PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Nisqually River Basin Plan Volume 2 - Appendices
Volume 2 Nisqually Basin Plan River PUBLICDRAFT REVIEW June, 2008
–
Appendices
TABLE OF CONTENTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Nisqually River Basin Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS – VOLUME II
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY
APPENDIX B: STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC MEETINGS AND SURVEYS
APPENDIX C: NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF NISQUALLY RIVER HYDROLOGY
APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVAULUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA
APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS
APPENDIX G: CULVERT SIZING AND CIP SITE MAPS
APPENDIX H: COMPILATION OF LAKE DATA
APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX J: CIP AND PROGRAMMATIC RANKING SCORE SHEETS
APPENDIX K: CAPTIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (CIP) COST ESTIMATES
APPENDIX L: REVISIONS RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED PIERCE COUNTY RIVERS FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities TOC-1 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management VOLUME 2 - APPENDICES NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
APPENDIX A Glossary
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
APPENDIX A GLOSSARY
Glossary of Terms Used
100-Year Flood, a.k.a. The flood having a one-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded Base Flood in any given year
303(d) List Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires Washington State periodically to prepare a list of all surface waters in the state for which beneficial uses of the water – such as for drinking, recreation, aquatic habitat, and industrial use – are impaired by pollutants. These are water quality limited estuaries, lakes, and streams that fall short of state surface water quality standards, and are not expected to improve within the next two years.
4(d) Rule In the federal Endangered Species Act, the protective rule promulgated by the lead federal agency at the time it makes a final decision to list a species as threatened. The 4(d) Rule can be a restatement of Section 9(a) prohibitions on take of a species, but also can specify activities which have been determined to be adequately regulated and given legal coverage for the (incidental take) of the listed species.
Aquatic Pertaining to water
Aquifer A saturated permeable material (often sand, gravel, sandstone, or limestone) that contains and carries groundwater and acts as a water reservoir.
A-Zone The areas inundated by the 100-year flood.
Backwater Stream water, obstructed by some downstream hydraulic control, that is slowed or stopped from flowing at its normal, open-channel flow condition.
A-1 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Bankfull Discharge Sometimes referred to as the effective flow or ordinary high water flow; it is the channel-forming flow. For most streams, the bankfull discharge is the flow that has a recurrence interval of approximately 1.5 years. Most bankfull discharges have a recurrence range between 1.3 and 1.8 years. In some areas it could be lower or higher than this range. Bankfull discharge is the flow that transports the most sediment for the least amount of energy.
Base Flood The flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, also referred to as the “100-year flood” The base flood surface water elevation is measured in feet above mean sea level and referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (or the most current vertical datum accepted by Pierce County.
Base Flood Elevation Water surface elevation of the base flood (100-year flood); the (BFE) elevation which is the basis of the insurance and floodplain management requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program.
Base Flow The portion of the stream flow that is not due to storm runoff and is supported by groundwater, large lakes, and swamp seepage into a channel
Basin A geographic and hydrologic sub unit of a watershed, shortened reference to drainage basin
Best Management Physical, structural, or managerial practices which have gained Practices (BMPs) general acceptance for their ability to prevent or reduce environmental impacts.
BMPs See Best Management Practices.
Buffer "Buffer" means a tract or strip of land that separates one type, category or use of land from another. Buffers typically serve to provide a defined area between a more intensive use of land and a land use that is less intensive. Buffers are typically referenced by the associated critical area such as wetland buffer, riparian buffer, etc.
A-2 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
B-Zone Certain areas subject to the "base flood" with contributing drainage areas of more than 100 acres and less than one square mile and all pothole areas
Capital Improvement A project funded by Pierce County Water Programs intended to Project (CIP) improve the physical plant of the drainage system, the performance of that system, and/or reduce site specific or cumulative adverse stormwater impacts
Carrying Capacity The level of development density or use an environment is able to support without suffering undesirable or irreversible degradation
cfs Cubic feet per second. Units assigned to the volume of water that flows past a fixed point in a stream channel, drainage outlet or other water flow path every second; equivalent to 449 gallons per minute (gpm)
Channel “Natural or artificial waterway of perceptible extent that periodically or continuously contains moving water. It has a definite bed and banks that serve to confine water.”
Channel Erosion The widening, deepening and headward cutting of small channels and waterways due to erosion caused by moderate to large floods
Channel Morphology The shape and gradient of a channel that forms due to streamflow forces and the composition of the underlying channel substrate.
Channelization The straightening, deepening, or widening of a stream channel for the purpose of increasing the stream's carrying capacity
Clearing The removal of timber, brush, grass, ground cover, or other vegetative matter from a site, which exposes the earth’s surface on the site
Confluence The location where two streams meet.
A-3 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Conservation Includes protection, maintenance and restoration of habitat characteristics to support the species of interest
Consistency No feature of a plan or regulation is incompatible with any other feature of a plan or regulation (WAC 365-195-210)
Contaminant Any chemical, physical, biological, or radiological substance that does not occur naturally or occurs at concentrations and duration as to be injurious to human health or welfare or shown to be ecologically damaging
Conveyance Capacity A term generally referring to the maximum capability of the physical drainage system to safely transport water (from a hydraulic perspective)
Corridor (Landscape) Landscape elements that connect similar patches of habitat through an area with different characteristics; for example, streamside vegetation may create a corridor of willows and hardwoods between meadows or through a forest.
Critical Areas Wetlands, flood hazard areas, fish and wildlife habitat areas, aquifer recharge areas, and geologically hazardous areas
Culvert A single length of pipe open to the ground surface at both ends carrying streamflow under a road grade or other type of fill embankment. Typically, no manholes or catch basins are installed along its length.
Degradation The lowering of the streambed or widening of the stream channel by erosion. The breakdown and removal of soil, rock and organic debris.
Detention Facility A facility (e.g., pond, vault, pipe) in which surface and stormwater are temporarily stored and released at a controlled rate
A-4 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Development Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate including, but not limited to: buildings or other structures, placement of manufactured home/mobile home, mining, dredging, clearing, fillings, grading, paving, excavation, drilling operations, or the subdivision of property.
Development Any controls placed on development or land use activities by a Regulations county or city, including, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and binding site plan ordinances (RCW 36.70.030)
Discharge Flow rate of a stream or stormwater system, usually measured in cubic feet per second
Drainage Inventory Data on public storm drainage system describing type, size, and location of facilities.
Easement The legal right to use a specified piece of land for a particular purpose.
Ecosystem A biological community together with the chemical and physical environment with which it interacts.
Effectiveness The evaluation of whether an action achieved the desired effect. For Monitoring example, in a sediment reduction project, effectiveness monitoring would determine whether sediment supply was actually reduced.
Ephemeral Stream A dry stream course, except during or immediately after extreme Channel rainfall or surfacing groundwater due to heavy annual rainfall; often no ordinary high water mark is evident. See also intermittent stream channel.
Erosion Detachment of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice and gravity
A-5 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Erosion & A type of drainage facility designed to hold water for a period of time Sedimentation Control to allow sediment contained the surface and stormwater runoff Facility directed to the facility to settle out and improve the quality of the runoff
Fecal Coliform Minute living organisms associate with human or animal feces that are used as an indirect indicator of the presence of other disease causing bacteria
Federal Emergency Independent agency created in 1978 to provide a single point of Management Agency accountability for all federal activities related to disaster mitigation (FEMA) and emergency preparedness, response and recovery
Fill Earth, sand, gravel, rock, asphalt, or other solid material placed to raise the ground elevation or to replace excavated material
Fish & Wildlife Habitat The areas identified as being of critical importance to maintenance of Areas fish, wildlife, and plant species, including: areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; habitats and species of local importance; commercial and recreational shellfish areas; kelp and eelgrass beds, herring and smelt spawning areas; naturally occurring ponds under twenty acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat; waters of the state; lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity, or private organization; state natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas.
Fish Passage Barrier An obstacle that prevents fish from moving either upstream or downstream, such as certain dams, weirs, floodgates, roads, bridges, causeways and culverts.
Flood An overflow or inundation that comes from a river or any other source, including but not limited to streams, tides, wave action, storm drains, or excess rainfall.
A-6 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Flood Control Physically controlling a river or stream by structural means such as dikes and levees, which separate people and property from damaging floodwater
Flood Elevation Height of flood waters above an elevation datum plane
Flood Hazard A comprehensive approach to flood control issues that encompasses Management both flood control management and floodplain management and uses both structural and nonstructural methods of reducing flood hazards. Flood hazard management is not limited to areas within the floodplain but can extend to the entire watershed. Stormwater management is also included because the control of the quantity and quality (sediment load) of stormwater runoff into streams and rivers can have significant impacts on stream and river flooding.
Flood Insurance Rate "Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)" means the official map on which Map (FIRM) the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated areas of special flood hazard and the risk premium zones applicable to Pierce County.
Flood prone Area Generally includes the active floodplain and the flood fringe. The elevation of the flood prone area is qualitatively defined as 2 times the bankfull depth.
Flooding or Erosion Impacts such as flooding of septic systems, crawl spaces, living areas, Impacts outbuildings, etc.; increased ice or algal growth on sidewalks/roadways; earth movement/settlement; increased landslide potential; erosion and other potential damage
Floodplain The total area subject to inundation by the base flood including the flood fringe and floodway. The low area adjoining a stream or river channel that overflows at times of high river flow.
Geomorphology The actions or events that shape and control the distribution of materials, their states and their morphology within the interior and on the surface of the earth
A-7 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Glacial Till Surface or near-surface soil that has been compressed by a past glacier into a dense, relatively impermeable material. It typically has a low infiltration rate and is often responsible for the formation of ponds, wetlands or a seasonally high water table.
Gradient (of stream) Degree of inclination of a stream channel parallel to stream flow; it may be represented as a ratio, fraction, percentage or angle.
Groundwater The water contained in interconnected pores located below the water table in an unconfined aquifer or located in a confined aquifer
Groundwater Flooding The occurrence of surface and subsurface water resulting in flood inundation, due to the fluctuation of the water table. It encompasses depth, frequency, and duration and is usually seasonal by characteristic.
Habitat The sum total of all the environmental factors of a specific place that is occupied by an organism, a population or a community.
Hazard Mitigation Action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from hazards such as floods, earthquakes and fires
High Gradient Moderately to deeply incised channels with high stream power. Most Contained sediment is easily transported, thus gravel and small cobbles deposit only in hydraulically protected areas. Pools tend to be small and shallow, although LWD and bedrock may form large deep pools.
Hydraulic Project Permit issued by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Approval required for projects with construction activity in or near state waters (RCW 75.20.100-160) that affect the bed or flow of a stream.
Hydrograph A graph showing variation in the flow in a stream or channel, over time, at a specified point of interest
A-8 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Hydrologic Soil Group A classification of soils by the Soil Conservation Service into four runoff potential groups. The groups range from A soils, which are very permeable and produce little runoff, to D soils, which are not very permeable and produce much more runoff
Hydrology The science of the behavior of water in the atmosphere, on the surface of the earth, and underground.
Illicit Discharge All non-stormwater discharges to stormwater drainage systems that cause or contribute to a violation of State water quality, sediment quality or ground water quality standards.
Impervious Surface A hard surface, which either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development, and/or a hard surface area, which causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow than the flow present under natural conditions prior to development. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, gravel parking lots, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam or other surfaces which similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater.
Incised Channel A stream channel in which the bed has dropped and as a result, the stream is disconnected from its floodplain
Infiltration Facility A drainage facility designed to use the hydrologic process of surface and stormwater runoff soaking into the ground, commonly referred to as percolation, to dispose of surface and stormwater runoff
Instream Flow Instream flow is the amount of water in a stream required to support or protect existing uses of fish and fish habitat.
Intermittent Stream Stream channels that carry water consistently for part of the year and Channel are dry during the remainder of the year. See ephemeral stream channel
A-9 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Landscape All the natural features such as grasslands, hills, forest and water, which distinguish one part of the earth’s surface from another part; usually that portion of land that the eye can comprehend in a single view, including all its natural characteristics
Large woody debris Any piece of woody material generally 12 inches or larger in (LWD) diameter that intrudes into a stream channel or nearby (e.g., logs, stumps or root wads) and that functions to form pools, regulate sediments, disperse stream energy, create channel complexity, stabilize channels, provide instream organic matter, and provide cover for fish.
Low Impact A category of best management practices designed to incorporate Development (LID) open space preservation techniques, such as cluster residential developments or rooftop runoff management, foundation design, vegetation enhancement, etc., that reduce hydrological impacts of development, as compared to more traditional practices
Main Stem The principal channel of a stream to which tributaries join.
Meander Pattern A series of sinuous curves or loops in the course of a stream that are produced as a stream swings from side to side in flowing across its floodplain
Minor Drainage System The convenience drainage system consisting of street gutters, storm sewer, small open channels, and swales, etc.
Mitigation Avoiding, rectifying, minimizing, reducing, compensating for or eliminating probable significant adverse impacts to a natural resource or environment.
Models are conceptual and mathematical descriptions or analogies Model used to help visualize something that cannot be directly observed. Models provide frameworks that organize concepts, data and information into a system of inferences that can be presented as mathematical descriptions of situations or state of affairs.
A-10 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Moderate Gradient Transport dominated channels with moderate to high stream power. Contained LWD is important for forming pools and storing sediment, thus substrates and bedforms are highly variable. Off-channel habitats are rare.
Native Occurring naturally in a habitat or region; not introduced by humans
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
On-Site Detention Temporary storage of runoff on the same land development site where the runoff is generated, frequently as a condition for development activity
Open Space A landscape which is primarily unimproved. Open space areas may include: critical areas, wooded areas, and parks, trails, privately owned natural reserves, abandoned railroad lines, utility corridors, and other vacant rights-of-way. Permanent dedications, designation, or reservation of open space for public or private use may occur in accordance with Comprehensive Plan policies. Open space may include Natural Open Space, Natural Buffer Areas, Buffers, and Screening.
Organics Organics is a collective term for any number of carbon-based substances that may be toxic to aquatic life or can accumulate in fish tissue to levels that are unsafe for human consumption.
Outfall The outlet of a storm drain or sewer. The point where water flows from a manmade conduit, channel, or drain into a water body or other natural drainage feature
Palustrine Wetland channels, beaver complexes or sloughs. Velocity is generally low, substrates are composed of fine sediment or organic matter, and channel morphology is sinuous or irregular and dominated by pools or glides (R2 Resource Consultants, 2000).
Peak Flow The maximum instantaneous rate of flow during a storm, usually in reference to a specific design storm event
A-11 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Perennial Stream A watercourse that flows throughout the year
Pervious A solid surface that contains a sufficient amount of void space to allow water to infiltrate through it.
Pesticides Chemical used to kill, control, or manage plant or animal pests; includes herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, rodenticides, and piscicides.
Pollutant Loading The arithmetic product of the pollutant concentration and the runoff over a specified period of time (day, month, year, etc.)
Pothole A closed drainage basin from which there is no surface water outlet.
Priority Habitat A seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has a primary association and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain or increase population over the long term. These might include areas of high relative density, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors. Priority habitats might also include areas that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to alteration, such as cliffs, talus, wetlands, etc.
Priority Species An animal species of concern due to their population status and their sensitivity to habitat manipulation. Priority species include species of concern, monitor species, candidate species, priority game species, as well as other game and non-game species.
Private Stormwater Any stormwater system or portion thereof held in private ownership, Facility or the responsibility for operation of which resides with a private entity .
Programmatic Relating to a plan or procedure for dealing with some matter, e.g., regulations, policy guidelines, site design standards, operational policies and procedures, technical assistance, enforcement, and public outreach and educational programs.
A-12 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Public Stormwater Any stormwater system or portion thereof that is owned or operated Facility by a public entity
Reach A segment of a stream channel where the cross-section, slope and roughness of the channel are constant. Simulation of the flow in streams is done by dividing the stream channel into reaches.
Receiving Waters Streams, lakes, bays, etc., into which stormwaters are discharged
Reed Canary Grass An invasive grass that thrives in open, wet areas, often a nuisance plant in riparian and wetland areas
Regional Stormwater Stormwater detention, retention or water quality control facility Facility designed to manage runoff from large tracts of land (sub-basins)
Restoration The reestablishment of a viable wetland or critical fish or wildlife habitat area from a previously filled or degraded site
Retention The holding of runoff in a basin without release except by means of evaporation, infiltration or emergency bypass
Right Of Way (ROW) A strip of land held in an easement or separate tract which is occupied or dedicated to be occupied by a publicly or privately dedicated street or railroad, together with property reserved for utilities, transmission lines and extensions, walkways, sidewalks, bikeways, equestrian trails, and other similar uses.
Rip Rap A combination of large stone, cobbles and boulders used to line channels, stabilize banks, reduce runoff velocities or filter out sediment
A-13 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Riparian Area "Riparian area" means land areas directly influenced by a body of water. Usually such areas have visible vegetation or physical characteristics showing this water influence. Stream sides, lake borders, and marshes are typical riparian areas. Generally refers to such areas along flowing bodies of water. The term Littoral is generally used to denote such areas along non-flowing bodies of water.
Runoff Water originating from rainfall and other precipitation that si found in drainage facilities, rivers, streams, springs, seeps, ponds, lakes and wetlands, as well as shallow ground water
Salmonids Fish of the family Salmonidae, including salmon, trout, char (salmon and steelhead stock inventory), whitefish and grayling native to Washington State
Scour Process by which floodwaters remove soil around objects that obstructs flow, such as the foundation wall of a house, the channel of a stream, or below a culvert
Sediment Solid material settled from suspension in a liquid
Sedimentation The process of settling and depositing of suspending matter carried by runoff; usually occurring by gravity when the velocity of the surface water is reduced below the point at which it can transport the suspended material
SEPA State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43C)
Sheet Flow Runoff which flows over the ground surface as a thin, even layer, not concentrated in a channel
Significant Erosion The removal and transport of sediment, generally by the action of water, in a manner that causes damage to property, aquatic ecosystems, aquatic habitats, salmonids or other aquatic resources
A-14 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Site Development A variety of standards applied to site development that can include, Standards among others, principles for placement of buildings on site, provision of open space, access roads, drainage facilities, lighting, parking and landscaping.
Soil Permeability The ease with which gases, liquids, or plant roots penetrate or pass through a layer of soil
Spawning Habitat Areas used by adult fish for laying and fertilizing eggs
Stakeholder Group of people pr organizations with an interest in the outcome of a plan, program, or project.
Storm Drains The enclosed conduits that transport surface and stormwater runoff toward points of discharge (sometimes referred to as storm sewers)
Storm Sewer Usually enclosed conduits that transport excess stormwater runoff toward points of discharge (sometimes called “storm drains”)
Stormwater The portion of precipitation that does not naturally percolate into the ground or evaporate, but flows via overland flow, interflow, channels or pipes into a defined surface water channel, or a constructed facility
Stormwater Management of the quantity, quality and conveyance of surface Management water runoff from precipitation
Stream A channel of perennial or intermittent flowing water
Stream Geomorphology The study of the riparian landscape and its affect on stream flow patterns. The landscape tends toward a dynamic equilibrium state where stream flow patterns are affected by the landscapes (or streambeds) ability to erode or resist erosion.
Sub-basin A drainage area which drains to a watercourse or water body named and noted on common maps and which is contained within a basin; a basin or area which is part of a larger drainage basin or area.
A-15 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Substrate The rock or soil material present in the bottom of the stream or river, including muck, sand, gravel, boulders and bedrock
Sub-Watershed A geographic drainage unit that combines with other sub-watersheds to form a watershed
Surface Water "Surface water" means an open body of water that flows or is collected on the earth’s surface such as rivers, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, streams, seas, estuaries, etc., and all springs, wells, or other collectors directly influenced by surface water
Surface Waters of the Includes lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, saltwaters, State wetlands and all other surface waters and water courses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington (WAC Chapter 173-201A).
Swale A natural depression or wide shallow channel that temporarily stores, routes or filters runoff
TMDL See Total Maximum Daily Load.
Topography The shape or configuration of the land, represented on a map by contour lines or relief shading.
Total Maximum Daily A water quality planning and implementation tool required under Load (TMDL) Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. This measure specifies, through the use of a scientifically-based process, the amount of a pollutant that can be discharged to a water body without affecting beneficial uses and mechanisms for ensuring discharges do not exceed that amount. TMDLs can focus on both point and nonpoint sources of pollution and one watershed may have a TMDL developed for both simultaneously.
Total Suspended Solids A measure of the weight of mineral or organic solids suspended in a (TSS) given volume of water; used as a measure of sedimentation or siltation and as an indicator of pollutants known to attach to solids
A-16 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Undeveloped A property in a state generally approaching being native or natural covered with living, mature vegetation
Urban Growth The growth that makes intensive use of land for the location of buildings, structures, and impermeable surfaces to such a degree as to be incompatible with the primary use of such land for the production of food, other agricultural products, or fiber, or the extraction of mineral resources. When allowed to spread over wide areas, urban growth typically requires urban governmental services. "Characterized by urban growth" refers to land having urban growth located on it, or to land located in relationship to an area with urban growth on it as to be appropriate for urban growth.
Urban Growth Area Those areas established through the designation of a boundary which separates existing and future urban areas from rural and resource areas. An urban growth area defines where developments will be directed and supported with historical and typical urban governmental services and facilities, such as storm and sanitary sewer systems, domestic water systems, street cleaning services, fire protection services, and public transit services. Urban Growth Areas are established by the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan.
USBEM Urban Stream Baseline Evaluation Methodology
USGS (United States Agency within the federal Department of the Interior responsible for Geological Survey) collecting and distributing stream flow data for the nation
Water Body Surface waters including rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, marine waters, estuaries, and wetlands
Water Quality Limits for water pollution in lakes, rivers and marine waters in order Standards to protect water quality. The Clean Water Act requires that the water quality standards protect beneficial uses, such as swimming, fishing, aquatic life habitat, and agricultural and drinking water.
Water Resources An administrative and planning unit in Washington State that Inventory Area (WRIA) encompasses a large river basin
A-17 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Water Table The upper level of groundwater or the zone of saturation for underground water. It is an irregular surface with a slope or shape determined by the quantity of ground water and the permeability of the earth material. Also referred to as Groundwater Table.
Watercourse Alteration Any man-made change in the alignment, geometric cross-Section, channel capacity, or channel efficiency of a watercourse
Watershed The region drained by or contributing water to a stream, lake, or other body of water.
Weir A dam or obstruction in a stream or river to raise the water level or divert streamflow
Wetland Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands generally do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities; or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. However, wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigated conversion of wetlands.
Zoning The process by which a county or a municipality legally controls the use of property and physical configuration of development upon tracts of land within its jurisdiction. Zoning is an exercise of the police power and as such must be enacted for the protection of public health, safety and welfare. (PCC Title 19, Appendix A)
A-18 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
A-19 VOLUME 2 - APPENDICES NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
APPENDIX B Stakeholder Involvement, Public Meetings And Surveys
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX B NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
APPENDIX B Stakeholder Involvement Public Meetings and Surveys
As described in Section 3.2.8 of the Basin Plan, public involvement was an integral part of the basin planning process. The project team conducted public meetings, attended other public meetings, and conducted surveys of basin residents. Table B-1 lists dates for various public involvement activities were conducted during the planning process. Additional materials related to public meetings and public surveys are included in the pages that follow.
Table B-1. Public Involvement Activities during the Nisqually River Basin Planning Process Event Date Location Description of Activity Mailed a questionnaire and letter to basin residents to Resident Survey March 2005 (Mailing) solicit input regarding problems. Informed residents of the planning process and solicited Public Meeting for the Weyerhaeuser June 1st, 2005 information regarding drainage/flooding, water quality, Nisqually River Basin Plan Elementary School and/or fish habitat problems in the basin. Nisqually River Council Presented an overview of the Nisqually River Basin July 21st, 2006 Ohop Grange Meeting Characterization Public Meeting for the Weyerhaeuser Presented an overview of the Nisqually River Basin September 6th, 2006 Nisqually River Basin Plan Elementary School Characterization and solicited input of identified problems. Mailed a questionnaire and letter to lakeshore property Resident Survey July 2007 (Mailing) owners to obtain information about lake conditions. Storm Drainage and Surface Pierce County Presented an update of the Nisqually River Basin Plan, Water Management Advisory September 20th, 2007 Environmental and on overview of the Basin Characterization Board Meeting Services Building Citizens Advisory Committee October 4th, 2007 Yelm Prairie Hotel Presented an update of the Nisqually River Basin Plan of the Nisqually River Council Center for Sustainable Nisqually River Council October 19th, 2007 Forestry at Pack Presented an update of the Nisqually River Basin Plan Meeting Forest Storm Drainage and Surface Pierce County Presented an overview of the results of the Nisqually Water Management Advisory March 20th, 2008 Environmental River Basin Plan. Board Meeting Services Building Presentation of the results of the Nisqually River Basin Public Meeting for the Plan, and opportunity to answer questions during the 30- To be determined To be determined Nisqually River Basin Plan day review period for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS).
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities B-1 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management APPENDIX B NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities B-2 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management APPENDIX B NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities B-3 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management APPENDIX B NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities B-4 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management APPENDIX B NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities B-5 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Questionnaire Instructions Pierce County Water Programs is developing a basin plan for the Nisqually River Basin. Basin plans identify actions necessary to provide safe storm drainage, reduce flooding, maintain water quality and protect natural streams and lakes and the fish and wildlife they support. This questionnaire is intended to collect information about the lakes in the basin. We have sent this questionnaire to you because our records indicate that you own property on or close to a lake. Your response to this questionnaire will help the planning process by providing valuable information on site specific problems. Feel free to make copies of this questionnaire to describe problems at multiple locations, or call (253) 798 - 6793 for additional copies. After filling out questionnaire, please fold along dashed lines and mail to Pierce County. Please return your questionnaire by______.Thank you very much!
For project info, please call: Roy Huberd, Pierce County Water Programs (253) 798-6793 Randy Brake, Pierce County Water Programs (253) 798-4651 or Mike Milne, Brown and Caldwell, (206) 749-2284 ------fold line ------
Public Works and Utilities Bulk Rate Water Programs Postage Stamp 9850 64th Street West University Place, WA 98467-1078
Pierce County Water Programs ATTN: Roy Huberd or Randy Brake 9850 64th Street West University Place, WA 98467-1078
------fold line ------(outside of tri-fold) WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER Nisqually Basin Plan
NISQUALLY BASIN PLAN - 2007 LAKE QUESTIONNAIRE Contact Information (Not required, but helpful if we have questions about the problems you describe) Name: Can we contact you? Yes No Address: If Yes, which do you prefer? Phone Mail In-person E-mail Phone: E-Mail Address: ______
Name of Lake: ______Lake Access Who owns the lake? Is there public access to the lake?
Private Resident(s) City State Boat Ramp Park None County I don’t know Public Dock Beach Lake Use What do you use the lake for? How often do you use the lake?
Boating/Waterskiing Swimming Many times per year Once every 2 to 3 years Commercial Ventures Fishing Several times per year Less than once every 3 years Other ______Irrigation 1 or 2 times per year Lake Water Level Control Is lake level controlled by a man-made Who operates or maintains the How much does the lake water level fluctuate structure? ______If yes, what kind? structure? during the year?
Stop-log Outlet 0-2 feet 4-6 feet Weir Other ______2-4 feet Other ______Flooding Flooding problems you have observed Flooding occurs under what What season do the flooding problems occur? (check all that apply): conditions? Spring Flooding of residential structures Long rainstorms Summer Flooding of landscaped areas Short, intense storms Fall Flooding of docks, boat sheds, etc. Multiple consecutive storms Winter Other ______Other ______Frequency of flooding problems: Approximate dates and durations Describe nature and extent of flooding
Several times per year of problems, if known: problems: 1 or 2 times per year Once every 2 to 3 years Less than once every 3 years Do you have photos of past flooding? Yes No Fish Species What kinds of fish are in the lake? Have you observed any fish kills? From what you’ve observed, are fish populations: Trout Bass Occasional dead fish Salmon Perch Frequent dead fish Increasing Steady Other ______Mass fish kills Decreasing Can’t tell Algae Blooms Have you observed any of the Have notifications of toxic algae When have algae blooms occurred? (check all following indications of algae blooms? blooms been posted for this lake? that apply)
Lake looks green (like pea soup) Yes, several times Warm summer months Areas of cloudy blue-green water Yes, a few times Cool winter months Surface scum (green, blue, white) Yes, once before Following sunny dry periods Strong odors, decomposition None that I’m aware of Following wet/rainy periods None; clear water If yes, by whom? ______Aquatic Weeds Are water weeds present in the lake or Has weed growth interfered with Has weed growth: outlet channel (other than algae)? your use of the lake? Increased over the past 15 years Dense Yes Decreased over the past 15 years Moderate No Stayed the same over the past 15 years Low What kinds (if known)? ______How often? ______Water Quality Describe water quality problems you What season do the problems Frequency of problems: have observed (check all that apply) occur? More than once per year Cloudy water Spring Every year Septic failure/seepage Summer Once every 2 to 3 years Manure/animal waste Fall Less than once every 3 years Pets sick after drinking Winter Other ______Fertilizer and Lakeshore Habitat What kind of fertilizer How often do you apply What time of year do you Which best describes the shoreline do you use on your fertilizers? usually apply fertilizer? vegetation on your property? lawn and/or garden? More than four times a year Early Spring Landscaped Organic/Manure Four times a year Late Spring Natural Vegetation Chemical Twice a year Late Summer Beach Both Once a year Fall Bulkhead None Less than once a year Other ______Native vegetation along the lake shore can help prevent fertilizers, bacteria, and other pollutants from entering the lake and causing problems, such as excessive growth of algae and invasive weeds. Would you consider planting native vegetation along your lake front to protect and improve water quality?
Yes Maybe No Septic System Is there a septic system on your property? Yes No. If yes, how far is drainfield from lake? ______Do you have any problems How often do you have it How old is your septic What condition is your septic with your septic system? pumped? system? system in?
Odor Every 1-3 years 1 – 10 years Good Surface Discharge Every 3-5 years 10 – 15 years Medium Clogging Every 6-10 years 15 – 20 years Poor Other ______Every 10 years 20+ years I don’t know Never I don’t know Lake Management Community Groups Do you contribute to or are If yes, list group name and contact Would you be interested in becoming involved in a new you involved in a group info: community group that addresses issues in the lake? associated with the lake? ______Yes Yes ______No No ______
If this study finds that additional measures are needed to protect your lake, how much would you be willing to pay for new lake management measures?: None $10 to $100/yr $100 to $500/yr $500 to $1,000/yr More than $1,000/yr
IMPORTANCE OF LAKE ISSUES Please rank the following in order of importance from 1 to 4, where 1 = Very Important, 2 = Important, 3 = Somewhat important, 4 = Least important. Please circle the ranking number for each issue. Issue Rating Issue Rating Water Quality 1 2 3 4 Algae Blooms 1 2 3 4 Flooding 1 2 3 4 Water weeds 1 2 3 4 Fish Health 1 2 3 4 Fertilizer Use 1 2 3 4 Lake Level 1 2 3 4 Septic System Use 1 2 3 4
Please use the space below to describe any concerns or problems not listed above.
______
______
______
______
______
VOLUME 2 - APPENDICES NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
APPENDIX C Nisqually River Basin Risk Assessment
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
APPENDIX C NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT
11.1 BASIN CHARACTERISTICS The Nisqually River originates on Mount Rainier and flows approximately 78 miles before discharging into the Puget Sound. It is the only river in the nation with its headwaters in a national park and its estuary in a national refuge. The Nisqually River drains an area of approximately 760 square miles. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has designated the Nisqually River Basin as “Water Resource Inventory Area” (WRIA) 11. The Nisqually River Basin planning area includes the unincorporated Pierce County portion of WRIA 11 and the entire length of the main Nisqually River, exclusive of the Muck Creek Basin. The Muck Creek Basin was addressed separately in the Muck Creek Basin Plan (2004). Moreover, the Nisqually River Basin Plan does not cover areas of the Basin that lie within other jurisdictions; such as incorporated towns and cities, commercial timber lands regulated by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Thurston and Lewis counties, and federal lands. The only exception is where activities in these areas may contribute to surface water management problems in unincorporated Pierce County. The Nisqually River Basin planning area was delineated based on the Basin boundaries and other GIS data provided by Pierce County. To allow for more detailed characterization, the planning area was further subdivided into 23 subbasins based on existing topographic and hydrographic data. These Basins and their corresponding areas are listed in Table 11-1. The three largest tributaries in the planning area are Tanwax Creek, Ohop Creek, and the Mashel River. The drainage areas for each of these tributaries cover 11%, 15% and 32% of the total subbasin drainage area, respectively. Other major streams in the planning area include Red Salmon Creek, Murray Creek, Brighton Creek, Horn Creek, Kreger Creek, Lynch Creek, the Little Mashel River, and Elbe Creek. 11.1.1 Nisqually River Basin Red Salmon Creek
Red Salmon Creek is located near the mouth of the Nisqually River and drains directly to Puget Sound through the Nisqually River Delta. The creek flows from south to north along the east side of the delta, and much of the length of the stream is tidally influenced. The Red Salmon Creek subbasin is approximately seven square miles. Much of that drainage area consists of the low-lying areas along the estuary. Portions of the City of DuPont and adjacent areas to the south drain to Red Salmon Creek through two culverts: one under a railroad track and a second under Mounts Road, a county road. There is some type of blockage in the culvert under the railroad track (personal communication with Randy Brake, Pierce County Surface Water
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities C-1 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Management, May 2007). Another area drains to Red Salmon Creek from the south through a culvert under Interstate 5.
