices. The amendment is novel in that it focuses on landscape-scale process-based restoration, acknowledges the many social benefits from ecosystem restoration, utilizes advanced technical climate change analyses informed by best available science, and employs more rigorous tracking of progress in meeting Delta Plan objectives. The amendment embraces a portfolio of approaches to adaptively manage ecosystems in highly altered and changing landscapes, and strives to reestablish ecological processes in natural communities at a sufficient scale (and with connectivity, complexity, and diversity) to be resilient to land conversion and climate change. This digital poster will describe the collaborative science-driven process the Council used in developing the amendment, the draft currently under environmental review, and lessons for resource managers in other systems facing the challenge of planning ecosystem recovery amidst ongoing anthropogenic stressors and a rapidly changing climate.
Similar to Ga presentation - scc capitol lake 10-12-10a (20)
New efforts in planning for large scale ecosystem restoration in the Sacramen...
Ga presentation - scc capitol lake 10-12-10a
1. The Status of Capitol Lake Planning Washington State Capitol CommitteeOctober 12, 2010
2. CAPITOL LAKE Setting the Context 1856: U.S. Coast SurveyDepartment of the Navy1911: State Capitol CommissionHires Olmsted Brothers and Wilder and White.1912: Olmsteds write to Gov. Hay suggesting improvements to the inner harbor which “may be accomplished from time to time as opportunity arises”.
3. CAPITOL LAKESetting the Context 1927: Correspondence from Wilder & White to the Capitol Committee: “Improvement of the water front…has been given very little study on the Olmsted Plan and we believe it would be unfortunate to leave it at this stage.” Wilder & White - undated 1937: The Legislature appropriated $150,000 to create Capitol Lake. The “Des Chutes Water Basin” project would acquire land, construct a parkway, and dam the river. The affected area would become part of the capitol campus. 3
4. CAPITOL LAKESetting the Context 1951: Project completed. Since 1951 more than 2,000,000 cubic yards have accumulated in the basin. Maintenance dredges have not removed sediment, but simply changed the lake’s shape. 1995: GA prepared proposal for a maintenance dredge. 1997: Dredge proposal withdrawn and CLAMP Committee formed to advise GA on management of the basin. TRPC
36. Technical Considerations Managed Lake Little change in infrastructure. The operation of the dam provides greater protection against the initial effects of sea-level rise on downtown flood risk. A large initial dredge is required in addition to regular maintenance dredging. Dredging inside the lake is more difficult than in Budd Inlet. Estuary Initial and maintenance dredging are lessened; most sediment is moved to the shoreline, reducing costs and permitting complexity. Significant infrastructure is required early in implementation (including building a new 5th Avenue bridge and reinforcement of Deschutes Parkway) Dual Basin Estuary In addition to estuary alternative considerations, constructing a north basin barrier involves engineering and environmental uncertainties.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41. PSNERP was initiated in 2001 to identify nearshore ecosystem problems and solutions.
42. PSNERP process may result in significant federal funding for projects to restore Puget Sound.
43.
Editor's Notes
Basin management discussions remain highly polarized between lake and estuary advocates. A constituent group, the Capitol Lake Improvement and Protection Association (CLIPA), issued a report at the end of June 2010 critiquing the CLAMP analyses and providing further support for lake management. Another constituent group, the Deschutes Estuary Restoration Team, has also formed, to support the estuary recommendation.
Managed LakePros: Little change in infrastructure is required. The operation of the dam provides greater protection against the initial effects of sea-level rise on downtown flood risk.Cons: A large initial dredge is required in addition to regular maintenance dredging. Dredging inside the lake is more difficult than in Budd Inlet.EstuaryPros: Initial and maintenance dredging are lessened; most sediment is moved to the shoreline, reducing costs and permitting complexity. May improve transportation flow.Cons: Significant infrastructure changes are required early in implementation (including building a new 5th Avenue bridge and reinforcement of Deschutes Parkway).Dual Basin EstuaryPros: Same as estuary alternative.Cons: In addition to estuary alternative considerations, constructing a north basin barrier involves considerable engineering uncertainties and may not provide an environmentally self-sustaining system.Remaining Technical Uncertainties:Limited Options – CLAMP’s process focused on the lake/estuary options.
