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.

1. Nisqually River Basin PlanPC Economic and Infrastructure Development Committee Hearing Pierce County Public Works and Utilities Surface Water Management Division March, 2010

2. Nisqually River Basin Plan Overview Surface Water Management basin planning process Goals and objectives What is unique about the Nisqually Basin Review of problems Summary of recommendations Discussion of key recommendations

3. Surface Water Management Basin Planning Process One of 10 County basin plans Will serve as “work plan” for Surface Water Management activities in the Nisqually Basin Basin plan development and implementation are funded by stormwater fees collected from within the Nisqually Basin planning area

4. Basins Plan Goals Reduce flood hazards. Improve fish & wildlife habitat. Improve water quality. Demonstrate coordinated & responsible use of public resources. Provide information for the location & methods of new development. Share and coordinate this plan with others.

5. What Makes the Nisqually River Basin Plan Unique Includes main stem Nisqually River (other basin plans do not) Large size (240 square miles) Mostly rural; limited growth Extensive high-quality habitat Numerous lakes A union of three counties

6. History of Planning Process Began in 2006 Characterization completed in 2007 Draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement Conducted in 2007. County Council Subcommittee Hearings held in August of 2008 Upper Nisqually Valley community concerns needed further consideration. Pierce County Surface Water Management conducted meetings held in Ashford.

7. Planning Process Ashford meeting issues addressed: The regional economic viability of the region. Long term maintenance of river levee in/out of west park entrance. Coordination of Mount Rainier National Park/US Corp of Engineers/Pierce County. Discussion of Mt. Rainier Gateway Levee protection to SR 706. Clarification of the Channel migration zone study. General Clarifying language in the characterization of the Upper Nisqually Valley Community.

8. Planning Area

10. 500 miles of streams

12. Planning Area Brighton Creek Sub basin

13. Planning Area Upper Brighton Creek

14. Planning Area Tanwax Lake

15. Planning Area Clear Lake

16. Planning Area Ohop Lake

17. Planning Area Lower Ohop Creek Valley

18. Lower Ohop Restoration

19. Lower Ohop Restoration

20. Review of Problems:Flooding and Drainage 89 flooding and drainage problems identified High risk for flooding along main stem McKenna Nisqually Park Elsewhere, localized flooding Small increases in impervious area Conversion of forest to other pervious land covers (e.g., pasture, lawn) Lake flooding, development around lakes

22. “Polluted” water bodies designated by Ecology

23. Portions of Nisqually, Mashel, Ohop, Lynch, and Red Salmon creeks (bacteria and temperature)

24. Clear, Harts, Ohop lakes (phosphorus)

25. “Waters of Concern” include 13 lakes

26. Shellfish beds have been affected by bacteria

28. Most of Nisqually main stem is in good condition

29. Some main stem reaches have been affected by bank hardening, lack of LWD, floodplain disconnection

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

32. Planning Area Nisqually Park Levee

33. Key Recommendations: McKenna Flood Mitigation

34. Key Recommendations: McKenna Flood Mitigation

35. Key Recommendations: McKenna Flood Mitigation Range of Mitigation Measures No action Flood warning and emergency response Elevating structures Acquisition/relocation Structural flood control – levees By-pass canal Dam management Sand and gravel removal

36. Key Recommendations: McKenna Flood Mitigation Recommendations Estimated cost between $6M and $10.2M Update Nisqually River hydrology Revise flood hazard mapping Improve flood warning and emergency response Continue community involvement and formulate alternatives Survey flood-prone structures Perform alternatives analysis, benefit-cost analysis

37. Key Recommendations:Lake Management Program Key Issues Lakes are economically important Quality of life, recreation, tax base Water quality issues Toxic algae, invasive plants, eutrophication, pathogens Affect recreation, aesthetics, aquatic habitat Limited monitoring data To identify problems, track trends Limited implementation funds To perform detailed studies, identify sources of problems, fix problems

38. Key Recommendations:Lake Management Program Gaps Monitoring to determine problems, identify which lakes need detailed studies & projects TPCHD provides limited monitoring, lacks budget and staff to do more Volunteers needed to increase monitoring frequency and areal extent Education, outreach, technical assistance Aquatic invasive species management Funding for detailed lake studies and projects

39. Key Recommendations:Lake Management Program County-wide Recommendations Annual Supporting Funding (not including FTE) $85 K (PCWP) to support monitoring, outreach, etc. $2.125 Million (PCWP) for lake projects & studies $35 K (PCD) to support volunteer monitoring

40. Key Recommendations:Lake Management Program Nisqually Basin Recommendations Phased implementation: start with Nisqually Basin $25,000 in supporting funding (annually) $1 Million for projects & studies (over 10 years) $200,000 each for five 1st Tier Lakes

41. Summary of Recommendations: Capital Improvement Projects 16 Property Acquisitions: $10,893,700 McKenna Flood Mitigation: $10,200,000 9 Habitat Restoration: $4,192,880 11 Culvert Replacements: $2,736,300 3 Fish Passage: $1,197,200 1 Revegetation: $226,800

42. Summary of Recommendations:21 Programmatic Measures Costs over next 10 years (planning period) County-wide: $4,393,500 Lake Management: $2,765,000 All others: $1,628,500 Nisqually Basin: $844,000 Main stem Flood Mitigation Planning: $350,000 Enhance Nisqually River Council Capacity: $375,000 All others: $494,000

43. Summary of Recommendations: Studies Aquatic restoration assessment: $1,080,000 Flood and CMZ hazard mapping: $ 573,000 Fish passage assessment: $ 38,500 TOTAL $1,691,500

44. Summary of Recommendations:Overall 41 Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) 21 Programmatic Measures 19 Studies *Includes $10.2 million for McKenna flood mitigation

46. 81 recommendations

47. Estimated total cost: $36,376,000

48. Final SWAB Review April 2008

49. DSEIS and Plan issued for public review May 2008

50. County council EID Public Hearing August 25, 2008