TABLE 11-1 NISQUALLY SUBBASIN AREAS Percent of total subbasin Subbasin Area (sq mi) drainage area Alder Lake 9.5 3.6% Ashford Reach 8.1 3.1% Brighton Creek 6.5 2.5% Clear Lake 1.2 0.5% Copper Creek 8.1 3.1% Elbe Creek 11.1 4.3% Goat Cr-Tenas Cr 5.9 2.3% Harts Lake 5.7 2.2% Horn Creek 11.5 4.4% Kreger Creek 10.9 4.2% LaGrand Reach 4.2 1.6% Little Mashel River 23.7 9.1% Lower Mashel River 6.2 2.4% Lower Ohop Creek 7.0 2.7% Lower Tanwax Creek 12.7 4.9% Lynch Creek 17.0 6.5% Mashel Prairie 1.4 0.5% Middle Mashel River 19.8 7.6% Murray Creek 16.3 6.3% Red Salmon Creek 7.3 2.8% Upper Mashel River 34.1 13.1% Upper Ohop Creek 16.1 6.3% Upper Tanwax Creek 15.2 6.0% Total 259.5 100%
Murray Creek
Murray Creek subbasin covers approximately 16 square miles between the City of Roy and community of McKenna. The subbasin is a mixture of low-density residential, agricultural and open space land use. The surficial geology is predominated by glacial deposits, and past glaciation has left the area with a deranged drainage pattern. As a result, there are numerous
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities C-2 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
low-lying areas with poor drainage, and wetlands are scattered throughout the subbasin. Minor flooding and drainage problems are common throughout the Basin. All four hydrologic soils groups are found in the subbasin. There are large areas of sandy, well-drained “Type A” soils in the western portion of the subbasin. The eastern portion is mostly “Type D” soils with poor drainage. The middle of the subbasin is a mixture of Types A, C, and D soils. Murray Creek begins in the southeastern most extent of the subbasin. Drainages in this area have been altered, and some water from the Brighton Creek subbasin gets diverted into the Murray Creek subbasin. The creek flows for approximately 9 miles before discharging into the Nisqually River on the west side of the subbasin. Portions of Murray Creek flow intermittently during dry months. Springs provide flow in some reaches on Murray Creek; one major spring is located approximately 2,000 feet upstream from the mouth of the creek. Lake Serene covers approximately 8 acres and located in the northeast portion of the subbasin. Brighton Creek
The Brighton Creek subbasin is a 6.5 square mile area southeast of the Murray Creek subbasin. The subbasin is largely rural, but does have some areas of low-density residential development along State Route 702, Kinsman Road, and Allen Road. It is similar to the Murray Creek subbasin in many respects. The upper portion of the subbasin is relatively flat with poorly drained, “Type D” soils. Minor flooding and drainage problems are common. The lower, southern portion of the subbasin has steeper slopes. The Brighton Creek channel becomes deep and somewhat confined as it approaches the Nisqually River near Harts Lake Loop Road. Horn Creek
Horn Creek drains approximately 11 square miles. The drainage area begins in the relatively flat areas around the intersection of State Route 702 and State Route 7, which has some low- density residential development. As water drains west, the stream becomes more defined at Kinsman Road. From there, the stream flows through a gentle sloping valley with some wide floodplains and wetland areas. This valley has some scattered, low-density residential with a number of small farms with livestock. As it approaches the Nisqually River, the Horn Creek valley becomes steeper and the stream is more confined. The mouth of Horn Creek is about 2,000 feet downstream from the Centralia Canal diversion. Harts Lake
Harts Lake is located approximately 5 miles southeast of the community of McKenna along Harts Lake Loop Road. This lake is the dominant hydrologic feature of the Harts Lake subbasin, which covers 5.7 square miles. The lake itself is approximately 110 acres. A few hundred feet south of Harts Lake is Little Lake, which is approximately 10 acres. Harts Lake Creek begins approximately 1.5 miles east of the lake, flows west down into the Nisqually River valley and into the southeast side of Harts Lake. The lake outlet is on the southwest side. The outflow stream flows into the Wilcox Flats area adjacent to the Nisqually River and then follows along the hills on the north side of the valley. Historically, Harts Lake Creek flowed directly into the Nisqually River at a confluence that would have been located approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the Centralia Canal diversion. However, the creek has now been diverted north
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities C-3 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
along the valley into a wetland area that eventually drains to Horn Creek. The Wilcox Flats area of the subbasin is used primarily for agriculture. In particular, the Wilcox Dairy is located there. Much of the Wilcox Flats are within the Nisqually River floodplain, and past flooding events have caused damages to structures in this area. Upper and Lower Tanwax Creek
Tanwax Creek drains approximately 28 square miles. Tanwax Creek is over 13 miles long, beginning approximately 7 miles north of the town of Eatonville and ending at the confluence with the Nisqually River approximately 7 miles southeast of McKenna. The hydrology of the subbasin is greatly influenced by lakes and wetlands. The largest lake is Tanwax Lake (approximately 174 acres), near the headwaters of the subbasin. Other lakes in the subbasin include: • North Twin Lake (13 acres) • Twentyseven Lake (21 acres) • South Twin Lake (13 acres) • Mud Lake (20 acres) • Whitman Lake (29 acres) • Rapjohn Lake (59 acres) • Stidham Lake (8 acres) • Cranberry Lake (34 acres) • Trout Lake (7 acres) • Tule Lake (34 acres) The soils in the Tanwax Creek drainage are mostly poorly drained, “Type D: soils, although there are some areas of highly permeable “Type A” soils. The Tanwax Basin was divided into upper and lower subbasins to allow for more detailed characterization. The Lower Tanwax subbasin is largely undeveloped; however much of this area has been divided into 20-acre lots that are being sold for rural residential development. The Upper Tanwax subbasin has scattered areas of low-density residential and rural residential development. There are also several small farms and livestock pastures along the upper Tanwax valley. Kreger Creek
The Kreger Creek subbasin is an 11 square mile drainage area south of the Lower Tanwax subbasin. Like the Tanwax Creek subbasin, lakes and wetlands are important components of the hydrology of Kreger Creek subbasin. The two major lakes in the subbasin are Silver Lake and Kreger Lake. Silver Lake is near the top of the drainage. Historically, the outlet was on the west side of the lake, and water drained west and then south toward Kreger Lake. However, an outlet drainage ditch was constructed on the south side of the lake. This ditch carries the water south, crosses 416th Street East, and then flows southwest to Kreger Lake. Kreger Lake is a large wetland area. Downstream from Kreger Lake, the creek flows southwest, down into the Nisqually River valley and discharges into the Nisqually River. Most of the subbasin is covered by poor draining “Type D” soils. The Kreger Creek subbasin is mostly rural open space. There are some small residential areas along Dean Kreger Road and on the north side of Silver Lake. Clear Lake
The Clear Lake subbasin is a small, one square mile area consisting primarily of Clear Lake in the north portion of the subbasin and the surrounding area that drains to the lake. The lake covers approximately 156 acres. The lake discharges via a small ditch on its east side, which flows
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities C-4 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
down a steep slope into the upper Ohop Creek valley. Nearly all of the Clear Lake shoreline is covered by residences. The residential development occupies a relatively narrow band around the lake. A second, smaller lake is located in the south portion of the subbasin. Horseshoe Lake covers approximately 12 acres. Upper Ohop Creek
Ohop Creek is the second largest tributary to the Nisqually River in the Basin planning area. The total drainage area is over 40 square miles. For purposes of this Basin planning effort, the drainage has been divided into three subbasins: the Upper Ohop, Lower Ohop and Lynch Creek. The headwaters are in the steep eastern portion of the Basin. These headwaters drain into the two main tributaries of the Ohop, Twenty-Five Mile Creek and Lynch Creek. Historically, the Ohop Creek drainage Basin included an additional area north of the current extent of the Basin. However, in 1889 the upper portion of Ohop Creek was diverted north into the Puyallup Basin, which reportedly reduced the flow in Ohop Creek by about 30% (Watershed Professionals Network, 2002). Consequently, at its confluence with Twenty-Five Mile Creek (approximately 4 miles north of Eatonville), Ohop Creek is the smaller of the two streams. Approximately 1 mile downstream from the confluence of Ohop Creek and Twenty-Five Mile Creek is Ohop Lake. It is the largest natural lake in the Nisqually Basin with a surface area of 235 acres. Ohop Lake is long and narrow, approximately 1,000 feet wide and 2 miles long. The Ohop Creek confluence with Lynch Creek is approximately 1,000 feet downstream from Ohop Lake. The drainage area upstream of this confluence is approximately 16 square miles. The Upper Ohop Valley has a flat floor with steep walls. The valley walls are so steep that slope stability is a problem when the soils become saturated. Numerous springs are located along the valley walls. The Upper Ohop subbasin is rural with minimal residential development. The upper drainage along Twenty-Five Mile Creek is almost all mountainous forest land. The one notable area of residential development is the large number of homes that line the east and west shorelines of Ohop Lake. Lynch Creek
Lynch Creek drains approximately 17 square miles. Most of the subbasin is located in rugged terrain east of Eatonville; most of the subbasin area is undeveloped forested land. Lynch Creek has one major tributary: Berg Creek. The lower reach of Lynch Creek (approximately 1.5 miles) flows along the northern edge of the Town of Eatonville. There has been some development along this reach. Lower Lynch Creek receives stormwater runoff from a large portion of Eatonville via a large ditch. Ohop Lake acts as a sediment trap. Therefore, Lynch Creek is an important sediment source for the Lower Ohop Creek. Lower Ohop Creek
The Lower Ohop subbasin covers approximately 7 square miles. The subbasin is rural with a few residences in the areas near Eatonville. The Lower Ohop Valley is wide and flat with steep walls. This valley was once used for agriculture and dairy farming. Although there are still some small farms in the valley, this usage has diminished in recent years. Due to the previous agricultural use much of the lower Ohop Creek was straightened, and drainage ditches were built on the valley floor. Much of the Lower Ohop Creek channel has become severely incised
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities C-5 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
and disconnected from the floodplain. Consequently, this reach is much less productive for salmon than it was historically. The Nisqually Tribe has plans for a major habitat restoration project in on about 4 miles of Lower Ohop Creek. The project would involve filling of the incised channel and creating a new meandering channel with lower gradient and better habitat complexity. The timing of this restoration project will depend on the availability of funding. The one mile reach of Ohop Creek just upstream from the confluence with the Nisqually River is forested and relatively undisturbed. Mashel River
South and east of the Ohop Creek Basin is the Mashel River Basin. The Mashel River is the largest tributary to the Nisqually River; the entire drainage covers over 84 square miles. Major tributaries of the Mashel River are the Little Mashel River, Beaver Creek, and Busy Wild Creek. The headwaters of the Mashel River begin near Mount Rainier and flow west toward the town of Eatonville. The river passes through the southern portion of Eatonville and then flows southwest to the confluence with the Nisqually River. The drainage Basin was divided into four subbasins: the Upper Mashel River, Middle Mashel River, Lower Mashel River, and the Little Mashel River. The Upper Mashel River subbasin is covers approximately 34 square miles. This subbasin is all mountainous, forested terrain. A majority of this is new growth forest; the area was intensely harvested by commercial timber throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Harvesting disturbances may have contributed to mass wasting that has occurred along the slopes and banks of the river. The middle Mashel River subbasin is a 20 square mile drainage area beginning at Boxcar Canyon approximately one mile east of the town of Eatonville and ending near the confluence with Busy Wild Creek. This area is also rural and mostly forested. The Lower Mashel River subbasin is 6.2 square miles. The northwestern portion of this subbasin has some development in and around the town of Eatonville. Eatonville draws its drinking water from the Mashel River, and secondary-treated waste water is discharged to the river downstream from the town. As it approaches the Nisqually River, the Mashel River winds through a steep, sinuous canyon. The confluence with the Nisqually River is approximately one mile downstream from LaGrand Dam. The Little Mashel River subbasin is also rural, consisting of mostly agricultural and forested lands. The agriculture is almost exclusively livestock and is found mainly in the valleys of the northwestern portion of the subbasin. Midway Creek is a major tributary to the Little Mashel River. The confluence of the Little Mashel River with the Mashel River is located approximately ½-mile south of Eatonville. LaGrande Reach
The LaGrande Reach is a small (4.2 square mile) subbasin along the Nisqually River between Alder Dam and the Mashel River confluence. The Nisqually River is confined to a steep narrow canyon in this 4.7 mile long reach. LaGrande Dam is located approximately 1.5 miles downstream from Alder Dam. Both dams are used for hydroelectric power generation. Water is diverted from the Nisqually at LaGrande Dam and carried through an aqueduct approximately 1.5 miles to the LaGrande powerhouse, where is discharged back into the river. The subbasin area is comprised of several small drainages along the northeast side of the canyon. The only development in the subbasin is the facilities at the LaGrande powerhouse and State Route 7.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities C-6 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Alder Lake
Alder Lake is a reservoir that was built in 1945 to generate hydroelectric power for the City of Tacoma. The reservoir has very limited capacity to attenuate flood flows. The Alder Lake subbasin encompasses approximately 9 square miles on the north shore of Alder Lake. This area is mostly drained by small intermittent streams. Alder Lake is seven miles long, with 28 miles of shoreline and a surface area of 3,065 acres at maximum elevation. The subbasin is mostly rural open space, but there is some scattered residential development along the north shore. Also, the small community of Elbe is located at the upstream end of the lake. Elbe Creek
The Elbe Creek subbasin covers 11 square miles of drainage area draining to a 4.5 mile reach of the Nisqually River upstream of Alder Lake. Small streams drain the water from the steep slopes of the north side of the upper Nisqually River valley to the valley floor and into the Nisqually River. The largest of these streams is Elbe Creek, which starts on the west side of the subbasin and flows southeast along the valley. The steep slopes of the valley are undeveloped forested land. There is some rural residential development along the valley floor. Ashford Reach
The Ashford reach subbasin is similar to the Elbe Creek subbasin. Small streams drain water from the steep slopes in the north across the valley floor to the Nisqually River. The Ashford reach subbasin covers 8.1 square miles and drains to a 5-mile reach of the Nisqually River. The steep slopes in the north are undeveloped and forested. There are some areas of rural residential development on the valley floor, most notably is the small village area of National and Ashford. Copper Creek
The Copper Creek subbasin is an 8.1 square mile drainage area draining to a 3-mile reach of the Nisqually River. Most of the area is drained by Copper Creek, which starts in the north part of the subbasin and flows down a steep watercourse to the Nisqually River. The upper portion of the subbasin is forested, although there has been some past timber harvesting. The subbasin is primarily rural open space, but there is some scattered residential development along the valley floor. Goat Creek and Tenas Creek
The Nisqually River Basin Planning area extends to the Mount Rainier National Park boundary on the east end of the Nisqually River Basin. It includes a small residential development located near the park entrance. Goat Creek drains an area of rugged mountainous terrain on the north side of the valley. Tenas Creek begins in the park on a steep slope, flows to the valley floor and then west along State Route 706 before discharging into the Nisqually River. Several of the structures in the residential area are built near the lower section of Tenas Creek.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities C-7 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Nisqually River Main Stem
The Nisqually River originates from the Nisqually Glacier on the south slope of Mount Rainier. Water flows approximately 78 miles, west-northwest, to meet salt water at the Nisqually Estuary in South Puget Sound. The LaGrande Canyon, at river mile 40, divides the watershed into two distinct physiographic areas. Below the canyon, the watershed consists of low hills and prairie plains of glacial outwash. Above the canyon, volcanic rock and steeper mountainous terrain dominate the area. The canyon itself contains sheer cliffs extending upwards of 200 feet. Development along the Nisqually River is relatively limited. Pierce County regulations restrict development in flood hazard zones, channel migration zones, and critical riparian areas. Furthermore, many parcels along the river are publicly owned, or owned by the Nisqually Land Trust. There are a few small communities along the river in the upper valley (above Alder Lake) including Elbe, Ashford, National, and an area of development near the Mount Rainier National Park entrance. Below Lake Alder there is some agricultural and rural residential development in the Wilcox flats area. There is also some residential development around the communities of McKenna and Whitewater Estates. Elevations in WRIA 11 range from sea level to over 14,000 feet, although most of the Basin lies below 1,000 feet. The steepest subbasins within the Pierce County portion of the watershed are the Mashel and the Upper Nisqually subbasins. With the exception of the Mashel subbasin, the subbasins in the western portion of WRIA 11 are low-elevation and of low relief. All subbasins in the lower watershed have a rain-dominated hydrologic regime, except for the Mashel subbasin, which has a rain-on-snow dominated hydrologic regime. The low relief of the subbasins, with the exception of the Mashel, limits the potential energy available to move water through the system, resulting in relatively low stream velocities and erosion potential. Mean annual precipitation within the Nisqually watershed generally increases as elevation increases. On average, the lower portions of the watershed receive from 33 to 50 inches of precipitation per year. The higher portions of the watershed receive greater than 70 inches of precipitation annually. The wettest months are November through January, and the driest months are June, July, and August. The majority of the soils in the upper part of the study area are moderately permeable. Soils in the lower Basin range from highly permeable to relatively impermeable. Soils in the western (lower) portion of the watershed are generally more permeable than those in the eastern portion, with the exception of the Mashel subbasin, which generally has more permeable soils than the Tanwax/Kreger/Ohop subbasin. In general, the drainage areas east of Eatonville are characterized by steep slopes and mountainous terrain. Subbasins such as Lynch Creek, Upper Mashel River, and Little Mashel River are primarily covered by designated forest lands. Several subbasins along the upper Nisqually, including the LaGrand Reach, Lake Alder, Elbe Creek, Ashford Reach, Copper Creek and Goat Creek-Tenas Creek, are also steep, mountainous and mostly forested. Although still relatively rural, subbasins west of Eatonville tend to have more development. The drainage
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities C-8 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
areas are characterized by mixed forest, rural residential and agricultural lands. Surface water hydrology is heavily influenced by lakes and wetlands. 11.2 LAND USE IN THE NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN To assess the hydrologic characteristics of a Basin and to determine the potential for water quality/quantity problems requires an accurate understanding of a Basin’s existing and proposed land uses. This section will look at both the existing and future land use of this Basin. Various land uses have different effects on the water quality and the hydrologic components of a watershed. Undeveloped forested land allows for maximum infiltration of rainwater and has the least potential for causing water pollution. Highly developed areas (characterized by large areas of impervious surfaces), whether residential, commercial, or industrial land uses, increase the surface runoff of stormwater, carrying pollutants picked up from the manmade surfaces into the streams and waterways. Increased stormwater discharges can erode drainage ditches and stream channels, increase turbidity of stream water, deposit sediment in habitats important to fish and aquatic life, and fill downstream flood storage areas. Poor agricultural practices, such as improperly applied irrigation methods and feeding or watering livestock too close to a stream, can also contribute to water quality problems when the practices increase erosion and disturb soils adjacent to streams. These areas can be significant sources of sediment, fecal coliform bacteria, and nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate. Excess nutrients in water reduce the dissolved oxygen content that fish and other aquatic organisms require.
11.2.1 Existing Land Use
The western portion of the Nisqually River Basin (west of Eatonville) has experienced increasing development pressure and is a mixture of rural residential, open space, and agricultural land uses. This area includes the Murray Creek, Brighton Creek, Horn Creek, Harts Lake, Tanwax Creek, Kreger Creek and Lower Ohop Creek subbasins. The relative distribution of land use is approximately 50% rural residential, between 15% and 30% open space, and between 5% and 10% agricultural. The area generally to the east of Eatonville is more mountainous and less developed. This area is approximately 75% forested and 25% rural residential. Existing Land Uses are listed in Table 11-2.
11.2.2 Future Land Use
The Comprehensive Plan for Pierce County, Washington (County Comprehensive Plan) (Pierce County, March 1999) was developed and adopted in 1994 in response to the requirements of Washington’s “Growth Management Act” (GMA). The Plan seeks to obtain and balance 13 different planning goals. These goals include reducing sprawl while still encouraging development, providing public facilities and services to support development, protecting the environment while protecting property owners’ rights, promoting
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities C-9 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
economic development, preserving archeological and historical sites, artifacts and structures, and processing permits in a timely manner, while at the same time encouraging citizen participation in the planning process (Pierce County, March 1999). The Pierce County Comprehensive Plan, codified as Title 19A, Pierce County Code, divides the Nisqually River Basin into rural areas and urban growth area.
TABLE 11-2 EXISTING LAND USE IN NISQUALLY BASIN Existing Land Use Area (acres) Percent of Basin Agricultural 9,735 6.18% Commercial/Industrial 228 0.14% Education 77 0.05% Open Space/Resource Lands 78,104 49.61% Public Places/Religious Centers 247 0.16% Residential 22,518 14.30% Transportation/Communications/Utilities 874 0.56% Vacant Land/Undefined 45,650 29.00% Total 157,433 100%
The land use element of the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan includes a growth and development strategy on how and where development will occur in the future. It is important to consider the proximity of existing surface water within the Basin to future designated employment centers, commercial centers, mixed-use districts, moderate density and high- density residential districts, and rural activity centers. The future land use designations that lie within the Nisqually River Basin are listed below.
• Agricultural • Rural Activity Center • Designated Forest Land • Rural Neighborhood Center • Moderate-Density Single-Family Residential • Tourist Commercial • Reserve Five • Village Center • Rural Five, Ten, Twenty and Forty • Village Residential Most of the Basin is currently zoned for forest land (eastern portion of the Basin) and rural residential development (western portion of the Basin). Designated forest lands can only have one dwelling unit per 80 acres. Pierce County Planning and Land Services (PALS) staff is not aware of any conversions from commercial forest to subdivisions other than the Park Junction Resort, between Elbe and Ashford. Outside of Eatonville, there are no subdivisions planned or vested. There may be a few vested short plats in the planning area.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities C-10 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Large tracts in the planning area, such as between Ohop and Harts lake, are being converted from commercial timber to rural residential 20-acre parcels. In one instance (Fairbanks County Estates), property owners with 20-acre parcels would like to further divide the parcels. Many of these tracts will be developed in the future. Rural zoning allows for residences, pastures and hobby farms. The development would increase automobile usage in the Basin. These areas may have logging roads that were not intended for increased traffic and may go through critical areas. In addition, people often clear the land to improve their views. Therefore, areas that were once forested will have less trees and native vegetation, more impervious areas, and may have pets, livestock, septic systems, and increased traffic–all possible pollutant sources. Some of these properties have direct access to lakes and wetlands. As the land is developed, stormwater drainage systems, built and natural, will be affected by the runoff (due to decreased forest cover increased impervious areas) and potential increased pollutant loading. 11.3 FLOOD CHARACTERISTICS The months of November, December, and January have very high stream flows due to winter rainfall. The mountain snowpack plays a strong role in controlling summer flow conditions. The low-flow month generally is August because most of the snow has melted and, usually, very little rain falls in July and August. The Nisqually River Basin suffers from severe winter flooding and from low (often nonexistent) summer flows at certain locations. Table 11-3 lists the modeled peak flow calculations for various stream reaches within the Basin, derived from the most recent FEMA Flood Insurance Study, which was published in 1987. A number of large flow events have occurred since then. In particular, a storm in February 1996 led to peak discharges of 21,200 cubic feet per second (cfs) at National; 39,500 cfs at LaGrand Dam; and 50,000 cfs at McKenna (USGS stream flow data). By understanding the potential flood condition for a specific area, it better enables Pierce County to identify mitigation alternatives appropriate for the level of risk for that stream or reach.
11.3.1 Known Flood Hazards
Figure 11-1 shows floodplains and wetlands in the Nisqually River Basin. Pierce County regulates the following potential flood hazard areas per the “Critical Areas” Ordinance, Chapter 18E.70, Pierce County Code (PCC, 2004): • Detailed Study Areas—FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map and Floodway Map numbered A zones and V zones. This also includes areas within 300 feet horizontal distance from the base flood elevation established for the mapped A and V zones, and areas within 5 feet of vertical height from the base flood elevation established for mapped A and V zones. • Unstudied Areas—FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map unnumbered A zones and B zones and areas within 300 feet horizontal distance from the mapped areas of the mapped A and B zones. • Natural Waters/Watercourse—Areas within 65 feet horizontal distance from the ordinary high water mark of an identified natural watercourse.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities C-11 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
• Groundwater Flooding Areas—Areas within 300 feet horizontal distance from a mapped groundwater flooding area. • Potholes—Areas not mapped as a flood hazard area, but within 10 feet of vertical relief from the bottom of an identified pothole or within 2 feet of vertical relief of a potential surface water outlet. • Channel Migration Zones (CMZ)—Areas where detailed Channel Migration Zone CMZ studies have been completed and accepted by Pierce County. FEMA flood zones are delineated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). FEMA has recently made these data available in an electronic format referred to as a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). DFIRM data was obtained by Pierce County for use in mapping the detailed study areas and the unstudied areas. Flood hazard areas that are based on detailed studies (numbered A and V zones) were developed by FEMA using detailed methods, which result in flood profile plots and base flood elevations specified along the stream reach studied.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities C-12 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
TABLE 11-3 NISQUALLY BASIN WATERCOURSE FLOW CHARACTERISTICS PEAK DISCHARGE FREQUENCY ESTIMATES FROM FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY (FEMA, 1987) Drainage Peak Discharges (cfs) Area Flooding Source and Location (sq. mi.) 10-Year 50-Year 100-Year 500-Year Nisqually River At Mouth 711 21,500 29,000 33,000 45,000 Upstream of Horn Creek 488 21,000 28,000 32,000 44,000 Upstream of Tanwax Creek 446 20,500 27,000 31,000 43,000 At Skate Creek Road 79 6,250 9,080 10,400 13,600 At Mt. Rainier National Park 66 5,400 7,910 9,040 11,900 Horn Creek At Mouth 15 192 266 299 376 At Harts Lake Loop Road 7 113 155 174 217
Ohop Creek At Mouth 44 953 1,345 1,518 1,945 At Kapowsin Eatonville Road 35 893 1,259 1,421 1,820 Upstream of Confluence with Lynch Creek 18 440 615 690 880 Upstream of Confluence with Ohop Lake 13 364 507 572 724 Downstream of Confluence with Twenty-five Mile 10 334 465 524 663 Creek Upstream of Confluence with Twenty-five Mile 2 71 97 109 135 Creek
Mashel River Upstream of Confluence with Little Mashel River 56 3,650 5,020 5,620 7,070
Little Mashel River At Mouth 24 1,450 1,940 2,140 2,630 Upstream of Confluence with Midway Creek 15 1,010 1,370 1,520 1,890
Kreger Creek At Silver Lake Outlet 2 31 39 42 51
Tanwax Creek Downstream of Mud Lake Outlet 14 270 375 425 535 Upstream of Mud Lake Outlet 9 196 271 306 384 At 352nd Street East (Golden Road) 6 143 197 222 278 At State Highway 161 4 128 177 198 248
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities C-13 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Other flood hazard areas that have been mapped by FEMA (unstudied areas) were developed by approximate methods, which provide no specific data such as peak discharges, flood profiles, or base flood elevations. The following reaches within the Nisqually River Basin planning area have been studied by FEMA using detailed methods: • Nisqually River from the mouth upstream to the confluence with Ohop Creek. • Nisqually River from the Snoqualmie National Forest boundary to the Mount Rainier National Park boundary. • Horn Creek from the mouth to Harts Lake Loop Road 3.5 miles upstream. • Ohop Creek from the mouth upstream to Kapowsin Lake. • Mashel River from the confluence with the Little Mashel River upstream for 2.4 miles. • Little Mashel River from the confluence with the Mashel River upstream for 2.4 miles. • Kreger Creek between Kreger Lake and Silver Lake. • Tanwax Creek from 0.5 miles upstream of Eatonville Cutoff Road upstream to Tanwax Lake. • Harts, Kreger, Silver, Rapjohn, Tanwax, Ohop, and Clear Lakes. FEMA flood hazard areas designated as A and V zones (both numbered and unnumbered) correspond to areas that have a 1% annual probability of being inundated by a flood event. Flood hazard areas designated as B zones are areas with a 0.2% annual probability of being inundated by a flood event. Pierce County has also developed mapping data for pothole flood hazard areas and CMZ flood hazard areas. Neither of these types of flood hazard areas is currently mapped in the Nisqually River Basin planning area. However, a CMZ study is currently being conducted on the Nisqually River Main Stem between Alder Lake and the Mount Rainier National Park Boundary. There is also a future CMZ study planned for the Mashel River. Flooding along the Nisqually River has caused the most damage near the community of McKenna (FEMA 1987). A portion of the inundated area reached a depth greater than 3 feet, which meets the depth criteria for a deep and/or fast-flowing floodway. The inundated area encompassed about 80 parcels. Flood damages have also been sustained in the Wilcox Flats area, approximately 5 miles southeast of McKenna. Some areas upstream of Lake Alder have also sustained flood damage. Main stem flooding has also caused damage near the Nisqually River Delta (FEMA 1987). However, the Delta area is now used primarily for wildlife habitat and livestock grazing. Because there are few structures in the delta area, the potential for future flood damage is limited. During high flows, the Nisqually River channel has migrated. An example of this type of flooding was seen at the Paradise Estates on the Lewis County side of the river. Pierce County maintains a levee on the north side of the River near the National Park entrance to protect a number of homes and businesses.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities C-14 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Flooding of property was reported on Murray Creek along Hinkleman Road; Kreger Creek south of Silver Lake; Horn Creek near Kinsman Road; upper Tanwax Creek near the Eatonville Cutoff bridge, and Lynch Creek near the confluence with Ohop Creek. Anecdotal evidence suggests that flooding has occurred along Ohop Creek near the outlet to Ohop Lake and downstream of the SR 161 bridge. Flooding of property was also reported on small miscellaneous drainages (unnamed streams). Out of the 13 cases reported, seven were located in the upper Tanwax Creek subbasin.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities C-15 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Figure 11-1 Floodplain extent and location Nisqually River Basin
C-16 www.piercecountywa.org/water
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
C-17 www.piercecountywa.org/water
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Flooding problems were reported on Cranberry Lake, Rapjohn Lake, Tanwax Lake, Whitman Lake, Ohop Lake, and Clear Lake. In many cases, flooding problems appear to be caused by beavers blocking the outlet to the lake. Beavers were reported to be contributing to flooding on Cranberry Lake, Rapjohn Lake, and Tanwax Lake. Flooding and drainage problems frequently involved roadway flooding. A total of 60 roadway flooding problems were identified in the study area. Most of these were located in the Murray Creek (10), upper Tanwax Creek (8), Brighton Creek (6), Horn Creek (5), upper Ohop (5) and Kreger Creek (4) subbasins.
11.3.2 Causes of Flooding
Major floods in the Nisqually River Basin occurred in 1933, 1965, 1974, 1975, 1977, 1996, and 1997. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) 1987 Flood Insurance Study, major floods typically occur between October and March as a result of rainstorms, sometimes augmented by melting snow. According to the Pierce County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2005) the potential for severe flooding is greatest during warm, wet periods when a mid to low level snow pack is combined with long duration rainfall, saturated soils and an elevated water table. The Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan suggests that there is an increasing potential for urban flooding in Pierce County due to continued population growth and land development. Human alteration of the landscape–including clearing, grading, paving, building construction, and landscaping–has an impact on the hydrologic process. Increasing impervious area decreases infiltration, while clearing of natural vegetation decreases interception storage and allows runoff to flow into streams faster. These effects lead to higher peak flows in streams and greater runoff volumes. Types of observed within the Nisqually River Basin are: • Main Stem Flooding • Tributary Flooding • Lake Flooding • Roadway Flooding Main Stem Flooding
The Pierce County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2005) describes flooding along the Nisqually River as “extremely variable in terms of frequency, severity, and extent.” Flooding along the Nisqually River has caused the most damage near the community of McKenna (FEMA 1987). Extensive flooding occurred during the February 1996 storm; approximately 80 parcels were inundated by flood waters. Following the flooding of 1996, Pierce County purchased 17 of these parcels at a cost of approximately $2.5 million. These parcels are now managed by the McKenna Water District. Roughly 60 parcels, including a senior center, remain under private ownership. The taxable value of the remaining parcels is
C-18 www.piercecountywa.org/water
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
on the order of $6 million (personal communication with Dennis Dixon, Pierce County Surface Water Management, 2006). Flooding in the Wilcox Flats area is suspected to have occurred from floodwaters originating from an ephemeral creek that may serve as an overflow channel to the Nisqually during high river flows. Along the upper valley (upstream of Lake Alder) there is evidence that the Nisqually River channel has had migrated during large events. In November 2006, the headwaters of the Nisqually River received nearly 18 inches of rain in a 36-hour period (Mount Rainier National Park 2006). The resulting flood waters on the Nisqually River caused extensive damage to roads and campgrounds within Mount Rainier National Park where large sections of the north bank eroded. The County-owned levee near the Park Entrance sustained some damage during the flooding event. Tributary Flooding
Although there are no known major flooding problems along the tributaries, there is some evidence of minor flooding. Beavers are a common cause of minor flooding throughout the Basin planning area. Beaver blockages were frequently reported by Basin residents; and as many as eight of the flooding and drainage problems were directly attributed to beavers. Lake Flooding
There are numerous small lakes within the planning area, particularly in the lower portion of the Basin. Several of these lakes have houses built around or near the shoreline. In many cases, flooding problems appear to be caused by beavers blocking the outlet to the lake. Roadway Flooding
Flooding and drainage problems frequently involved roadway flooding. A total of 60 roadway flooding problems were identified in the study area. Beavers are frequently a cause of roadway flooding because they often build inside culverts to create blockages. The following items are potential causes of future flooding or flood damages: • Insufficient maintenance • Beavers • Deterioration/failure of existing facilities • Increased flow from new impervious surfaces • Diversion or obstruction of drainage courses due to construction • Filling within floodplain without providing compensatory volume • Building in floodplain or below maximum flood elevation
C-19 www.piercecountywa.org/water
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
• Channel migration (including scour, deposition of sediments and downstream impacts of inadequate efforts to modify channel alignment) • Lahar flows Future flooding problems are most likely to arise in areas of residential and commercial development. Although most of the planning area is rural, low-density development can still result in new flooding problems. Most of the low-density development occurring in the planning area is in the western portion of the Basin, particularly areas along major transportation routes. Future zoning and community planning indicates that there are some areas in the planning area that are expected to have higher-density development. Some of these areas include: • Vicinity of the city of Roy (Murray Creek subbasin); • Vicinity of the town of Eatonville (Lynch Creek, lower Ohop Creek, and lower Mashel River subbasins); and • Upper Nisqually Communities of Elbe, Ashford, and the park entrance (Elbe Creek, Ashford, Copper Creek, Goat/Tenas Creek subbasins). 11.4 FLOOD HAZARD IMPACTS Flooding within the Nisqually Basin can have numerous impacts on the on the way of life within this Basin, and Pierce County in general. Under this section, we will assess the vulnerability of the Basins, improved property, critical facilities, and assess the impact a flooding on the Basin’s population and economy.
11.4.1 Public Safety and Health
The Nisqually River Basin presents a variety of impacts to life, safety and health. There are no reported losses of life due to flooding within this Basin, but damage and disruption cased by flooding is a severe has been a recurrent problem. Pierce County has experienced substantial growth in previous years and is expected to support more growth over the next 30 years. According to the U.S. Census, the population of Pierce County in 2000 was 586,203. According to the Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) long- range population forecasts for the forecast analysis zones within Pierce County, the County is expected increase 16% to 812,859, by the year 2010 (PSRC, 2002). According to the 2001 Population and Employment Forecasts report for the central Puget Sound region, Pierce County is expected to reach the following populations in the years 2010, 2020, and 2030 (PSRC, October 2001): • 2010: 812,859 • 2020: 892,314 • 2030: 951,747 Future population projections for Pierce County can help to predict future populations within the Nisqually Basin. The estimated 2000 population in the Nisqually River Basin Planning area
C-20 www.piercecountywa.org/water
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
was 12,881, which is 1.8% of the county’s total population 700,820 in 2000. Assuming that the planning area will continue to capture at least 2% of the county’s growth, it is predicted that in 2010, the population residing in the Nisqually River Basin planning area will be approximately 16,300 and 18,000 people will reside within the Basin in 2020. Based on these projections the assumptions for the potential impacts of flooding are as follows: • There may become increase pressures to develop floodplains within this Basin as land uses change to accommodate the increasing population. • It should be noted that the current/existing regulatory environment within Pierce County is very focused on not allowing and increase in flood risk exposure due to new development. As long as this regulatory environment remains in tact, the assumption would be that development in responses to this new growth would be directed away from the known flood hazard areas within this Basin. • There is currently little or no flood warning capability within this Basin. As the population increases within this Basin, the need to increase the County’s flood warning and response capability may increase as well. There is real-time flood warning capability within the Nisqually Basin. USGS real-time gauges are located at: • The Nisqually River near Rainer • The Nisqually river near National • Mineral Creek near Mineral • The Nisqually River near LaGrande • Centralia Power canal • The Nisqually River near McKenna There are an additional four stream flow gauges within this Basin available for flood threat recognition. The approximate lead time for flood warning provided within this Basin is 24 to 48 hours based on flood threat recognition system capability within the Basin. Flood prediction is not an exact science. Although gauge readings and historical data are excellent forecasting tools, rivers can continually change. There are also local factors that can contribute to flooding such as stream and creek discharge into a river, snowmelt and damming caused by fallen trees and other debris. Therefore, during flood situations floodplain residents should not rely solely on gage readings and historical flood levels, but should keep an eye on the river and stay tuned to local media reports. The Nisqually River Main Stem appears to be in generally good condition from a water quality perspective. According to the Surface Water Quality Assessment Nisqually River Level I Watershed Assessment (WPN, 2002), the minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations at stations used to collect data for the assessment were well above the state standard, even during late summer. The stream temperature standard was occasionally exceeded at river mile 3.7, but the maximum recorded temperature was only slightly higher than the standard. Fecal coliform
C-21 www.piercecountywa.org/water
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
levels were occasionally exceeded in winter at river mile 3.7 and river mile 21.8, near the McKenna diversion. Levels at the lower station were slightly higher than the standard. In November 2000, the Washington State Department of Health restricted harvest status on 74 acres of commercial shellfish beds in the marine waters near the mouth of the Nisqually River (Nisqually Reach) because fecal coliform bacteria concentrations exceeded standards for commercial shellfish harvest.
11.4.2 Critical Facilities
Using the parameters to define “Critical Facilities” discussed in Chapter 1 of this risk assessment, Pierce County Surface Water Management, coordinating with Pierce County Emergency management has identified the critical facilities listed in Table 11-4 that could be impacted by flooding within the Nisqually River Basin. The basis for this determination is: physical location within a mapped or known floodplain, known history of flooding, and the lack flood protection to the facility. These are facilities that are considered to be vulnerable and in need of an action(s) to mitigate the impacts of flooding. It should be noted that this list does not include critical “infrastructure.” Since the Pierce County Basin Planning Program has such a strong capital facilities component, it has been assumed that critical infrastructure with vulnerability to flooding within each Basin will be adequately addressed through the Basin Planning problem assessment and action prioritization process. A detailed assessment of these facilities is not provided in this risk assessment for security purposes. Pierce County Emergency Management has performed this assessment as part of the countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan prepared pursuant to the “Disaster Mitigation Act.” The focus of the Pierce County Surface Water Management’ “Basin Planning Program” as it pertains to critical facilities will be to attempt to provide flood protection to potentially vulnerable critical facilities through the structural approached identified as actions in the Basin planning programs. The not structural approached will be directed by Pierce County’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. It is a high priority of both programs to provide protection to critical facilities, and both programs are committed to working together to achieve this objective.
TABLE 11-4 NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN CRITICAL FACILITIES IN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN Government Hazardous Function Medical Materials Schools Other Total 0 2 0 5 2 9
11.4.3 Structures impacted
Table 11-5 shows an estimate of the number of structures on parcels in the floodplain. These estimates were generated using Planimetric data available for this Basin. To identify the
C-22 www.piercecountywa.org/water
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
potential dollar/loss exposure for the basing, assessed values for improvements to each of the parcels shown to have structures within the 100-year floodplain were accumulated by subbasin. This value is representative of the exposure. To truly gauge vulnerability, the depth of flooding would need to be identified to apply FEMA’s depth/damage functions to this exposure. This detail of information was not available at the time of the preparation of this assessment. However, total exposure values can be a good gauge of potential flood impact for planning purposes and for identifying potential project benefits when prioritizing mitigation actions.
TABLE 11-5 STRUCTURES WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN Structure Type Commercial Dwelling Other Total Market Improvement Value 13 167 80 260 $26,449,200
11.4.4 Repetitive Loss Areas
Utilizing the FEMA definition of “Repetitive Loss” defined under the Community Rating System, there are two identified repetitive loss properties within two repetitive loss areas within this Basin. As description of the two areas is as follows: Nisqually Main Stem - Wilcox Reach Repetitive Loss Area
Pierce County completed a Repetitive Loss Plan in July of 2001. This plan identifies one repetitive loss property in the Nisqually River Basin; the property is located in the Wilcox Flats area at the end of 41st Avenue South. The owner filed insurance claims in 1980, 1982, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, and 1996. According to the owner of the property, the floodwaters do not flow directly onto the property from the Nisqually River, but originate from an unnamed creek east of the property. The source of the unnamed creek is unknown, but it is ephemeral. The creek may be a historical channel of the Nisqually that currently drains a local drainage and may serve as an overflow channel during high river flows. The Repetitive Loss Plan recommended land acquisition as the preferred solution. It is estimated that there are approximately seven additional properties within this reach subject to similar repetitive flooding as the identified property. The total building count for this repetitive loss area is 8. See Figure 11-2 for a map of this repetitive loss area. Ohop Creek Repetitive Loss Area
This area has been identified repetitive loss area subsequent to the completion of the Pierce County Repetitive Loss Plan in 2001, based on new claims data. The current repetitive loss report as of April 30, 2006 shows one identified property in this area.
C-23 www.piercecountywa.org/water
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Ohop Creek is a tributary to the Nisqually River. The terrain of the Ohop Creek Basin consists of nearly level to rolling terrain. Ohop Creek originates north of Ohop Lake, flows into the lake, and continues southward from the lake. Ohop Creek has two tributaries that originate in the eastern portion of the Basin, Twenty-Five Mile Creek and Berg Creek. Twenty-Five Mile Creek conveys flows to Ohop Creek from the northern portion of the Basin. Berg Creek conveys flows to Ohop Creek from the southern portion of the Basin. The principal cause of flooding along this reach is surface water drainage in to the creek channel was increase stream flow above the capacity of the channel. This results in typical over bank flooding. It is estimated that there are approximately five additional properties within this reach subject to similar repetitive flooding as the identified property. The total building county for this repetitive loss area is six. See Figure 11-3 for a map of this repetitive loss area.
C-24 www.piercecountywa.org/water
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Nisqually Mainstem-Wilcox Reach Repetitive Loss Area
Figure 11-2 Nisqually Mainstem-Wilcox Reach Repetitive Loss Area
C-25 www.piercecountywa.org/water
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
C-26 www.piercecountywa.org/water
APPENDIX C: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
11.4.5 Insurance Analysis
Flood insurance statistics can help identify vulnerability by regionally isolating areas where claim activity is high and a high rate of flood insurance is in force. Table 11-6 summarizes vital insurance statistics that can be used to help identify vulnerability within the Nisqually River Basin. The locations of these policies are identified in Figure 1-2.
TABLE 11-6 FLOOD INSURANCE STATISTICS FOR THE NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN Number of flood insurance policies in force within the Basin (as of May 1, 2007) 74 Number of Policies within a mapped floodplain (FIRM) 6 Number of Policies outside of a mapped floodplain 68 Number of Claims filed within the Basin 19 Number of claims filed for losses outside the 100-year floodplain 2 Estimated number of insurable, primary Structures in mapped floodplains 180 Estimated % of at risk structures with flood insurance coverage 3.3% % of current flood insurance coverage outside of a mapped floodplain 92%
Based on a review of this data, the following observations can be made: • Based on the approximate number of primary, insurable structures in the floodplain and the insurance coverage in force within the floodplain, insurance coverage as a form of mitigation appears to be well below the national average. According to a study being conducted for the NFIP by the Rand Corporation, nationwide about 49% of single-family homes in special flood hazard areas (SFHAs) are covered by flood insurance. • With 92% of the current policies in force located outside of a mapped floodplain, there appears to be some flooding issues within this Basin not addressed via the existing mapping. These could be drainage related flood issues that the Basin Planning Program seeks out, that typically are not captured through standardized floodplain mapping techniques. • All of the historical claims filed within this Basin have been outside of a mapped floodplain. This once again, suggests that there are flooding issues within this Basin not addressed through flood hazard mapping. • They very small policy base within this Basin makes it very difficult to establish trends or correlations to identify risk exposure within this Basin. • The low policy counts within this Basin suggest that there has been wise land use within this Basin, and that new development has been directed away from known flood hazard areas. The continuance of this policy will help to keep the level of risk exposure in balance as this Basin continues to grow.
C-27 www.piercecountywa.org/water VOLUME 2 - APPENDICES NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
APPENDIX D Review of Nisqually River Hydrology
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF NISQUALLY RIVER HYDROLOGY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
APPENDIX D REVIEW OF NISQUALLY RIVER HYDROLOGY
OBJECTIVE
The Nisqually River is one of four major rivers in Pierce County, Washington. The river forms the southern boundary of Pierce County with Thurston and Lewis Counties. This Technical Information Memorandum (TIM) was prepared for Pierce County Surface Water Management as part of the Nisqually River Basin Plan. The objective of this TIM is to evaluate current hydrologic information for the Nisqually River and make recommendations regarding updated hydrologic studies that will be used for future flood hazard mapping and flood mitigation projects on the Nisqually River. BACKGROUND
The Nisqually River originates from the Nisqually Glacier on the south slope of Mount Rainier and flows approximately 78 miles, west-northwest, to the Nisqually Estuary, where it flows into South Puget Sound. The watershed covers an area of approximately 760 square miles (see Figure 1). La Grande Canyon, at RM 40, divides the Nisqually River watershed into two distinct physiographic areas. Below the canyon, the watershed consists of low hills and prairie plains of glacial outwash. Above the canyon, volcanic rock and steeper mountainous terrain dominate the area. Major tributaries include Mineral Creek, Little Nisqually River, Mashel River, Ohop Creek, Tanwax Creek, and Muck Creek.
Overview of Hydrologic Conditions
Mean annual precipitation within the Nisqually watershed generally increases as elevation increases. On average, the lower portions of the watershed receive from 33 to 50 inches of precipitation per year. The higher portions of the watershed receive greater than 70 inches of precipitation annually. The wettest months are November through January, and the driest months are June, July, and August. Precipitation typically cycles over periods of decades from warm/dry periods to wet/cool periods and back again. The climatic cycles are important in interpreting data on water availability. The lower portion of the watershed has a rain- dominated hydrologic regime, and the upper portion of the basin has a rain-on-snow dominated hydrologic regime.
Flow Controls and River Modifications
There are two hydroelectric facilities on the Nisqually River: the Nisqually Hydroelectric Project, which includes two major dams (La Grande and Alder), and the Yelm Hydroelectric Project, which includes a small diversion dam. Flows in the lower Nisqually River (below River Mile [RM] 42.5) are influenced by La Grande and Alder Dams. Diversions at RM 26.2 influence flows for a
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities D-1 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF NISQUALLY RIVER HYDROLOGY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN 13 mile reach of the river. The locations of these dams are shown in Figure 1. The following sections describe the two hydroelectric projects. Nisqually Hydroelectric Project
The Nisqually Hydroelectric Project is owned by the City of Tacoma and operated by Tacoma’s hydroelectric utility, Tacoma Power. Flows in the lower reaches of the Nisqually River are regulated in part by the Nisqually Hydroelectric Project, which is comprised of La Grande Dam at RM 42.4 and Alder Dam approximately 2 miles upstream at RM 44.2. The original La Grande Dam was built in 1912. This dam was replaced in 1945 and Alder Dam, and its associated reservoir, was added that same year. La Grande Dam is 192 feet high and has an impoundment storage capacity of 2,700 acre-feet. River flow is diverted at the dam to the powerhouse located approximately 1.7 miles downstream. The diverted water re-enters the Nisqually River downstream of the powerhouse. Water is also released from the impoundment to the Nisqually River to maintain a continuous flow. Alder Dam is 285 feet high and has an impoundment storage capacity of 231,900 acre- feet (Alder Lake). The powerhouse is located at the base of the dam. In addition to providing hydroelectric power, the Nisqually River Project provides recreational benefits. Alder Lake and its associated parks are used for fishing, camping, picnicking, swimming, water skiing, and boating. The impoundment behind La Grande Dam is not publicly accessible because of the steep topography. The Nisqually Hydroelectric Project is operated under a license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The 40-year FERC license (No. 1862) was issued on March 7, 1997. This license contains articles pertaining to operational requirements, including minimum instream flows and reservoir water levels. There are no requirements for flood control or flood storage. According to Tacoma Power – the operator of the dams – the dams do provide some incidental attenuation of flood flows; however, there are no flood control requirements for the Nisqually Hydroelectric Project. When possible and consistent with federal mandate, Tacoma Power voluntarily uses the available storage space to help reduce the downstream crest of the flood. However, Tacoma Power will do so only when these operations remain consistent with prudent operation of the project and the requirements of its federal license (personal communication with Todd Lloyd, Tacoma Power, October 2006). Yelm Hydroelectric Project
The Centralia Diversion Dam is part of a 12 megawatt run-of-the-river hydroelectric project located at RM 26. The project is owned by City of Centralia Light Department and provides electricity to the citizens on Centralia. The project is operated under a 40-year FERC license (No. 10703-001) issued on March 7, 1997. The diversion dam was constructed in 1930, expanded in 1955, and reconstructed in 1985. The dam is a low head structure that diverts water into a 9.1-mile canal that conveys water to a powerhouse downstream at RM 12.6.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities D-2 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF NISQUALLY RIVER HYDROLOGY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN There is no impoundment at the diversion dam, which is a concrete gravity dam with a structural height of 20 feet, but a hydraulic height of only 4 feet at low stages. During high stages the dam is almost completely submerged, with a difference between headwater and tailwater of less than 1 foot (Golder, 2003). Available Flow Data The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has collected flow data at numerous stream gauges in the Nisqually River watershed (see Figure 2). The primary active gauges on the Nisqually River include: • USGS Station No. 12082500 – Located upstream of Alder Dam near the community of National (RM 57.8). • USGS Station No. 12086500 – Located downstream of La Grande Dam (RM 40.4). • USGS Station No. 12089500 – Located just downstream of the State Route 507 Bridge on the south bank, left bank looking downstream (RM 21.8). All of these are real-time stream gauging stations. Two additional real-time gauging stations are operated in the watershed: one on Mineral Creek (USGS Station No. 12083000) and one on the Centralia Diversion Canal (USGS Station No. 12089208). There are two active, non-real-time gauges operated on tributaries: USGS Station No. 12088000 on Ohop Creek and USGS Station No. 12087000 on the Mashel River. USGS also operates gauges at La Grande Dam (No. 12085500) and Alder Dam (No. 12085000), but these record only reservoir stage, not flow. Figure 3 shows a map and schematic of the current USGS stream gauging system in the Nisqually River Watershed. Figure 4 is a graph showing the available years of peak instantaneous annual discharge data available for all USGS gauges in the Nisqually River Basin. Peak flows have been collected at National (USGS Station No. 12082500) for over 64 years beginning in 1943. Additional data are available from a gauge that was installed at Alder (USGS Station No. 12084000), approximately 10 miles downstream, recorded from 1932 to 1944. Peak discharges at the Alder gauge were 72% and 76% higher than the National gauge for the 2 years with overlapping records: 1943 and 1944, respectively. Historic peak annual instantaneous discharges are listed in Attachment A and shown in Figure 5. Peak flow data have been collected at La Grande (USGS Station No. 12086500) since 1907. Four years of data were collected before the first La Grande Dam was built in 1912. Another 12 years of data were collected from 1920 to 1931. Flow records began again in 1945 (after the new La Grande and Alder Dams had been built) and have continued to present day. A total of 78 years of peak flow data are available at this gauge; 62 of those years came after La Grande and Alder Dams were completed. Historic peak annual instantaneous discharges are listed in Attachment A and shown in Figure 5. Flow measurement at the McKenna gauge began in 1947 and has continued to present day. However, flow data were not collected between 1968 and 1977. During the 1968-77 data gap there was an active USGS gauge upstream of McKenna near RM 33 (USGS Station No.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities D-3 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF NISQUALLY RIVER HYDROLOGY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN 12088400); data are available at this location from 1942 to 1979. Gauge data at No. 12088400 could be used to augment the data at the McKenna gauge to create a larger or more continuous period of record. Historic peak annual instantaneous discharges are listed in Attachment A and shown in Figure 5. CURRENT FEMA STUDY
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a Flood Insurance Study (FIS) of unincorporated Pierce County in 1987 (FEMA, 1987). A detailed hydrologic analysis of the Nisqually River was conducted for the FIS. Table B-1 lists peak discharges for several locations along the River as published in the FIS.