Costs for any of the studied options are projected to exceed $100 million over 50 years and may be much higher, depending on assumptions. Further, CLAMP’s process did not analyze effects on the local economy. Creation of the lake established a significant economic benefit to downstream marine interests by reducing sedimentation in lower Budd Inlet. [EXPAND/CLIPA]Managed LakePros: Relatively little cost required for infrastructure. Preserves significant cost benefits to downstream marine economic interests. Cons: Greater initial dredge is required, in addition to greater regular maintenance dredging. EstuaryPros: Initial dredging and maintenance dredging quantities and unit costs are lower. Cons: Significant infrastructure renewal is required early in implementation.Dual Basin EstuaryPros: Same as estuary.Cons: Same as estuary, except for added costs and impacts of north basin barrier work.Remaining Economic Uncertainties:Dredge Costs – Dredging is necessary in any option and is the largest cost element. The presence of invasive New Zealand mudsnails will likely increase disposal costs. Downstream economic impacts – Economic impacts to the local economy from changes in lake management have not been evaluated. [EXPAND/CLIPA]Construction in estuary scenarios will likely impact downtown economic activity (similar to Fourth Avenue Bridge project).
Portions of the Deschutes River, Capitol Lake, and Budd Inlet do not meet federal water quality standards and are on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list for one or more of the following parameters: fecal coliform bacteria, temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, or fine sediment. Budd Inlet suffers from very low dissolved oxygen levels. Improved flushing in the Inlet and the associated reduction in dissolved oxygen concerns is cited by some parties as the most compelling argument for estuary restoration. Ecology estimates that estuary restoration may resolve dissolved oxygen concerns for about one-half of the affected area in the Inlet (~650 acres resolved). Most other water quality issues originate in the watershed above the lake basin, which is a concern since changed lake management strategies will have no effect on upland inputs.[EXPAND/CLIPA/NZMS]Managed LakePros: Supports insects that are an important food source for foraging birds and bats.Cons: Would continue to support several invasive and non-native species, including exotic amphibians and mammals. Dam increases risk of predation for migrating salmon. Is expected to make efforts to improve water quality in Budd Inlet more difficult.Estuary or Dual Basin EstuaryPros: Increased tidal flushing is expected to improve water quality in the basin and Budd Inlet. Would improve habitat for anadromous and marine fish. Would restore 260 acres of an ecosystem type that has been significantly reduced throughout Puget Sound.Cons: Loss of nearly all habitat used by freshwater species. Reduced forage insects for bats and some birds. Potential for all 16 lake-dependent freshwater fish to be eliminated.Remaining Environmental Uncertainties:Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Planning – Ecology’s ongoing water quality study required under the federal Clean Water Act will deliver a Deschutes watershed cleanup plan, and the lake management decision may affect, and be affected by, the TMDL process.Puget Sound Near-Shore Restoration Projects – For several years, theUSDFW and the US Army Corps of Engineers have been identifying and evaluating potential projects for near shore restoration. Deschutes Estuary restoration has been identified as one of 47 candidate projects for their consideration.
(Joyce)The 2010 Legislature ended CLAMP committee funding. The CLAMP process identified some critical shared interests and objectives among all members. However, lake and estuary advocates remain polarized, and disputes persist over the CLAMP analyses and conclusions. The State Capitol Committee and Legislature still must act before any long-term management can begin. Permitting for such a strategy is projected to take four to six years and involve more than 20 different federal, state, local, and tribal authorities. As a result of these factors, the permanence of any decision and the ongoing care of the basin have become major considerations. While these deliberations are continuing, GA has also submitted a capital project request to begin the process for seeking a permit to conduct a limited dredge of Capitol Lake for flood risk mitigation purposes. Permitting is expected to take 4-5 years. Such a dredge will not constrain consideration of any of the long-term management strategies currently under evaluation.