Table D-1. Flood Frequency for the Nisqually River (FEMA, 1987)
Drainage Area Peak Discharges (cfs) Location on Nisqually River (sq.mi.) 10-Year 50-Year 100-Year 500-Year At Mouth1 711 21,500 29,000 33,000 45,000 Upstream of Horn Creek1,2 488 21,000 28,000 32,000 44,000 Upstream of Tanwax Creek1 446 20,500 27,000 31,000 43,000 At Skate Creek Road 79 6,250 9,080 10,400 13,600 At Mt. Rainier National Park 66 5,400 7,910 9,040 11,900 1. Discharges reflect regulated conditions. 2. The community of McKenna is located downstream of the Horn Creek confluence.
The FIS does not specify which USGS stream gauges were used in the hydrologic analysis, nor does it specify the period of historical records used. However, the latest year that could have been included is 1987. At minimum, there is an additional 20 years of flow records that have been collected since the publication of the FIS. Included in these recent flow records is the largest peak discharge on record for the Nisqually River, which occurred in 1996, when there was an estimated flood flow of 50,0001 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the McKenna gauge (No. 12089500). Not only is this peak discharge substantially larger than the 100-year discharge listed in Table B-1, but exceeds even the 500-year discharge. A preliminary analysis was performed to examine flood flow frequency at the McKenna gauge (USGS Station No. 12089500) and approximate the relative change in the discharge-frequency curve that would result from adding the most recent 20 years of flow data. A log-Pearson Type III regression analysis was performed on peak annual discharge records from 1948 to 19872 using simply a station skew. This yielded similar results to the discharge frequency data in Table B-1. The log-Pearson Type III regression analysis was then repeated using records from
1 Discharge for the February 1996 event was estimated by extrapolation because the recorded stage exceeded the available rating curve. 2 Note this did not include any data for 1968 to 1977 for which no data is available. Data could possibly be translated from an upstream gauge; however, including data from the upstream gauge is not expected to have a considerable effect on the flood frequency results.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities D-4 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF NISQUALLY RIVER HYDROLOGY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN 1948 to 2006. Peak discharge estimates increased between approximately 10 percent and 20 percent for the 10-year to 100-year events when the additional 20 years of data was included (see Figure 6). RECOMMENDED HYDROLOGIC STUDIES
As discussed in the previous section, over 20 years of additional stream flow data have been collected since the FIS was published in 1987, and a preliminary analysis shows that including these 20 years of data in and updated study could change peak discharges by 10 to 20 percent. Therefore, a new updated hydrologic study is warranted, and should be completed for use in any future flood hazard mapping or flood mitigation studies. There are various methods for conducting hydrologic analyses. Specific objectives should be defined for the study before determining the most appropriate methodology. The recommendations provided herein are based on the following objective: An updated hydrologic analysis will be conducted to provide peak discharge-frequency estimates for various points along the Nisqually River, such that the results can be used in hydraulic modeling to develop flood hazard mapping. Delineated flood hazards zones will consist of both the floodway3 and flood fringe as defined by Pierce County Code, and should be developed in accordance with FEMA guidelines for map revisions. The following sections describe specific recommendations.
Flood Flow Frequency Analysis (Bulletin 17B)
All relevant hydrologic analyses from previous studies should be collected and reviewed, particularly those studies completed by FEMA or USGS. An updated flood flow frequency analysis should be performed using historical stream flow data. Historical flow data should be obtained from available USGS stream gauging records as follows: • Nisqually River near National (USGS Station No. 12082500): All recorded annual maximum instantaneous peak discharge data on record, which should include approximately 64 data points from 1942 to 2006 (see Figure 5). • Nisqually River near Alder (USGS Station No. 12084000): All peak annual maximum instantaneous peak discharge data on record, which should include approximately 13 data points from 1931 to 1944. These data could be used to augment the annual series at USGS Station No. 12082500 by proportionally adjusting for drainage area (see Figure 5). • Nisqually River at La Grande (USGS Station No. 12086500): Annual maximum instantaneous peak discharge data recorded after 1945 (subsequent to the construction of La Grande and Alder Dams), which should consist of a continuous record of 62 data points from 1945 to 2006 (see Figure 5).
3 “Floodway” consists of the FEMA floodway and deep and/or fast flowing water.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities D-5 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF NISQUALLY RIVER HYDROLOGY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
• Nisqually River at McKenna (USGS Station No. 12089500): All annual maximum instantaneous peak discharge data on record, all of which was recorded after 1945 (subsequent to the construction of La Grande and Alder Dams). These data should include approximately 50 data points recorded from 1948 to 1968 and from 1978 to 2006 (see Figure 5). Discharges are affected by regulation and diversion. Flow data should also be obtained for the Centralia Power Canal (USGS Station No. 12089208) to examine the relative diversion rates and determine whether any adjustments need to be made to the peak discharges at the McKenna gauge. • Nisqually River above Powell Creek near McKenna (USGS Station No. 12088400) combined with Nisqually River near McKenna (USGS Station No. 12088500): Historical data for these two gauges has been combined by USGS. Annual maximum instantaneous peak discharge data recorded after 1945 could be used to augment the annual series at USGS Station No. 12089500. A total of 28 data points are available, 11 of which cover years not covered by gauge No. 12089500 (see Figure 5) by proportionally adjusting for drainage area. Discharges are affected by regulation and diversion. The gauge data described above should be used to compile a continuous series of annual maximum instantaneous peak discharges at each of three primary gauge sites: 1) near National, 2) just downstream of La Grande Dam, and 3) near McKenna. Discharge-frequency analyses should be conducted in accordance with Bulletin 17B guidelines (Interagency Advisory Committee, 1982), which could be performed using public domain software such as HEC-SSP or USGS PeakFQ. Bulletin 17B methodology is used to fit logarithms of annual peak discharges to a Pearson Type III distribution. This method includes options for improving the estimates using a regional skew coefficient, weighing stations and generalized skew to reflect relative gauge accuracy, and adjustments for outliers and gaps in records. Results are used to estimate the magnitude of flood discharges for various recurrence intervals (annual probabilities). Flood flow frequency data could be translated to other points along the Nisqually River by adjusting proportionally to contributing drainage area. In a regulated river, runoff volume estimates are often more reliable than peak discharge estimates. Flow regulation should be examined with respect to historical dam operations and by comparing peak flows with mean daily flows.
Addressing Climate Change
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – a scientific body established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – global mean surface temperature has increased over the past 100 years, and projections indicate that the warming trend will continue in the 21st Century (IPCC, 2001). Projections also indicate that some areas will see increases in precipitation, more frequent and intense events, which are likely to lead to increased flooding (IPCC, 2001). Local studies agree with these projections.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities D-6 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF NISQUALLY RIVER HYDROLOGY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN A 1997 report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that by 2100, temperatures in Washington could increase on average by about 5oF in winter and summer, and 4oF in spring and fall (EPA, 1997). The EPA report states that in that same period, precipitation in Washington is projected to change little in spring, summer, and fall, but increase by about 10% in winter. The Climate Impacts Group (CIG) at the University of Washington completed a study on the impacts of climate change on the Pacific Northwest. The CIG study concluded that temperatures and precipitation in the region will increase (Mote, et al., 1999). Projections show that the increase in mean annual precipitation would be relatively small, but the seasonal variation would be greater with wetter winters and drier summers (Mote, et al., 1999). In addition, the warmer temperatures are predicted to cause snow levels to rise to higher elevations leading to less snowpack and less precipitation falling as snow. Spring runoff will shift becoming earlier and lower, while winter runoff will increase; a change that is likely to lead to increased flooding especially in lower elevations (Mote, et al., 1999). Projected changes in the regional climate could have a considerable effect on hydrology in the Nisqually River basin. The upper portion of the Nisqually River watershed is high elevation, mountainous terrain, and the headwaters are located high on the south slopes of Mount Rainier. Several glaciers are located near the top of the basin, and large areas are covered with a substantial snowpack in winter. Warming trends could reduce the size and number of glaciers, as well as reduce the overall snowpack in upper elevations. In addition to the above- mentioned shift to earlier spring runoff and larger winter runoff, higher temperatures could cause large winter precipitation events that previously fell as snow to fall as rain over a larger area. These changes could lead to more frequent downstream flooding. Until recently, standard practice for hydrologic analyses has been to assume that past conditions are representative of future conditions. However, climate change studies suggest that this assumption is not valid. Many agencies have already begun planning for the potential impacts of climate change on natural resources. More recently, agencies have begun recognizing the potential effect on natural hazards. Researchers are still working to develop high-resolution modeling that will project the effects of climate change in Washington relating to the frequency and intensity of storms. It is recommended that the hydrologic study for the Nisqually River review the latest information related to regional climate change, and make considerations for the potential effects on future flooding conditions.
Coordination with FEMA
An updated hydrologic study for the Nisqually River would be used primarily for updated flood hazard mapping. As such, the new analysis must meet all NFIP requirements. Coordination with FEMA will be necessary to ensure the updated hydrologic analysis will be accepted as a revision to the flood discharges currently published in the effective FIS. Ultimately, FEMA will need to review the updated hydrologic analysis as part of the map revision process.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities D-7 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF NISQUALLY RIVER HYDROLOGY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN Considerations for Additional Studies
The recommended hydrologic analysis in Sections 3.1 was based on the objective stated at the beginning of this section. If additional objectives or considerations were identified the hydrologic analysis could be modified or additional studies could be conducted. The following are two suggestions for additional studies: Creating Administrated Floods of Selected Recurrence Intervals for Alternative Analysis
The flood flow frequency analysis in Section 3.1 only estimates peak discharges. If complete flood flow hydrographs were developed an unsteady-flow hydraulic analysis could evaluate the effects of floodplain storage and attenuation of flood flows along the river channel. In addition, modeling results would provide more detailed depth and velocity data for use in delineating the DFF floodway. Building on the flood flow frequency analysis, complete design-event flood hydrographs could be developed. Selected historical events would be assigned to a specific recurrence interval and scaled such that the magnitude and duration match the results for that frequency. The design flood hydrograph would be constructed using an n-day flood volume method as follows: 1. Assign a recurrence interval to selected historical events for hydraulic analysis. 2. Scale historical events to match the estimated flood quartile, considering both intensity and duration. 3. Create design flood event based on n-day flood volumes (Balocki and Burges, 1994). Reservoir Simulation
The flood flow frequency analysis in Section 3.1 assumes operations at the dams have remained constant and will not change in the future. A more detailed hydrologic analysis would be required to investigate changes in dam operations. Such an analysis would require additional data such as stage-storage information for the reservoirs, gate/spillway discharge relations, operating rules, and mean daily flow data. Historical stream flow records could be used to develop inflow time series for use in a reservoir simulation model such as HEC-ResSim, which could be used to simulate changes in dam operations and generate outflow time series.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities D-8 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF NISQUALLY RIVER HYDROLOGY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
REFERENCES
Balocki, J.B. and S.J. Burges. 1994. Relationships Between n-Day Flood Volumes for Infrequent Large Floods. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 6, pp 794-818. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). September 1997. Climate Change and Washington. United States Department Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Doc. No. EPA 230-F-97-008u. Golder Associates, Inc. (Golder). October 2003. Nisqually Watershed Management Plan. Prepared for the Nisqually Indian Tribe and WRIA 11 Planning Unit. Golder Associates, Inc. Redmond, Washington. Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1982, Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency, Bulletin 17B of the Hydrology Subcommittee. Office of Water Data Coordination, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001. Third Assessment Report, Technical Summary of Workgroup I Report. Established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Mote, P.; M. Holmberg, N. Mantua. November 1999. Climate Impacts Group (CIG). Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO), University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Pierce County. 2004. Pierce County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Pierce County Department of Emergency Management, Mitigation and Recovery Division, 2501 South 35th Street, Tacoma, WA 98409 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). August 1987. Flood Insurance Study, Pierce County, Washington, Unincorporated Areas, Vol. 1 and 2. Community Number 530138. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities D-1 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF NISQUALLY RIVER HYDROLOGY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities D-2 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
FIGURES
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities D-3 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF NISQUALLY RIVER HYDROLOGY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities D-4 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
FIGURE 4 – USGS Gauge Records for Nisqually River Watershed
No. of Drainage
Site Number Station Name Qpeak Area River Mile 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006
12090200 MUCK CREEK AT ROY, WA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 21 86.8
12089500 NISQUALLY RIVER AT MCKENNA, WA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 50 517.0 21.8
diversion 12089208 CENTRALIA POWER CANAL NEAR MCKENNA, WA 12 | | | | | | | | | | | | flow
12089000 TANWAX CREEK NEAR MCKENNA, WA | | | | | | 6 26.0
12088500 NISQUALLY RIVER NEAR MCKENNA, WA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 22 445.0
12088400 NISQUALLY RIVER AB POWELL CREEK NEAR MCKENNA, WA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 32 431.0
12088000 OHOP CREEK NEAR EATONVILLE, WA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 52 34.5 6.1
12087000 MASHEL RIVER NEAR LA GRANDE, WA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 32 80.7 3.3
12086500 NISQUALLY RIVER AT LA GRANDE, WA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 78 292.0 40.4
12084500 LITTLE NISQUALLY RIVER NEAR ALDER, WA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 23 28.0
12084000 NISQUALLY RIVER NEAR ALDER, WA | | | | | | | | | | | | | 13 252.0
12083000 MINERAL CREEK NEAR MINERAL, WA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 64 75.2 1.3
12082500 NISQUALLY RIVER NEAR NATIONAL, WA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 64 133.0 57.8
stage 12085500 LA GRANDE RESERVOIR AT LA GRANDE, WA 289.0 42.5 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | only
stage 12085000 ALDER RESERVOIR AT ALDER, WA 286.0 44.2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | only
12081990 TAHOMA CREEK AT HIGHWAY BRIDGE NEAR ASHFORD, WA no data available on-line
12081900 KAUTZ CREEK (UPPER SITE) NEAR LONGMIRE, WA no data available on-line
12081590 NISQUALLY RIVER AB DEAD HORSE CR AT PARADISE, WA no data available on-line
UPPER NISQUALLY RIVER (NATIONAL, ALDER) 50,000 USGS Gauge 12084000 40,000 12082500 30,000 20,000 10,000
PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEAR
NISQUALLY RIVER AT LA GRANDE 50,000 USGS Gauge New La Grande and Alder 12086500 Dams Completed in 1945 40,000 Original La Grande Dam Completed in 1912 30,000 20,000 10,000
PEAK (CFS)DISCHARGE 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEAR
NISQUALLY RIVER AT MCKENNA 50,000 USGS Gauge New La Grande and Alder 12088400 40,000 Original La Grande Dam Dams Completed in 1945 12089500 Completed in 1912 30,000 20,000 10,000
PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEAR
FIGURE 5. Annual Peak Discharges Recorded at the Nisqually River Gauge
PRELIMINARY Frequency Analysis of Annual Maximum Peak Runoff 12089500 Nisqually River at Mckenna, WA Recurrence Interval (Year) 2 10 100 100,000
1948-1987
LPIII 1948-1987
1979-2006
LPIII 1948-2006
10,000 Flow (cfs)
1,000 0.99 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.01 Exceedence Probability
Figure 6. Preliminary Results for Frequency Analysis at McKenna Gauge
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF NISQUALLY RIVER HYDROLOGY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Attachment A. Historic Peak Annual Instantaneous Discharges at USGS Gauges (cfs) Nisqually River at National: Nisqually River at La Grande: Nisqually River at McKenna: Year USGS Gauge No. 12082500 USGS Gauge No. 12086500 USGS Gauge No. 12089500 unless otherwise noted unless otherwise noted unless otherwise noted 1907 -- 16,600 -- 1908 -- 7,020 -- 1909 ------1910 -- 10,600 -- 1911 -- 10,500 -- 1912 ------1913 ------1914 ------1915 ------1916 ------1917 ------1918 ------1919 ------1920 -- 11,500 -- 1921 -- 12,500 -- 1922 -- 19,500 -- 1923 -- 16,800 -- 1924 -- 13,100 -- 1925 -- 9,410 -- 1926 -- 6,700 -- 1927 -- 9,200 -- 1928 -- 13,900 -- 1929 -- 4,590 -- 1930 -- 6,070 -- 1931 -- 10,700 -- 1932 14,6001 -- -- 1933 12,6001 -- -- 1934 25,0001 -- -- 1935 14,4001 -- -- 1936 6,2301 -- -- 1937 8,1001 -- -- 1938 9,6201 -- -- 1939 6,6601 -- -- 1940 9,8801 -- -- 1941 5,0101 -- -- 1942 9,5201 -- 16,0002 1943 7,500 -- 16,4002 1944 4,830 -- 10,8002 1945 5,280 12,000 14,4002 1946 5,000 10,600 10,5002 1947 8,100 11,600 17,0002 1948 5,560 8,360 11,500
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities D-19 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division
APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF NISQUALLY RIVER HYDROLOGY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Attachment A. Historic Peak Annual Instantaneous Discharges at USGS Gauges (cfs) Nisqually River at National: Nisqually River at La Grande: Nisqually River at McKenna: Year USGS Gauge No. 12082500 USGS Gauge No. 12086500 USGS Gauge No. 12089500 unless otherwise noted unless otherwise noted unless otherwise noted 1949 3,010 6,640 9,170 1950 7,310 15,000 12,200 1951 6,050 15,400 16,900 1952 2,700 9,350 5,280 1953 4,760 10,600 9,990 1954 6,640 14,500 16,200 1955 3,740 6,740 6,020 1956 7,470 16,900 20,200 1957 3,680 6,160 5,190 1958 2,790 6,900 4,980 1959 5,450 13,300 13,900 1960 10,900 17,900 20,500 1961 4,350 13,200 15,700 1962 4,350 2,900 3,920 1963 10,400 9,600 7,660 1964 3,560 8,820 14,300 1965 11,000 16,000 25,700 1966 3,080 2,650 4,220 1967 5,870 12,300 12,600 1968 8,070 8,940 9,120 1969 6,620 7,470 -- 1970 4,350 8,520 10,4002 1971 4,460 6,210 9,0702 1972 7,460 13,900 17,4002 1973 7,700 7,190 9,1602 1974 15,000 18,100 23,2002 1975 7,660 9,210 12,9002 1976 13,200 27,100 30,7002 1977 1,910 2,380 2,5902 1978 17,100 9,820 14,600 1979 2,790 2,920 3,530 1980 7,050 8,840 9,560 1981 11,600 21,500 21,100 1982 8,280 16,800 16,200 1983 8,000 10,200 10,500 1984 8,020 9,640 9,590 1985 5,380 7,200 7,020 1986 8,180 7,530 7,700 1987 9,830 4,470 7,220 1988 9,200 5,620 6,110 1989 4,130 4,620 4,760 1990 14,500 14,800 17,700 1991 11,000 17,400 17,200
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities D-20 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF NISQUALLY RIVER HYDROLOGY NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Attachment A. Historic Peak Annual Instantaneous Discharges at USGS Gauges (cfs) Nisqually River at National: Nisqually River at La Grande: Nisqually River at McKenna: Year USGS Gauge No. 12082500 USGS Gauge No. 12086500 USGS Gauge No. 12089500 unless otherwise noted unless otherwise noted unless otherwise noted 1992 3,410 3,980 4,990 1993 3,440 2,220 3,180 1994 2,090 3,790 3,450 1995 7,340 11,200 14,400 1996 21,200 39,500 50,000 1997 9,820 12,400 15,900 1998 8,330 4,570 5,950 1999 6,350 11,400 13,400 2000 8,750 7,720 10,300 2001 2,670 1,210 1,460 2002 8,630 5,750 10,100 2003 10,800 10,900 16,200 2004 4,680 2,900 4,750 2005 8,140 2,440 5,040 2006 7,030 13,400 15,400 1. Data from USGS Gauge No. 12084000, Nisqually River near Alder, WA. No scaling factor has been applied to these data. 2. Data from USGS Gauge No. 12088400, Nisqually River AB Powell Creek near McKenna, WA. No scaling factor has been applied to these data.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities D-21 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division VOLUME 2 - APPENDICES NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
APPENDIX E Preliminary Evaluation for Flood Mitigation at McKenna
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
APPENDIX E Preliminary Evaluation for Flood Mitigation at McKenna
INTRODUCTION The unincorporated community of McKenna is located in southern Pierce County, Washington along the Nisqually River (see Figure 1, attached). This community has a history of flooding problems, most notably; an event in February 1996 that inundated portions of more than 80 parcels within the community. The purpose of this Technical Information Memorandum 4 (TIM No. 4) is to perform a preliminary evaluation of flood mitigation alternatives based on currently available information. To fulfill the stated purpose, the following specific objectives were met:
• Obtain and review available information regarding the existing flooding conditions at McKenna including the currently effective Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). • Briefly review available hydrologic information for the Nisqually River (e.g., flood flow estimates, current operating procedures for upstream dams). A more-detailed evaluation of Nisqually River hydrology including recommendations for an updated hydrologic analysis is presented in TIM No. 3. • Summarize existing hydraulic conditions pertaining to flooding at McKenna (e.g., mapped flood hazards, historically flooded regions, flow constraints, etc.) • Define a planning objective, develop a list of potential flood mitigation measures, and perform a screening-level evaluation of those measures with respect to such considerations as technical, environmental/regulatory, and cost constraints. • Based on the review of available data and the evaluation of flood mitigation measures, provide recommendations for additional studies and subsequent actions. This TIM is being developed as part of Nisqually River Basin planning efforts for Pierce County Surface Water Management (County). Recommendations for further studies will be included as elements of the Nisqually River Basin Plan.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING CONDITIONS The community of McKenna is situated along the north bank of the Nisqually River at approximately River Mile (RM) 22. In this region, the Nisqually River forms the border between Pierce County to the north and Thurston County to the south. It is located approximately 2 miles east of Yelm, Washington and 5 miles south of Roy, Washington.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-1 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
As an unincorporated community, McKenna has no administrative boundaries. For the purposes of this memorandum, the community of McKenna refers to the developed areas along the north bank of the Nisqually River beginning at the Tacoma Rail Mountain Division (TRMW) Railway and ending approximately 1.5 miles upstream. Figure 2 (attached) shows McKenna and vicinity.
Nisqually River Hydrology The Nisqually River originates from the Nisqually Glacier on the south slope of Mount Rainier and flows approximately 78 miles, west-northwest, to the Nisqually Estuary, where it flows into South Puget Sound. The watershed covers an area of approximately 760 square miles. La Grande Canyon, at RM 40, divides the Nisqually River watershed into two distinct physiographic areas. Below the canyon, the watershed consists of low hills and prairie plains of glacial outwash. Above the canyon, volcanic rock and steeper mountainous terrain dominate the area. Major tributaries include Mineral Creek, Little Nisqually River, Mashel River, Ohop Creek, Tanwax Creek, and Muck Creek.
The following sections briefly describe Nisqually River hydrology as it pertains to McKenna. The first section addresses upstream flow controls (dams) influencing river flows at McKenna. The second section is an overview of historical stream flow data collected at a nearby stream gauge. The third section presents flood frequency data currently used by FEMA for floodplain mapping. A more detailed review of Nisqually River hydrology can be found in TIM No. 3.
Flow Controls and Channel Modifications The Nisqually River is relatively undeveloped with the exception of two hydroelectric facilities: the Nisqually Hydroelectric Project, which includes two major dams (La Grande and Alder), and the Yelm Hydroelectric Project, which includes a small diversion dam. The locations of these dams and other known modifications to the Nisqually River are shown in Figure 3 (attached). The following sections describe the two hydroelectric projects in relation to flood flows at McKenna.
Nisqually Hydroelectric Project – The Nisqually Hydroelectric Project is owned by the City of Tacoma and operated by Tacoma’s hydroelectric utility, Tacoma Power. Flows in the lower reaches of the Nisqually River are regulated in part by the Nisqually Hydroelectric Project, which is comprised of La Grande Dam at RM 42.4 and Alder Dam approximately 2 miles upstream at RM 44.2. The original La Grande Dam was built in 1912. This dam was replaced in 1945 and Alder Dam, and its associated reservoir, was added that same year.
La Grande Dam is 192 feet high and has an impoundment storage capacity of 2,700 acre-feet. River flow is diverted at the dam to the powerhouse located approximately 1.7 miles downstream. The diverted water re-enters the Nisqually River downstream of the powerhouse. Water is also released from the impoundment to the Nisqually River to maintain a continuous flow. Alder Dam is 285 feet high and has an impoundment storage capacity of 231,900 acre-feet (Alder Lake). The powerhouse is located at the base of the dam.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-2 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
In addition to providing hydroelectric power, the Nisqually River Project provides recreational benefits. Alder Lake and its associated parks are used for fishing, camping, picnicking, swimming, water skiing, and boating. The impoundment behind La Grande Dam is not publicly accessible because of the steep topography.
The Nisqually Hydroelectric Project is operated under a license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The 40-year FERC license (No. 1862) was issued on March 7, 1997. This license contains articles pertaining to operational requirements, including minimum instream flows and reservoir water levels. There are no requirements for flood control or flood storage.
According to Tacoma Power – the operator of the dams – the dams do provide some incidental attenuation of flood flows; however, there are no flood control requirements for the Nisqually Hydroelectric Project. When possible and consistent with federal mandate, Tacoma Power voluntarily uses the available storage space to help reduce the downstream crest of the flood. However, Tacoma Power will do so only when these operations remain consistent with prudent operation of the project and the requirements of its federal license (personal communication with Todd Lloyd, Tacoma Power, October 2006).
Yelm Hydroelectric Project – The Centralia Diversion Dam is part of a 12 megawatt run-of- the-river hydroelectric project located at RM 26. The project is owned by City of Centralia Light Department and operated under a 40-year FERC license (No. 10703-001) issued on March 7, 1997. The diversion dam was constructed in 1930, expanded in 1955, and reconstructed in 1985. The dam is a low head structure that diverts water into a 9.1-mile canal that conveys water to a powerhouse downstream at RM 12.6.
There is no impoundment at the diversion dam, which is a concrete gravity dam with a structural height of 20 feet, but a hydraulic height of only 4 feet at low stages. During high stages the dam is almost completely submerged, with a difference between headwater and tailwater of less than 1 foot (Golder, 2003).
Historical Flow Records The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has collected flow data at numerous stream gauges in the Nisqually River watershed (see Figure 4). The primary active gauges on the Nisqually River include:
• USGS Station No. 12082500 – Located upstream of Alder Dam near the community of National (RM 57.8). • USGS Station No. 12086500 – Located downstream of La Grande Dam (RM 40.4). • USGS Station No. 12089500 – Located near the community of McKenna (RM 21.8).
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-3 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
All of these are real-time stream gauging stations. Two additional real-time gauging stations are operated in the watershed: one on Mineral Creek (USGS Station No. 12083000) and one on the Contra Costa Diversion Canal (USGS Station No. 12089208). There are two active, non-real- time gauges operated on tributaries: USGS Station No. 12088000 on Ohop Creek and USGS Station No. 12087000 on the Mashel River. USGS also operates gauges at La Grande Dam (No. 12085500) and Alder Dam (No. 12085000), but these record only reservoir stage, not flow. Figure 5 shows a map and schematic of the USGS stream gauging system in the Nisqually River Watershed.
Peak annual flow data for each of the three primary gauge stations on the Nisqually River are plotted in Figure 6.
Peak flows have been collected at National (USGS Station No. 12082500) for over 64 years beginning in 1943. Additional data are available from a gauge that was installed at Alder (USGS Station No. 12084000), approximately 10 miles downstream, recorded from 1932 to 1944. Peak discharges at the Alder gauge were 72% and 76% higher than the National gauge for the 2 years with overlapping records: 1943 and 1944, respectively.
Peak flow data have been collected at La Grande (USGS Station No. 12086500) since 1907. Four years of data were collected before the first La Grande Dam was built in 1912. Another 12 years of data were collected from 1920 to 1931. Flow records began again in 1945 (after the new La Grande and Alder Dams had been built) and has continued to present. A total of 78 years of peak flow data are available at this gauge; 62 of those years came after La Grande and Alder Dams were completed.
Flow measurement at the McKenna gauge began in 1947 and has continued to present. However, flow data were not collected between 1968 and 1977. During the 1968-77 data gap there was an active USGS gauge upstream of McKenna near RM 33 (USGS Station No. 12088400); data are available at this location from 1942 to 1979. Gauge data at No. 12088400 could be used to augment the data at the McKenna gauge to create a larger or more continuous period of record.
A more detailed discussion of USGS flow records is included in TIM No. 3.
Magnitude and Frequency of Flood Flows The Federal Emergency Management Agency published a Flood Insurance Study of unincorporated Pierce County in 1987 (FEMA, 1987). A detailed hydrologic analysis of the Nisqually River was conducted for the FIS using the USGS stream flow data available at that time. Peak discharges were estimated at several locations along the River (see Table C-1).
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-4 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Table E-1. Flood Frequency for the Nisqually River (FEMA, 1987) Drainage Area Peak Discharges (cfs) Location on Nisqually River (sq.mi.) 10-Year 50-Year 100-Year 500-Year At Mouth1 711 21,500 29,000 33,000 45,000 Upstream of Horn Creek1,2 488 21,000 28,000 32,000 44,000 Upstream of Tanwax Creek1 446 20,500 27,000 31,000 43,000 At Skate Creek Road 79 6,250 9,080 10,400 13,600 At Mt. Rainier National Park 66 5,400 7,910 9,040 11,900 1. Discharges reflect conditions downstream of the La Grande and Alder Dams. 2. The community of McKenna is located downstream of the Horn Creek confluence. There is no significant tributary flow input between Horn Creek and McKenna. Therefore, these flows numbers plus an estimate of Horn Creek flows are essentially equal to flows at McKenna.
The FIS does not specify which USGS stream gauges were used in the hydrologic analysis, nor does it specify the period of historical records used. However, the latest year that could have been included is 1987. At a minimum, there are an additional 20 years of flow records that have been collected since the publication of the FIS. Included in these recent flow records is the largest peak discharge on record for the Nisqually River, which occurred in 1996, when there was an estimated flood flow of 50,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the McKenna gauge (No. 12089500). Not only is this peak discharge substantially larger than the 100-year discharge listed in Table C-1, but exceeds even the 500-year discharge. A preliminary analysis of flow data at McKenna indicates that the inclusion of additional recent flow records would increase flood flow frequency estimates, but perhaps by only about 10 percent. A more detailed discussion of hydrologic data and analyses is provided in TIM No. 3.
Flooding Conditions near McKenna The Pierce County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2005) describes flooding along the Nisqually River as “extremely variable in terms of frequency, severity, and extent.” According to the FIS, floods occur from October through March as a result of rain storms, which are often augmented by snowmelt. In addition, the FIS describes flood damage along the Nisqually River as “generally limited to the community of McKenna...and to the Nisqually Delta” (FEMA, 1987). The following sections describe the flooding conditions at McKenna.
Regulated Flood Hazard Zones As a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), Pierce County has adopted the Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by FEMA, which show flood hazard zones for the Nisqually River. To establish the flood hazard zones, FEMA conducted a detailed study of the lower portion of the river (below the confluence with Ohop Creek) as part of the FIS (FEMA, 1987). A recent update of floodplain mapping was completed by FEMA for several major flooding sources in Pierce County. However, the Nisqually River was not included in these updates.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-5 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
A hydraulic model of the Nisqually River was developed for the FIS. Steady-state hydraulic simulations using the estimated 10-, 50-, and 100-, and 500-year peak discharges were run to calculate hydraulic profiles (peak water surface elevations) as shown in Figure 7. Based on the results of the hydraulic analysis, three types of flood hazard are mapped for the McKenna area: Zone A5/A6, Zone B, and the floodway. Copies of the FIRM are shown in Figure 8, and each flood hazard designation is described in more detail in the following paragraphs.
1. Numbered A Zone (Zone A5 and Zone A6) – This was delineated based on the areas inundated by the estimated water surface elevations for the 100-year flood (i.e., the 1 percent annual chance flood). The 100-year flood is referred to as the base flood, and the 100-year water surface elevations are referred to as base flood elevations. The numbers on numbered “A” zones are flood hazard factors, where “Zone A6” has a higher hazard than “Zone A5.” On more recent FIRM panels, Zone B flood hazard areas that are associated with riverine flooding are referred to as “Shaded Zone X.” The area inundated by the base flood is regulated by FEMA as the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
2. Zone B – This zone is the area between the 100-year inundation area and the 500-year inundation area. On more recent FIRM panels, Zone B flood hazard areas that are associated with riverine flooding are referred to as “Shaded Zone X.”
3. Floodway – The “regulatory floodway” is defined as the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. That designated height is 1 foot for FEMA mapping.
Pierce County Code contains more-stringent flood hazard regulations than what is required by the NFIP. The County has refined the definition of a floodway to include other high-hazard areas. The following are two such areas, which are regulated by Pierce County as floodways:
1. Areas of deep and/or fast flowing water (DFF): These areas are defined by specific combinations of depth-velocity criteria. The DFF floodway has not yet been mapped for the McKenna area. 2. Channel Migration Zone (CMZ): These are areas along a watercourse over which the river can move episodically over time. Pierce County flood regulations limit development within the floodway and the flood fringe, which is the portion of the SFHA that is not considered a floodway. In general, new structures or structures with substantial improvements are not allowed in the floodway, and new structures or structures with substantial improvements within the flood fringe must be elevated to a minimum of 2 feet above the base flood elevation. For specific regulations refer to Pierce County Code (18E.70.040, Flood Hazard Area Standards). Pierce County flood hazards for the McKenna area are mapped in Figure 9.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-6 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Flood Warning and Emergency Response Flood warning information is provided by the National Weather Service (NWS), which issues flood advisories, watches, and warnings based on flood forecasts. The NWS River Forecasting System collects data on current hydrologic conditions and combines them with meteorological forecasts to produce river stage forecasts. Flood warnings are disseminated to the public via radio, television, and local emergency agencies.
The gauging station at McKenna is part of the NWS forecasting system. The NWS issues a flood warning for the Nisqually River when its forecast model indicates the river will reach a stage of 12 feet or higher at the McKenna gauge. The NWS has defined four general stages of flooding for flood warning purposes. For McKenna these stages are:
1. Action Stage = 9 feet: agencies need to take steps toward mitigation and prepare for possible flooding. 2. Flood Stage = 12 feet: flooding begins to cause damage. 3. Moderate Flooding = 13 feet: transfer of property to higher elevations and some evacuation might be required. 4. Major Flooding = 14 feet: extensive inundation and property damage; usually requires evacuation and road closures.
The NWS has defined specific flood impacts for various stages of the Nisqually River at the McKenna gauge as provided in Table C-2.
Table E-2. Flood Impacts for Various Stages at the USGS McKenna Gauge (NWS, 2007) Flood Stage Description of Flooding Conditions 16 feet The Nisqually River will cause severe near record flooding from La Grande downstream through McKenna to the mouth. Deep and swift flood waters will inundate roads...farms...and residential areas...including the nursing home in McKenna. Erosion will likely cause severe damage. Flooding will occur all along the river including headwaters...tributaries...and other streams within and near the Nisqually River Basin. 14 feet The Nisqually River will cause major flooding from La Grande downstream through McKenna to the mouth. Deep and swift waters will flood roads...farms...and residential areas...including the nursing home in McKenna. Erosion may cause severe damage. Flooding will occur all along the river including headwaters...tributaries...and other streams within and near the Nisqually River Basin. 13 feet The Nisqually River will flood from La Grande downstream through McKenna to the mouth. Swift waters will flood roads...farms...and some residential areas including the nursing home in McKenna. Erosion will likely damage properties along river banks.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-7 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Table E-2. Flood Impacts for Various Stages at the USGS McKenna Gauge (NWS, 2007) Flood Stage Description of Flooding Conditions 12 feet The Nisqually River will flood from La Grande downstream through McKenna to the mouth. Flood waters will flow over some roads and through farms and residential areas. Erosion may damage some properties. High tidal levels on Puget Sound will cause flooding along the lower reaches...threatening homes along Riverside Riverside Drive...Connine Street and Conine Avenue. 10 feet The Nisqually River will spill over its banks between La Grande and McKenna. High tide levels on Puget Sound may cause the river to spill over its banks near the mouth.
Pierce County – The Pierce County Department of Emergency Management (DEM) is responsible for preparing for disasters and emergencies. The Emergency Management Division within the DEM provides guidance to all County agencies through the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan.
In the event of a flood notification on the Nisqually River, the Emergency Management Division activates the Emergency Operation Center to coordinate emergency response (e.g., sheriff and fire departments) and alert residents of impending floods on specific rivers and streams within the county. Flood notifications for the Nisqually River can be received as either a flood advisory/watch/warning from the NWS, or as a notification from Tacoma Public Utilities informing of high releases from dams at the Nisqually Hydroelectric Project.
Flood alert information is provided on the County’s Flood Information Line, and is posted on the County’s Flood Event Information Web Page. When necessary, the Emergency Operation Center will implement the “Intelecast,” which functions as a “reverse 9-1-1” calling system that issues warnings to land-lines within a specific area. In the event of a flood warning, the Intelecast system can be implemented to send telephone messages from DEM to residences that are considered at-risk based on current flood mapping.
Thurston County – Flood warning information issued by the NWS River Forecasting System for the Nisqually River is also disseminated by the Thurston County Emergency Operations Center through newspapers, radio, television, and internet. This Emergency Operations Center will supplement or amplify the information issued by the NWS when there is additional knowledge of local flooding effects, information from dam operators, or observations from field personnel (Thurston County, 1998). The Thurston County Emergency Operations Center will also provide information to fire and law enforcement agencies, Thurston County Departments, the American Red Cross, and volunteer organizations and make recommendations for community level warnings, evacuation, and transportation and shelter needs.
If forecasted flooding conditions necessitate evacuations or personal protective actions, then the Thurston County Emergency Operations Center will activate the “Tel-A-lert” system, which is a “reverse 9-1-1” system that functions similarly to Pierce County’s Intelecast System. The
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-8 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
following are thresholds specified in the Thurston County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan for activating the Tel-A-lert system on the Nisqually River:
• Upstream of Centralia Diversion Dam: 6,000 cfs from La Grande Dam • Nisqually Delta: 13,000 cfs at McKenna • Nisqually, at the community of Nisqually Pines: 19,000 cfs at McKenna
Historical Flooding Events at McKenna The largest flood on record at McKenna (USGS Station No. 12089500) is an event in February 1996, during which the river crested at 17.1 feet at an estimated peak discharge of approximately 50,000 cfs1. Other large flooding events of record include January 1965 (25,700 cfs cresting at 13.0 feet), November 1995 (cresting at 12.5 feet), December 1980 (21,100 cfs cresting at 12.4 feet), and December 1955 (20,200 cfs cresting at 12.4 feet).
The FIS discusses large floods on the Nisqually River, including two floods that occurred during the gap in gauge records at USGS Station No. 12089500. Peak discharges of 30,700 cfs in December 1975 and 23,200 cfs in January 1974 were recorded at USGS Station No. 12088400, 10 miles upstream of McKenna (FEMA, 1987). Peak flood discharges at Station No. 12088400 have a strong correlation with peak flood discharges at Station No. 12089500 and were usually within about 10 percent of each other for peak flood discharges during overlapping years of record. Assuming the peak flood discharges that occurred at USGS Station No. 12088400 in December 1975 and January 1974 were similar in magnitude to the peak flood discharges that occurred at McKenna, flood stages can be estimated by examining the stage-discharge relationship at the McKenna gauge (USGS Station No. 12089500). Figure 10 is a plot of stage versus discharge for the peak annual discharges recorded at USGS Station No. 12089500. Based on Figure 10, the peak flood discharges occurring in December 1975 (30,700 cfs) and January 1974 (23,200 cfs) would have produced flood stages of approximately 14.0 feet and 12.5 feet, respectively.
Flooding in Pierce County in the mid-1990s led to presidentially declared disasters in November/December 1995, February 1996, December 1996/February 1997, and March 1997 (DEM, 2007).
February 1996 Flood – The most severe flood event to impact the community of McKenna occurred in February 1996 when the flood stage reached 17.1 feet, over 5 feet above flood stage. Figure 11 shows the estimated area inundated by the February 1996 event based on observations of flood levels (Dixon, 2006a). Although damage to the McKenna area was considerable, a specific estimate of damages has not been totaled.
1 Discharge for the February 1996 event was estimated by extrapolation because the recorded stage exceeded the available rating curve.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-9 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
According to an analysis by Dennis Dixon at Pierce County Surface Water Management, 79 parcels were inundated during that event (Dixon, 2006b). Following the flooding event, Pierce County purchased 25 of these parcels at a cost of approximately $2.5 million. These parcels are now managed by the McKenna Water District. Roughly 60 of the 1996-flooded parcels, including a nursing home, remain under private ownership. The taxable value of the remaining parcels is on the order of $6 million (Dixon, 2006b).
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF FLOOD MITIGATION This section provides a preliminary look at flood mitigation planning for the McKenna area. A planning objective is stated Section 3.1. Section 3.2 established basic planning criteria and discusses some of the important planning constraints. A range of potential flood mitigation measures is presented in Section 3.3; each measure is evaluated with respect to the planning criteria and constraints. This section is followed by recommendations in Section 4.
Planning Objective Based on available information, Pierce County Surface Water Management has identified flooding at McKenna as a problem, and intends to develop a flood mitigation plan and a potential project to address the problem. The specific planning objective is:
To reduce the flood risk and damages to the greatest extent possible within the area inundated by the base flood (100-year) event along the north bank of the Nisqually River between the TRMW Railway Bridge and a point approximately 1.5 miles upstream. Flood risk refers to both the risk of damage to property and the risk to human safety.
A preliminary evaluation of flood mitigation measures was completed based on this objective as presented in Section 3.3. It is important to note that such an evaluation is contingent upon the delineation of the 100-year flood inundation area. Currently, the best available floodplain information is based on the FIS completed by FEMA in 1987. However, given the substantial amount of information that has been collected since that study, an updated study is warranted. Mitigation measures not screened out by this preliminary analysis should be re-evaluated upon the completion of updated hydrologic and hydraulic analyses.
Evaluation Criteria and Planning Constraints Two Federal sources of flood mitigation funding are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
USACE follows a six step process for civil works projects. Step 2 requires that studies are conducted according to the Water Resources Council’s Principles and Guidelines (WRC, 1983). The Water Resources Council was a group of experts convened by the United States government, and tasked with the development of a document to guide the formulation and
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-10 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
evaluation of studies for major Federal water resources development agencies. According to these principles and guidelines, evaluation criteria are as follows:
• Completeness is the extent to which a project provides all of the elements necessary to ensure the realization of the planned effects. It provides an indication of the degree to which the results are dependent upon the actions of others. • Effectiveness is the extent to which an alternative plan alleviates the specified problems and achieves the specified opportunities. • Efficiency is a measure of the cost effectiveness of the project expressed in terms of the net benefits. • Acceptability is the workability and viability of the alternative plan with respect to acceptance by state and local entities and the public and compatibility with existing laws, regulations, and public policies. FEMA provides recommendations for mitigation planning in a how-to guide for communities (FEMA, 2003). In this guide FEMA describes seven evaluation criteria:
• Social: The public must support the overall implementation strategy and specific mitigation actions. Therefore, the projects will have to be evaluated in terms of community acceptance. • Technical: It is important to determine if the proposed action is technically feasible, will help to reduce losses in the long term, and has minimal secondary impacts. • Administrative: Under this part of the evaluation criteria, you will examine the anticipated staffing, funding, and maintenance requirements for the mitigation action to determine if the jurisdiction has the personnel and administrative capabilities necessary to implement the action or whether outside help will be necessary. • Political: Understanding how your current community and state political leadership feels about issues related to the environment, economic development, safety, and emergency management will provide valuable insight into the level of political support you will have for mitigation activities and programs. • Legal: Without the appropriate legal authority, the action cannot lawfully be undertaken. When considering this criterion, you will determine whether your jurisdiction has the legal authority at the state, tribal, or local level to implement the action, or whether the jurisdiction must pass new laws or regulations. • Economic: Cost-effective mitigation actions that can be funded in current or upcoming budget cycles are much more likely to be implemented than mitigation actions requiring general obligation bonds or other instruments that would incur long-term debt to a community. • Environmental: Impact on the environment is an important consideration because of public desire for sustainable and environmentally healthy communities and the many statutory considerations, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to keep in mind when using federal funds. For the purposes of this memorandum, the two sets of evaluation criteria will be merged as follows:
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-11 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
USACE Criteria: Corresponding FEMA Criteria: Completeness Not Applicable
Effectiveness Technical
Efficiency Administrative, Economic
Acceptability Social, Political, Legal, Environmental
When evaluating proposed flood mitigation measures, it is important to consider any constraints that may limit the feasibility of a project. These constraints could be technical, environmental, economic, legal, or political. The following are some important constraints that must be considered when evaluating flood mitigation project alternatives on the Nisqually River at McKenna:
• Fish Habitat – The Nisqually River provides valuable habitat for fish, and is utilized extensively by multiple salmon species for spawning, rearing, and migration. The selected flood mitigation project must minimize impacts to the fish habitat. • Thurston County – The Nisqually River forms the boundary between Pierce and Thurston Counties. The selected flood mitigation project on the Pierce County side of the river (along the north bank) should minimize adverse impacts to flooding conditions on the Thurston County side of the river. • Permitting – A structural flood control project could impact riparian and/or wetland habitat. Such impacts could make permitting difficult and costly. The selected flood mitigation project should minimize impacts to riparian and wetland habitat. • Federally Licensed Dams – Each of the dams on the Nisqually River are operated under FERC licenses, and are therefore outside of the County’s jurisdiction. The selected flood mitigation project should not rely on changes to the operations of any of these dams because it is likely to be met with strong resistance.
Potential Flood Mitigation Measures A wide range of flood mitigation measures were considered as part of this preliminary study. The following sections briefly describe eight measures that were identified as having potential to mitigate flooding at McKenna. Each measure was evaluated by listing issues and considerations related to the criteria and constraints described in the previous section. Recommendations for the formulation of alternatives based on these measures are made in Section 4. In addition, Section 4 makes recommendations for subsequent actions and additional studies.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-12 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Measure No. 1: No Action A No Action measure would not provide any specific mitigation for flooding conditions in the community of McKenna. No actions would be taken to protect property or prevent loss of life beyond the mitigation programs that currently exist (see Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.3).
Residents and structures would be allowed to remain in flood hazard areas: either the floodway or the flood fringe. Pierce County Code currently prohibits development or substantial modifications to existing structures in the floodway, and requires new structures or substantially modified existing structures elevated such that the lowest floor is 2 feet above the base flood elevation (18E.70.040[B] and 18E.70.040[C] 6[a]). These regulations are intended to minimize future flood risk, but will not necessarily reduce existing flood risk.
The current flood warning system for the Nisqually River is based on the NWS River Forecasting System and notification of releases by Tacoma Public Utilities from Alder and La Grande Dams. Emergency response for flooding along the Nisqually River is coordinated by the Emergency Operations Centers for Thurston and Pierce Counties. Both of these centers have “reverse 9-1-1” telephone warning systems.
A true “no action” alternative does not include any recommendations for additional studies. As such, current flood mitigation efforts (floodplain regulations and flood warning/emergency response) would rely on existing information. However, it is possible that updated flood hazard mapping will be conducted in conjunction with map modernization efforts continually conducted by FEMA.
Measure No. 1 is compared against planning criteria (WRC, 1983) in Table C-3.
Table E-3. Evaluation of Measure No. 1 – No Action Criterion Considerations Completeness • This measure does not reduce flood risk and, therefore, does not achieve the stated objective. • Current flood hazard regulations could cause some structures to be elevated over the long term; however, this reduction in flood risk is entirely dependent upon outside actions. Effectiveness • This measure provides no additional flood protection. • Current flood hazard regulations could cause some structures to be elevated over the long term; however, this would only be required when substantial improvements are made. Efficiency • There are zero costs to implement this action; however, some associated costs could be attributed to future flood damages, or to the insurance premiums that will be required for land owners in the floodplain. • There are zero benefits associated with this action.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-13 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Table E-3. Evaluation of Measure No. 1 – No Action Criterion Considerations Acceptability • Flood mitigation is a current and relevant concern to those land owners impacted by recent flood events. This measure would do nothing to help those owners. • Land owners paying insurance premiums would prefer to pay less, or not have to pay at all. This measure would do nothing to help those owners. • Allowing future flooding might be politically scrutinized. • There are no negative environmental impacts associated with this measure. • There are no environmental benefits associated with this measure. • This measure would not affect fish habitat or any other riparian or wetland habitats. • This measure would not produce any negative effects on Thurston County. • This measure does not require any changes to dam operations.
Measure No. 2: Flood Warning and Emergency Response Improved Flood Warning and Emergency Response is a flood hazard mitigation measure recommended in the Pierce County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (Pierce County, 2004). The current system, as described in Section 2.2.2, is based on flood warnings issued from either the NWS River Forecasting System or notifications issued by Tacoma Public Utilities when releases will exceed certain thresholds. When a warning is issued, Pierce County Emergency Operations Center notifies the appropriate emergency management officials, and in extreme cases activates the Intelecast reverse 9-1-1 calling system. In addition, flood alert information is provided on the County’s Flood Information Line and is posted on the County’s Flood Event Information Web Page.
A more detailed study of the existing flood warning systems and emergency response plans should be conducted to assess the adequacy of the systems and identify specific methods to improve them. Based on preliminary research, the following is a list of improvements that should be considered:
1. Develop a McKenna-specific emergency response plan that provides clear actions and priorities for residents, employees, and emergency personnel. Such a response plan should include an element for public education to help increase awareness and preparedness in the community. 2. The NWS River Forecasting system could be improved by linking real-time river stage forecasting to flood hazard mapping, which could be made available on-line through the County’s flood information web-page. Such a system could provide up-to-date information showing what areas are forecasted to flood, and could provide guidance to citizens and emergency personnel as to what areas need to take action.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-14 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
3. Improve the dissemination of flood warnings. For example, a siren could be installed in McKenna to alert residents. Another option could be to augment the existing reverse 9-1- 1 calling system by adding cellular telephones. 4. Improved warning time and accurate flood hazard mapping information could allow for additional emergency actions to be taken to reduce damages and improve safety. For example, residents could be allowed time to remove valuable property (e.g., automobiles). Given adequate warning time, authorized personnel can shut off and secure utilities such as gas and electricity. 5. Flood fighting methods could be integrated into the response plan (e.g., erecting a temporary flood barrier, sandbagging, etc.). 6. Improved integration of Alder and La Grande Dam data with flood warning forecasts. The flood warning system would likely remain based on the existing NWS system; however, the system might need some enhancements to ensure appropriate communication and provide adequate warning time. Several elements of the flood warning and emergency response measure require knowledge of flood hazard zones. Updated hydraulic modeling of the Nisqually River channel and floodplain should be conducted to provide accurate mapping of flood hazard areas before these improvements are implemented.
Measure No. 2 is compared against planning criteria (WRC, 1983) in Table C-4.
Table E-4. Evaluation of Measure No. 2 – Flood Warning and Emergency Response Criterion Considerations Completeness • This measure relies heavily on the participation of residents and emergency personnel. • Flood warning and emergency response requires coordination between several entities. • There is a large amount of uncertainty involved in the implementation of a flood warning and emergency response plan. • This measure can be easily combined with other measures to provide a more complete mitigation project. • Gauges have a potential for failure during flooding events. • Many components of a flood warning system rely on electricity, which could be lost during major storm events.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-15 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Table E-4. Evaluation of Measure No. 2 – Flood Warning and Emergency Response Criterion Considerations Effectiveness • A well-organized flood warning and emergency response system can be highly effective in reducing the risk to public safety. • Flood warning and emergency response is highly limited in terms of reducing property damages and associated economic losses. • Flood warning systems can be reliable in terms of warning residents, but will do little to prevent flooding damage and associated economic losses. • An organized emergency response plan can be highly effective. • Adequate warning time can provide time to implement numerous emergency actions. • Emergency response activities are limited by warning time. • Flood warning times are limited by technical constraints. • Temporary protection such as a flood barrier could be difficult to implement due to the required length and height. Efficiency • Much of the funding for emergency services is already in place. • There are considerable long-term costs associated with operating a flood warning system; however, some of this funding has already been allocated. • A flooding warning system requires constant and indefinite monitoring and maintenance. • Emergency response requires a large number of staff and emergency workers. • Infrastructure and land impacts would be minimal. • Adequate flood warning could potentially allow time to remove transportable property. • Adequate flood warning could potentially allow time to protect valuable property. • Most aspects of this measure are likely to only be implemented occasionally (during predicted flooding events). Acceptability • Likely to have substantial community support. • Support and cooperation provided by several political entities. • There are likely to be few legal challenges. • Physical structures associated with this measure are likely to be temporary. • There are no negative environmental impacts associated with this measure. • There are no environmental benefits associated with this measure. • This measure would not affect fish habitat or any other riparian or wetland habitats. • This measure would not create adverse impacts in Thurston County. • This measure does not require any changes to dam operations.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-16 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Measure No. 3: Elevating Structures Elevating structures would reduce the flood risk to those structures and the property contained within them. Residential or commercial structures would be elevated can be elevated a variety of ways, such as placing the structure on engineered fill, raising the structure onto stilts/pilings, or extending foundation walls.
Identification of at-risk structures would be based on flood hazard mapping, and the elevation to which structures would be elevated or flood-proofed would be based on estimated flood elevations. Therefore, it is important to obtain the most updated information available to delineate flood hazard areas and determine flood elevations. New hydrologic and hydraulic studies should be conducted before elevating structures. In addition, elevation certificates should be completed for all at-risk structures to estimate lowest floor elevations and lowest adjacent grade, as well as determine if a structure is pre- or post-FIRM.
Measure No. 3 is compared against planning criteria (WRC, 1983) in Table C-5.
Table E-5. Evaluation of Measure No. 3 – Elevating Structures Criterion Considerations Completeness • This measure is dependent on cooperation and participation of McKenna residents. • Some land owners may refuse to sell. • Flood proofing is currently prohibited by Pierce County regulations. • Elevating structures is not allowed in the floodway, including areas that may be identified as a DFF floodway. • Access to some buildings can be difficult. Effectiveness • Elevating structures reduces flood risks as property is susceptible to less frequent events. However, this risk is not reduced as much as it would be if the property were removed from the flood zone altogether. • Residents remain in the flood hazard area. While the risk to property damage may be reduced, the risk to human safety remains. • Elevating structures may not be feasible in areas with excessively deep flooding. • Properly designed elevated structures could be effective in protecting a structure from floodwaters to a specific flood event. • Uncertainty related to hydrologic models, debris and areas of DFF could potentially compromise retrofitted structures. • Emergency access would still not be available to the structures during a flood. • Elevation of existing structures poses minimal technical challenges.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-17 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Table E-5. Evaluation of Measure No. 3 – Elevating Structures Criterion Considerations Efficiency • Elevating numerous structures above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) would be costly, especially in deep flooding areas where the amount the structure may need to be elevated several feet. • Legal and administrative costs with implementing a building elevation program could be significant depending on whether or not the buildings are pre-FIRM or post-FIRM. • Placing structures on engineered fill could result in compensatory storage requirements. • Implementing a program that coordinates and helps to implement all steps of funding, design and construction of elevated structures could be administratively challenging. Acceptability • Reducing floodplain storage could reduce flood flow conveyance and affect the attenuation of flood flows; these could cause adverse impacts to other areas including portions of Thurston County. • Environmental impacts would be minimal; mostly associated with construction activities. • Political pressures could come from groups that would rather see residents completely relocated out of the floodplain. • Land owners might resist elevating their homes. • A publicly funded and/or mandatory program might engender a substantial amount of political opposition. • This measure could have some affect on riparian and wetland habitats depending on the extent of engineered fill required to elevate the structures. • This measure does not require any changes to dam operations.
Measure No. 4: Acquisition of Flood-Prone Properties This measure would consist of a program to buy out flood-prone properties and convert the land to open space. This measure could also include relocation assistance, which could include creating/identifying open lots or opportunities for developing new lands outside of the 100-year floodplain, or assisting tenants with finding new rental properties.
Removing people and properties from the flood hazard area would virtually eliminate the risk of damage to residential property. Additionally, the risk to human safety would be considerably lowered during a flood event, which can be particularly important in areas with hazardous flood flow conditions (e.g., DFF floodways).
Under FEMA’s acquisition eligibility criteria, the property to be acquired would “contain an at- risk structure, including those that are damaged or destroyed due to an event. In some cases, undeveloped, at-risk land adjacent to an eligible property with existing structures may be eligible.” Another important note from FEMA’s acquisition eligibility is that “the property will be acquired from a willing, voluntary seller.” Purchasing homes from residents who have a
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-18 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
long-standing relationship with their property and town may be difficult. To help alleviate some of the difficulties of relocating, the County could consider measures to help assist residents.
Following the flooding event in 1996, Pierce County purchased 25 parcels in the McKenna area at a cost of approximately $2.5 million. Some parcels are now managed by the McKenna Water District as open space. Roughly 60 of the parcels that were flooded during that event (including a senior center) remain under private ownership, with a total taxable value estimated to be on the order of $6 million (Dixon, 2006).
Properties would be acquired through a coordinated buyout program. An important first step is to develop updated hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of the Nisqually River channel and floodplain to provide improved mapping of flood hazard areas and better estimates of flood elevations. Eligible properties would then need to be identified and prioritized for acquisition. Another important step would be to assess the likelihood of success through public outreach. One method would be to conduct a resident survey to evaluate the level of interest for participating in a buyout. Additionally, the County could conduct a series of public meetings to keep the public closely involved in the process.
Measure No. 4 is compared against planning criteria (WRC, 1983) in Table C-6.
Table E-6. Evaluation of Measure No. 4 – Acquisition of Flood-Prone Properties Criterion Considerations Completeness • This measure is dependent on cooperation and participation of McKenna residents. • Some land owners may refuse to sell. Effectiveness • Acquiring properties and removing residents from the floodplain is a highly effective method for reducing flood risk for people and property. • Removing structures and residents from the flood hazard area nearly eliminates flood risk. Efficiency • Land acquisition costs could be significant. • Substantial cost could be added if relocation assistance is provided. • Relocation of a large number of residents and businesses could require substantial costs because existing infrastructure would likely be abandoned and new infrastructure would need to be designed and constructed. • Coordination of a buyout program will include administrative costs. Acceptability • Some land owners might resist selling. • Some residents and local businesses might resist the drastic changes to the community and could pose legal opposition. • Relocation of residents could be met with opposition in a new location if existing residents do not want new development. • Relocation properties elsewhere would increase the local development footprint and associated impacts.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-19 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Table E-6. Evaluation of Measure No. 4 – Acquisition of Flood-Prone Properties Criterion Considerations • Acquired properties could be designated as open space, which could reserve areas for flood conveyance and provide storage of floodwaters to help attenuate flows. • Open spaces provide opportunities for habitat restoration. • Open spaces provide opportunities for public education, outreach and recreation. • A publicly funded and/or mandatory program might engender a substantial amount of political opposition. • This measure would not create adverse impacts in Thurston County. • This measure does not require any changes to dam operations.
Measure No. 5: Structural Flood Control – Levees All of the measures presented thus far are non-structural alternatives. One structural alternative to flood mitigation would be to construct a flood control barrier such as a levee. A levee is an engineered earthen berm constructed to confine flood flows to a principal conveyance channel, or more-specifically, to prevent floodwaters from inundating specific areas. Two basic levee configurations were considered:
1. Perimeter (Ring) Levee – This option would involve placing a levee around the perimeter of the structures that are to be protected. Constructing a levee in this way minimizes the area of the floodplain that must be removed from active flood storage. Examples are shown in Figure 13.
2. Bank Levee – This option would consist of constructing a levee on the north bank of the Nisqually River beginning at high ground approximately 3,000 feet upstream of Highway 507 and ending at the existing railroad tracks approximately 1,300 feet downstream of Highway 507 (see Figure 14). This would tie the levee into the upstream and downstream high points. If the levee increases flood elevations, then another levee may be required on the south bank.
A number of considerations would require further investigation and evaluation before pursuing this option, including:
• Updated hydrology would need to be completed for the Nisqually River, as well as updated hydraulic modeling for the McKenna reach. • Hydraulic analysis would be required to examine the effects on upstream and downstream areas, as well as areas across the river along the south bank. If it is shown that adverse impacts are created by constructing the levee, a takings analysis would need to be completed. In addition, hydraulic mitigation (e.g., compensatory storage) would need to be included as a project element. • Geotechnical investigations would need to be conducted.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-20 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
• Long-term levee maintenance activities would be required. Routine monitoring and maintenance items may include settlement monitoring, erosion inspections after storm events, and vegetation maintenance. • As part of long-term monitoring and inspections, additional construction may be required, including installation of cutoff walls if inspections show an increasing seepage exit gradient.
Measure No. 5 is compared against planning criteria (WRC, 1983) in Table C-7.
Table E-7. Evaluation of Measure No. 5 – Structural Flood Control-Levees Criterion Considerations Completeness • Levees do not completely eliminate the flood risk, and often create a false sense of security. • Levees require long-term maintenance. Effectiveness • A properly designed, constructed, and maintained levee can provide reliable flood protection to its design level; however, uncertainties are still inherent in this type of flood protection. • Levees require continual maintenance to maintain the design level of flood protection. • A properly designed, well-built, and maintained levee can provide a reasonable level of flood protection. However, there is the residual risk associated with the potential failure of a levee. • The residual risk is rarely communicated to the public nor recognized. • By isolating the majority of homes in the McKenna area, but not all homes, structures excluded from the levee’s protection would continue to be prone to flooding and not benefit from the project. Efficiency • Initial geotechnical investigations, design, and construction of levees may be costly. • Levees can be costly to design and construct, particularly around existing roads and infrastructure (e.g., the existing State Route 507 bridge). • There would be technical challenges with tying the levees in with each of the two bridges in the McKenna area. This could also increase design and construction costs. • Long-term levee maintenance activities would be required and could be costly. • Levees can be extended and raised; this, however, greatly depends on the original design and location of the levee. Raising and retrofitting levees can be a difficult and costly procedure. • A tall levee (e.g., more than 10 feet) would result in a significant levee footprint with a base width of 70 feet or more. • Property acquisition may be required to achieve the most beneficial levee alignment. • Environmental impacts could make the project difficult to permit, which can be costly. • A significant levee footprint in a riparian corridor could destroy habitat and require offsite mitigation.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-21 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Table E-7. Evaluation of Measure No. 5 – Structural Flood Control-Levees Criterion Considerations Acceptability • A structural solution such as this can have negative impacts on riparian and wetland habitat. • Containing flows in the Nisqually River could reduce flood flow conveyance and create adverse impacts to flooding in other areas. For example, constraining on the right bank could possibly result in increased flooding on the left bank, which could potentially impact the Centralia Canal and State Route 507, or cause new areas of flooding in Thurston County. • Homes within the levee area will be required to build behind the levee (e.g., no riverside home development). • Political pressures could be applied from downstream communities who fear an increase in flooding severity and frequency as a result of the project. • Permitting, funding, and public approval are all difficult to obtain for structural flood control solutions, especially those that alter the landscape and require ongoing maintenance.
• Legal opposition could occur from neighboring downstream communities, environmental groups, or homeowners who may be faced with having to sell their home to facilitate the project. • A perimeter levee or a berm levee on the right bank of the Nisqually will result in a change in the general appearance of the Town of McKenna. • Depending on the height of the levee, residents existing views may be blocked. • Levees can limit accessibility to homes and businesses, as well as limiting recreational access to the river by residents. • A levee could have a negative impact on community aesthetics. For example, a perimeter levee or a berm levee on the right bank of the Nisqually will result in a change in the general appearance of the Town of McKenna.
Measure No. 6: By-Pass Canal The Centralia Canal flows along the south side of the Nisqually River. The canal is part of a run- of-the-river hydroelectric power project. Water is diverted at a small diversion dam approximately 4.4 miles upstream of McKenna; the diverted flow in the channel runs parallel to the river to a power plant approximately 9.1 miles downstream, where it is returned to the river.
As part of a preliminary identification of alternatives, this canal was examined for its potential to be expanded to divert flood flows and by-pass McKenna. An examination of historical flows in the canal indicates that flows are typically on the order of 600 to 800 cfs. Flood flows in the McKenna River are in excess of 30,000 cfs. Even if the capacity of the canal could be expanded to three or four times the typical flow, it would still convey less than 10 percent of the flood flow in the Nisqually River.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-22 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
If the Centralia Canal was expanded and retrofitted to convey flood flows, it would require a substantial amount of work to the diversion structure and flow controls at the powerhouse. Furthermore, expanding the canal could require considerable alterations to existing bridge crossings. Before pursuing this measure, additional investigations would need to be conducted to determine the feasibility. Considerations that would require additional investigation include:
• Physical and operational constraints at the power plant downstream of McKenna at the terminus of the canal would need to be determined. If an increased diversion from the Nisqually River was physically able to be sent down the canal, the power plant would either need to be able to utilize the extra flow or bypass it through the existing plant to the Nisqually River without disrupting operations. • Hydraulic analyses to determine capacity of the canal, including an investigation of the required diversion structure, and any flow constraints along the canal alignment (e.g., culverts).
Measure No. 6 is compared against planning criteria (WRC, 1983) in Table C-8.
Table E-8. Evaluation of Measure No. 6 – By-Pass Canal Criterion Considerations Completeness • This measure would require cooperation from other entities (e.g., Centralia Power and Light). Effectiveness • Numerous technical challenges such as channel capacity, culverts, diversion retrofit and power plant configuration and operations could be substantial. • It is highly unlikely that the canal could by-pass enough flood flow to be a stand-alone measure. However, the diversion alternative may be combined with one of the other alternatives discussed in this TIM. • Technical constraints such as debris constricting flow at culvert crossings or power plant operational problems could compromise the reliability of this measure. Efficiency • Costs associated with increasing the size or capacity of the canal could be substantial. • Costs associated with changes to the existing infrastructure could be substantial. • Costs associated with changes in hydroelectric operations could be substantial. • Centralia’s project is under federal (FERC) license. The costs of license modifications and associated environmental review would be substantial. Acceptability • Federal licensing for the Nisqually Project is a costly and time consuming process. Changes to the objectives and/or operational requirements of the project could require extensive administrative action and would likely be met with strong opposition. • Coordination with the power plant owners and operators would be significant. • Changes to the existing hydroelectric facilities could effect power production. • Changes to existing infrastructure may be met with political opposition.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-23 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Table E-8. Evaluation of Measure No. 6 – By-Pass Canal Criterion Considerations • The project likely would engender substantial opposition from the Nisqually Indian Tribe and all federal and state fisheries agencies. • Increasing flow into the canal results in substantial risk of canal failure and subsequent flooding of homes in Thurston County adjacent to the canal. • Utilizing existing facilities would minimize the environmental impacts of developing new areas.
Measure No. 7: Reservoir Operations Dams are commonly used to control flood flows on river systems. Available storage behind a dam can be used to attenuate flood flows, thus reducing peak discharges, lowering flood stages, and delaying the time of the flood crest. Lower peak discharges and lower flood stages provide the benefits of decreased flood damages and reduce the risk of loss of life. Delaying the time to the flood crest provides more warning time for McKenna residents. The increased warning time provides additional benefits for reduction in loss of life and decreased damages.
Flows in the lower Nisqually River are affected by the dams of the Nisqually Hydroelectic Project. The storage capacity of Alder Lake (the reservoir behind Alder Dam) is approximately 231,000 acre-feet, which is vastly greater than the impoundment behind La Grande Dam (2,700 acre-feet). As such, Alder Dam has the most potential for regulating downstream flows.
An engineering analysis has not been made available, nor has one been performed for this memorandum to confirm or deny the adequacy of Alder Dam and Alder Lake for providing flood control. Such an analysis would not only evaluate the overall capacity of Alder Lake to attenuate flood flows, but also analyze the operations of Alder Dam with respect to the project’s objectives and requirements of the current FERC license. Even if Alder Lake has inadequate storage to prevent downstream flooding, the possibility may exist to execute minimal operational changes that could result in lowered flood stages and decreased flood damage severity, as well as provide an increase in warning time for McKenna residents. This is not to imply that the dams are not currently operated in such a manner, but at this point, the effects of operations at the dams are unknown. Such a determination would require considerable technical analyses.
Changes in operations to a hydroelectric project will have associated costs. If Tacoma Power were to see a negative economic impact as a result of a change in operations for flood control purposes, Pierce County and relevant stakeholders would most likely have to offset the cost.
Measure No. 7 is compared against planning criteria (WRC, 1983) in Table C-9.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-24 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Table E-9. Evaluation of Measure No. 7 – Reservoir Operations Criterion Considerations Completeness • The capacity of the reservoirs for flood control is not known at this point. It is likely that the dams do not control enough of the drainage area, and that the capacity of the reservoirs is not adequate to entirely mitigate flooding at McKenna. • This measure would rely on cooperation from other entities (Tacoma Power). Effectiveness • Control of flood flows using dams has a high degree of reliability; however, there is some risk of failure. Furthermore, there is potential for human error in dam operations. • Dams have an operable lifespan associated with the loss of storage due to sedimentation. Efficiency • Technical challenges related to hydrology and hydraulics as well as balancing existing dam operations with possible future flood control needs could be technically challenging. • Operating the dam to provide flood control could negatively impact power production. These losses would need to be offset. • Federal licensing for the Nisqually Project is a costly and time consuming process. Changes to the objectives and/or operational requirements of the dams could require extensive administrative action. • Potential impacts to Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed fish species would require extensive administrative action. Acceptability • Changes in operations would be met with strong opposition from Tacoma Power and other affiliated agencies. • Operation of the Alder and La Grande Dams are regulated under a FERC license, which would be difficult to alter due to opposition from numerous contributing agencies. • Pursuing changes to the current FERC license could provoke legal opposition. • Altering the operating curve of the reservoir would negatively impact Tacoma’s ability to meet its minimum flow obligations under its FERC license. These minimum flows provide secure habitat for two fish species (Fall Chinook and Steelhead) listed as “Threatened” under the ESA. • The project likely would engender substantial opposition from the Nisqually Indian Tribe and all federal and state fisheries agencies. • Operating the dam to provide flood control could negatively impact power production, and could ultimately affect power rates. Such changes would likely be met with strong opposition. • Dam operational changes could affect water levels and impact recreational activities on Alder Lake. Such changes would likely be met with strong opposition. • The impact to existing lands and infrastructure would be minimal.
Measure No. 8: Removal of Sand and Gravel from River Bed This measure would consist of excavating sand and gravel, deepening the river to increase conveyance capacity. Removal of sand and gravel deposits is highly regulated by various resource agencies. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife does not allow the County to
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-25 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
remove sediment unless it can clearly demonstrate that public facilities or the general public safety and welfare is at specific risk due to the buildup of the material. Even then, permitting and mitigation would still be required, at all jurisdictional levels, and there is no guarantee that such activity would be permitted. The current climate in doing such activities are a result of the listing of Chinook Salmon and Steelhead as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Past activities to remove gravel, which were quite common and typical in rivers in the County, has changed drastically since the listing.
If dredging were permitted, the increase in conveyance may result in a small reduction in flooding risks. High flows may still spill into the floodplain damaging structures. Also, without other measures (i.e. grade control structures or a means to reduce sediment inputs), deepening the river will be temporary. Silt and gravel will continue to aggrade until a state of equilibrium is reached. Therefore, this measure is continual and indefinite, resulting in high costs.
Additional data and analysis would need to be completed to determine:
• Upstream sediment inflow rates; • Where sediment should be removed; • River access to dredging locations; and, • Disposal of dredged material. If there is a beneficial use for the dredged material, this could offset project costs. If there is no beneficial use, however, sediment should be disposed of outside the floodplain so as not to decrease floodplain capacity. In this case, disposal could be costly.
Measure No. 8 is compared against planning criteria (WRC, 1983) in Table 10.
TABLE 10. Evaluation of Measure No. 8 – Removal of Sand and Gravel Criterion Considerations Completeness • Removal of sediment might increase channel capacity, but it is not likely that the channel capacity could be increased enough to completely eliminate flooding. • Dredging provides temporary increases in capacity. To maintain increased capacity, this measure would need to be continual and indefinite. Effectiveness • Immediately after excavation, channel capacity would be increase. As time passes, the increased capacity would be diminished as the channel aggrades. Efficiency • Would require long-term maintenance, continual sediment removal. • Dredging would be costly and provide temporary benefits. Acceptability • Removal of bed sediments will cause a dramatic disturbance to aquatic habitat. • The project likely would engender substantial opposition from the Nisqually Indian Tribe and all federal and state fisheries agencies. Opposition could result in legal challenges. • Suspension and downstream transport of sediment could impact downstream reaches. • If dredging was a historic practice, when there were fewer flooding impacts, some
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-26 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
communities may support it. • There are no environmental benefits associated with this measure. • This measure would not create adverse impacts in Thurston County. • This measure does not require any changes to dam operations.
RECOMMENDATIONS The preliminary evaluation of each flood mitigation measure presented in the previous section provides a number of considerations to use in formulating project alternatives. A measure could be viewed as a stand-alone alternative for a flood mitigation project, but would more likely be implemented in conjunction with other measures to create a project alternative that more completely achieves the flood mitigation objective. The following paragraphs summarize the preliminary evaluation and provide a general guideline for developing viable project alternatives.
Recommendations for Flood Mitigation “No Action” is probably not a viable option because it does little to achieve the objective of flood mitigation. However, it is important to include a no-action alternative in flood mitigation planning because it provides a baseline for comparing costs and benefits (a “no action” alternative has no costs and no benefits).
Developing an improved flood warning and emergency response system specifically for the Nisqually River and the McKenna area would provide considerable benefits with regard to public safety, and may even allow some protection for property damages. The measure is highly adaptable and can be implemented in conjunction with any other measures. Furthermore, most improvements to the flood warning and emergency response system could be executed relatively quickly, and be in place well before other mitigation measures that may follow. Flood warning and emergency response measures are not likely to meet opposition; and although they require the cooperation of several other entities, many of the resources are already in place.
Acquisition of flood-prone properties is the most effective method for reducing flood risk because people and improved property would be completely removed from the flood hazard zone. Acquisition is not likely to meet opposition from outside entities such as Thurston County or the Nisqually Tribe; however, there could be some opposition from residents who do not want to sell or move.
Elevating is also a viable method of reducing flood risk, although it is somewhat less effective than property acquisition. Elevating structures becomes more costly as floodwaters become deeper and the elevation level increases. Furthermore, elevating structures is allowed only in the flood fringe; the DFF floodway needs to be mapped for McKenna to delineate those areas where elevating structures will be allowed. As such, elevating structures is not likely to be a stand- alone alternative for flood mitigation. However, elevating structures could be used in
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-27 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
conjunction with property acquisition, which may provide a more complete and cost-effective alternative.
A structural alternative such as a levee is an effective means for providing flood protection. However, there is residual risk for areas protected by a levee because there is always some risk of levee failure. The greatest disadvantages to constructing a levee are the potential negative impacts to riparian/wetland habitat and the potential adverse impacts to other areas caused by the reduction in floodplain storage. These impacts would likely require mitigation offsets (e.g., offsite wetland restoration and compensatory storage), which could be costly and difficult to permit. Furthermore, these negative impacts will likely engender opposition from outside entities such as Thurston County and the Nisqually Tribe. Construction of a levee around the existing State Route 507 bridge could also be costly.
An alternative that includes mitigation measures involving one or more of the existing dams on the Nisqually River will likely be difficult to implement. Centralia Canal is not likely to provide enough flow-carrying capacity to significantly reduce flood flows, even if it was implemented in conjunction with other measures. Even if sufficient flood storage could be made available behind Alder Dam, any changes to dam operations will likely be met with strong opposition from outside entities such as Tacoma Power and the Nisqually Tribe. Furthermore, changes to the FERC licenses currently in effect for these dams would be time consuming, costly, and legally challenging.
In summary, flood mitigation project alternatives should include improvements for flood warning and emergency response, as well as some combination of property acquisition and elevating structures. Formulated alternatives should then be analyzed as part of a complete feasibility study including a benefit-cost analysis. Accordingly, the following section discusses recommendations for further studies and subsequent actions by the County, which will be included as elements of the Nisqually River Basin Plan. If the County decides to pursue flood mitigation project alternatives involving levees or changes to dam operations, then the Basin Plan could be amended to include additional relevant studies (e.g., geotechnical investigations, reservoir operations study, negotiations with Tacoma Power).
Recommendations for Further Studies and Actions The following sections are specific recommendations for further studies and actions to be included as elements in the Nisqually River Basin Plan. These recommendations are based on the findings of the preliminary evaluation of flood mitigation measures presented in Section 3 and summarized in Section 4.1.
Perform Alternatives Analysis and Initiate Community and Stakeholder Involvement An analysis of complete flood mitigation alternatives should be performed to identify a preferred alternative. The analysis is dependent on an updated hydrologic study (see recommendation in
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-28 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Section 4.2.2), and revised flood hazard mapping (see recommendation in Section 4.2.3), as well as the determination of flood-prone structures (see recommendation in Section 4.2.4). Once these data have been collected project alternatives can be compared and evaluated. A benefit- cost analysis (BCA) should be performed in accordance with FEMA guidelines for application for disaster mitigation. FEMA provides a suite of software to assist with BCA analyses called the Mitigation BCA Toolkit. Additional analyses will need to be performed including estimation of potential flood losses, as well as estimation of costs associated with project implementation. Benefit-cost ratios should be developed for each project alternative including a “no action” alternative. Based on the benefit-cost comparison, a preferred alternative should be selected.
Community and stakeholder involvement is crucial to the success of a flood mitigation project, and should be initiated during early planning stages. Involving residents throughout the planning process maintains active communication, provides an understanding of the needs of the community, and garners support for the proposed project. Similarly, involving relevant stakeholders in the planning process facilitates interagency cooperation, and helps to develop multi-objective planning.
The County should conduct a series of community workshops to provide continual updates regarding the planning status. Workshops could be used to:
• Present the results of the preliminary evaluation of flood mitigation measures and discuss the upcoming planning process. • Present the results of updated flood hazard mapping studies and discuss the implications. • Discuss the formulation of project alternatives, their relative costs, benefits achieved, and the potential funding options. • Assess the public sentiment, obtain feedback, and gauge interest for voluntary participation. • Educate the public and relevant stakeholders about the existing flood hazards and increase awareness and preparedness.
An effective buyout program for property acquisition is dependent on residents’ willingness to sell their property and relocate. The County should develop a questionnaire and conduct a survey of McKenna area residents to assess interest in a buyout program. The survey should be conducted after a community workshop has been held to explain how and why a buyout program is being considered. The questionnaire could be used to collect information that will be useful in coordinating a buyout program by helping to establish qualifications and prioritization criteria for determining who will be offered a buyout.
As necessary, the County should conduct meetings with relevant stakeholders and regulatory agencies to ensure cooperation and support. Three key stakeholders include Thurston County, the Nisqually Tribe, and the Pierce County Department of Emergency Management.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-29 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Update Nisqually River Hydrology Existing flood flow frequency data for the Nisqually River is based on the 1987 FEMA study. Since this study, over 20 years of additional stream flow data have been collected. In addition, several large flooding events have occurred on the Nisqually River over the past 20 years including the 1996 flood, which was substantially larger than anything on record. An updated hydrologic study of the Nisqually River should be conducted to estimate a new set of flood flow frequency data.
There are various methods for conducting hydrologic analyses. Specific objectives should be defined for the study before determining the most appropriate methodology. The primary objective for use in flood mitigation is to develop new flood flow frequency data for the area of interest. Although the recommendation for updated hydrology was prompted by a need for updated data at McKenna, the scope of the analyses will encompass the lower portion Nisqually River (below La Grande Dam) because of the potential need for flood hazard mapping at other locations.
All relevant hydrologic analyses from previous studies should be collected and reviewed, particularly those studies completed by FEMA or USGS. In addition, historical stream flow data should be obtained from available gauge records (TIM No. 3 provides an assessment of available gauge data).
Relevant gauge data should be used to compile a continuous series of annual maximum instantaneous peak discharges at each of two primary gauge sites: 1) just downstream of La Grande Dam, and 2) near McKenna. Discharge-frequency analyses should be conducted in accordance with Bulletin 17B Guidelines (Interagency Advisory Committee, 1982), which could be performed using public domain software such as HEC-SSP or USGS PeakFQ. Bulletin 17B methodology is used to fit logarithms of annual peak discharges to a Pearson Type III distribution. This method includes options for improving the estimates using a regional skew coefficient, weighing stations and generalized skew to reflect relative gauge accuracy, and adjustments for outliers and gaps in records. Results are used to estimate the magnitude of flood discharges for various recurrence intervals (annual probabilities). Flood flow frequency data could be interpolated between the two primary gauge sites, weighted by the contributing drainage area.
Because flows downstream of La Grande Dam are influence by La Grande Dam and Alder Dam, a flood flow frequency analysis would be limited to gauge records subsequent to February 1945 (when the new La Grande Dam was completed). The analyses would assume that operations at the dams have remained constant and will not change in the future. Accounting for changes in dam operations would require more detailed hydrologic analyses, and would require additional data such as stage-storage information for the reservoirs, gate/spillway dimensions, operating rules, and mean daily flow data.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-30 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Update Flood Hazard Mapping Once updated hydrology has been completed for the lower Nisqually River, flood hazard mapping can be updated. In addition to utilizing updated discharge-frequency data, an updated flood hazard mapping analysis can incorporate new topographic data and more-detailed hydraulic analyses. The study could focus on the reach of the Nisqually River adjacent to McKenna, or it could be expanded to include a much larger reach if updated flood mapping was needed in other areas.
A ground survey should be conducted to obtain cross-sections within the main channel of the Nisqually River along the length of the reach to be studied (including points along the channel bottom below the water surface). In addition, the locations and elevations of key hydraulic features (e.g., bridge crossings, grade breaks, roadway crowns) should be surveyed. These data can be combined with LiDAR2 data covering the floodplain to create a single terrain model representing the existing channel and floodplain geometry. Integration and processing of the topographic data can be performed using geographic information systems (GIS).
Additional data for bridges or other structures that may affect river hydraulics need to be collected to estimate the dimensions of those structures. The most likely means for obtaining this information is requesting design drawings or as-built drawings from the owner of the structure. For example, the Washington Department of Transportation should have as-built drawings for the State Route 507 bridge in McKenna. In the absence of detailed data for a particular structure, field observations can be made to approximate relevant dimensions. In addition, a site visit should be conducted to observe channel and floodplain roughness, hydraulic structures, and historical high-water marks.
A hydraulic model of the Nisqually River study reach should be developed using a software package such as the HEC-RAS program developed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Topographic data and hydraulic structures data should be used to develop geometric input data. Cross-sections can be extracted from the GIS-based terrain model. Bridge and hydraulic structure dimensions can be taken from design/as-built drawings or from field observations.
Once the geometric input data have been developed, calibration can be performed based on historical water surface observations. For example, high water marks were observed during the flooding that occurred in the 1996 flood event. The estimated peak discharge from the 1996 event can be input into the model and the roughness parameters can be adjusted to achieve a water surface elevation approximately equal to the observed elevation.
2 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) is a method of collecting elevation data and developing terrain models. The County has recently obtained such data in cooperation with the Puget Sound LiDAR consortium, and it is assumed that these data will be made available in a format useful for flood analyses.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-31 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
After the model is calibrated, flood flow frequency data can be input as peak discharges for use in a series of steady-state hydraulic simulations. The results will provide hydraulic profiles along the study reach, including flow velocities, depths, and water surface elevations. These results can be exported to GIS, overlaid onto the terrain model, and used to delineate inundation areas for the study reach. The updated delineation for the base (100-year) flood can be used, along with depth and velocity data to map new flood hazard zones (i.e., DFF floodway and flood fringe).
Modeling should be conducted in accordance with FEMA standards for flood hazard mapping. The analyses should then be used to apply for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), which is required to change the effective FIRM maps used by FEMA to determine flood insurance rates. A LOMR application for the Nisqually River will require a cooperative effort between the floodplain coordinators at Pierce County and Thurston County.
Complete Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) Study Pierce County Code requires that the Nisqually River channel migration zones (CMZ) be regulated as floodways. A CMZ study for the upper Nisqually River was completed, but a study of the lower Nisqually River has not been completed. A CMZ study, similar to the one conducted on the upper Nisqually River, should be conducted on the lower Nisqually River from the Nisqually Estuary to La Grande Dam. Based on the study completed for the Upper Nisqually the study should include: • Data will be collected and reviewed including historical aerial photographs. • GIS mapping tools will be used to overlay and analyze spatial data. • A geomorphic evaluation will be conducted including site verification. • Geologic and hydrologic analyses will be completed. • Severe and moderate channel migration zones will be delineated. Survey Structures – Elevation Certificates Elevation data should be collected for all of the structures identified to be within the updated flood hazard area. These data will not only be useful for identifying at-risk structures for flood damage assessments, but also fulfill FEMA requirements for elevation certificates. Surveyors would need to obtain right-of-entry for all properties to be assessed.
FEMA has developed an administrative tool referred to as an elevation certificate, which is a document containing information about a structure that can be used by FEMA to make flood insurance rate determinations. These certificates are required for all new development within a designated SFHA, and maintaining a file of these certificates is a component of the Community Rating System (CRS). Data required on an elevation certificate include:
• Top of bottom floor
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-32 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
• Top of next higher floor • Lowest adjacent grade (LAG) • Highest Adjacent Grade (HAG) • Elevation of a basement or crawl space • Number and area of openings below the base flood elevation
It is also important to determine whether a structure is pre-FIRM or post-FIRM. This can be confirmed by comparing the date the structure was built with the date the first effective FIRM was published for the community.
Elevation certificates already on file at the County should be collected and reviewed. Following the review, new elevation certificates should be completed for each structure within the flood hazard zone that does not have an elevation certificate, or if the existing certificate is deficient.
Project Funding Project funding should be considered early in the planning process to ensure that appropriate steps are followed to qualify for assistance, and because funding constraints may influence project formulation. The following are some funding options that should be considered:
• FEMA – Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP): HMGP funds are available following a Presidentially-declared disaster. Funds are made available to local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures. These funds will only be made available immediately following a Presidentially-declared disaster. • FEMA – Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program: The FMA Program provides funds to communities for measures that reduce or eliminate long-term flood risk for damage to buildings, manufactures homes, and other structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Grants are provided for mitigation planning and projects were the objective is to reduce claims under the NFIP. • FEMA – Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program: The PDM Program assists local governments with disaster mitigation activities that compliment a comprehensive mitigation program. The goal is to raise awareness and reduce the risk of losses before disaster strikes. Communities must have FEMA-approved mitigation plans in order to be eligible. • FEMA – Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) Grant Program: The RFC Grant Program is designed to reduce or eliminate long-term risk of flood damage to structures insured under the NFIP that have had one or more claims. RFC funds may only be used to mitigate structures in communities that cannot meet the requirements of the FMA Program.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-33 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
• FEMA – Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) Pilot Program: The SRL Pilot Program provides funds to assist communities in reducing or eliminating long-term flood risk to severe repetitive loss properties. A severe repetitive loss property is defined as a residential property currently insured under the NFIP, and has incurred flood losses that resulted in either: 1. Four or more flood insurance claims that exceeded $5,000 with at least two or more of these payments occurring within a 10-year period, or
2. Two or more flood insurance claims that have cumulatively exceeded the value of the property.
• State of Washington – Flood Control Account Assistance Program (FCAAP): The Department of Ecology (Ecology) provides assistance through matching grants for the preparation of comprehensive flood management plans, for flood control maintenance projects and studies, as well as for emergency flood-related projects. • United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) – Section 205: Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act provides authority to the Corps of Engineers to plan and construct small flood damage reduction projects that have not been specifically authorized by congress. A project must show through detailed investigation that it is technically feasible, environmentally acceptable, and economically justifiable. Projects must be complete, and cannot be components of larger projects. The maximum federal expenditure per project is $7 million, which includes both planning and construction costs. • Congressional Lobbying Efforts to obtain Federal and/or State Funding. • Contributions from the private sector.
REFERENCES J.B. Balocki and S.J. Burges. 1994. Relationships Between n-Day Flood Volumes for Infrequent Large Floods. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 6, pp 794-818. Department of Emergency Management (DEM). 2007. List of Presidentially Declared Disasters in Pierce County. Pierce County Department of Emergency Management, Mitigation and Recovery Division, 2501 South 35th Street, Tacoma, WA 98409. Available at URL: “http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/PC/abtus/ourorg/dem/abtusdem.htm” Dixon, Dennis. August 2006a. Maps of McKenna 1996 Flooding. Pierce County Public Utilities, Surface Water Management, 9850 - 64th Street West, University Place, WA 98467-1078.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-34 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION FOR FLOOD MITIGATION AT MCKENNA NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Dixon, Dennis. August 2006b. McKenna Area Highlighted 79 Parcels in Apparent DDF Floodway. Pierce County Public Utilities, Surface Water Management, 9850 - 64th Street West, University Place, WA 98467-1078. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). August 1987. Flood Insurance Study, Pierce County, Washington, Unincorporated Areas, Vol. 1 and 2. Community Number 530138. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). April 2003. Developing the Mitigation Plan, Identifying Mitigation Actions and Implementation Strategies. State and Local Mitigation Planning How-to Guide, FEMA 386-3. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. Golder Associates, Inc. (Golder). October 2003. Nisqually Watershed Management Plan. Prepared for the Nisqually Indian Tribe and WRIA 11 Planning Unit. Golder Associates, Inc. Redmond, Washington. Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1982, Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency, Bulletin 17B of the Hydrology Subcommittee. Office of Water Data Coordination, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA., National Weather Service (NWS). Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service, Nisqually River at McKenna. Obtained from the following URL in August of 2007: http://ahps2.wrh.noaa.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=sew&gage=mknw1&view=1,1,1, 1,1,1,1,1 Nisqually River Task Force. June 1987. Nisqually River Management Plan. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA 98504. Available at URL: “http://www.nisquallyriver.org/plan.html.” Pierce County. 2004. Pierce County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Pierce County Department of Emergency Management, Mitigation and Recovery Division, 2501 South 35th Street, Tacoma, WA 98409 Thurston County. January 1998. Thurston County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Thurston County Division of Emergency Management, Thurston County, Washington. Obtained at URL: http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/em/cemp.htm Water Resources Council (WRC). March 1983. Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Resources Implementations Studies. United States Water Resources Council.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities E-35 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division
PATH AND FILE NAME: P:\132483 Nisqually Phase 2\GIS\MXD\McKenna_Fig03.mxd PROJECT NUMBER: 132483 DRAWN BY: NHF DATA REFERENCE(S): Department of Natural Recources (hydrography) PHASE / TASK: 003.300 CHECKED BY: --- Puyallup Bonney Lake Buckley Lakewood South Prairie PIERCE Dupont Levees owned COUNTY by Nisqually Tribe (removed) Orting Wilkeson Carbonado RM 5 q
RM 10 Bank Protection Centralia and Flood Control Powerhouse Roy Modifications *# Centralia Whitewater Estates Canal McKenna Remnants of Levee RM 25 McKenna near Kernahan Road Study Area *#
Ni Eatonville Bank Protection RM 30 squ ally River Centralia RM 40 Diversion Dam *#
LEGEND *# Lake Alder Levees Elbe Unincorporated Communities La Grande Dam National Ashford Park Entrance RM 75 Nisqually River Watershed RM 55 RM 60 Alder Dam RM 70 *# Hydroelectric Project Features Nisqually River (with River Miles)
FIGURE 3 NISQUALLY RIVER MODIFICATIONS Levee/Bank Armoring NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN Levee near Park Entrance McKenna Analysis MILES (owned and maintained 6 3 0 6 by Pierce County)
1 inch equals 6.005433 miles
UPPER NISQUALLY RIVER (NATIONAL, ALDER) 50,000 USGS Gauge 12084000 40,000 12084000 12082500
RGE (CFS) 12082500 A 30,000 20,000
K DISCH 10,000 A
PE 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEAR
NISQUALLY RIVER AT LA GRANDE 50,000 USGS Gauge New La Grande and Alder 12086500 Dams Completed in 1945 12086500 40,000 Original La Grande Dam Completed in 1912 RGE (CFS)
A 30,000 20,000
K DISCH 10,000 A
PE 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEAR
NISQUALLY RIVER AT MCKENNA 50,000 USGS Gauge New La Grande and Alder 12088400 40,000 Original La Grande Dam Dams Completed in 1945 12088400 Completed in 1912 12089500 30,000 12089500 20,000 10,000
PEAK DISCHARGE(CFS) 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 YEAR
FIGURE 6. Annual Peak Discharges Recorded at the Nisqually River Gauges
Figure 7. Flood Profiles for the Nisqually River Near McKenna (FEMA, 1987)
Figure 8. Relevant Sections of the FEMA FIRM Panels at McKenna
STAGE VERSUS DISCHARGE Peak Annual Flows at McKenna Gauge - USGS #12089500 18
16
14
12
10
8 River Stage (ft) 6
4
2
0 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Discharge (cfs)
Figure 10. River Stages versus Peak Discharges for the Peak Annual Flow Data at McKenna Gauge No. 12089500
Figure 11. Inundated Area (shaded blue) from Flood in February 1996 (Dixon, 2006a)
VOLUME 2 - APPENDICES NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
APPENDIX F Lake Survey Results
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
APPENDIX F LAKE SURVEY RESULTS
OBJECTIVE
The Nisqually Basin within Pierce County encompasses more than 15 lakes. The Nisqually Basin Characterization Report noted that much of the development within the basin planning area is concentrated around the lakes. Based on the available information, the report identified water quality and flooding problems at several lakes. However, the report noted that little information was available for many of the lakes. To help address this data gap, Phase II of the Nisqually Basin planning project included a public survey that focused on lake shore property owners. Brown and Caldwell (BC) and Surface Water Management developed a questionnaire and sent it to nearly 800 lakeshore property owners. This memorandum describes how the survey was conducted and summarizes the key findings. SURVEY AREA
BC queried the Pierce County tax parcel database to identify all owners of property near the lakes shown in Figure F-1 and listed below. Alder Lake Ohop Lake Clear Lake Rapjohn Lake Cranberry Silver Lake Harts Lake Tanwax Lake Kreger Lake Trout Lake Lake Serene Tule Lake Lake Twenty-Seven Twin Lakes Mud Lake Whitman Lake The database query identified owners of property within 200 feet of each lake. The query also included properties within 200 feet of designated floodplain areas around the lakes. Parcels were included even if only a small portion of the parcel was within the 200-foot buffer around the lake or its floodplain. Parcels owned by the County or public utilities were removed, resulting in a mailing list with 782 addresses.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities F-1 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Figure F-1. Lakes Included in Nisqually Basin Plan Survey
QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT, DISTRIBUTION, AND RESPONSE
BC and Surface Water Management developed a questionnaire that asked for input on the following issues: • Lake access and use • Lake water level control • Flooding • Fish populations • Algae blooms • Aquatic weeds • Water quality • Fertilizer and lake habitat
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities F-2 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
• Septic systems • Lake management groups • Willingness to pay for lake management actions • Other problems and issues Attachment 1 to this TIM contains a copy of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was mailed to the 782 property owners identified through the GIS query described above. As of 8/13/07, the County had received 103 responses. Table F-1 shows number of responses for each lake.
Table F-1. Number of Responses Lake Responses Alder Lake 7 Clear Lake 15 Cranberry 0 Harts Lake 6 Kreger Lake 0 Lake Serene 3 Lake Twenty-Seven 2 Mud Lake 0 Ohop Lake 27 Rapjohn Lake 1 Silver Lake 5 Tanwax Lake 13 Trout Lake 0 Tule Lake 0 Twin Lakes 6 Whitman Lake 8 Lake Not Identified 10 Total Responses 103 Total Sent out 782 Percent 13.2
As shown in Table F-1, approximately 13 percent of the questionnaires were filled out and sent back to Surface Water Management. No responses were received from residents near Cranberry Lake, Kreger Lake, Mud Lake, Trout Lake, and Tule Lake. Ten of the responses did not identify a specific lake or provide contact information, so the information contained in these responses could not be assigned to a specific lake.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities F-3 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
OVERVIEW OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
Public Access and Use
All of the lakes for which responses were received have public access except for Lake Serene, Lake Twenty-Seven and Twin Lakes (Table F-2). All lakes are used for boating, swimming and fishing. In addition, Clear Lake, Harts Lake, and Silver Lake are used for irrigation. Harts Lake is used for irrigation of Wilcox Farms dairy. No commercial ventures were identified on any lake.
Table F-2. Questionnaire Results Summary - Public Access and Use Public Access Uses
Lake Boat Ramp Dock Public Park Beach None Boating/ Waterskiing Swimming Fishing Irrigation Other Commercial Ventures Alder Lake x x x x x x x Clear Lake x x x x x x Harts Lake x x x x x x x Lake Serene x x x Lake Twenty-Seven x x x Ohop Lake x x x x Rapjohn Lake x Silver Lake x x x x x Tanwax Lake x x x x x x x Twin Lakes x x x x Whitman Lake x x x x
* No responses were received for Cranberry Lake, Kreger Lake, Mud Lake, Trout Lake, and Tule Lake
Problems Identified by Survey
Respondents were asked to describe problems concerning flooding, fish populations, algae blooms, aquatic weeds, and water quality. Problems identified by survey respondents are listed in Table F-3.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities F-4 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Table F-3. Questionnaire Results Summary - Problems
Problems
Lake Flooding Fish Kills Blooms Algae Aquatic Weeds Water Quality Alder Lake x x x x Clear Lake x x x x x Harts Lake x x x x x Lake Serene x x x x x Lake Twenty-Seven Ohop Lake x x x x x Rapjohn Lake Silver Lake x x x x Tanwax Lake x x x x x Twin Lakes x x x x Whitman Lake x x x x x * No responses were received for Cranberry Lake, Kreger Lake, Mud Lake, Trout Lake, and Tule Lake
The Lake Summary Results section below contains more detailed discussions of the information received for each lake.
Lake Management Community Groups
Of the 103 survey respondents, 45 percent indicated that they contribute to a lake management community group and 23 percent indicated that they would be interested in becoming involved in a new community group that address issues in the lake. Figure F-2 summarizes the responses regarding willingness to pay for new lake management activities.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities F-5 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
35
30
25
20
15 Respondents
10
5
0 None $10 to $100/yr $100 to $500/yr $500 to $1,000/yr More than $1,000/yr
Figure F-2. Amount respondents would be willing to pay for new lake management measures.
LAKE SUMMARY RESULTS
This section describes each lake and provides a discussion of questionnaire results for each lake. No responses were received for Cranberry Lake, Kreger Lake, Mud Lake, Trout Lake and Tule Lake. Also, ten responses did not provide identification as to which lake they are associated with, and results were unable to be used. Problems identified are based only on questionnaire results.
Alder Lake
The GIS query identified 61 parcels within the 200-foot buffer of Alder Lake. Questionnaires were sent to the owners of these parcels. Seven responses were received, for a response rate of approximately 11 percent.
Public Access and Uses
Alder Lake is accessible to the public from a boat ramp, public dock, park, and beach. The lake is used for boating/waterskiing, swimming, and fishing. Reported Problems
The following problems were identified by the seven survey respondents: for Alder Lake. • Flooding - One respondent reported flooding several times per year, following multiple consecutive storms in the fall and winter. Flooding was rated as somewhat important or least important by five of the seven responses. The lake water level is controlled by a dam owned and operated by Tacoma Power. Lake water level fluctuates about 10-30 feet per year.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities F-6 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
• Fish Kills - One respondent observed occasional dead fish. Fish health was rated as very important by six of the seven respondents. • Algae Blooms - One respondent reported areas of cloudy blue-green water in warm summer months, and 4 respondents reported no algae blooms; clear water. None were aware of notifications of toxic algae blooms for this lake. Importance rankings vary. • Aquatic Weeds - One respondent reported dense water weeds that interfere with use of the lake increasing over the past 15 years. Most reported low water weeds that did not interfere with use of the lake, and that weed growth has stayed the same over the past 15 years. Importance rankings vary. • Other Comments: Two respondents were concerned that the lake has not been kept at full level as required by the permit in the summer months, and feel that City of Tacoma water level management does not support boating recreation during spring and summer, as the lake level is too low. Lake Management Issues
• Fertilizer and Lakeshore Habitat: One respondent applies chemical fertilizer once a year in the late spring; the other six do not use fertilizer. All responses indicated shoreline is natural vegetation. Three of seven respondents would consider planting native vegetation along the lakefront to protect and improve water quality. • Septic Systems: Five of the seven responses indicated a septic system on the property. Four have septic systems pumped every 3-5 years, 1 is pumped every 6-10 years. Septic systems range from 10 to 20+ years old, and are in good condition. • Lake Management Community Groups:
o Existing Groups: One of the seven respondents is involved in a community lake management group (contact info was not provided).
o Interest in becoming involved in a group: One respondent is interested in becoming involved in a community lake management group.
o Amount willing to contribute: Two of the seven respondents are willing to pay $10 to $100 per year for new lake management measures.
Clear Lake
The GIS query identified 111 parcels within the 200-foot buffer around Clear Lake. Questionnaires were sent to the owners of these parcels. Fifteen responses were received, for a response rate of approximately 14 percent.
Public Access and Uses
Clear Lake is accessible to the public from a boat ramp and public dock. The lake is used for boating/waterskiing, swimming, fishing, and irrigation.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities F-7 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN Reported Problems
The following problems were identified by the fifteen survey respondents for Clear Lake: • Flooding - Flooding was observed by six of fifteen respondents, who reported flooding of landscaped areas, docks and boatsheds, once a year in the fall and winter. Twelve of the fifteen respondents ranked flooding as somewhat important or least important. The lake water level is controlled by an outlet structure operated/maintained by the Clear Lake Community Club. Lake water level fluctuates up to 6 feet per year. • Fish Kills – Of the fifteen respondents, two respondents observed occasional fish kills, and three respondents observed massive fish kills. Importance rankings vary. • Algae Blooms – All respondents reported at least one of the following conditions: Lake looks green, areas of cloudy blue-green water, or surface scum. These conditions were reported in cool winter months, after wet/rainy periods. Fourteen respondents were aware of notifications of toxic algae blooms posted by the Heath Department for this lake. All respondents ranked algae blooms as a very important or important issue. • Aquatic Weeds - Five of the fifteen respondents reported dense water weeds that interfere with use of the lake. Most reported low water weeds that did not interfere with use of the lake. Observations of weed growth increases/decrease vary. Importance rankings vary. • Water Quality - Eight of the fifteen respondents reported water quality issues: Cloudy water, manure/animal waste, or pets sick after drinking. Water quality was ranked very important by fourteen of the fifteen respondents. • Other Comments: One survey respondent was concerned that recreational boats are discharging oil and gas in the lake. Two survey respondents were concerned about flooding from ditches next to the road. Lake Management Issues
• Fertilizer and Lakeshore Habitat: Eleven respondents do not use fertilizer, two use organic fertilizer, and two use both organic and chemical fertilizer. Those who use fertilizer apply it once or twice a year in the spring or fall. Shoreline vegetation varies. Seven of fifteen respondents might consider planting native vegetation along the lakefront to protect and improve water quality. • Septic Systems: Fourteen of the 15 respondents indicated a septic system on the property. Frequency of pumping and age of septic system vary, but all are in good condition. • Lake Management Community Groups:
o Existing Groups: All of the respondents are involved in a community lake management group, the Clear Lake Community Club. Contact info: Don Guthrie, President - 360-832-3175
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities F-8 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
o Interest in becoming involved in a group: Three respondents are interested in becoming involved in a new community lake management group.
o Amount willing to contribute: One respondent is willing to pay $100 to $500 per year, and five respondents are willing to pay $10 to $100 per year for new lake management measures.
Harts Lake
The GIS query identified 38 parcels within the 200-foot buffer of Harts Lake. Questionnaires were sent to the owners of these parcels. Six responses were received, for a response rate of approximately 16 percent.
Public Access and Uses
Harts Lake is accessible to the public from a boat ramp, park and beach and public dock. The lake is used for boating/waterskiing, swimming, fishing, and irrigation. Harts Lake is used for irrigation by Wilcox Farms dairy. Reported Problems
The following problems were identified by the six survey respondents: • Flooding - Flooding was observed by two of six respondents, who reported flooding of residential structures, landscaped areas, docks and boatsheds, once a year, in the spring and winter. Importance rankings vary. The lake water level is controlled by an outlet, operated/maintained by Wilcox Farms. Lake water level fluctuates about 2-6 feet per year. • Fish Kills – Three of the six respondents observed occasional fish kills. Importance rankings vary. • Algae Blooms – Three of the six respondents observed signs of algae blooms. Conditions were reported in warm summer months, after sunny/dry periods. Two respondents were aware of notifications of toxic algae blooms posted by the Heath Department for this lake. Importance rankings vary. • Aquatic Weeds – Three of the six respondents reported moderate to dense water weeds that interfere with use of the lake. Observations of weed growth increases/decrease vary. Importance rankings vary. • Water Quality - Two of the six respondents reported cloudy water and manure/animal waste. Importance rankings vary. • Other Comments: Other concerns include trash in the lake from hunters/fisherman, and cattle grazing near the lake.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities F-9 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN Lake Management Issues
• Fertilizer and Lakeshore Habitat: Two respondents do not use fertilizer, one uses organic fertilizer, and one uses chemical fertilizer. Those who use fertilizer apply it once a year in the late spring. Four respondents have natural vegetation on the shoreline, and two have bulkheads. Three of six respondents might consider planting native vegetation along the lakefront to protect and improve water quality. • Septic Systems: Four of the six respondents indicated a septic system on the property. Frequency of pumping and age of septic system vary, but all are in good condition. • Lake Management Community Groups:
o Existing Groups: One of the respondents is involved in a community lake management group, the Hartwood Community Association (contact information was not provided).
o Interest in becoming involved in a group: Four respondents are interested in becoming involved in a new community lake management group.
o Amount willing to contribute: One respondent is willing to pay $500 to $1000 per year, one is willing to pay $100 to $500 per year, and one is willing to pay $10 to $100 per year for new lake management measures.
Lake Serene
The GIS query identified 48 parcels within the 200-foot buffer of Lake Serene. Questionnaires were sent to the owners of these parcels. Three responses were received, for a response rate of approximately 6 percent.
Public Access and Uses
Lake Serene is not accessible to the public. The lake is used for swimming and fishing. Reported Problems
The following problems were identified by the three survey respondents: • Flooding - Flooding was observed by one of the three respondents, who reported flooding of landscaped areas, less than once every three years, in the winter. Flooding was rated not important by all respondents. The lake water level is controlled by an outlet, and it respondents did not know who operated/maintained the outlet. Lake water level fluctuates about 0-6 feet per year. • Fish Kills – Two of the three respondents observed occasional fish kills. Fish health was rated as very important by all three respondents. • Algae Blooms – All three respondents reported signs of algae blooms. Conditions were reported in warm summer months. None of the respondents were aware of
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities F-10 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN notifications of toxic algae blooms posted for this lake. All three respondents ranked algae blooms as very important. • Aquatic Weeds – All three respondents reported moderate to dense water weeds that interfere with use of the lake, and that weed growth has increased over the past fifteen years. One respondent elaborated to say that even though someone is contracted to spray weeds 2-3 times a year, weeds are thicker and start growth earlier year after year. All three respondents ranked aquatic weeds as very important. • Water Quality - All three respondents reported cloudy water every year. All three respondents ranked water quality as very important. • Other Comments: One respondent was concerned about a heavy migratory bird population, and about leaning or dead trees along the shoreline that might be dangerous. Another respondent indicated that the County has lowered the lake to the level it was in 1970 and that this has caused lake water quality to decline. Lake Management Issues
• Fertilizer and Lakeshore Habitat: One respondent does not use fertilizer, one uses organic fertilizer, and one uses chemical fertilizer. The organic fertilizer is applied once a year in the early spring, and the chemical fertilizer is applied four times a year, throughout the year. Those who use fertilizer apply it once a year in the late spring. All respondents indicated shoreline is natural vegetation. Two of three respondents might consider planting native vegetation along the lakefront to protect and improve water quality. • Septic Systems: All three respondents indicated a septic system on their property. Frequency of pumping and age of septic system vary, but all are in good condition. • Lake Management Community Groups:
o Existing Groups: All three of the respondents are involved in the Lake Serene Homeowners Association, PO Box 698, Roy, WA.
o Amount willing to contribute: One respondent is willing to pay $500 to $1000 per year, and two are $10 to $100 per year for new lake management measures.
Lake Twenty-Seven
The GIS query identified eleven parcels within the 200-foot buffer of Lake Twenty-Seven. Questionnaires were sent to the owners of these parcels. Two responses were received, for a response rate of approximately 18 percent.
Public Access and Uses
Lake Twenty-Seven is not accessible to the public. The lake is used for swimming and fishing.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities F-11 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN Reported Problems
No problems were reported by the two respondents. Lake Management Issues
• Fertilizer and Lakeshore Habitat: Both respondents use organic fertilizer, applying it once a year in the early spring. Both respondents indicated shoreline is natural vegetation. One of the two respondents would consider planting native vegetation along the lakefront to protect and improve water quality. • Septic Systems: Both respondents indicated a septic system on the property. Frequency of pumping and age of septic system vary, but both are in good condition. • Lake Management Community Groups:
o Existing Groups: One respondent is involved in a lake management community group (no contact info provided).
o Interest in becoming involved in a group: Neither respondent is interested in becoming involved in a new community lake management group.
o Amount willing to contribute: Neither respondent is willing to pay for new lake management measures.
Ohop Lake
The GIS query identified 199 parcels within the 200-foot buffer of Ohop Lake. Questionnaires were sent to the owners of these parcels. Twenty-seven responses were received, for a response rate of approximately 14 percent.
Public Access and Uses
Ohop Lake is accessible to the public from a boat ramp. The lake is used for boating/waterskiing, swimming, and fishing. Reported Problems
The following problems were identified by the 27 survey respondents: • Flooding - Flooding was observed by 22 of the 27 respondents, who reported flooding of residential structures, landscaped areas, docks and boatsheds, several times per year, all year round. Importance rankings vary. The lake water level is controlled by a weir operated/maintained by the Ohop Lake Improvement Club. Lake water level fluctuates about 0-6 feet per year. • Fish Kills – Nine of the 27 respondents observed occasional fish kills. Importance rankings vary. • Algae Blooms – Twenty-four of the 27 respondents observed signs of algae blooms. Conditions were reported in warm summer months, after sunny/dry periods. Three
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities F-12 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN respondents were aware of notifications of toxic algae blooms posted by the Heath Department for this lake. Importance rankings vary. • Aquatic Weeds – Twenty-four of the 27 respondents reported low to moderate water weeds that do not interfere with use of the lake. One reported dense water weeds. Three reported interference with lake use. Observations of weed growth increases/decrease vary. Importance rankings vary. • Water Quality - Eleven of the 27 respondents reported cloudy water, two reported septic failure/seepage, and one reported manure/animal waste. Importance rankings vary. • Other Comments: Other concerns include sediment buildup, increasing bird population (especially cormorants), illegal sewage disposal systems, logging above the lake, lake silting in, lake fireworks, building up shorelines, and increase in recreational boating. Lake Management Issues
• Fertilizer and Lakeshore Habitat: Twenty-three of the 27 respondents do not use fertilizer, two use organic fertilizer, and one uses chemical fertilizer. Those who use fertilizer have various application frequencies. Fourteen respondents have natural vegetation on the shoreline, and four have landscaped shorelines, eight have beach shoreline, and six have bulkheads. Seven respondents might consider planting native vegetation along the lakefront to protect and improve water quality. • Septic Systems: Fifteen of the 27 respondents indicated a septic system on the property. Eleven of the 27 respondents indicated there is not a septic system on the property. Frequency of pumping and age of septic system vary, but all are in good condition. • Lake Management Community Groups:
o Existing Groups: Twenty-one of the twenty-seven respondents are involved in a community lake management group, the Ohop Lake Improvement Club, PO Box 566, Eatonville, WA.
o Interest in becoming involved in a group: Four respondents are interested in becoming involved in a new community lake management group.
o Amount willing to contribute: One respondent is willing to pay more than $1000 per year, one is willing to pay $100 to $500 per year, and seven are willing to pay $10 to $100 per year for new lake management measures. Nine are willing to pay none.
Rapjohn Lake
The GIS query identified 14 parcels within the 200-foot buffer of Rapjohn Lake. Questionnaires were sent to the owners of these parcels. One response was received, for a response rate of approximately 7 percent.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities F-13 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN Public Access and Uses
Rapjohn Lake is accessible to the public from a boat ramp. The one respondent indicated that the lake provides aesthetic benefits. Reported Problems
No problems were reported by the one respondent. Lake Management Issues
• Fertilizer and Lakeshore Habitat: The one respondent does not use fertilizer, and shoreline is natural vegetation. Planting native vegetation along the lakefront to protect and improve water quality might be considered. • Septic Systems: The one respondent has a septic system that is 1-10 years old and is pumped every 1-3 years. The respondent reported it to be in good condition. • Lake Management Community Groups:
o Existing Groups/Interest in becoming involved: The one respondent was not involved in a lake management community group, and was not interested in becoming involved in one.
Silver Lake
The GIS query identified 52 parcels within the 200-foot buffer of Silver Lake. Questionnaires were sent to the owners of these parcels. Five responses were received, for a response rate of approximately 10 percent.
Public Access and Uses
Silver Lake is accessible to the public from a boat ramp. The lake is used for boating/waterskiing, swimming, fishing and irrigation. Reported Problems
The following problems were identified by the five survey respondents: • Flooding - Flooding was observed by two of the five respondents, who reported flooding of landscaped areas, docks and boatsheds, once every 2-3 years in the winter. Importance rankings vary. The lake water level is controlled by an outlet. Lake water level fluctuates about 0-4 feet per year. • Fish Kills – One of the five respondents observed occasional fish kills. Importance rankings vary. • Algae Blooms – Three of the five respondents observed signs of algae blooms. Conditions were reported in warm summer months, after sunny/dry periods. No respondents were aware of notifications of toxic algae blooms posted for this lake. Importance rankings vary.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities F-14 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
• Water Quality - One of the five respondents reported cloudy water in the summer, less than once every 3 years. Importance rankings vary. Lake Management Issues
• Fertilizer and Lakeshore Habitat: None of the respondents use fertilizer. Two respondents have natural vegetation on the shoreline, and two have beach shoreline. None of the respondents might consider planting native vegetation along the lake front to protect and improve water quality. • Septic Systems: Three of the five respondents indicated a septic system on the property. Frequency of pumping and age of septic system vary, but all are in good condition. • Lake Management Community Groups:
o Existing Groups: None of the five respondents is involved in a community lake management group.
o Interest in becoming involved in a group: None of the five respondents is interested in becoming involved in a new community lake management group.
o Amount willing to contribute: Two respondents are willing to pay $10 to$100 per year for new lake management measures.
Tanwax Lake
The GIS query identified 87 parcels within the 200-foot buffer of Tanwax Lake. Questionnaires were sent to the owners of these parcels. Thirteen responses were received, for a response rate of approximately 15 percent.
Public Access and Uses
Tanwax Lake is accessible to the public from a boat ramp, public dock, park and beach. The lake is used for boating/waterskiing, swimming, and fishing. Reported Problems
The following problems were identified by the thirteen survey respondents: • Flooding - Flooding was observed by three of the 13 respondents, who reported flooding of docks and boatsheds, one or two times per year, in the fall or winter. Importance rankings vary. The lake water level is affected by beaver activity. Lake water level fluctuates about 0-4 feet per year. • Fish Kills – Six of the 13 respondents observed occasional fish kills. All respondents ranked fish health as very important or important. • Algae Blooms – Eight of the 13 respondents observed signs of algae blooms. Conditions were reported in warm summer months, after sunny/dry periods. None of the
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities F-15 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN respondents were aware of notifications of toxic algae blooms posted for this lake. Importance rankings vary. • Aquatic Weeds – Twelve of the 13 respondents reported moderate to dense water weeds. Seven respondents reported that weed growth has interfered with use of the lake, each year. Three reported interference with lake use. Observations of weed growth increases/decrease vary. Importance rankings vary. • Water Quality – Five of the 13 respondents reported cloudy water, one reported septic failure/seepage, and one reported manure/animal waste (goose and duck feces). All respondents ranked water quality as very important or important. • Other Comments – One respondent indicated that the beaver dam at outflow is a constant problem – volunteers bust it up and the beavers rebuild. Another respondent was concerned with trash dumped in the lake. Lake Management Issues
• Fertilizer and Lakeshore Habitat: Ten of the 13 respondents do not use fertilizer, one uses organic fertilizer, and two use chemical fertilizer. Those who use fertilizer have various application frequencies. Eleven respondents have natural vegetation on the shoreline; two have beach/bulkhead shoreline. Six respondents might consider planting native vegetation along the lakefront to protect and improve water quality. • Septic Systems: Eleven of the 13 respondents indicated a septic system on the property. Frequency of pumping and age of septic system vary, but all are in good condition. • Lake Management Community Groups:
o Existing Groups: One of the thirteen respondents is involved in a community lake management group (contact info not listed).
o Interest in becoming involved in a group: Three respondents are interested in becoming involved in a new community lake management group.
o Amount willing to contribute: One respondent is willing to pay $100 to $500 per year, and six are willing to pay $10 to $100 per year for new lake management measures.
Twin Lake
The GIS query identified twenty-two parcels within the 200-foot buffer of Twin Lake. Questionnaires were sent to the owners of these parcels. Six responses were received, for a response rate of approximately 27 percent.
Public Access and Uses
Twin Lake is not accessible to the public. The lake is used for boating/waterskiing, swimming, and fishing.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities F-16 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN Reported Problems
The following problems were identified by the six survey respondents: • Flooding - Flooding was observed by three of the six respondents, who reported flooding of landscaped areas, docks and boatsheds, several times per year, in the spring, fall and winter. Importance rankings vary. The lake water level is controlled by an outlet, operated/maintained by Pierce County. Lake water level fluctuates about 0-2 feet per year. • Algae Blooms – Three of the six respondents observed signs of algae blooms. Conditions were reported in warm summer months, after sunny/dry periods, and after rainy/wet periods. No respondents were aware of notifications of toxic algae blooms posted for this lake. All respondents ranked algae blooms as very important or important. • Aquatic Weeds – Three of the six respondents reported moderate or dense water weeds, and two respondents reported that water weeds interfere with use of the lake. Observations of weed growth increases/decrease vary. All respondents ranked aquatic weeds as very important or important. • Water Quality - One of the six respondents reported cloudy water. All respondents ranked water quality as very important. • Other Comments: One respondent is concerned about the beaver dam which stops the flow from Upper Twin to Lower Twin Lake. Lake Management Issues
• Fertilizer and Lakeshore Habitat: Four of six respondents do not use fertilizer, and two use chemical fertilizer. Those who use fertilizer have various application frequencies. Two respondents have natural vegetation on the shoreline, and one has a landscaped shoreline, and two have bulkheads. Three respondents might consider planting native vegetation along the lakefront to protect and improve water quality. • Septic Systems: Four of six respondents indicated a septic system on the property. Frequency of pumping and age of septic system vary, but all are in good condition. • Lake Management Community Groups:
o Existing Groups: None of the six respondents is involved in a community lake management group.
o Interest in becoming involved in a group: Four respondents are interested in becoming involved in a new community lake management group.
o Amount willing to contribute: One respondent is willing to pay to pay $10 to$100 per year for new lake management measures.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities F-17 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN Whitman Lake
The GIS query identified 77 parcels within the 200-foot buffer of Whitman Lake. Questionnaires were sent to the owners of these parcels. Eight responses were received, for a response rate of approximately 10 percent. Public Access and Uses
Whitman Lake is accessible to the public from a boat ramp. The lake is used for boating/waterskiing, swimming, and fishing. Reported Problems
The following problems were identified by the eight survey respondents: • Flooding - Flooding was observed by seven of the eight respondents, who reported flooding of residential structures, landscaped areas, docks and boatsheds, several times per year, all year round. Importance rankings vary. The lake water level is controlled by an outlet. Lake water level fluctuates about 0-6 feet per year. • Fish Kills – Three of the eight respondents observed occasional fish kills. All respondents ranked fish health as very important or important. • Algae Blooms – All eight respondents observed signs of algae blooms. Conditions were reported in warm summer months, after sunny/dry periods. None of the respondents were aware of notifications of toxic algae blooms posted for this lake. All respondents ranked algae blooms as very important or important. • Aquatic Weeds – All eight respondents reported moderate or dense water weeds. Four respondents reported that water weeds interfere with use of the lake. One reported dense water weeds. Three reported interference with lake use. Observations of weed growth increases/decrease vary. Importance rankings vary. • Water Quality - Three of the eight respondents reported cloudy water, two reported septic failure/seepage and manure/animal waste. All respondents ranked water quality as very important or important. • Other Comments: Other concerns include increase in power boats contributing oil and gas to the lake, septic systems in low bank areas, misuse of fertilizer, beaver dams, and elimination of natural habitat. Lake Management Issues
• Fertilizer and Lakeshore Habitat: Five of the eight respondents do not use fertilizer, two use organic fertilizer, and one uses both organic and chemical fertilizer. Those who use fertilizer have various application frequencies. Five respondents have natural vegetation on the shoreline, two have landscaped shorelines, and four have bulkheads. Five respondents might consider planting native vegetation along the lakefront to protect and improve water quality.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities F-18 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
• Septic Systems: Seven of the eight respondents indicated a septic system on the property. Frequency of pumping and age of septic system vary. Six septic systems are reported to be in good condition and one is in medium condition. • Lake Management Community Groups:
o Existing Groups: Three of the eight respondents are involved in a community lake management group, the Lake Whitman Improvement Club, Patrick McNeley, President, 360-879-5600.
o Interest in becoming involved in a group: Four respondents are interested in becoming involved in a new community lake management group.
o Amount willing to contribute: One respondent is willing to pay $100 to $500 per year, and four are willing to pay $10 to $100 per year for new lake management measures.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities F-19 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division Questionnaire Instructions Pierce County Surface Water Management is developing a basin plan for the Nisqually River Basin. Basin plans identify actions necessary to provide safe storm drainage, reduce flooding, maintain water quality and protect natural streams and lakes and the fish and wildlife they support. This questionnaire is intended to collect information about the lakes in the basin. We have sent this questionnaire to you because our records indicate that you own property on or close to a lake. Your response to this questionnaire will help the planning process by providing valuable information on site specific problems. Feel free to make copies of this questionnaire to describe problems at multiple locations, or call (253) 798 - 6793 for additional copies. After filling out questionnaire, please fold along dashed lines and mail to Pierce County. Please return your questionnaire by ______. Thank you very much!
For project info, please call: Roy Huberd, Pierce County Surface Water Management (253) 798-6793 Randy Brake, Pierce County Surface Water Management (253) 798-4651 or Mike Milne, Brown and Caldwell, (206) 749-2284 ------fold line ------
Public Works and Utilities Bulk Rate Surface Water Management Postage Stamp 9850 64th Street West University Place, WA 98467-1078
Pierce County Surface Water Management ATTN: Roy Huberd or Randy Brake 9850 64th Street West University Place, WA 98467-1078
------fold line ------(outside of tri-fold)
WATER
WATER
1 APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
WATER Nisqually Basin Plan
NISQUALLY BASIN PLAN - 2007 LAKE QUESTIONNAIRE
Contact Information (Not required, but helpful if we have questions about the problems you describe) Name: Can we contact you? Yes No Address: If Yes, which do you prefer? Phone Mail In-person E-mail Phone: E-Mail Address: ______
Name of Lake: ______
Lake Access Who owns the lake? Is there public access to the lake?
Private Resident(s) City State Boat Ramp Park None County I don’t know Public Dock Beach Lake Use What do you use the lake for? How often do you use the lake?
Boating/Waterskiing Swimming Many times per year Once every 2 to 3 years Commercial Ventures Fishing Several times per year Less than once every 3 years Other ______ Irrigation 1 or 2 times per year Lake Water Level Control Is lake level controlled by a man-made Who oper ates or maintains t he How much does the lake water level fluctuate structure? ______If yes, what kind? structure? during the year?
Stop-log Outlet 0-2 feet 4-6 feet Weir Other ______ 2-4 feet Other ______Flooding Flooding problems you have observed Flooding occurs under what What season do the flooding problems occur? (check all that apply): conditions? Spring Flooding of residential structures Long rainstorms Summer Flooding of landscaped areas Short, intense storms Fall Flooding of docks, boat sheds, etc. Multiple consecutive storms Winter Other ______ Other ______Frequency of flooding problems:
Several times per year Approximate dates and durations Describe nature and extent of flooding 1 or 2 times per year of problems, if known: problems: Once every 2 to 3 years Less than once every 3 years Do you have photos of past flooding? Yes No Fish Species What kinds of fish are in the lake? Have you observed any fish kills? From what you’ve observed, are fish populations: Trout Bass Occasional dead fish Salmon Perch Frequent dead fish Increasing Steady Other ______ Mass fish kills Decreasing Can’t tell Algae Blooms Have you observed any of the Have notifications of t oxic algae When have algae blooms occurred? (check all following indications of algae blooms? blooms been posted for this lake? that apply)
APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Lake looks green (like pea soup) Yes, several times Warm summer months Areas of cloudy blue-green water Yes, a few times Cool winter months Surface scum (green, blue, white) Yes, once before Following sunny dry periods Strong odors, decomposition None that I’m aware of Following wet/rainy periods None; clear water If yes, by whom? ______Aquatic Weeds Are water weeds present in the lake or Has weed growth interfered with outlet channel (other than algae)? your use of the lake? Has weed growth: Dense Yes Increased over the past 15 years Moderate No Decreased over the past 15 years Low Stayed the same over the past 15 years What kinds (if known)? ______How often? ______Water Quality Describe water quality problems you What season do the problems Frequency of problems: have observed (check all that apply) occur? More than once per year Cloudy water Spring Every year Septic failure/seepage Summer Once every 2 to 3 years Manure/animal waste Fall Less than once every 3 years Pets sick after drinking Winter Other ______Fertilizer and Lakeshore Habitat What kind of fertilizer How often do you apply Which best describes the shoreline What time of year do you do you use on your fertilizers? vegetation on your property? usually apply fertilizer? lawn and/or garden? More than four times a year Landscaped Early Spring Organic/Manure Four times a year Natural Vegetation Late Spring Chemical Twice a year Beach Late Summer Both Once a year Bulkhead Fall None Less than once a year Other ______Native vegetation along the lake shore can help prevent fertilizers, bacteria, and other pollutants from entering the lake and causing problems, such as excessive growth of algae and invasive weeds. Would you consider planting native vegetation along your lake front to protect and improve water quality?
Yes Maybe No Septic System Is there a septic system on your property? Yes No. If yes, how far is drainfield from lake? ______How of ten d o you h ave i t How old is your septic Do you have any problems What condition is your septic pumped? system? with your septic system? system in? Every 1-3 years 1 – 10 years Odor Every 3-5 years 10 – 15 years Good Surface Discharge Every 6-10 years 15 – 20 years Medium Clogging Every 10 years 20+ years Poor Other ______ Never I don’t know I don’t know Lake Management Community Groups Do you contribute to or are If yes, list group name and contact you involved in a group info: Would you be interested in becoming involved in a new associated with the lake? ______community group that addresses issues in the lake?
______ Yes Yes ______ No No ______
If this study finds that additional measures are needed to protect your lake, how much would you be willing to pay for new lake management measures?: None $10 to $100/yr $100 to $500/yr $500 to $1,000/yr More than $1,000/yr
APPENDIX F: LAKE SURVEY RESULTS NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN IMPORTANCE OF LAKE ISSUES Please rank the following in order of importance from 1 to 4, where: 1 = Very Important, 2 = Important, 3 = Somewhat important, 4 = Least important. Please circle the ranking number for each issue. Issue Rating Issue Rating Water Quality 1 2 3 4 Algae Blooms 1 2 3 4 Flooding 1 2 3 4 Water weeds 1 2 3 4 Fish Health 1 2 3 4 Fertilizer Use 1 2 3 4 Lake Level 1 2 3 4 Septic System Use 1 2 3 4
Please use the space below to describe any concerns or problems not listed above.
______
______
______
VOLUME 2 - APPENDICES NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
APPENDIX G Culvert Sizing and CIP Site Maps
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX G: CULVERT SIZING NI
APPENDIX G Culvert Sizing
APPENDIX G: CULVERT SIZING NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Existing Geometry Upstream Problem/CIP Identification Existing Geometry Downstream of Culvert Existing Road Geometry of Culvert
Down- Bankfull Channel Bottom Top Side Man- Crest Top Channel Depth stream Height Problem ID CIP ID Width Depth Width Width Slopes ning's Length Width Slope (ft) Channel (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft:1 ft V) "n" (ft) (ft) Slope
ASH-01 CIP19-ASH-C01 8.0 2.0 2.0% 8.0 20.0 2.0 3.0 2.0% 0.055 4 700 30
BRI-18 CIP11-BRI-C01 8.0 4.0 0.2% 8.0 18.0 5.0 1.0 0.5% 0.055 6 500 30
BRI-19 CIP11-BRI-C01 6.0 3.0 0.2% 6.0 24.0 3.0 3.0 0.2% 0.045 3 500 30
BRI-21 NA 8.0 2.0 0.2% 8.0 24.0 2.0 4.0 0.2% 0.085 6 500 30
HRN-09A CIP11-HRN-C01 2.3 1.2 0.2% 10.0 30.0 1.0 10.0 0.2% 0.085 1.5 900 30
HRN-09B CIP11-HRN-C01 2.1 1.0 0.2% 1.0 2.3 1.2 0.6 0.2% 0.035 1.5 100 30
HRN-09C CIP11-HRN-C01 2.9 1.2 0.2% 1.0 2.3 1.2 0.6 0.2% 0.035 1.5 100 30
HRT-10 CIP11-HRT-C01 7.1 2.2 0.4% 6.0 18.0 3.0 2.0 2.0% 0.055 5 225 30
KRG-09 CIP11-KRG-C01 8.0 1.0 1.0% 4.0 36.0 8.0 2.0 1.0% 0.055 8 200 30
-- CIP11-KRG-C02 Data not available
MUR-18 CIP11-MUR-C01 4.8 2.5 0.2% 10.0 30.0 1.0 10.0 0.4% 0.045 2 1300 30
MUR-26 NA 12.0 1.0 0.5% 10.0 34.0 3.0 4.0 0.5% 0.035 5 140 30
TWL-06 CIP11-TWL-C01 3.6 1.2 1.0% 2.0 5.4 2.2 0.8 1.0% 0.035 2.5 460 30
TWU-16 CIP11-TWU-C02 2.0 1.0 0.6% 2.0 6.0 1.0 2.0 0.6% 0.055 2 840 30
TWU-24 CIP11-TWU-C03 3.8 1.0 5.0% 3.0 6.0 1.0 1.5 5.0% 0.035 3 150 30
TWU-34 CIP11-TWU-C01 6.0 2.0 0.1% 6.0 14.0 2.0 2.0 0.1% 0.055 4 575 30 APPENDIX G: CULVERT SIZING NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Problem/CIP Identification Existing Culvert Geometry (Culvert 1) Existing Culvert Geometry (Culvert 2)
Man- Dia- Man- Diameter Drop Lengt Drop Problem ID CIP ID Number Material ning's Length (ft) Number Material meter ning's (in) (ft) h (ft) (ft) "n" (in) "n"
ASH-01 CIP19-ASH-C01 2 CMP 48 0.024 48 0.5 1 CMP 24 0.024 48 0.5
BRI-18 CIP11-BRI-C01 1 CMP 48 0.024 30 0
BRI-19 CIP11-BRI-C01 2 CMP 24 0.012 30 0 2 CMP 18 0.024 30 0
BRI-21 NA 1 HDPE 48 0.024 30 0
HRN-09A CIP11-HRN-C01 1 Concrete 12 0.012 52 0
HRN-09B CIP11-HRN-C01 1 Concrete 12 0.012 46 0
HRN-09C CIP11-HRN-C01 1 Concrete 12 0.012 17 0
HRT-10 CIP11-HRT-C01 1 Concrete 24 0.012 60 0.5
KRG-09 CIP11-KRG-C01 1 CMP 48 0.024 30 0.5
-- CIP11-KRG-C02 1 Concrete 12 0.024 27 1.0 2 Concrete 12 0.024 28 1
MUR-18 CIP11-MUR-C01 1 CMP 12 0.024 25 0
MUR-26 NA 1 Concrete 36 0.012 41 0.2
TWL-06 CIP11-TWL-C01 1 Concrete 18 0.012 43 0.5
TWU-16 CIP11-TWU-C02 1 CMP 18 0.024 28 0.2
TWU-24 CIP11-TWU-C03 1 Concrete 12 0.012 26 0.5
TWU-34 CIP11-TWU-C01 2 Concrete 24 0.012 28 0 1 Concrete 24 0.012 28 0 APPENDIX G: CULVERT SIZING NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Problem/CIP Identification Hydrologic Simulation (WWHM) Results
Problem ID CIP ID 2 Year (cfs) 5 Year (cfs) 10 Year (cfs) 25 Year (cfs) 50 Year (cfs) 100 Year (cfs)
ASH-01 CIP19-ASH-C01 156 265 359 508 643 803
BRI-18 CIP11-BRI-C01 40 67 88 116 138 162
BRI-19 CIP11-BRI-C01 26 43 57 75 89 104
BRI-21 NA 23 38 50 65 78 92
HRN-09A CIP11-HRN-C01 2 4 5 7 9 11
HRN-09B CIP11-HRN-C01 1 2 2 3 4 5
HRN-09C CIP11-HRN-C01 1 2 2 3 4 5
HRT-10 CIP11-HRT-C01 9 15 20 26 32 38
KRG-09 CIP11-KRG-C01 71 100 120 149 171 195
-- CIP11-KRG-C02 2 3 4 5.5 6.7 8.0
MUR-18 CIP11-MUR-C01 12 16 19 22 25 29
MUR-26 NA 27 41 51 67 80 94
TWL-06 CIP11-TWL-C01 9 14 19 25 31 37
TWU-16 CIP11-TWU-C02 4 6 8 11 13 15
TWU-24 CIP11-TWU-C03 3 5 7 9 11 14
TWU-34 CIP11-TWU-C01 24 34 42 52 60 69
APPENDIX G: CULVERT SIZING NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
WDFW "Stream Simulation" Culvert Problem/CIP Identification WDFW "No Slope" Culvert Sizing Criteria Sizing Criteria Low to Minimum Moderate Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Rise Culvert Countersink Natural Design Width Upstream Downstream Problem ID CIP ID Culvert --- Slope * L < Bed Width -- 30% Rise Channel (ft) Countersink -- Countersink -- Slope 0.2D (ft) Gradient 40% Rise (ft) 20% Rise (ft) (<3%)? ASH-01 CIP19-ASH-C01 2.50% 11.6 1.5 YES 4.8 8.00 2.0 1.0
BRI-18 CIP11-BRI-C01 0.25% 11.6 1.8 YES 1.2 8.00 2.4 1.2
BRI-19 CIP11-BRI-C01 0.25% 9.2 0.9 YES 0.24 6.00 1.2 0.6
BRI-21 NA 0.25% 11.6 0 YES 0.48 8.00 0.0 0.0
HRN-09A CIP11-HRN-C01 0.25% 4.8 0.9 YES 0.12 2.33 1.2 0.6
HRN-09B CIP11-HRN-C01 0.25% 4.5 0.6 YES 0.12 2.08 0.8 0.4
HRN-09C CIP11-HRN-C01 0.25% 5.5 0.6 YES 0.12 2.92 0.8 0.4
HRT-10 CIP11-HRT-C01 0.50% 10.5 1.8 YES 2.4 7.08 2.4 1.2
KRG-09 CIP11-KRG-C01 1.25% 11.6 1.8 YES 2.4 8.00 2.4 1.2
-- CIP11-KRG-C02 Drainage on a steep slope (>20%), not considered a fish-bearing stream.
MUR-18 CIP11-MUR-C01 0.25% 7.8 0.9 YES 0.24 4.83 1.2 0.6
MUR-26 NA 0.63% 16.4 0 YES 0.9 12.00 0.0 0.0
TWL-06 CIP11-TWL-C01 1.25% 6.3 1.2 YES 0.9 3.58 1.6 0.8
TWU-16 CIP11-TWU-C02 0.75% 4.4 0.9 YES 0.54 2.00 1.2 0.6
TWU-24 CIP11-TWU-C03 6.25% 6.5 1.5 NO 3 3.75 2.0 1.0
TWU-34 CIP11-TWU-C01 0.13% 9.2 1.5 YES 0.12 6.00 2.0 1.0 APPENDIX G: CULVERT SIZING NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Problem/CIP Identification Culvert Sizing Summary
Cover Culvert Cul- Cul- with Up- Up- Down- Down- Flow, Culvert Fish Cul- Culvert Problem Culvert vert vert culvert stream stream stream stream Headwater CIP ID Passage Design vert Slope ID Material Span Rise top Counter- Open Counter- Open at Top of Basis Type (ft/ft) (ft) (ft) width sink (ft) Rise (ft) sink (ft) Rise (ft) Culvert (ft) Inlet (cfs) Concret ASH-01 CIP19-ASH-C01 Stream Simulation Box 12.0 5.0 0.02 0.8 1.8 3.2 1.8 3.2 205 e Concret BRI-18 CIP11-BRI-C01 No Slope Box 9.0 6.0 0.00 2.0 2.0 4.0 1.9 4.2 186 e Concret BRI-19 CIP11-BRI-C01 No Slope Box 10.0 3.0 0.00 0.8 0.8 2.2 0.8 2.2 105 e BRI-21 NA Existing culvert adequately sized
HRN-09A CIP11-HRN-C01 Stream Simulation Box Concrete 11.0 3.0 0.00 0.8 2.3 0.7 2.2 0.8 12
HRN-09B CIP11-HRN-C01 Stream Simulation Box Concrete 3.0 2.0 0.00 0.3 0.8 1.2 0.7 1.3 6
HRN-09C CIP11-HRN-C01 Stream Simulation Box Concrete 3.0 2.0 0.00 0.3 0.8 1.2 0.8 1.2 6
HRT-10 CIP11-HRT-C01 Stream Simulation Box Concrete 11.0 6.0 0.01 1.8 2.8 3.2 1.9 4.1 130
KRG-09 CIP11-KRG-C01 No Slope Box Concrete 10.0 6.0 0.00 4.0 2.0 4.0 1.7 4.3 240
-- CIP11-KRG-C02 None Pipe CMP 2 -- 0.03 1.0 ------8
MUR-18 CIP11-MUR-C01 Stream Simulation Box Concrete 10.0 3.0 0.00 0.8 1.8 1.2 1.7 1.3 29
MUR-26 NA Existing culvert adequately sized
TWL-06 CIP11-TWL-C01 Stream Simulation Box Concrete 7.0 4.0 0.00 0.7 2.2 1.8 1.7 2.3 43
TWU-16 CIP11-TWU-C02 Stream Simulation Box Concrete 5.0 3.0 0.00 0.4 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.8 25
TWU-24 CIP11-TWU-C03 Stream Simulation Box Concrete 6.0 5.0 0.00 0.7 2.7 2.3 1.4 3.6 62
TWU-34 CIP11-TWU-C01 No Slope Box Concrete 9.0 5.0 0.00 0.8 1.8 3.3 1.7 3.3 132 APPENDIX G: CULVERT SIZING NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities G-7 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management APPENDIX G: CULVERT SIZING NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities G-8 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management APPENDIX G: CULVERT SIZING NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities G-9 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management APPENDIX G: CULVERT SIZING NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities G-10 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management APPENDIX G: CULVERT SIZING NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities G-11 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management VOLUME 2 - APPENDICES NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
APPENDIX H Compilation of Lake Data
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX H Compilation of Lake Data
Excerpts from
Water Supply Bulletin 14
Department of Ecology, 1973
Excerpts from
Water Supply Bulletin 57
Department of Ecology, 1985
Excerpts from
Water Supply Bulletin 43c
Department of Ecology, 1976
Excerpts from
Department of Ecology Lake Monitoring Documents http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/lakes/wq/lake_assessments.html
HARTS PIERCE County Lake ID: HARPI1 Ecoregion: 2
Harts Lake is located approximately seven miles southeast of Yelm, just east of the Pierce County line. It is fed by an inflow from Little Lake, to its south, in addition to two other unnamed tributaries. It drains via an unnamed outflow to the Nisqually River. It tends to experience dense summer algal blooms.
Area (acres) Maximum Depth (ft) Mean Depth (ft) Drainage (sq mi) 120 50 26 4 Volume (ac-ft) Shoreline (miles) Altitude (ft abv msl) Latitude Longitude 3100 1.61 347 46 53 32. 122 28 18.
Ecology home : lake WQ monitoring : list of lakes
CLEAR LAKE -- THURSTON COUNTY: 1996
Size (acres) 170 Maximum Depth (feet) 25 Mean Depth (feet) 19 Lake Volume (acre-feet) 3230 Drainage Area (square miles) 2.61 Altitude (feet) 518 Shoreline Length (miles) 2.7 Source of morphometric data: Water Supply Bulletins 42, 43, and 57.
VOLUNTEER-COLLECTED SECCHI DATA ______Date Temperature Water Secchi Lake %Cloud Recent (Y/M/D) (C) (F) pH Color Rain Wind (ft) Ht(in) Abbrev. Comments Cover ______
There are no Secchi data available for 1996. VOLUME 2 - APPENDICES NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
APPENDIX I Lake Water Quality Management Plan
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
APPENDIX I LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
Pierce County is responsible for addressing surface water management issues in unincorporated areas within the County. These issues include drainage, flood hazard reduction, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat in the floodplain. Pierce County does not currently have a formal program for addressing the unique water quality issues often found in lakes. The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate lake water quality concerns, existing management activities related to lake water quality, and lake management gaps/needs. Based on the results of the gap analysis, a recommended lake program is provided. In addition, relevant policy questions are provided for Pierce County to consider as it evaluates the role it will play in lake management in the County.
PIERCE COUNTY GOALS FOR LAKE MANAGEMENT
Pierce County Public Works and Utilities, Surface Water Management Division (PCWP) has identified the need to provide a fully functioning lake management program. The goals for the lake management program are the same goals as for the Basin Plans, which are to: • Reduce flood hazards • Improve fish habitat • Improve water quality This document focuses on Pierce County’s goals for improving and maintaining lake water quality, which in turn also supports goals related to improving habitat and reducing flood hazards. BENEFICIAL USES AND ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF LAKES
There are approximately 57 lakes in unincorporated Pierce County. These lakes provide valuable functions including: • Recreational opportunities such as swimming, motorized and non-motorized boating, and fishing
• Aesthetic qualities which contribute to property values • Fish and wildlife habitat, surface water and groundwater flow regulation, and sediment and nutrient sinks
• Water supply
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-1 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN Several relevant studies have been conducted on the economic importance of lakes and the potential negative impacts of lake water quality problems. These studies indicate that recreational usage of lakes, which is often correlated with the quality of lakes, contributes to the local economies of areas around lakes. These studies also describe how the value of lakeside properties can depend on the quality of lakes, particularly if problems such as algae blooms or invasive aquatic plants significantly degrade the usability of a lake. A study of Lake Delavan, a 2,000-acre lake in Wisconsin with extensive lakeshore development and recreational use, evaluated the economic value of water quality management activities based on property owner and recreational user surveys, input-output analysis, and a hedonic analysis of property values (University of Wisconsin-Whitewater 2005). The study was conducted in 2005, approximately 12 years after a $7 million rehabilitation program was completed to enhance wetlands, eliminate carp, restock game fish, and reduce algae and phosphorus in the lake. The study evaluated the positive economic effects of the rehabilitative lake management activities as well as the potential negative effects of the lake water quality returning to the pre-rehabilitation conditions if future deterioration occurs. The Lake Delavan study determined that households located near the lake due to the presence of the lake amenities (i.e., views and recreation) spend $52.6 million/year in the local area (about $24,000 per household). Visitors to the lake spend an additional $9.4 million/year. Indirect spending as a result of the lake also contributed $15 million/year, resulting in total direct and indirect spending related to the lake of approximately $77 million annually. The study estimated that 812 jobs are generated from these expenditures. The study also found that the lake water quality improvements implemented resulted in the average lakeshore property appreciating in value by $177,000 over a 16 period (beyond additional appreciation not related to the quality of the lake), an aggregate increase in valuation of over $99 million for the 565 homes considered. The Lake Delavan study found that degradation of water quality to pre-rehabilitation levels would reduce the amount of time property owners and visitors spend around the lake, resulting in a reduction of regional economic activity by 8% to 13% ($5 to $6 million/year). Conversely, the study found that maintaining existing water quality while providing additional improvements in the management of Eurasian water milfoil could increase economic activity by 8% to 11%. Several studies have also recently been completed on the economic value of lakes in Maine (State of Maine DEP 2007, and EPA 2000). At a state-wide level, the studies found that lake- based expenditures by all users support over 50,000 jobs in Maine and generate an estimated $1.8 billion in total direct expenditures for recreation. Recreation generates $1.1 billion each year, other uses of lake water (such as drinking water, youth camps, and commercial uses) generate $400 million each year, and lake front property owners contribute over $300 million in investments in properties and taxes. The Maine studies found that a 1 meter reduction of summertime minimum clarity (Secchi transparency) resulted in a reduction of 3 to 5% in the expected market price of a typical lakefront property. The State of Maine estimated that the net benefit of avoiding measurable water quality degradation in lakes exceeds $2 billion annually. The studies also evaluated the
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-2 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN willingness of day access users to pay for water quality, and found users are estimated to be willing to pay $2 to $6 million annually to support water quality efforts. The Maine studies also reported that water clarity, quality of swimming, and scenic beauty are important to most people when they choose which lake to visit or where to buy property. A noticeable gain in water quality could increase statewide lake use in Maine by up to 13% (1.6 million user days) each year, which would result in approximately a $107 million increase in economic activity in the state. Conversely, the Maine studies found that a visible decrease in water quality would likely result in equivalent or greater losses in economic benefit from the lakes. The studies on the economic value of lakes in Wisconsin and Maine indicate that lake water quality management activities can benefit regions surrounding lakes through increased economic activity associated with recreation and through increased property values. These studies also indicate that degradation of lake water quality can adversely affect the local economies. LAKE WATER QUALITY CONCERNS
Lake water quality is important to the public for many reasons, including recreational usage, aesthetics, and habitat quality for fish and wildlife. Common lake water quality problems include: • Excessive and/or invasive aquatic plant growth • Excessive algal growth (typically due to elevated phosphorus inputs to the lake) and toxic algae (cyanobacteria) blooms
• Poor water clarity due to algal growth and/or soil eroded from the lake’s watershed • Pathogens from human and animal waste, which can increase health risks for people swimming or wading in the lake
• Low dissolved oxygen levels caused by excessive aquatic plant growth and/or discharges of oxygen-demanding materials into the lake
• Sediment build-up near surface water inlets • Trash, oil and gasoline spills, and lake disturbance resulting from recreational activities. Many lake water quality problems can be linked to excessive nutrient input, which accelerates eutrophication in lakes resulting in increased aquatic plant and algae growth and degraded water quality. Potential nutrient sources include land use activities (such as removal of native vegetation along lakeshores and tributary streams), point source discharges (such as wastewater treatment plant and industrial discharges), and non-point discharges (such as agricultural runoff, stormwater, and septic systems). Soil erosion can contribute sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants to lakes. River management controls like dams can affect lake parameters such as temperature and suspended sediment.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-3 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN Although recreational usage and aesthetic values of lakes can be impaired by excessive aquatic plant and algae growth, healthy lakes typically require some level of algae and aquatic plants. Algae are primary producers and serve as the food base for many lake organisms, including fish and benthic invertebrates. Aquatic plant communities provide oxygen for aquatic life; habitat and food for waterfowl, fish, amphibians, invertebrates, and insects; protection of the shoreline from erosive waves; and stabilization of bottom sediments from re-suspension (Cooke et al. 2005). However, excessive algal and aquatic plant growth and its effects on water quality are the most common problems addressed in the management of shallow, eutrophic lakes (Cooke et al. 2005). Excessive algal blooms hinder lake recreation, are unsightly, and deplete lake oxygen levels during decomposition. Certain strains of blue-green algae (also known as cyanobacteria) can be toxic to people and animals if ingested; thus, algae-dominated lakes require close surveillance to ensure public safety. Aquatic plants, especially invasive species, can grow out of control in nutrient-rich lakes. Excessive aquatic plant growth similarly hinders lake recreation, is unsightly, and can negatively alter lake food webs. The factors typically affecting the abundance and distribution of plants within lakes are nutrients, light availability, sediment characteristics, wind, and wave energy (Nichols, 2001). Algal growth is often limited by nutrient concentrations in the water column. The cycling of nutrients in lakes is complex and dependent upon a variety of physical, chemical, and biological factors. In aquatic systems, phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) are the most limiting nutrients for algal growth; generally, the addition of these nutrients to a lake will increase the rate and amount of algae production (Bachmann, 2001). However, lake size and depth control how nutrients affect algal growth. In deeper lakes, there is generally a continual loss of nutrients from the epilimnion to the hypolimnion as algae and particulate matter die and sink to the bottom of the lake. In contrast, the frequent mixing of shallow lakes typically results in a relatively rapid return of nutrients from most settled material into the water column. Controlling nutrient inputs to lakes is a key component in maintaining or improving lake water quality. Septic systems and runoff from agricultural land are two potential sources for high nutrient inputs to lakes and contributing streams. Stormwater runoff can also contribute nutrients to lakes from fertilizers and eroded soil. In Piece County, the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department is responsible for septic system design, inspection, and repair. Pierce Conservation District addresses runoff from agricultural land through voluntary landowner participation in its conservation planning program. Surface Water Management addresses stormwater quality through its NPDES MS4 permit program and basin planning. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) also supports programs to address invasive aquatic weeds and toxic algae in lakes. The control measures implemented by these agencies are described in greater detail in Section 6 below. Once lake sediments are enriched with nutrients, addressing invasive or excessive aquatic vegetation generally requires controlling plant growth through physical, mechanical, chemical, or biological control methods. Examples of physical and mechanical control methods include hand pulling and harvesting with machines. Examples of chemical control methods include herbicides that target certain types of aquatic vegetation and alum to reduce concentrations of
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-4 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN plant-available forms of P. Examples of biological control methods include herbivorous fish (such as sterilized grass carp), weevils that feed on target aquatic plants, and restoration of native aquatic plant communities. Ecology recommends that lake management groups and local governments collaborate in the development of integrated aquatic vegetation management (IAVM) plans for lakes with aquatic plant management issues. An IAVM plan evaluates the available control methods and selects the most appropriate methods for the lake conditions and management goals. Ecology generally will not issue permits for application of certain aquatic herbicides and other control techniques unless the applicant has completed an IAVM. NISQUALLY BASIN LAKE SURVEY RESULTS
The Nisqually Basin planning area encompasses more than 16 lakes. The Nisqually Basin Characterization Report noted little information was available for some of these lakes. Therefore, in 2007, Pierce County sent questionnaires to about 1,800 owners of properties near these lakes. Technical Memorandum #5 describes the results of the questionnaire responses in detail. This section summarizes relevant information from the surveys related to potential management of the lakes by Pierce County. Survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of lake issues, with 1 being the most important and 4 being the least important. The average results from 103 responses are listed in Table I-1. Water quality issues received the highest average ranking of importance and flooding issues in and around lakes received the lowest average ranking of importance.
Table I-1: Perceived Importance of Lake Issues Rank of Issue Issue Average Ranking* 1 Water Quality 1.3 2 Fish Health 1.6 3 Algae Blooms 1.7 4 Water Weeds 1.9 5 Septic System Use 1.9 6 Fertilizer Use 2.2 7 Lake Level 2.3 8 Flooding 2.8
*1 is most important and 4 is least important
These results provide a general overview of lake management concerns in the Nisqually Basin. Certain concerns are more prevalent for some lakes depending on the lake size, location, level of watershed development, and usage. The questionnaire results indicate that most of the lakes in the Nisqually Basin have public access points, and most are used for boating, swimming and fishing. In addition, Clear Lake, Harts Lake, and Silver Lake provide water for irrigation.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-5 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN Survey respondents were asked to describe problems concerning flooding, fish populations, algae blooms, aquatic weeds, and water quality. Problems identified by survey respondents for specific lakes are shown in Table I-2.
Table I-2: Lake-specific Concerns Identified in Survey Lake Problems Flooding Fish Kills Algae Blooms Aquatic Weeds Water Quality Alder Lake x x x x Clear Lake x x x x x Harts Lake x x x x x Lake Serene x x x x x Lake Twenty-Seven Ohop Lake x x x x x Rapjohn Lake Silver Lake x x x x Tanwax Lake x x x x x Twin Lakes x x x x Whitman Lake x x x x x
* No responses were received for Cranberry Lake, Kreger Lake, Mud Lake, Trout Lake, and Tule Lake.
The questionnaires also asked respondents to describe their specific issues or concerns. Specific issues identified included:
• For Clear Lake, one respondent described concerns related to motor boat and jet ski usage and water quality; another respondent indicated there is an aquatic weed management program in place.
• For Harts Lake, there was one complaint regarding aquatic plants (milfoil) and one complaint regarding trash left in the lake by fishermen and hunters.
• Ohop Lake has a Lake Improvement Club that has been controlling aquatic weeds using an aquatic vegetation management plan approved by Ecology. Ohop Lake also limits water ski and jet ski activity to the period from 11:00 AM to 3:30 PM, with a speed limit of 8 mph during other hours. Ohop Lake respondents expressed concerns about sediment buildup, failing septic systems, fireworks, motor boats, and excessive populations of cormorants reducing the fishery in the lake.
• On Serene Lake, one respondent noted that thick weeds preclude fishing and swimming, and that past herbicide applications were not effective in controlling aquatic plant growth.
• For Whitman Lake, four respondents expressed concern that motor boats and jet skis are damaging the lake.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-6 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN The Phase 1 Nisqually Basin Characterization Report identified potential flooding problems at the following lakes: Clear Lake, Cranberry Lake, Harts Lake, Ohop Lake, Rapjohn Lake, Tanwax Lake, and Whitman Lake. A variety of flooding problems were also described by respondents to the survey, ranging from minor nuisance flooding to flooding that affects roads and structures. Several respondents noted that beaver dams appear to contribute to the flooding problems. Flooding problems are being addressed through the basin planning process. The results of the survey indicate that there are a number of water quality-related issues which could be addressed by Pierce County in a lake management program, including providing assistance related to water quality monitoring, nutrient reduction and aquatic plant control. In addition to water quality-related issues, there may be a role for Pierce County to play in addressing conflicts between various types of recreational lake uses. Existing activities related to lake management are described in Section 6 below. CURRENT ORGANIZATIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR LAKE MANAGEMENT IN PIERCE COUNTY
Pierce County addresses issues associated with lake management through Surface Water Management (PCWP) and Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department (TPCHD).
Surface Water Management
Surface Water Management (PCWP) is currently developing an Invasive Vegetation and Lakes Management project. The Invasive Vegetation project includes field surveys of 21 lakes in unincorporated Pierce County to obtain information on invasive aquatic plants (i.e., aquatic weeds). Invasive aquatic plants reduce recreational and aesthetic qualities of lakes and put lakes at risk for shifts in ecological functions and decreased habitat quality. The Invasive Vegetation project will provide baseline information on lakes and recommendations to address invasive plant issues in lakes. In addition, the results of this technical information memorandum describing existing lake management activities and gaps in a fully functioning lake management program are intended to be included in the overall Lakes Management Plan developed through the Invasive Vegetation project. PCWP addresses water quality through its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit and Stormwater Management Program as well as through the development and implementation of Basin Plans, Watershed Action Plans (focused on non- point source pollution), and the Salmon Recovery Plan. As a part of the Watershed Action Plans, Pierce County works collaboratively with local watershed councils and other groups to improve water quality. The Stormwater Management Program describes actions taken by the County to comply with its stormwater NPDES permit and improve water quality. These actions include:
• Water quality monitoring
• Public education and outreach
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-7 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
• Operation and maintenance practices for roads and stormwater structures
• Illicit discharges detection and elimination
• Stormwater management and site development manual
• Inspection of businesses and industries
• Use of Best Management Practices to prevent stormwater pollution
• Capital Improvement Programs to build regional stormwater facilities
Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department
Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department (TPCHD) has 0.5 FTE performing lake water quality monitoring and limited public outreach. The work is often nearly full-time in the summer and then part-time the rest of the year. TPCHD also implements a septic system program that affects lake management. TPCHD has a new position (1 FTE) working on Green Landscaping issues such as composting and yard care. This position could provide assistance in the future related to lakefront property landscaping and nutrient reduction. TPCHD monitors water quality at seven freshwater swimming beaches each summer. Water samples are collected from each swimming area at least once every other week and tested for E. coli bacteria. E. coli bacteria are found in the intestines of humans and warm-blooded wildlife species. High concentrations of E. coli in a surface water sample indicate that the water body is contaminated with fecal matter and may therefore pose a health risk for people swimming or wading in the water. If E. coli levels are high, an advisory sign is posted at the beach. TPCHD does some data management to track the monitoring information; however they lack staff time to do extensive data management and dissemination. The beaches monitored are:
• American Lake: North Park, Harry Todd Park
• Spanaway Lake: Main Beach, North Beach
• Lake Tapps: North Park, Allan York Park
• Wapato Lake: Main Beach
Funding for the freshwater swimming beach monitoring comes from the general “Health Pool” funding provided to TPCHD by the City of Tacoma and Pierce County. This funding source has been declining in recent years. In addition to the beach monitoring program, TPCHD also monitors for toxic algae in lakes from public access points, identifies algae species in the lab and field, and posts caution signs at lakes with toxic algae levels of concern. Currently, they focus on taking samples where scum layers are observed near public access points. However, they may be missing some areas with algae problems that would only be accessible by boat and sites with algae dispersed through the water column by boat activity. Some algae problems are reported by volunteers involved in
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-8 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN PCD’s monitoring program, and when invited by those volunteers to investigate further TPCHD field staff have the opportunity to go on private property and access other parts of lakes. TPCHD received a Freshwater Algae Program grant from the Dept. of Ecology for about $48,000. The grant will help fund an increased toxic algae project that will include additional public education and outreach (including mailings, workshops, and newspaper articles), purchase of additional sampling equipment to sample the density of algae blooms to better find dispersed algae problems, creating an Algae Watch Program using community volunteers to help identify algae problem areas, creating a database to better track algae program data and activities, making the database available to the public via the web, and enhancing the toxic algae public warning system. In addition to monitoring and the planned Algae Program, TPCHD does some education and outreach when contacted by lakeside property owners with questions about lake water quality, including distributing flyers and brochures. TPCHD has done targeted mailings to waterfront property owners as well. TPCHD does some informal coordination with other agencies, primarily with Pierce Conservation District (PCD), but inter-agency coordination is limited. The TPCHD Septic System Program addresses the permitting of new septic systems and assists homeowners with maintenance and repair of existing septic systems. The TPCHD Septic System Program, along with the Operation and Maintenance Program, works to ensure that septic systems are located and installed correctly and kept in good working condition. TPCHD does some limited education regarding septic systems, primarily in response to questions and for properties that are going through sale or transfer. TPCHD provides guidance to homeowners regarding how to keep septic systems in good condition; the guidance includes determining the location of the systems, inspecting the systems periodically (every three years), and maintaining the systems (pumping systems every three to five years). TPCHD provides as-built drawings to landowners when requested to assist landowners in determining the location of septic systems. TPCHD also provides homeowners with contact information for contractors who can assist with septic system inspection and maintenance.
Pierce Conservation District
PCD implements a volunteer monitoring program for water quality in streams called the Pierce Stream Team. There are 3.0 FTE staff in the Stream Team program who provide, among other things, watershed health education as well as monitoring, data management, training and equipment loan, and aquatic weed management advice. The Stream Team program is primarily focused on volunteer monitoring in streams and several lakes in and around incorporated cities. PCD estimates that program management for the lake-oriented aspects of Stream Team work currently requires approximately 0.3 FTE. PCD coordinates volunteer lake monitoring for the cities of Lakewood (since 2000), Bonney Lake (since 2004), and previously for Tacoma (ending in 2005). The lakes monitored for these programs include American, Gravelly, Louise, Steilacoom and Carp (for Lakewood); and Bonney and Debrajane (for Bonney Lake). PCD coordination for the Lakewood and Bonney Lake monitoring programs includes training volunteers, delivery of samples collected by volunteers
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-9 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN to laboratories for analysis, conducting lab testing of water samples and providing data management. Lab fees and lake kits for the Lakewood and Bonney Lake programs are paid for by the cities. Lakewood spends approximately $11,000 per year monitoring five lakes and Bonney Lakes spends approximately $4,500 per year monitoring two lakes. To assist with volunteer monitoring in unincorporated Pierce County, PCD owns three lake kits for loan to individuals to conduct lake water quality monitoring of physical parameters. Each kit cost about $1,770 and includes a dissolved oxygen and temperature meter and secchi disks for measuring water clarity. There are several lakeshore residents on Ohop Lake who regularly monitor the physical parameters of the lake using their own kits. Occasionally, residents on Harts Lake and Tule Lake also collect physical data on lakes. PCD has no funding available to collect and analyze water quality samples from volunteers monitoring these lakes. PCD compiles lake water quality data and shares it with city staff and volunteer participants in the Lakewood and Bonney Lake programs. PCD also manages the data reported from individual lake homeowners monitoring their lakes. PCD shares data with TPCHD and communicates with Ecology regarding lake health issues and lake conditions. PCD has a lake health brochure available for download at their website: piercecountycd.org. PCD provides support to lake homeowner groups for aquatic weed management in Lake Bonney and Lake Ohop, and answers questions on aquatic weeds from the public when contacted. PCD served on the Ohop Lake Improvement Club plant control advisory committee and assisted the Ohop Lake homeowners group with submitting an Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management (IAVM) plan development grant application to Ecology. PCD served as the fiduciary agent for the implementation of the Ohop Lake IAVM plan grant.
Washington State Department of Ecology
Ecology has several programs and policies that affect lake management, including the Aquatic Plant Management Program, Freshwater Aquatic Weeds Account, NPDES permitting for aquatic herbicide application, and the Algae Control Program. Ecology also provides educational materials to citizens addressing lake management topics. Ecology has 7 employees whose work includes some aspects of lake management; however most of these employees work on other non-lake issues as well. It is estimated that Ecology has 3 to 4 FTE implementing lake management programs and policies. From 1989-1999, Ecology ran a statewide lake water quality monitoring program. The statewide program was discontinued in 2000 due to lack of funds. However, Ecology still conducts water quality monitoring studies in lakes where needed to support development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Aquatic Plant Management Program
Ecology strongly encourages development of long-term, integrated aquatic vegetation management (IAVM) plans to address nuisance aquatic plants in lakes. IAVM plans may be required before certain aquatic plant control activities may be initiated or before permits are
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-10 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN issued for the use of herbicides. Ecology follows federal court guidance by requiring National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for the use of aquatic pesticides. In 1991, the legislature established the Freshwater Aquatic Weeds Account to provide financial and technical support for addressing invasive aquatic plants at a statewide level. This Account provides funding for technical assistance, public education and grants to help prevent and/or control invasive, non-native aquatic plants. The budget for the Freshwater Aquatic Weeds Account program is approximately $600,000 per year. Revenue for the Account comes from a $3 contribution from annual license fees for boat trailers. The types of activities funded include planning, education, monitoring, implementation, pilot or demonstration projects, surveillance and mapping projects. The Account calls for completion of an IAVM Plan before projects can be considered for implementation grants. Cities, counties, state agencies, tribes, and special purpose districts (excluding lake management districts) are eligible to receive grants. Lakes groups and other private organizations must work in conjunction with their local governments to receive funding for projects. For example, PCD received $30,000 from the Account in 2005 to develop an IAVM plan for Ohop Lake. PCD applied for $75,000 from the fund for an Ohop Lake submerged aquatic weed eradication project in 2006 and 2007, but did not receive funding. The Lake Ohop project proposes removing Brazilian elodea using a fluridone treatment combined with hand removal of weeds in problem areas. Algae Control Program
In 2005, the legislature established funding for an algae control program and requested Ecology to develop the program. Ecology recognizes that reducing nutrient input to lakes is the only long-term solution to prevent algae blooms. However the amount of money available for this program (about $250,000 per year) is not enough to fund comprehensive lake-wide and watershed-wide nutrient reduction projects. Instead the program focuses on providing local governments with the tools they need to manage algae problems. The program targets blue- green algae (also known as cyanobacteria) because these algae pose a health risk to humans, pets, and livestock. Ecology's algae program provides for: • Algae identification • Toxicity testing • An on-line database to post the laboratory results • Small grants ($25,000 to $50,000) for algae or nutrient management projects
Ecology began funding small grants to local governments in the fall of 2007. TPCHD received a grant from the Freshwater Algae Control program for approximately $48,000 in 2007. For more information, see the Ecology website on the Algae Control Program at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/Programs/wq/plants/algae/index.html
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-11 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN Educational Resources
Ecology provides educational resources for landowners on lake functions and lake management at the following website: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/Programs/wq/links/plants.html#management Information on the website includes the “Washington Lakes Book,” information about lake landscaping practices and forming a lake association, and “A Citizen’s Guide to Understanding and Monitoring Lakes and Streams.” Statewide Lake Monitoring Program
Ecology has monitored rivers and streams since the 1950s. With the assistance of federal grants Ecology was able to implement an extensive statewide lake monitoring program from 1989 through 1999. During that period, Ecology typically monitored about 60 lakes annually with help from about 250 volunteers. Ecology staff visited each lake in the spring or early summer and again in late summer while volunteers collected data every two weeks. Ecology collected data from more than 180 lakes during the statewide lake monitoring program. Parameters sampled included temperature, pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen profiles, chlorophyll, total nitrogen and total phosphorus. At selected lakes Ecology also monitored hardness, turbidity, total suspended solids, and fecal coliform bacteria. Volunteers monitored surface temperature and Secchi disk depth and provided general information and observations about their lake including noting where Eurasian milfoil and zebra mussels were observed. In 2000, Ecology was unable to obtain sufficient funding and had to discontinue the statewide lake monitoring program. Ecology still files data from volunteers who have chosen to continue monitoring lakes, but they no longer recruit new volunteers or meet with current volunteers, nor are they able to assess the data submitted. At present, there is no state-wide monitoring or assessment of lake water quality.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) stocks certain lakes with fish and responds to fisheries issues in lakes. Nearly 4.1 million trout, 7 inches or larger, were scheduled to be stocked in 356 Washington lowland lakes in 2007. The following lakes in the Nisqually Basin were stocked with trout by WDFW: Clear Lake, Harts Lake, Ohop Lake, Rapjohn Lake, Tanwax Lake, and Whitman Lake. When recreational fisheries are degraded by an imbalance of predator fish or other issues, WDFW may propose rehabilitative actions such as treating a lake with rotenone to remove existing fish and restocking with a balanced population of game fish. WDFW also provides public education and outreach about fish and wildlife issues, such as a guidance video for boaters to avoid spreading zebra mussels.
Assessment Summary of Current Organization Roles and Responsibilities
Numerous local and state organizations play different roles in the management of lakes in Pierce County. Many of these roles and activities are focused on water quality in general at the local level. Projects that specifically address lake issues are typically added duties to other
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-12 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN priorities. At the state level there are programs focused on lake management, however resources are spread throughout the state for these programs and they are not extensively funded. All sharing of information between governmental entities occurs as a result of informal arrangements. Data collection and information sharing with the public is generally reactive rather than preventive focused on water quality problems in lakes. Financial and technical assistance to property owners is sparse. There is no specific unifying local legislative framework in place.
Lake Management Gaps/Needs
The components of a fully functional lake management program have been identified through research into similar programs and through stakeholder meetings and interviews. A fully functional lake management program includes the following components: 1. Monitoring and Source Identification 2. Volunteer Monitoring 3. Data Management and Dissemination 4. Education and Outreach 5. Community Technical Assistance 6. Inter-Agency Coordination and Information Sharing 7. Phased Implementation of the Aquatic Invasive Plant Program 8. Funding for Lake Projects a. Lake Projects: Detailed lake studies b. Lake Projects: In-lake control and management strategies c. Lake Projects: Watershed strategies d. Lake Projects: Provide funding for private projects 9. Enforcement 10. Legal Authority Table I-3 summarizes the gaps in current activities related to these lake management program components and identifies resources that would be required to fill these gaps County-wide. Each of the lake management program components is also discussed below. An approach for implementing the lake management program in the Nisqually Basin is described in Section 8. As discussed in Section 6, Surface Water Management is currently developing an Invasive Vegetation and Lakes Management Program. The results of this technical information memorandum describing existing lake management activities and gaps in a fully functioning lake management program are intended to be included in the overall Lakes Management Plan developed through the Invasive Vegetation project.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-13 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN The gap analysis identified the need for approximately 6.0 FTE and an additional $2,245,000 in supporting budget to implement a fully functional lake management program throughout unincorporated Pierce County. Specific lake projects are projected to require $2,125,000 per year in funding and supporting program costs are projected to require $120,000 per year in funding. Table I-4 provides an overview of the gap analysis.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-14 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Table I-3. Detailed Gap Analysis for Pierce County Lake Management Program
Annual County-Wide Program Implementation Cost Estimates
Lake Management Additional Component Function Current work Gap/Need FTE Resources supporting budget
Identify water quality problems (including TPCHD has 0.5 FTE to monitor 7 Limited water quality data is available for many lakes. 2.0 FTE PCWP $ 50,000 aquatic weeds and toxic algae) and their beaches at 4 lakes for fecal TPCHD only reports lake water quality concerns, does not (includes 0.5 FTE for sources or causes, track changes in water bacteria, and to respond to algae propose how to address concerns. Need additional info to Data Management) quality over time. Determine which lakes need concerns on all lakes. organize lake management activities and determine which Monitoring and Source further study or improvement. lakes need proposed projects for additional study and water 1 Identification quality improvement activities. Need to use a boat to conduct lake water quality monitoring at multiple sites in lakes (not just public access points).
Train volunteers in lake monitoring techniques, PCD Stream Team provides Volunteer monitoring provides an opportunity for residents to 1.0 FTE $35,000 collect samples from volunteers, perform equipment loan of 3 lake kits to take an active part in monitoring lake health, and provides PCD PCD testing on samples, distribute data to public landowners. economic and useful background data on lake functions and 2 Volunteer Monitoring via website. health. Volunteers can collect data at more frequent intervals than County staff.
Make monitoring data and other program TPCHD grant will be used to Monitoring data needs to be accessible to other 0.5 FTE (included in $ 2,000 Data Management and information accessible to other organizations provide algae data on the web. organizations and to the public. If additional monitoring is 2.0 FTE for 3 Dissemination and to the public. PCD shares data with TPCHD. conducted, data management and dissemination will be Monitoring) required as well.
Perform outreach and education regarding TPCHD, PCD, WDFW, and Additional outreach and education activities are needed to 1.0 FTE $ 10,000 lake-friendly landscaping, on-site sewage Ecology perform limited outreach inform the public about lake issues and motivate changes to PCWP treatment, lake health, etc. and education. PCD provides improve lake health (includes 0.3 FTE for outreach and education on Community 4 Education and Outreach watershed health and nutrient Assistance, and 0.1 management. PCD and TPCHD FTE for Inter-Agency distribute lake management Coord) brochures.
Answer questions on lake health and TPCHD and PCD provide limited Lakeshore property owners and recreational users often 0.3 FTE (included in $ 2,000 functions. Help lakeshore owners obtain technical assistance related to want to know more about lake health and address problems 1.0 FTE for Community Technical grants, form lake management districts, and lakes. PCD provides aquatic weed on lakes. Assistance for these stakeholders is needed. Education) 5 Assistance determine appropriate fees or rates. Provide management advice when technical guidance on lake projects. requested.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-15 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Share information on lake management Limited inter-agency coordination Inter-agency coordination is needed to improve the efficiency 0.1 FTE (included in $ 1,000 Inter-Agency activities with other local and state agencies occurs. PCD shares data with and effectiveness of lake management activities. 1.0 FTE for 6 Coordination and (e.g., TPCHD, PCD, Ecology). TPCHD and communicates with Education) Information Sharing Ecology.
Implement activities recommended by PCWP PCWP is currently conducting an Invasive aquatic species reduce recreational and aesthetic 1.0 FTE $ 20,000 Aquatic Invasive 7 Invasive Vegetation project such as education, Invasive Vegetation project. qualities of lakes and put lakes at risk for shifts in ecological PCWP Species Management lake monitoring and management activities. functions and decreased habitat quality.
Provide funding to implement projects to None. As a result of the Aquatic Invasive Plant Program, monitoring 1.0 FTE $ 2,125,000 improve lake health. information, public requests, and detailed lake studies, PCWP Funding for lake 8 various capital lake projects are likely to be proposed. projects Funding to implement these projects will be needed.
Perform detailed analysis of lake None. Costs could range from $150,000 to $400,000 or more per varies characteristics, functions, problems, and lake studied. There are five 1st Tier Lakes in the Nisqually Lake Projects: proposed projects to address problems. Basin that could require detailed studies. Funding will be Detailed lake studies needed.
As a result of the Invasive Vegetation project Ecology provides small grants for Costs could range from $10,000 to $8 million or more per varies Lake Projects: and detailed lake studies, in-lake control and aquatic weed and algae lake studied and managed. Funding will be needed. In-lake control and management strategies are likely to be management. management proposed including aquatic plant harvesting or strategies chemical control.
As a result of the Invasive Vegetation project PCWP and PCD implement Costs could range from $10,000 to $20 million or more per varies and detailed lake studies, watershed watershed improvements for lake studied and managed. Funding will be needed. strategies such as stormwater treatment, stormwater and water quality Lake Projects: agricultural runoff management, and forestry enhacement. Watershed strategies runoff management to reduce inputs of nutrients, bacteria, and other pollutants to lakes that receive stormwater runoff.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-16 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
As a result of education, outreach, and Ecology provides small grants for Costs could range from $10,000 to $1 million or more per varies Lake Projects: monitoring, lakeshore owners may request aquatic weed and algae requested project. Funding will be needed. Funding for private assistance in retrofitting septic systems, management. projects funding in-lake treatment or management, etc.
Enforcement options may be needed to Limited to none. TPCHD has The need for additional enforcement options will be address sources of water quality problems. ability to obtain search warrant if evaluated as the lake management program is implemented. they have evidence that a No FTE staff need is currently identified. 9 Enforcement property is discharging untreated wastewater, but this option is rarely used.
As a public agency, Pierce County requires Pierce County is responsible for To implement a lake management program, a County-wide legal authority to implement programs such as addressing surface water quality ordinance may be needed to establish the program and the the lake management program. under the NPDES MS4 program lake management function in Surface Water Management. 10 Legal Authority and the TMDL program. This will not require on-going FTE support, however an initial investment of time by County staff may be needed.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-17 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
This page is intentionally left blank.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-18 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Table I-4. Pierce County Lake Management Program Gap Analysis Summary
GAP-SWM GAP-Others Program Elements FTEs $ FTEs $ Monitoring and Source Identification Surface Water Management 1.5 $50,000 TPCHD 1.0 (no cost) PCD Volunteer Monitoring Surface Water Management TPCHD PCD 1.0 $35,000 Data Management and Dissemination Surface Water Management 0.5 $2,000 TPCHD PCD Education and Outreach Surface Water Management 0.6 $10,000 TPCHD PCD Community Technical Assistance Surface Water Management 0.3 $2,000 TPCHD PCD Inter-Agency Coordination and Information Sharing Surface Water Management 0.1 $1,000 TPCHD PCD Aquatic Invasive Species Management Surface Water Management 1.0 $20,000 TPCHD PCD Funding for lake projects Surface Water Management 1.0 $2,125,000 TPCHD PCD Enforcement Surface Water Management TPCHD 1.0 (no cost) PCD Legal Authority Surface Water Management TPCHD PCD Summary Surface Water Management 5.0 $2,210,000 TPCHD 2.0 (no cost) PCD 1.0 $35,000 TOTAL 5.0 $2,210,000 3.0 $35,000
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-19 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Detailed Gap Analysis
1. Monitoring and Source Identification Program Gaps
Monitoring and source identification is needed to identify water quality problems (including aquatic weeds and toxic algae) and their sources or causes as well as to track changes in water quality over time. Monitoring results are also required to determine which lakes need further study or improvement. Water quality monitoring is currently performed by TPCHD to address human health concerns. TPCHD has 0.5 FTE to monitor 7 beaches at 4 lakes for fecal bacteria, and to respond to algae concerns on all lakes. There is significant travel time involved in reaching the lakes for monitoring. The 0.5 FTE is not adequate to meet the lake monitoring needs to monitor all lakes in Pierce County or to organize a volunteer monitoring program. The Department of Ecology is no longer running the volunteer lake monitoring program. There is limited water quality data available for many lakes in Pierce County. Additional monitoring and source identification data is needed to organize lake management activities and determine which lakes need projects proposed for additional study and water quality improvement activities. There is a need to use a boat to conduct lake water quality monitoring at multiple sites in lakes to capture trends and conditions throughout lakes, not just at public access points. Data management and dissemination is a critical complementary component to the monitoring and source identification component. The volunteer monitoring program component will also provide complementary resources for monitoring lake conditions. The recommended monitoring program component includes assessing lakes for water quality risks and sorting lakes into management level tiers. 1st Tier lakes would be at high risk for water quality problems and would require more frequent and extensive monitoring. 2nd and 3rd Tier lakes would be at moderate and lower risk for water quality problems, respectively, and would require less frequent monitoring. It is recommended that all lakes be monitored by County staff periodically, with additional monitoring data collected by volunteers in conjunction with the volunteer monitoring program component. To develop a monitoring program component like the former Ecology lake monitoring program, County staff would visit each lake at least as frequently as once in the spring or early summer and once again in late summer while volunteers collect data every two weeks. If volunteers are not available and additional information is needed, staff would be required to visit lakes more frequently. Staff would collect data on parameters such as temperature, pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen profiles, chlorophyll, total nitrogen, total phosphorus and dissolved phosphorus. At selected lakes staff would also monitor hardness, turbidity, total suspended solids, fecal coliform bacteria, invasive aquatic weeds, and toxic algae. Volunteers would monitor surface temperature and Secchi disk depth and provided general information and observations about their lake including noting where algae and invasive aquatic weeds were observed. More highly trained volunteers could assist by collecting lake water samples, which
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-20 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
would be picked up and analyzed by County staff as in the King County lake monitoring program. Pollutant source identification monitoring work may also be required on lakes with observed water quality problems. The level of this work will be dependent upon future results from the monitoring program component, however for the purpose of estimating the current gap it is assumed that preliminary source identification monitoring would be performed through this program component and more detailed studies would be conducted under program component 8, funding for lake projects (detailed lake studies). Estimated Need
A fully functioning program is estimated to require an additional 3.0 FTE to monitor lakes throughout Pierce County in addition to the 0.5 FTE currently monitoring lakes for TPCHD. This estimate includes 0.5 FTE for data management and dissemination, discussed below in program component 3. However, this estimate does not include the 1.0 FTE for volunteer monitoring described below in program component 2. It is recommended that two of these staff positions be added to PCWP and one be added to TPCHD under its funding sources. The monitoring program staff will need to coordinate closely with the staff involved in the volunteer monitoring program at PCD and staff involved in water quality monitoring for TPCHD. It may increase efficiency to use laboratory facilities at TPCHD. An additional $50,000 per year in funding for the monitoring program will also be required to provide field equipment, travel costs, laboratory sample analysis, and other program components. 2. Volunteer Monitoring Volunteer monitoring provides an opportunity for residents to take an active part in monitoring lake health, and provides economic and useful background data on lake functions and water quality. Volunteers can collect data at more frequent intervals and more locations than County staff. As noted above, the Department of Ecology is no longer running a volunteer lake monitoring program. Pierce Conservation District runs a volunteer stream monitoring program, but the program has a limited lake monitoring element in unincorporated Pierce County. PCD currently coordinates volunteer lake monitoring programs for the cities of Bonney Lake and Lakewood. PCD has three lake kits available to loan out to individual landowners interested in monitoring lakes in unincorporated Pierce County, however these kits only measure physical parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, and water clarity. PCD does not currently have funding available to collect and test water samples from volunteers in unincorporated Pierce County. There may be an opportunity to coordinate volunteer monitoring activities with the Nisqually Tribe, which occasionally supports volunteer monitoring. The lake management program in King County relies heavily on volunteer monitoring for water quality samples. King County staff are willing to provide Pierce County with program development information and volunteer training information to assist in the development of this program component.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-21 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
There is a need to expand the volunteer monitoring of lakes performed in Pierce County. There is a need to recruit additional volunteers, train additional volunteers in lake monitoring techniques, collect and organize additional data from volunteers, collect samples from volunteers when appropriate, perform testing on samples, and work in conjunction with the staff in the monitoring program component to distribute the data to the public through a website. In addition, planning and implementation of volunteer outreach and volunteer appreciation activities will be needed. Estimated Need
A fully functioning program is estimated to require an additional 1.0 FTE to plan and implement the volunteer monitoring component of the lake management program. It is recommended that this staff position be added to PCD, increasing program efficiency by adding to the existing volunteer monitoring program at PCD. An increase in PCD funds will be necessary to complete this work. The staff for the volunteer monitoring program will work closely with the staff added for program component 1, monitoring and source identification. An additional $35,000 per year in funding for the volunteer monitoring program will also be required to provide field equipment, travel costs, laboratory sample analysis, volunteer recruiting, volunteer appreciation, and other program elements. An increase in PCD funding for volunteer monitoring will be required to provide these supporting program costs. 3. Data Management and Dissemination Monitoring data needs to be organized and made accessible to other organizations and to the public. If additional monitoring is conducted through program components 1 and 2, data management and dissemination will be required as well. There is a need to organize and make monitoring data and other program information accessible to other organizations and to the public, preferably through the web similar to the King County program. TPCHD will use a portion of the grant from Ecology for the toxic algae program to provide algae data on the web, but otherwise there are no current resources available for organizing and disseminating lake water quality monitoring data. Estimated Need
A fully functioning program is estimated to require an additional 0.5 FTE to provide data management and dissemination as a part of the monitoring and source identification program component. This staff need is included in the 2.0 FTE described for program component 1, monitoring and source identification. An additional $2,000 per year in funding for the data management and dissemination program component will be required to make monitoring data and other program information available to the public and other organizations, primarily through electronic sources such as the web. 4. Education and Outreach Outreach and education are needed to inform the public about lake issues and motivate changes to improve lake health. Lakes are affected significantly by the activities occurring in
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-22 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
the lake watershed, and addressing lake water quality problems and preventing future problems requires extensive public involvement and education. Education of lakeshore property owners and lake users could help encourage lake-friendly landscaping, erosion/sediment control, pet waste disposal, care and maintenance of septic systems, sewage and trash disposal for recreational users, and other behaviors that would help reduce pollutant inputs to lakes. In addition, education programs could improve local support for lake management fees or assessments, and/or restrictions on shoreline land use. TPCHD provides limited outreach and education regarding lake water quality issues including distribution of flyers and other information. TPCHD recently added 1.0 FTE to implement a Green Landscaping program. This position could provide assistance in the future related to lakefront property landscaping and nutrient reduction, however it is not currently focused in that area. PCD provides outreach and education on nutrient management to County residents however this outreach is not lake specific. PCD provides outreach and education primarily regarding general watershed health issues, with some focus on lake water quality issues including distribution of brochures on protecting lake water quality. WDFW provides public education and outreach about fish and wildlife issues, such as a guidance video for boaters to avoid spreading zebra mussels, however WDFW conducts these activities statewide with limited budget available. There is a need to perform additional outreach and education regarding lake-friendly landscaping, erosion/sediment control, on-site sewage treatment system maintenance, proper boat maintenance to prevent lake pollution, invasive aquatic plants, lake health, and other issues. An outreach and education staff person could also provide community technical assistance and inter-agency coordination and information sharing to fulfill program components 5 and 6, respectively. Estimated Need
A fully functioning program is estimated to require an additional 1.0 FTE to provide lake- focused education and outreach. This estimate includes 0.3 FTE for community technical assistance, discussed below in program component 5, and 0.1 FTE for inter-agency coordination and information sharing, discussed below in program component 6. This staff position should be added to PCWP. An additional $10,000 per year in funding for the education and outreach program component will be required to provide resources to the public through printed materials, outreach events, educational activities, and other program elements. 5. Community Technical Assistance Lakeshore property owners and lake recreational users often want to know more about lake health and want to address problems on lakes. TPCHD and PCD currently provide limited technical assistance related to lakes, answering questions when possible and directing landowners to additional resources if available. PCD provides aquatic weed management advice when requested. However, additional assistance for these stakeholders is needed.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-23 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
There is a need to provide a County staff person to answer questions on lake health and functions from property owners and recreational users. There is also a need to provide technical assistance to help lakeshore owners obtain grants for lake management activities, form lake management districts, and determine appropriate fees or rates. There are a number of complaints each year to various County departments regarding beaver activity around lakes and streams. There is a need to provide information to landowners about beaver management options available. In addition, if lake management projects are being implemented by lakeshore landowners, there is a need to provide technical guidance on these projects to protect aquatic habitat and human health. Estimated Need
A fully functioning program is estimated to require an additional 0.3 FTE to provide community technical assistance. This staff need is included in the 1.0 FTE described for program component 4, education and outreach. An additional $2,000 per year in funding for the community technical assistance program component will be required to provide resources to the public through printed materials, technical assistance events, and other program components. 6. Inter-Agency Coordination and Information Sharing There is a need to share information on lake management activities performed by PCWP with other local and state agencies (e.g., TPCHD, PCD, and Ecology). There is currently very limited inter-agency coordination, and what occurs is performed informally. PCD shares lake water quality data with TPCHD, and communicates with Ecology about lake conditions. Additional inter-agency coordination is needed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of lake management activities. There is a need to form a lake management task force or inter-agency committee to provide a regularly scheduled opportunity for stakeholders to meet and discuss lake management issues. Estimated Need
A fully functioning program is estimated to require an additional 0.1 FTE to provide inter-agency coordination and information sharing. This staff need is included in the 1.0 FTE described for program component 4, education and outreach. An additional $1,000 per year in funding for the inter-agency coordination and information sharing program component will be required to provide resources fulfill the program component. 7. Aquatic Invasive Species Management PCWP is currently implementing an Invasive Vegetation and Lakes Management Plan project. The Invasive Vegetation project includes field surveys of 21 lakes in unincorporated Pierce County to obtain information on invasive aquatic plants (i.e., aquatic weeds). Invasive aquatic plants reduce recreational and aesthetic qualities of lakes and put lakes at risk for shifts in ecological functions and decreased habitat quality. The Invasive Vegetation project will provide baseline information on invasive plants in lakes and recommendations to address these issues.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-24 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
There is a need to provide resources to implement baseline activities recommended by Invasive Vegetation project such as lake monitoring and management activities focused on aquatic invasive plants and education and outreach focused on preventing the further dispersal of aquatic invasive species. More complex or extensive lake management projects recommended by the Invasive Vegetation project will require additional lake project funding under program component 8, funding for lake projects. Estimated Need
A fully functioning program is estimated to require an additional 1.0 FTE to plan and implement the aquatic invasive plant component of the lake management program. This staff position should be added to PCWP. It is estimated that an additional $20,000 per year in funding for the aquatic invasive species program component will be required to provide resources fulfill the baseline program component such as field equipment, travel costs, laboratory sampling, education and outreach materials and other program elements specific to aquatic invasive species. The recommendations in the Invasive Vegetation project may call for more complex or extensive lake management projects to address aquatic invasive species. These projects would require additional funding under program component 8, funding for lake projects. 8. Funding for Lake Projects The need for detailed lake studies and specific capital projects to address problems in lakes is not yet known. These needs will be identified as the Lake Management Program is implemented, monitoring data results are analyzed, and community requests for action are received. However, once these needs are identified there is limited funding available for conducting detailed lake studies and implementing capital projects or programmatic actions to address problems in lakes. TPCHD was able to obtain lake study grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the early 1990’s to study American Lake and Steilacoom Lake. The Nisqually Tribe also conducted a detailed study of Ohop Lake in 1997. The costs for these lake studies and the estimates of project costs developed in these studies can be used to develop a range of potential funding needs for lake projects. There are a variety of types of lake projects that could be needed in Pierce County. These types of projects include:
• Detailed lake studies of lake characteristics, functions, problems and proposed projects to address problems.
• In-lake control and management strategies such as aquatic plant harvesting and chemical control implemented by County staff.
• Watershed strategies such as stormwater treatment, agricultural runoff management, forestry runoff management, and water treatment to reduce inputs of nutrients, bacteria and other pollutants to lakes.
• Funding for private projects such as retrofitting septic systems and funding in-lake treatment or management implemented by private landowners.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-25 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
The scale of lake projects could vary dramatically, depending on what problems are identified and how complex the functions are in lakes that are identified as needing improvement. The Ohop Lake study completed by the Tribe in 1997 cost roughly $150,000. Costs could be substantially higher for studies involving larger or more complex lakes. Studies of American Lake and Steilacoom Lake in the early 1990s cost $330,000 and $350,000, respectively. Therefore, costs are estimated to range from $150,000 to $400,000 or more per lake studied. As discussed in program component 1, monitoring and source identification, Pierce County could organize lakes into management level tiers. 1st Tier lakes would be at high risk for water quality problems and would require more frequent and extensive monitoring, and would likely be candidates for additional detailed lake studies. 2nd and 3rd Tier lakes would be at moderate and lower risk for water quality problems, respectively, and would require less frequent monitoring and likely would not require additional detailed lake studies. In the Nisqually Basin, 5 out of 16 lakes have been identified as potential 1st Tier lakes. The projects that are developed as proposed solutions to lake problems can also vary significantly in scale and cost. For instance, the results of the Ohop Lake study conducted by the Nisqually Tribe found that the lake functions are controlled primarily by natural system conditions. Thus, the recommended actions from that study focused on educating landowners about the natural conditions and functions of the lake. In contrast, the Steilacoom Lake Phase I Restoration Study recommended alum treatment of inflow to the lake, with an approximate capital cost of roughly $4 to $8 million and annual costs of roughly $300,000 (KCM 1996). The American Lake study recommended watershed strategies to improve water quality in the lake requiring over $20 million in capital costs. As a result of these uncertainties, the costs for funding lake restoration projects cannot not be accurately predicted in this early phase of planning the Lakes Management Program. However, funding will be required and a budget need can be developed based on the costs of other lake studies and projects. There is a need for a staff person to plan and implement the lake project funding component of the lake management plan. This staff person would work closely with monitoring and education staff to identify lakes with problems, determine the studies or capital projects needed for lakes, manage funding and project budgets for lake projects, and oversee lake studies. Estimated Need
A fully functioning program is estimated to require an additional 1.0 FTE to plan and implement the lake project funding component of the lake management program. This staff position should be added to PCWP. The recommended Lake Management Program includes annual budget requests identified in the lake management program. It is estimated that the need for additional funds to implement lake projects is $2,125,000 per year County-wide. The recommended lake management program includes annual budget requests to implement specific projects once the needs for the projects are known. It is estimated that the cost of specific lakes projects could range from $200,000 to $1,000,000.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-26 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
9. Enforcement Enforcement options may be needed to address sources of water quality problems. TPCHD has ability to obtain a search warrant if they have evidence that a property is discharging untreated wastewater, but this option is rarely used, in part because of limited resources. The need for additional enforcement options will be evaluated as the lake management program is implemented. Estimated Need
A fully-functioning lake management program will require one FTE of enforcement staff at TPCHD, funded under their agency’s funding sources. Additional FTE staff or resources may be required in the future as the lake management program is implemented and needs are identified. 10. Legal Authority Pierce County is responsible for addressing surface water quality under the NPDES MS4 program and the TMDL program. As a public agency, Pierce County requires legal authority to implement programs such as the lake management program. To facilitate a County-wide lake management program, and ordinance may be desirable to clarify the program and the lake management function in PCWP. Estimated Need
A fully functioning program may require an initial investment of time by existing County staff to develop a County-wide ordinance to facilitate the lake management program and clarify the lake management function in Surface Water Management.
Lake Management Program Summary
Current Conditions
At this time, in total between them, PCWP, PCD, and TPCHD have approximately 0.8 FTE and $48,000 (grant-funded) dedicated to lake management activities. TPCHD has 0.5 FTE to monitor 7 beaches at 4 lakes for fecal bacteria and to respond to algae concerns on all lakes, and a $48,000 grant from the state Freshwater Algae Program to provide additional services addressing toxic algae. PCD dedicates approximately 0.3 FTE to volunteer monitoring and other activities which affect lake management. Program Gaps
The analysis has identified program gaps related to monitoring, data management, education and outreach, community technical assistance, inter-agency coordination, phased implementation of the aquatic invasive plant program, funding for lake projects, enforcement and legal authority. These gaps are described in Table I-3 and summarized in Table I-4. In total, there is a need for an additional 6.0 FTE and $2,245,000 annually to support a fully functioning
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-27 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
lake management program. To be effective over time, resources for lake management need a long term, stable commitment that is funded out of each agency’s respective budget. To begin the phased implementation of the lake management program in other basins, all of the activities that took place in the Nisqually Basin Planning process related to lake management will need to be conducted during other Basin Plan updates, including gathering information from lakeshore landowners, inventorying lakes, and conducting the tiering process described in Section 8.0. Based on a tiering system, Pierce County Public Works and Utilities Surface Water Management Division will move into a lake management program. Rough (stand alone) monetary estimates will be developed to address the management of the highest tiered lakes. In addition, staff will be assigned to each of the high tiered lakes to work on management issues. Estimated Needs – Fully Funded Program Costs
The estimated needs for a fully functioning lake management program are described in detail in Table I-3 and summarized in Table I-4. Pierce County Public Works and Utilities Surface Water Management Division will require an additional 5.0 FTE and $2,210,000 in supporting program budget per year. Pierce Conservation District will require an additional 1.0 FTE and $35,000 in supporting budget per year. When combined, the total annual FTE and supporting program budget for Pierce County Public Works and Utilities Surface Water Management Division will be $2,710,000. Over 10 years (without inflation), the total lake management program cost for Pierce County is projected to be $27,100,000. The total annual FTE and supporting program budget for Pierce Conservation District will be $135,000. Over 10 years (without inflation), the total lake management program cost for Pierce Conservation District is projected to be $1,350,000. RECOMMENDED PROGRAM FOR THE NISQUALLY BASIN
As discussed in Section 6, Pierce County Surface Water Management is currently implementing an Invasive Vegetation and Lakes Management Program. The results of this technical information memorandum describing existing lake management activities and gaps in a fully functioning lake management program are intended to be included in the overall lake management program developed through the Invasive Vegetation project. This section describes the recommended phased implementation of the lake management program for the Nisqually Basin specifically. To begin the phased implementation of the lake management program in other basins, all of the activities that took place in the Nisqually Basin Planning process related to lake management will need to be conducted during other Basin Plan updates, including gathering information from lakeshore landowners, inventorying lakes, and conducting the tiering process. The gap analysis identified the need for approximately 6.0 FTE and an additional $120,000 in supporting funding (aside from specific lake project funding needs) to implement a fully functional lake management program throughout unincorporated Pierce County. Specific lake
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-28 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
projects are projected to require an additional $2,125,000 per year in funding. These resources would be required to implement the following program components. 1. Monitoring and Source Identification 2. Volunteer Monitoring 3. Data Management and Dissemination 4. Education and Outreach 5. Community Technical Assistance 6. Inter-Agency Coordination and Information Sharing 7. Phased Implementation of the Aquatic Invasive Plant Program 8. Funding for Lake Projects a. Lake Projects: Detailed lake studies b. Lake Projects: In-lake control and management strategies c. Lake Projects: Watershed strategies d. Lake Projects: Provide funding for private projects 9. Enforcement 10. Legal Authority To implement these program components in just the Nisqually Basin, fewer resources would be required than for the County-wide program. It is estimated that 1.5 FTE and $25,000 in supporting funding could be used to start up the lake management program in the Nisqually Basin. As discussed in program components 1 and 8, Pierce County could organize lakes into management level tiers. 1st Tier lakes would be at high risk for water quality problems and would require more frequent and extensive monitoring, and would likely be candidates for additional detailed lake studies. 2nd and 3rd Tier lakes would be at moderate and lower risk for water quality problems, respectively, and would require less frequent monitoring and likely would not require additional detailed lake studies. The lakes in the Nisqually Basin were organized in lake management tiers according to the criteria in Table I-5. When performing the tiering process, it may be necessary for staff to use best professional judgment regarding the protection of public health, safety and welfare to determine the appropriate tier for lakes. This may result in tier decisions that override certain quantified, documented, and/or undocumented conclusions, including information from questionnaires.
Table I-5. Lake Management Tier Criteria Tier 1 Significant Pierce County responsibility for stormwater and drainage near the lake
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-29 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Public access Heavy public use Higher risk of developing or increasing water quality or invasive plant problems Heavily developed lakeshore 303(d) listing or other significant water quality problems reported in surveys Septic system failures contributing to poor lake quality Some Pierce County responsibility for stormwater and drainage near the lake Some public use and access Tier 2 Some risk of developing water quality or invasive plant problems based on lakeshore development levels and water quality information provided in public surveys Low Pierce County responsibility for stormwater and drainage near the lake Low public access and use Tier 3 Less risk of developing water quality or invasive plant problems based on lakeshore development levels and water quality information provided in public surveys
To conduct the lake management tier organization process for the Nisqually Basin, an analysis of data available for each lake was performed. The results of the lakeshore resident surveys were analyzed along with water quality information such as 303(d) listings of impaired waterbodies. The relative level of development around the lake, stormwater outfalls to the lake, public access points, and other key data were evaluated using Geographic Information System (GIS) software. Maps of each lake from the GIS analysis are provided in Figures 1 – 14. These maps illustrate the density of lakeshore tax parcels, public drainage pipes and outfalls, and public roads around lakes. The results of the lake management tier organization process are summarized in Table I-6. In the Nisqually Basin, 5 out of 16 lakes were identified as potential 1st Tier lakes. These 1st Tier lakes, Clear, Whitman, Tanwax, Ohop, and Silver Lakes, appear to be at higher risk of developing or increasing water quality or invasive plant problems based on level of lakeshore development and reported water quality problems. They are also of higher concern to Pierce County because of higher levels of public access, and in the case of Ohop Lake, because Pierce County has a greater responsibility for public stormwater drainage entering the lake. The 2nd Tier lakes include Alder, Harts, Serene, Twin, Rapjohn, and Trout Lakes. Mud, Cranberry, Twenty-Seven, Tule, and Kreger Lakes were identified as 3rd Tier lakes due to lower levels of lakeshore development, fewer reported water quality problems, lower public use, and lower Pierce County responsibility for public stormwater drainage entering the lakes. The lake management tiers for each Basin may be updated and reorganized periodically as new information becomes available or new issues emerge. The results of the Invasive Vegetation and Lakes Management project may provide new insights into lakes requiring more detailed analysis or a higher level of management. In addition, new information regarding toxic algae blooms, septic system failures, and other lake water quality issues may also be collected, resulting in updated tier analyses. The results of the tier analysis illustrate that a lake management program in the Nisqually Basin can be scaled to meet the general needs of each tier of lakes. The focus of the lake management program components will likely be directed primarily to the 1st Tier lakes, with
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-30 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
resources directed to the 2nd and 3rd Tier lakes as appropriate to meet the needs of those lakes. It is anticipated that the 1st Tier lakes will require more monitoring and source identification, volunteer monitoring, education and outreach, community technical assistance, and funding for lake projects. 2nd and 3rd Tier lakes will likely require a lower level of monitoring and source identification, volunteer monitoring, education and outreach, community technical assistance, and funding for lake projects. However, the specific needs associated with each lake will develop over time as the lake management program is implemented. Based on the tiering organization process, Pierce County Public Works and Utilities Surface Water Management Division will move into a lake management program. Rough (stand alone) monetary estimates will be developed to address the management of the highest tiered lakes. In addition, staff will be assigned to each of the high tiered lakes to work on management issues. To support the phased implementation of the lake management program in the Nisqually Basin, it is recommended that 1.5 FTE and $25,000 in annual supporting funding be allocated through a programmatic measure to implement all components of the lake management program including monitoring and source identification, volunteer monitoring, education and outreach, and community technical assistance. Additional capital funding will be required to implement specific lake projects such as detailed lake studies, in-lake management activities, watershed strategies for improving lake water quality, and private projects such as septic system retrofits. It is projected that approximately $200,000 per lake will be required to address the five 1st Tier lakes in the Nisqually Basin over a ten year period. Therefore, it is recommended that an additional $1,000,000 of the capital project budget for the Nisqually Basin Plan be used to provide funding for implementing specific lake projects and studies. Providing funding for implementing the lake management program in the Nisqually Basin will contribute significantly to the overall quality of watershed health in the basin and to meeting to goals of Pierce County for lake management.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-31 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Table I-6. Nisqually Basin Lake Management Tier Analysis
Lake Tier Size Lake Access Water Quality Pierce County Drainage Development Level Survey
Number of 303(d) Water Number of lakeshore Visual review 2 Algae Blooms listed (TPCHD) 3 Quality Reported public Roads tax of GIS data Number of Public Public 0-None 0=none Algae Aquatic Problems Septic stormwater near lake Flooding parcels (in 1=low density # of survey Size Beach/ Boat Private 1-Past 1=observed Blooms Weeds Fish Kills Reported System outfalls into 0=No Reported in Pierce 2=med density surveys respon- (Acres) Park Launch Access 1 2-Current 2=health concern Reported4 Reported4 Reported4 (General)4 Problems5 lake6 1=Yes Surveys County) 3=high density sent out dants Clear Lake 1 155 0 1 1 1 2 15 5 5 8 0 0 1 6 130 3 111 15 Whitman Lake 1 29 0 1 0 0 1 8 8 3 5 0 1 1 7 79 3 77 8 Tanwax Lake 1 172 1 1 2 0 2 8 12 6 5 0 0 1 3 115 3 87 13 Ohop Lake 1 235 0 1 0 2 2 24 4 9 14 0 16 1 22 230 2 199 27 Silver Lake 1 138 1 1 1 0 2 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 64 2 52 5 Harts Lake 2 109 1 1 0 2 2 3 3 3 2 0 0 1 2 45 2 38 6 Alder Lake 7 2 3065 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 37 1 1 59 2 61 7 Lake Serene 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 3 0 0 1 1 28 1 48 3 Twin Lakes 8 2 26 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 0 1 3 23 1 22 6 Rapjohn Lake 2 56 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 16 1 14 1 Trout Lake 9 2 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 9 0 Mud Lake 9 3 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 11 0 Cranberry Lake 9 3 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 1 12 0 Lake Twenty-Seven 3 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 1 11 2 Tule Lake 9 3 34 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 1 18 0 Kreger Lake 9 3 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 22 1 12 0
Notes 1 Includes camps and resorts, only represents those known to BC through survey results or notification from stakeholders 2 Water Quality criteria based on Dept. of Ecology 303(d) listings, all 303(d) listings are for Phosphorus 3 Water Quality criteria based on Tacoma-Pierce Co. Health Dept. reports on algae; with 1 = potentially toxic algae observed but not in significant amount to cause health concern, 2 = have posted lakes with "caution" signs due to significant amount of pote 4 Water Quality criteria based on # of responses received from public surveys sent to lakeshore and lake floodplain residents. 5 Reported septic system problems based on the County's Service Response System (SRS) database. 6 Based on GIS analysis of "drainage pipes" layer, identifies public pipes where "DISCHARGE_DE = LAKE" 7 Alder Lake is also partially in Thurston County and Lewis County 8 Camp Arnold is located at Twin Lakes 9 No survey responses were received for Cranberry Lake, Kreger Lake, Mud Lake, Trout Lake, and Tule Lake.
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-32 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
[This page left blank intentionally.]
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-33 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Figure 1: Alder Lake
Figure 2: Clear Lake and Lake Twenty-Seven
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-34 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Figure 3: Cranberry Lake
Figure 4: Harts Lake
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-35 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Figure 5: Kreger Lake
Figure 6: Lake Serene
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-36 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Figure 7: Mud Lake
Figure 8: Ohop Lake
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-37 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Figure 9: Rapjohn Lake
Figure 10: Silver Lake
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-38 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Figure 11: Tanwax Lake
Figure 12: Trout Lake
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-39 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
Figure 13: Tule Lake
Figure 14: Whitman and Twin Lakes
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-40 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division APPENDIX I: LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
REFERENCES
Bachmann, R.W. 2001. The limiting factor concept: what stops growth? Lakeline (North American Lake Management Society). v. 21, no. 1, p. 26-28. Cooke, G.D., E.B. Welch, S.A. Peterson and S.A. Nichols. 2005. Restoration and Management of Lakes and Reservoirs (third ed.) New York, CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group. EPA. 2000. Costs and Benefits of Water Quality Protection, Chapter 8 of 2000 National Water Quality Inventory. Accessed online on 7/18/07 at: http://www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/chp8.pdf Nichols, S.A., 2001. Macrophytes: where they grow and why. Lakeline (North American Lake Management Society), v. 21, no. 1, p. 38-41. State of Maine DEP. 2007. The Economics of Lakes - Dollars and $ense. Accessed online on 7/17/07 at: http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/doclake/research.htm University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. 2005. What Is the Value of a Clean and Healthy Lake to a Local Community? Accessed online on 7/16/07 at: http://www.wisconsinlakes.org/AboutLakes/PDFs/DelavanLakeStudy.pdf
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities I-41 www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management Division VOLUME 2 - APPENDICES NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
APPENDIX J CIP and Programmatic Ranking Score Sheets
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP11-BRI-C01 Subbasin: Brighton Creek Subbasin Location: Upper Brighton Creek Culvert Replacements (4th Avenue East, 336th Street East, and Kinsman Road) Description: Replace culverts at 4th Avenue East 341st Street East to alleviate local flooding. 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 17 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 10 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 10 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 72 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 53 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 1 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 25 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 30 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 180 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP11-BRI-FP01 Subbasin: Brighton Creek Subbasin Location: Brighton Creek Culvert Replacement at Harts Lake Loop Road (Brighton Cr-1_b EDT Reach) Description: Replace 36-inch culvert (fish barrier) with 23-foot-wide natural bottom arch culvert for fish passage. 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 0 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 0 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) 65 Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 107 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 14 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 121 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP11-CLR-C01 Subbasin: Clear Lake Subbasin Location: West Clear Lake Road Culvert (West Clear Lake Road near State Route 161) Description: Install new culvert, clean and construct drainage ditch to convey stormwater runoff 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 8 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 5 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 10 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 58 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 7 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 1 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 4 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 0 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 69 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP11-HRN-C01 Subbasin: Horn Creek Subbasin Location: 364th Street East Culvert Replacement (364th Street East near 8th Avenue South) Description: Replace 12-inch culvert under 364th Street with 11' x 3' box culvert to alleviate roadway flooding 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 17 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 10 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 10 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 59 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 7 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 10 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 0 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 76 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP11-HRN-FP01 Subbasin: Horn Creek Subbasin Location: Horn Creek Barrier Removal at River Mile 1.0 (Horn Cr-2_a EDT Reach) Description: Bypass man-made waterfall that is a barrier to fish passage with rock weir. 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 0 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 0 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) 65 Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 107 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 7 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 114 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP11-HRN-FP02 Subbasin: Horn Creek Subbasin Location: Horn Creek Barrier Removal at Harts Lake Loop Road, River Mile 1.2 (Horn Cr-2_a EDT Reach) Description: Replace 48-inch culvert (fish barrier) with 19-ft wide bottomless arch culvert for fish passage. 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 0 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 0 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) 80 Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 122 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 14 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 136 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP11-HRT-C01 Subbasin: Harts Lake Subbasin Location: Hart’s Lake Loop Road Culvert Replacement, North of Hart's Lake near 39600 Harts Lake Loop Road Description: Replace existing 24" culvert with 11' by 6' box culvert to alleviate roadway flooding 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 25 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) 15 Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 10 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 15 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 77 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 7 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 1 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 38 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 17 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 139 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP11-KRG-C01 Subbasin: Kreger Creek Subbasin Location: Silver Lake Culvert Replacement, Kreger Creek just south off 416th Street East Description: Replace 48” culvert with a 10' by 7' box culvert to alleviate backwater flooding near Silver Lake 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 17 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) 10 Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 15 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 15 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 89 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 7 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 1 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 1 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 32 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 23 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 151 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP11-KRG-C02 Subbasin: Kreger Creek Subbasin Location: Dean Kreger Road just north of intersection with 408th Street East Description: Replace two 12-inch culverts, slope stabilization, erosion control, plantings 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 25 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) 15 Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 5 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 10 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 90 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 7 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 15 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 16 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 128 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP11-MUR-C01 Subbasin: Murray Creek Subbasin Location: Tisch Road Culvert Replacement (near 324th Street South) Description: Replace existing 12-inch culvert with an 10' by 3' box culvert to alleviate roadway flooding. 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) 5 Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 5 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 42 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 7 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 1 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 21 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 0 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 70 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP11-TWL-RST01 Subbasin: Lower Tanwax Creek Location: Lower Tanwax Riparian Enhancement (riparian wetlands - Tanwax Cr-1, Tanwax Cr-2 EDT Reaches) Description: Streamside vegetation plantings in selected reed canary grass dominated areas. 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 0 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 43 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 72 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 30 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 145 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP11-TWL-C01 Subbasin: Lower Tanwax Creek Location: Culvert Replacement at 365th Street East Description: Replace 18-inch culvert with a 7' by 4' box culvert to alleviate roadway flooding 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 17 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 10 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 59 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 7 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 10 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 0 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 76 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP11-TWU-AC01 Subbasin: Upper Tanwax Creek Location: Tanwax Creek Wetland Protection Phase 1 (tributary areas along upper Tanwax Creek) Description: Identify and protect key wetlands that maintain flow in Tanwax Creek. 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 15 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 28 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 115 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 68 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 40 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 251 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP11-TWU-AC02 Subbasin: Upper Tanwax Creek Location: Tanwax Creek Wetland Protection Phase 2 (tributary areas along upper Tanwax Creek) Description: Identify and protect key wetlands that maintain flow in Tanwax Creek. 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 15 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 28 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 115 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 68 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 40 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 251 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP11-TWU-C01 Subbasin: Upper Tanwax Creek Location: Benbow Drive Culvert Replacement (between Twin Lakes and Whitman Lakes) Description: Replace 36-inch CMP culverts with 9' by 5' box culvert 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 25 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 10 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 10 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 83 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 7 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 1 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 36 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 17 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 143 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP11-TWU-C02 Subbasin: Upper Tanwax Creek Location: Webster Road Culvert Replacement (1200 feet northwest of State Route 161 on Webster Road) Description: Replace damaged 18-inch culvert with a 5' by 3' box culvert to alleviate roadway flooding 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 17 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 5 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 10 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 84 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 7 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 1 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 11 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 0 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 102 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP11-TWU-C04 Subbasin: Upper Tanwax Cr Subbasin Location: Culvert Replacement at Thomas Road (near 34402 Thomas Road East) Description: Replace 12-inch culvert with an 6' by 5' box culvert to alleviate roadway flooding 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 8 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 10 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 10 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 67 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 7 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 1 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 8 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 0 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 82 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP14-OHL-AC01 Subbasin: Lower Ohop Creek Location: Ohop Creek Property Acquisition Phase 1 Description: Purchase available properties along Ohop Creek 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 25 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) 15 Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) 15 Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 15 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 95 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 55 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 51 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 40 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 241 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP14-OHL-AC02 Subbasin: Lower Ohop Creek Location: Ohop Creek Property Acquisition Phase 2 (Lower Ohop Creek Valley - Ohop Cr-1a EDT reach) Description: Purchase approximately 114 acres along lower Ohop Creek in vicinity of proposed restoration project. 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 15 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 28 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 55 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 51 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 40 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 174 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP14-OHL-AC03 Subbasin: Lower Ohop Creek Location: Ohop Creek Property Acquisition Phase 3 (Lower Ohop Creek Valley - Ohop Cr-1a EDT reach) Description: Purchase approximately 114 acres along lower Ohop Creek in vicinity of proposed restoration project. 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 15 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 28 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 55 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 51 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 40 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 174 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP14-OHL-AC04 Subbasin: Lower Ohop Creek Location: Ohop Creek Repetitive Loss Property Acquisition Description: Purchase available properties along Ohop Creek 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 25 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) 15 Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) 15 Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 10 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 83 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 55 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 29 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 28 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 195 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP14-OHL-RST01 Subbasin: Lower Ohop Creek Location: Lower Ohop Creek Valley (Ohop Cr-1a EDT reach) Description: Lower Ohop Valley Restoration Phase I (Segments D, E and F) - Approximately 1 mile 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 20 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 105 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 80 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 37 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 242 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP14-OHL-RST02 Subbasin: Lower Ohop Creek Location: Lower Ohop Creek Valley (Ohop Cr-1a EDT reach) Description: Lower Ohop Valley Restoration Phase II (Segments A, B and C) - Approximately 2.1 miles 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 20 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 105 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 80 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 37 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 242 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP14-OHL-RST03 Subbasin: Lower Ohop Creek Location: Lower Ohop Creek Valley (Ohop Cr-1a EDT reach) Description: Lower Ohop Valley Restoration Phase III (Segments G, H, I, J, K and L) - Approximately 2.1 miles 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 20 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 105 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 80 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 37 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 242 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP14-OHU-AC01 Subbasin: Upper Ohop Creek Location: Upper Ohop Shoreline Protection Phase 1 (Twentyfive Mile Creek and Trib0094 EDT reaches) Description: Acquire upper Ohop Creek shoreline reaches to maintain habitat diversity. 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 15 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 28 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 55 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 54 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 40 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 177 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP14-OHU-AC02 Subbasin: Upper Ohop Creek Location: Upper Ohop Shoreline Protection Phase 2 (Twentyfive Mile Creek and Trib0094 EDT reaches) Description: Acquire upper Ohop Creek shoreline reaches to maintain habitat diversity. 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 15 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 28 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 55 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 54 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 40 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 177 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP19-ASH-C01 Subbasin: Ashford Reach Subbasin Location: Culvert Replacement at 278th Avenue East (55007 278th Avenue East) Description: Clear boulders, replace existing culverts with 12'x5' concrete box culvert. 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 17 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) 15 Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 5 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 15 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 71 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 7 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 55 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 14 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 147 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP19-COP-AC01 Subbasin: Copper Creek Location: Upper Nisqually Property Acquisition (approximately 2 miles west of Park Entrance along SR 706) Description: Acquire property adjacent to Nisqually River for conservation. 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 15 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 15 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 43 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 55 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 75 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 40 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 213 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP20-MAL-AC01 Subbasin: Lower Mashel River Location: Mashel River Property Acquisition (Lower Mashel-A_B EDT Reach) Description: Purchase property along Lower Mashell River including shoreline and adjacent uplands. 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 15 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 28 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 55 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 38 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 40 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 161 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP20-MAL-AC02 Subbasin: Lower Mashel River Location: Mashel Shoreline Buffer Acquisition (Lower Mashel-A_B EDT Reach) Description: Purchase approximately 1 mile of shoreline. Seek strategic properties for protection and restoration. 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 15 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 28 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 55 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 48 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 40 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 171 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP20-MAL-AC03 Subbasin: Lower Mashel River Location: Mashel Small Properties Acquisition (various reaches of lower Mashel River) Description: Purchase available small properties along Mashel River (approximately 80 acres). 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 15 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 28 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 55 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 51 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 40 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 174 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP20-MAL-RST01 Subbasin: Lower Mashel River Location: Lower Mashel River (Lower Mashel-A_a, Lower Mashel-A_B, Lower Mashel-B EDT Reach) Description: Mashel Eatonville Reach Instream Restoration Phase II: address remaining habitat issues. 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 20 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 105 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 80 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 37 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 242 Appendix J Rankings-CIP.xls
Project ID: CIP20-MAL-VC01 Subbasin: Lower Mashel River Location: Lower Mashel River (Lower Mashel-A_a, Lower Mashel-A_B, Lower Mashel-B EDT Reach) Description: Riparian revegetation, restore remaing sites devoid of vegetation with native plants and shrubs. 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 0 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 115 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 72 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 34 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 221 Page 1 Appendix J PROGRAMMATICS Project ID: PRG00-01 Subbasin: All Location: Nisqually Basin (portion of County-wide program) Description: Develop and implement Low Impact Development program 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) 5 Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 5 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 15 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 8 TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 64 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 10 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 8 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 122 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 25 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 125 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 37 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 348 Page 2 Appendix J PROGRAMMATICS Project ID: PRG00-02 Subbasin: All Location: Nisqually Basin (portion of County-wide program) Description: Update Stormwater Management Manual as required by NPDES Permit 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 25 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) 15 Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 5 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 15 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 25 TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 188 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 8 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 75 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 25 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 109 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 13 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 385 Page 3 Appendix J PROGRAMMATICS Project ID: PRG00-03 Subbasin: All Location: Nisqually Basin (portion of County-wide program) Description: Increase inspections for compliance with stormwater regulations and NPDES permit 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 1 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 8 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 10 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 8 TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 72 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 25 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 195 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 25 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 108 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 23 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 398 Page 4 Appendix J PROGRAMMATICS Project ID: PRG00-04 Subbasin: All Location: Nisqually Basin (portion of County-wide program) Description: Develop and implement land acquistion program for flood hazard reduction, water quality, and floodplain riparian habitat mitigation 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 1 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 15 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 10 i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 17 TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 63 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 17 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 150 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 25 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 132 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 40 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 385 Page 5 Appendix J PROGRAMMATICS Project ID: PRG00-05 Subbasin: All Location: Nisqually Basin (portion of County-wide program) Description: Develop and implement program to enhance degraded riparian habitat and water quality 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 5 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 10 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 22 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 10 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 8 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 10 TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 125 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 17 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 111 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 33 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 291 Page 6 Appendix J PROGRAMMATICS Project ID: PRG00-06 Subbasin: All Location: Nisqually Basin (portion of County-wide program) Description: Develop and implement an education, outreach, and technical assistance program 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 8 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) 10 Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes 5 within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 15 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 10 i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 17 TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 91 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 25 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 165 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 25 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 106 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 34 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 396 Page 7 Appendix J PROGRAMMATICS Project ID: PRG00-07 Subbasin: All Location: Nisqually Basin (portion of County-wide program) Description: Develop and implement a surface water monitoring program 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 0 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 10 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 17 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 147 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 10 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 17 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 72 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 20 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 239 Page 8 Appendix J PROGRAMMATICS Project ID: PRG00-08 Subbasin: All Location: Nisqually Basin (portion of County-wide program) Description: Develop and implement a BMP manual for PC Water Programs maintenance activities 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 1 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 8 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) 5 Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 10 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 8 TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 68 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 25 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 168 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 10 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 17 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 115 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 34 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 385 Page 9 Appendix J PROGRAMMATICS Project ID: PRG00-09 Subbasin: All Location: Nisqually Basin (portion of County-wide program) Description: Develop and implement an invasive species management program 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 8 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 15 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 17 TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 84 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 25 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 122 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 25 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 121 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 34 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 361 Page 10 Appendix J PROGRAMMATICS Project ID: PRG00-10 Subbasin: All Location: Nisqually Basin (portion of County-wide program) Description: Require Flood Disclosure Statements on Property Titles 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 1 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 8 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) 5 Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 15 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 25 TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 103 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 0 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 0 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 20 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 123 Page 11 Appendix J PROGRAMMATICS Project ID: PRG00-11 Subbasin: All Location: Nisqually Basin (portion of County-wide program) Description: Beaver Management Policy 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) 17 Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) 5 Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 10 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 10 i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 17 TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 91 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 8 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 39 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 8 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 17 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 61 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 26 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 217 Page 12 Appendix J PROGRAMMATICS Project ID: PRG00-12 Subbasin: All Location: Nisqually Basin (portion of County-wide program) Description: Encourage installation of permanent buffer markings and/or signage 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 10 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 8 TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 33 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 10 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 8 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 94 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 10 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 8 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 10 TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 89 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 27 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 243 Page 13 Appendix J PROGRAMMATICS Project ID: PRG00-13 Subbasin: All Location: Lower Nisqually Basin (portion of County-wide program) Description: Implement elements of shellfish protection program 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 0 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 10 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 8 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 10 TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 188 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 10 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 17 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 82 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 40 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 310 Page 14 Appendix J PROGRAMMATICS Project ID: PRG00-14 Subbasin: All Location: Nisqually Basin (portion of County-wide program) Description: Develop and implement a habitat monitoring program 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 5 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 20 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 8 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 69 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 10 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 17 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 90 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 17 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 196 Page 15 Appendix J PROGRAMMATICS Project ID: PRG00-15 Subbasin: All Location: Nisqually Basin (portion of County-wide program) Description: Develop and implement lake water quality management plan 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 1 Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 15 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 8 TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 29 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 25 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 195 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 10 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 17 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 98 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 40 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 362 Page 16 Appendix J PROGRAMMATICS Project ID: PRG11-02 Subbasin: Lower and Middle Nisqually subbasins Location: Anadromous streams in lower and middle subbasins Description: Salmon carcass nutrient enhancement 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 0 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 0 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 65 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 16 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 81 Page 17 Appendix J PROGRAMMATICS Project ID: PRG11-03 Subbasin: All Location: Basin wide Description: Enhance Nisqually River Council Capacity 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and 15 doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 27 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 190 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 13 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 3 e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 81 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 34 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 332 Page 18 Appendix J PROGRAMMATICS Project ID: PRG11-04 Subbasin: Ohop and Red Salmon Location: Ohop and Red Salmon subbasins Description: Coordinate with Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department to address reported septic system problems 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 0 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 10 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 17 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 10 TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 114 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 8 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 38 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 10 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 31 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 183 Page 19 Appendix J PROGRAMMATICS Project ID: PRG11-05 Subbasin: Ohop and Red Salmon Location: Ohop and Red Salmon subbasins Description: Implement elements of Nisqually bacteria TMDL water quality implementation plan 1. FLOOD REDUCTION SCORE a. Level of Flooding (score all that apply) Prevents/reduces inconvenience flooding (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) Prevents/reduces hazard to public safety (high = 25, medium = 17, low = 8) Prevents/reduces risk to critical facilities (hospitals, etc.) (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces severe property damage (> $100,000/year) (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces minor property damage (< $100,000/year) (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Frequency of Flooding – solves an existing problem (select & score one only ) Prevents/reduces annual flooding (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) Prevents/reduces flooding every 1 to 5 years (high = 15, medium = 10, low = 5) Prevents/reduces flooding every 5 to 25 years (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) Prevents/reduces flooding less than one in 25 years (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) c. Required due to flooding liability (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) d. Increases capacity of floodplain (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) e. Corrects non-compliance with County design standard (H/D ratio < 1.5) ( high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) f. Future Flooding: level of increase in peak discharge that is expected due to land use changes within the project area - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 g. Estimated benefit to doing the project now (in feasibility and cost benefit) versus waiting and doing project later - High = 15, Medium = 10, Low = 5 h. Provides basin-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) i. Provides county-wide flood reduction benefit (For programmatic recommendations only) TOTAL FLOODING SCORE (Maximum Score is 185 for CIP or 225 for programmatic) 0 2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT a. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of fine sediments (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 b. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of heavy metals (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of excess nutrients (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 d. Reduces sources of or impacts from excess oxygen demanding conditions (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 20 e. Reduces sources of or impacts from emission of oil and grease (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 f. Reduces sources of emission of pathogens such as fecal coliform (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 30 g. Lowers water temperature, provides more shade (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 20 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL WATER QUALITY SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 159 3. NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT & PROTECTION a. Improves and/or protects habitat for aquatic species (high = 30, medium = 20, low = 10) 10 b. Improves and/or protects habitat for terrestrial species (high = 20, medium = 13, low = 7) 7 c. Increases proportion of native plant species (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Improves flow regime and/or natural hydrology (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) e. Increases channel stability/reduces erosion (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 3 f. Increases extent of salmonid spawning habitat (Q = [Good(ft) + Fair(ft)] / [Total (ft)]) Opens passage to long reach of habitat (>4000 ft) Q*80 Opens passage to medium reach of habitat (1000 - 4000 ft) Q*65 Opens passage to short reach of habitat (<1000 ft) Q*50 g. Salmonids other than cutthroat trout present (high = 5, medium = 3, low = 1) 5 h. Provides basin-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 5 i. Provides county-wide water quality benefits (For programmatic recommendations only) 8 j. Solves or substantially reduces an existing problem (For programmatic recommendations only) 15 TOTAL NATURAL RESOURCE IMPROVEMENT SCORE (Maximum Score is 160 for CIP or 215 for programmatic) 60 4. OTHER FACTORS a. Provides recreational or multiple use opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) b. Enhances visual aesthetic of area (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 c. Provides public education opportunities (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 d. Is a highly visible project or has been on the CIP needs list multiple years. (high = 10, medium = 7, low = 3) 7 TOTAL OTHER FACTORS SCORE (Maximum Score 40) 21 TOTAL SCORE (Maximum Score is 545 for CIP or 695 for programmatic) 240 VOLUME 2 - APPENDICES NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
APPENDIX K Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Cost Estimates
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Upper Brighton Creek Culvert Replacements Project Number: CIP11-BRI-C01 Project Type: Culvert Replacement Sub-Basin: Brighton Creek
Existing Conditions: A large depression in the vicinity of 4th Avenue East, 336th Street East, and Kinsman Road becomes inundated for long periods during wet season. Various flooding-related problems have been reported in the area including: (1) New culvert installed at Kinsman Road exacerbated downstream flooding (BRI-21). (2) Flooding of private property after new culvert installed at Kinsman Road (BRI-19). (3) Flooding over the roadway at 4th Avenue East, flooding of private property (BRI-18). (4) Saturated ground has degraded conditions for livestock (discussions with residents). Analysis: An analysis of the drainage system found that the Kinsman Road culvert (upstream of the depression) is adequately sized to pass the 100-year discharge without overtopping Kinsman Road. A group of 4 culverts under 341st Street East (private road upstream of the depression) are not adequately sized to convey the 25-year discharge. The culvert at 8th Avenue East (private road downstream of the depression) also does not have adequate capacity to convey the 25-year discharge without overtopping the road.
Project Description: The Kinsman Road culvert should remain in place. The four culverts under 341st Street East should be replaced with a 10-foot by 3-foot concrete box culvert. The culvert under 8th Avenue East should be replaced with a 9-foot by 6-foot concrete box culvert. A hydrologic analysis should be completed prior to implementing the recommended culvert replacements to determine is there will be any downstream flooding effects. Available 5-foot contour data suggests that there may be a drop in bed elevation 200 to 600 feet downstream of 8th Avenue East, which should be verified with detailed survey. If so, the bed elevation of the channel could be lowered to improve drainage out of the depression. An evaluation of wetlands should also be conducted prior to implementation to determine if any habitat mitigation would be required. This project is based on field observations and existing information (e.g. 5-ft contours), therefore, prior to detailed design a survey should be conducted to confirm the assumed channel and culvert geometry (e.g. bed slope, culvert invert elevations, channel depth, and roadway elevations).
Design Assumptions: Hydrologic analysis pre-design study estimated at a lump sum cost of $25,000. Wetland evaluation pre-design study estimated at a lump sum cost of $15,000. Site survey estimated at $10,000. Unit cost estimates are based on a review of Pierce County bid tabs, WSDOT historical unit bid costs, Utility vault estimates, and engineering judgment. Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Hydrologic study LS $ 25,000 1 $ 25,000 $ - Wetland evaluation LS $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 $ - Mobilization 10% - - $ 19,000 $ - Erosion and sediment control LS $ 1,000 2 $ 2,000 $ - SPCC Plan LS $ 1,000 2 $ 2,000 Contingency (20%) $ - Traffic control LS $ 1,000 2 $ 2,000 Total Land Costs $ - Survey LS $ 10,000 2 $ 20,000 9' x 6' box culvert installed LF $ 1,600 40 $ 64,000 10' x 3' box culvert installed LF $ 2,000 40 $ 80,000 Wing walls Each $ 2,000 8 $ 16,000 Project Prioritization Summary Roadway reconstruction LS $ 3,000 2 $ 6,000 Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 251,000 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ 87,850 Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 30,158 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 369,008 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 62,040 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 (4%) $ 17,242 Project Cost $ 448,300 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Brighton Creek Culvert Replacement (Harts Lake Loop Rd.) Project Number: CIP11-BRI-FP01 Project Type: Restoration Sub-Basin: Brighton Creek
Existing Conditions: Harts Lake Loop Road, a county-owned road, crosses Brighton Creek at river mile 0.5. The 3-foot-diameter concrete culvert blocks passage to all upstream migrating salmon.
Analysis: Pierce Conservation District analyzed the road crossing during the 2002 Nisqually basin barrier assessment and determined that it a full barrier to all salmon and steelhead. The stream below the culvert is steep, but chum and coho salmon have been seen at the culvert outlet. The culvert blocks over 4 miles of stream and 100's of acres of wetlands above the Harts Lake Loop Road.
Proposed Solution/ The proposed solution for removing the fish passage barrier at Harts Lake Loop Road is to replace the existing culvert with a 23'-0" by 11'-11" aluminum structural plate arch Project Description culvert. The stream simulation method is proposed for design of the culvert wherein it will be laid at an 8% grade and backfilled with 24" minus cobble mix. The culvert will be 160 feet long.
Design Assumptions: This culvert is on a 7.6% slope at the crossing of Harts Lake Loop Road. The existing culvert is a 36" concrete tube that is perched 4 feet at the outlet. The watershed area above the culvert is 2,683 acres. Winter fish flow is 33 cfs. The 2-year storm is 83 cfs and the 100-year storm is 235 cfs. Pipe velocity at fish flow is 11.3 ft/sec (4 ft/sec is the maximum recommended for this culvert). Culvert capacity is approximately 125 cfs with 20 feet of head from the invert. There is considerable capacity for ponding behind the roadway, Landwhich Costsprobably1 explains why the stream has not overtopped the roadway in this vicinity. Ordinary high Construction water width Costswas difficult1 to estimate, but 15 feet looked Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Mobilization and traffic control LS $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 $ - Water diversion, erosion control, clearing LS $ 6,000 1 $ 6,000 $ - Culvert LS $ 175,200 1 $ 175,200 $ - Installation of culvert LS $ 46,000 1 $ 46,000 $ - Excavation/backfill cy $ 20 3,500 $ 70,000 $ - Streambed material, rip rap and LWD LS $ 28,000 1 $ 28,000 Total $ - Placement of material LS $ 12,000 1 $ 12,000 Contingency (20%) $ - Road resurfacing feet $ 105 100 $ 10,500 Total Land Costs $ - Utility adjustment -over power and phone LS $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Project maintenance LS $ 10,000 1 $ 10,000 Riparian replanting and clean-up acre $ 10,000 1 $ 7,500 Project Prioritization Summary Permitting LS $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 400,200 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ 180,090 Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 51,646 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 631,936 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 126,387 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 dollars (4%) $ 30,333 Project Cost $ 788,700 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: West Clear Lake Road Drainage Construction Project Number: CIP11-CLR-C01 Project Type: Culvert Construction Sub-Basin: Clear Lake
Existing Conditions: Stormwater runoff flows over West Clear Lake Road and onto the driveway of a private residence, flowing toward the house. The County’s drainage database shows a ditch along West Clear Lake Road, but the ditch appears to be overgrown and may have accumulated sediment.
Analysis: Field observations confirmed that runoff flows over West Clear Lake Road and onto the driveway of a private residence, flowing toward the house. Examination of available topographic data (5-foot contours from the County’s GIS data library) indicated that a small area (< 0.5 acres) of State Route 161 and West Clear Lake Road potentially drain toward the problem site. The peak 100-year flow rate for this drainage area was estimated to be approximately 1.5 cfs.
Project Description: Maintenance of the existing drainage ditch along the west side of West Clear Lake Road is proposed to improve conveyance (to allow stormwater runoff to flow south to the culvert that drains west toward Twenty-seven Lake). In addition, 35 lineal feet of trench drain should be installed in front of the problem site to intercept surface flows. The trench drain will be connected to the existing County drainage ditch with 25 lineal feet of 6-inch diameter pipe. The drainage ditches along the west side of State Route 161 should also be checked for sediment and debris. These proposed projects solve flooding problem CLR-01. This project is based on field observations and existing information (e.g. 5-ft contours), therefore, prior to detailed design a survey should be conducted to confirm the assumed area contributing to the flooding problem and viability (i.e. adequate grade) for connecting a pipe from the trench drain to drainage ditch. Design Assumptions: Cost estimates are based on a review of Pierce County bid tabs, WSDOT historical unit bid costs, Contech estimates, and engineering judgment. The site will be surveyed for 1 day to improve/verify design specifications. Trench drain assumed to be $400 per lineal foot, installed. Storm drain (6-inch pipe) assumed to be $400 per lineal foot, installed. Ditch maintenance assumed to be $25 per linear foot for approximately 1000 feet based on engineering judgment. Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Mobilization 10% - - $ 4,950 $ - Erosion and sediment control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - SPCC Plan LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Traffic control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Survey LS $ 500 1 $ 500 Total $ - Trench drain LF $ 400 35 $ 14,000 Contingency (20%) $ - 6-inch diameter storm drain LF $ 200 25 $ 5,000 Total Land Costs $ - Ditch maintenance and excavation LF $ 25 1000 $ 25,000 Misc. site restoration LS $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000 $ - Project Prioritization Summary $ - Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 54,450 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ 19,058 Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 6,542 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 80,050 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 28,017 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Project Cost $ 108,100 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: 364th Street East Culvert Replacement Project Number: CIP11-HRN-C01 Project Type: Culvert Replacement Sub-Basin: Horn Creek
Existing Conditions: This problem area is relatively flat, but surrounded by a large, steep drainage basin. There is a 12” concrete culvert under 8th Ave South and another 12” concrete culvert under 364th Street East. To the east of this intersection, there is a culvert under a private driveway. The hydraulic analyses show that the ditches along 364th Street, west of the culverts, are slightly undersized for larger, infrequent flow events. The analyses also show that all three 12” culverts in the area do not have sufficient capacity to convey the runoff from the 25-year design event. Analysis: The drainage basin was delineated in GIS using 5-ft contour data. Land use was estimated using aerial photography and tax parcel information. Discharges were calculated using WWHM3 for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm events. The 25-year event was then modeled in HY-8.0 to determine sizing for the passage under 364th Street East. The existing 12" culvert was found to be undersized. The ditches were analyzed using Manning's Equation and were found to convey the 25-year event.
Project Description: The 12-inch culvert at the intersection of 364th Street East should be replaced with an 11-foot wide by 3-foot high, 3-sided concrete box culvert to convey the 100-year flow. The 12-inch culvert at 8th Ave South should be replaced with a 3-foot wide by 2-foot high concrete box culvert to pass the 100-year flow rate. The culvert to the east of the intersection also requires a 3-foot wide by 2-foot high concrete box culvert in order to pass the 100-year event; however, the purpose of this culvert is unclear because there is no road or driveway at that location. The area downstream of the culvert under 364th Street East should be cleared. This project is based on field observations and existing information (e.g. 5-ft contours), therefore, prior to detailed design a survey should be conducted to confirm the assumed channel and culvert geometry (e.g. bed slope, culvert invert elevations, channel depth, and roadway elevations). Design Assumptions: One day of survey will be required before project construction to improve/verify design. Ditch maintenance cost is included in the 'Misc. site restoration' line item. The driveway culvert is not replaced as part of this project until it is decided upon by the County. Box culverts are proposed due to limited ground cover.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Mobilization 10% - - $ 20,170 $ - Erosion and sediment control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - SPCC Plan LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Traffic control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Survey LS $ 500 3 $ 1,500 Total $ - 11' x 3' concrete box culvert installed LF $ 2,200 52 $ 114,400 Contingency (20%) $ - 3' x 2' concrete box culvert installed LF $ 800 40 $ 32,000 Total Land Costs $ - 3' x 2' concrete box culvert installed LF $ 800 46 $ 36,800 Wing walls Each $ 2,000 4 $ 8,000 Misc. site restoration LS $ 2,000 3 $ 6,000 Project Prioritization Summary Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 221,870 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ 77,655 Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 26,658 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 326,182 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 65,236 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 (4%) $ 19,829 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - Project Cost $ 411,300 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Horn Creek Barrier Removal (waterfall at RM 1.0) Project Number: CIP11-HRN-FP01 Project Type: Restoration Sub-Basin: Horn Creek
Existing Conditions: A man-made waterfall at river mile 1.0 severely limits upstream migration of salmon. Minor alterations have been made to the waterfall to allow some limited upstream migration, but most salmon species still do not migrate above this barrier.
Analysis: Pierce Conservation District analyzed the waterfall during the 2002 Nisqually basin barrier assessment and determined that it is a partial barrier. The estimated 4-foot drop excludes large numbers of chum salmon, which have been observed to stack up at this barrier.
Proposed Solution/ The project will create a bypass cascade to the east of the waterfall. This will be built with a series of 18" to 24" log and rock weirs. Project Description
Design Assumptions: The landowner will not agree to full removal of waterfall.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Mobilization LS $ 10,000 1 $ 10,000 $ - Water diversion LS $ 2,433 1 $ 2,433 $ - Clearing and grubbing acre $ 3,042 1 $ 1,521 $ - Erosion control LS $ 2,433 1 $ 2,433 $ - Channel excavation plus haul cy $ 12 500 $ 6,100 $ - Streambed material plus rocks tons $ 25 104 $ 2,600 Total $ - Large wood debris plus delivery each $ 850 12 $ 10,200 Contingency (20%) $ - Placement of material cy $ 15 104 $ 1,560 Total Land Costs $ - Project maintenance LS $ 10,000 1 $ 10,000 Riparian replanting acre $ 10,000 0.5 $ 5,000 Permitting LS $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Project Prioritization Summary $ - Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 56,847 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ 25,581 Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 7,336 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 89,764 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 31,417 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 dollars (4%) $ 4,847 Project Cost $ 126,100 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Horn Creek Barrier Removal (Harts Lake Loop Rd.) Project Number: CIP11-HRN-FP02 Project Type: Restoration Sub-Basin: Horn Creek
Existing Conditions: Harts Lake Loop Road, a county-owned road, crosses Horn Creek at river mile 1.2. The 4-foot-diameter concrete culvert poses a passage problem to upstream migrating salmon.
Analysis: Pierce Conservation District analyzed the road crossing during the 2002 Nisqually basin barrier assessment and determined that it a partial barrier and only 33% passable. The barrier excludes salmon from over 1.5 miles of salmon spawning and rearing habitat.
Proposed Solution/ The project will replace a concrete culvert with a 19-foot by 6-foot 4-inch aluminum bottomless arch culvert with 2 feet of cover. Project Description
Design Assumptions: Complete detour for Harts Lake Loop Road for several days to replace the culvert. No utilities in road fill and no adjustment of the approach.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Mobilization and traffic control LS $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 $ - Water diversion, erosion control, clearing LS $ 6,000 1 $ 6,000 $ - Culvert LS $ 34,000 1 $ 34,000 $ - Installation of culvert LS $ 26,000 1 $ 26,000 $ - Excavation/backfill cy $ 20 500 $ 10,000 $ - Streambed material and rip rap LS $ 6,000 1 $ 6,000 Total $ - Large wood debris plus delivery each $ 850 6 $ 5,100 Contingency (20%) $ - Placement of material LS $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000 Total Land Costs $ - Road resurfacing feet $ 90 150 $ 13,500 Project maintenance LS $ 10,000 1 $ 10,000 Riparian replanting acre $ 10,000 1 $ 5,000 Project Prioritization Summary Permitting LS $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 137,600 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ 61,920 Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 17,757 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 217,277 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 54,319 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 dollars (4%) $ 10,864 Project Cost $ 282,500 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Hart's Lake Loop Road Culvert Replacement Project Number: CIP11-HRT-C01 Project Type: Culvert Replacement Sub-Basin: Hart's Lake
Existing Conditions: There is a 24" concrete culvert that passes Harts Creek under Harts Lake Valley Road. The analysis shows that the 24” concrete culvert is undersized. During a site visit on May 16, 2007, vegetation was noted at the inlet and outlet of the culvert.
Analysis: The drainage basin was delineated in GIS using 5-ft contour data. Land use was estimated using aerial photography and tax parcel information. Discharges were calculated using WWHM3 for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm events. The 25-year event was then modeled in HY-8.0 to determine capacity. Several different culvert sizes were analyzed in FEQUTL to identify the size necessary for hydraulic capacity and fish passage. No channel analysis was required.
Project Description: A hydraulic analysis showed that an 11-foot wide by 6-foot high, 3-sided concrete box culvert would provide adequate conveyance capacity to pass the 100-year discharge while providing for fish passage. The distance from the top of the road to the ditch invert is approximately 5 feet; a 6-foot box culvert which is countersunk will fit with 1 foot of cover. This projects solves flooding problem HRT-10. This project is based on field observations and existing information (e.g. 5-ft contours), therefore, prior to detailed design a survey should be conducted to confirm the assumed channel and culvert geometry (e.g. bed slope, culvert invert elevations, channel depth, and roadway elevations).
Design Assumptions: Cost estimates are based on a review of Pierce County bid tabs, WSDOT historical unit bid costs, Utility vault estimates, and engineering judgment. Inlet and outlet cleanout costs are included within the 'Misc. site restoration' line item. Site will be surveyed for 1 day to improve/verify design specifications. Project is within the right-of-way and will not require the acquisition of additional land. Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Mobilization 10% - - $ 13,710 $ - Erosion and sediment control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - SPCC Plan LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Traffic control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Survey LS $ 500 1 $ 500 Contingency (20%) $ - 11' x 6' concrete box culvert installed LF $ 2,400 50 $ 120,000 Total Land Costs $ - Wing walls Each $ 2,000 4 $ 8,000 Trash Rack Each $ 800 2 $ 1,600 Roadway reconstruction LS $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000 Misc. site restoration LS $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000 Project Prioritization Summary Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 150,810 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ 52,784 Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 18,120 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 221,713 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 55,428 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 (4%) $ 11,086 Project Cost $ 288,300 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Silver Lake Culvert Replacement Project Number: CIP11-KRG-C01 Project Type: Culvert Replacement Sub-Basin: Kreger Creek
Existing Conditions: There are two 54" culverts that pass Kreger Creek under 416th Street East. Downstream there is one 48" culvert under a private roadway that is undersized. Backwater from the undersized culvert is causing backwater flooding of private property near Silver Lake.
Analysis: The drainage basin was delineated in GIS using 5-ft contour data. Land use was estimated using aerial photography. Discharges were calculated using WWHM3 for the 2-, 5- , 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm events. HY-8.0 was used to determine culvert capacity. The 100-year event was then modeled in FEQUTL to determine sizing of a replacement culvert for the road downstream of 416th Street East. Several different culvert sizes were analyzed to determine necessary hydraulic capacity and fish passage. No channel analysis was required. Project Description: The hydraulic analysis shows that a 10-foto wide by 6-foot high concrete box culvert with a 2-foot countersink (4-foot high opening) would convey the 100-year design event under the road without overtopping or backwater at the inlet. The distance from the top of the road to the ditch invert is approximately 8 feet, which would leave approximately 4’ of cover. This project solves flooding problem KRG-09. This project is based on field observations and existing information (e.g. 5-ft contours), therefore, prior to detailed design a survey should be conducted to confirm the assumed channel and culvert geometry (e.g. bed slope, culvert invert elevations, channel depth, and roadway elevations)
Design Assumptions: Cost estimates are based on a review of Pierce County bid tabs, WSDOT historical unit bid costs, utility vault estimates, and engineering judgment. The site will be surveyed for 1 day to improve/verify design specifications. Because this is a provate road, ownership of roadway and culvert should be established before project implementation. Project may require acquisition of additional land. Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Mobilization 10% - - $ 10,350 $ - Erosion and sediment control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - SPCC Plan LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Traffic control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Survey LS $ 500 1 $ 500 Contingency (20%) $ - 10' x 7' box culvert installed LF $ 2,200 40 $ 88,000 Total Land Costs $ - Wing walls Each $ 2,000 4 $ 8,000 Roadway reconstruction LS $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000 Misc. site restoration LS $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000
Project Prioritization Summary Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 113,850 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ 39,848 Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 13,679 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 167,377 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 41,844 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 (4%) $ 8,369 Project Cost $ 217,600 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Dean Kreger Road Culvert Replacement Project Number: CIP11-KRG-C02 Project Type: Culvert Replacement and Ditch Armoring Sub-Basin: Kreger Creek
Existing Conditions: Flooding of Dean Kreger Road is caused from two undersized culverts under the road that are both 12" diameter concrete pipes. The discharges from these culverts are large drops of close to 10' that has created channel incision and erosion along the channels that cross private property. There are also two more culverts that pass flow under a private driveway and out to a wetland. Both driveway culverts are adequately sized. Analysis: The drainage basin was delineated in GIS using 5-ft contour data. Land use was estimated using aerial photography and tax parcel information. Discharges were calculated using WWHM3 for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm events. The 100-year event was then modeled in HY-8.0 to determine sizing for the passage under Dean Kreger Road and the channel dimensions to pass the 100-yr flow through the private property and out to the wetland. Project Description: A pre-design study is recommended to further evaluate the hydrology and downstream wetland to ensure all recommendations are adequate to prevent future problems. Based on preliminary analysis, it is recommended that the two culverts under Dean Kreger Road should be replaced with a 24” CMP culvert (southern crossing) and 18” CMP culvert (northern crossing) to convey the 100-year flow. Culverts were sized based on the 100-yr discharge and not fish passage due to the nature of the steep terrain in the channels. The existing two culverts under the driveway are adequately sized and do not need replacing. The channels that convey water from Dean Kreger Road to the wetland should be sized to a bottom width of 2-ft, side slope of 2:1, and a height of 1.5-ft. This channel allows for 1-ft of freeboard during the 100-yr event. The channels should be armored, or use grade control structures to protect from erosion and channel degradation. Armoring has been assumed for cost-estimating purposes. The eroded slopes downstream of Dean Kreger Road should be regarded and stabilized. Energy dissipaters are recommended at the discharge point from the channels to the wetland to prevent erosion from occurring in the wetland. Design Assumptions: Cost estimates are based on a review of Pierce County bid tabs, WSDOT historical unit bid costs, Utility vault estimates, and engineering judgment. Two days of survey will be required before project construction to improve/verify design. Channel armoring cost include landscape restoration of 5 feet on either side of the channel. Armoring costs assumes a channel that is 2' bottom width, 2:1 side slope, and 1.5' in depth.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Mobilization 10% - - $ 14,020 $ - Erosion and sediment control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - SPCC Plan LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Traffic control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Survey LS $ 500 2 $ 1,000 Total $ - 24" Corrugated Metal Pipe Installed LF $ 115 30 $ 3,450 Contingency (20%) $ - 18" Corrugated Metal Pipe Installed LF $ 85 30 $ 2,550 Total Land Costs $ - Channel Armoring LF $ 95 560 $ 53,200 Energy Dissipaters Each $ 2,500 2 $ 5,000 Re-grading and Slope Stabilization LS $ 50,000 1 $ 50,000 Pre-Design Study LS $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000 Project Prioritization Summary Misc. site restoration LS $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000 Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 154,220 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ 53,977 Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 18,530 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 226,727 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 45,345 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 (4%) $ 13,783 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - Project Cost $ 285,900 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Tisch Road Culvert Replacement Project Number: CIP11MUR-C01 Project Type: Culvert Replacement Sub-Basin: Murray Creek
Existing Conditions: Roadway flooding was reported along Tisch Road South near 324th Street South. A drainage ditch flows from south to north along Tisch Road South and then crosses under Tisch Road through a 12-inch CMP culvert. Roadway flooding was observed on the upstream side of the culvert and in the upstream ditch along the road. During a site visit on May 16, 2007, it was noted that the channels are overgrown with vegetation.
Analysis: The drainage basin was delineated in GIS using 5-ft contour data. Land use was estimated using aerial photography and tax parcel information. Discharges were calculated using WWHM3 for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm events. The area draining to this ditch and culvert was estimated to be about 185 acres. The drainage is mostly flat with mixed pasture, forest and rural residential land use. The 100-year flow rate was estimated to be 29 cfs.
Project Description: The analyses show that a 3-sided, 10-foot wide by 3-foot high concrete box culvert would convey the 100-year design event. The proposed culvert also provides fish passage per WDFW’s “Stream Simulation” design methodology. The box culvert is used to account for limited cover. This project is based on field observations and existing information (e.g. 5-ft contours), therefore, prior to detailed design a survey should be conducted to confirm the assumed channel and culvert geometry (e.g. bed slope, culvert invert elevations, channel depth, and roadway elevations).
Design Assumptions: Cost estimates are based on a review of Pierce County bid tabs, WSDOT historical unit bid costs, Contech estimates, and engineering judgment. The site will be surveyed for 1 day to improve/verify design specifications. The project is within the right-of-way and will not require acquisition of additional land.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Mobilization 10% - - $ 11,411 $ - Erosion and sediment control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - SPCC Plan LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Traffic control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Survey LS $ 500 1 $ 500 Total $ - 10' x 3' concrete box culvert installed LF $ 2,000 50 $ 100,000 Contingency (20%) $ - Wing walls Each $ 2,000 4 $ 8,000 Total Land Costs $ - Trash rack Each $ 305 2 $ 610 Misc. site restoration LS $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000 $ - Project Prioritization Summary $ - Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 125,521 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ 43,932 Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 15,081 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 184,535 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 46,134 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Project Cost $ 230,700 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: 365th Street East Culvert Replacement Project Number: CIP11-TWL-C01 Project Type: Culvert Replacement Sub-Basin: Lower Tanwax
Existing Conditions: Flooding over the roadway was reported at 365th Street East near Weyerhaeuser Elementary School. A drainage ditch flowing from north to south drains an area of approximately 315 acres of mixed forest, pasture and rural residential land use. Culvert appears to have some damage at the inlet.
Analysis: The drainage basin was delineated in GIS using 5-ft contour data. Land use was estimated using aerial photography and tax parcel information. Discharges were calculated using WWHM3 for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm events. The 25-year event was then modeled in HY-8.0 to determine capacity of the culvert under Webster Drive. The 25-year flow rate was calculated to be 25 cfs. The existing 18-inch concrete culvert does not have adequate capacity to convey the 25-year. FEQUTL was used to size a new culvert for hydraulic capacity and fish passage. Project Description: Replace the existing 18-inch culvert with a 3-sided concrete box culvert, 7-foot wide by 4-foot high to convey the 100-year flow rate and provide the necessary geometry for fish passage. The top of the box culvert is assumed to be set at the elevation of the existing roadway with no cover to address depth and cover limitations. This project is based on field observations and existing information (e.g. 5-ft contours), therefore, prior to detailed design a survey should be conducted to confirm the assumed channel and culvert geometry (e.g. bed slope, culvert invert elevations, channel depth, and roadway elevations).
Design Assumptions: Cost estimates are based on a review of Pierce County bid tabs, WSDOT historical unit bid costs, Contech estimates, and engineering judgment. The site will be surveyed for 1 day to improve/verify design specifications. Assumed cost of trash racks is $800 per inlet/outlet. The project is within the right-of-way and will not require acquisition of additional land. Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Mobilization 10% - - $ 7,860 $ - Erosion and sediment control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - SPCC Plan LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Traffic control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - 7' x 4' concrete box culvert inst. Each $ 1,500 40 $ 60,000 Total $ - Wing walls Each $ 2,000 4 $ 8,000 Contingency (20%) $ - Trash rack Each $ 800 2 $ 1,600 Total Land Costs $ - Misc. site restoration LS $ 6,000 1 $ 6,000 $ - $ - Project Prioritization Summary $ - Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 86,460 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ 30,261 Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 10,388 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 127,109 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 44,488 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 (4%) $ 8,490 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - Project Cost $ 180,100 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Lower Tanwax Riparian Enhancement Project Number: CIP11-TWL-RST01 Project Type: Restoration Sub-Basin: Lower Tanwax Creek
Existing Conditions: The lower Tanwax Creek flows for 4.5 miles through a 98-acre riparian wetland that has been cleared and now consists of small shrubs and large amounts of reed canary grass. The reduced amount of large wood in the creek and the loss of streamside and overhanging vegetation have had numerous impacts. The lack of riparian vegetation available to provide shade has likely led to higher peak summer water temperatures throughout the subbasin, reducing the productivity of juvenile coho and steelhead that rear in the creek. The loss of streamside vegetation is also associated with reduced nutrient input to the creek, opportunities for fish concealment, and shade to prevent the growth Analysis: Theof non-native Tribe has reedidentified canary this grass. wetland as the number two priority for wetland restoration in a 1996 inventory of commercial forestry land owned wetlands. Now it is owned by several dozen private landowners.
Proposed Solution/ Streamside vegetation plantings in selected reed canary grass dominated areas and along the creek between RM 1.75 and RM 3.5. Project Description
Design Assumptions: We are assuming only 78 acres of the 98-acre wetland can be re-planted due to wetland conditions. The majority will be live stakes (85%) and some (15%) bareroot plants. Density is 1,000 livestakes per acre plus 200 potted plants. Contingency was reduced to 35%, and cost escalation was increased to 8% due to 3-year length of project.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Mobilization LS $ 7,500 1 $ 7,500 $ - Riparian plants (live stakes) each $ 1 78,000 $ 66,300 $ - Riparian plants (potted) each $ 4 15,600 $ 54,600 $ - Installation hours $ 18 1,664 $ 29,120 $ - Site prep acre $ 1,500 78 $ 117,000 $ - Incidentals acre $ 250 78 $ 19,500 Total $ - Project maintenance 3 year $ 1,200 78 $ 93,600 Contingency (20%) $ - Total Land Costs $ -
Project Prioritization Summary Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 387,620 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ 135,667 Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 46,573 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 569,860 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 113,972 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 through 2010 dollars (8%) $ 54,707 Project Cost $ 738,600 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Tanwax Creek Wetland Protection Phase 1 Project Number: CIP11-TWU-AC01 Project Type: Protection Sub-Basin: Upper Tanwax Creek
Existing Conditions: Many of the small lowland streams that are tributaries of Tanwax Creek have intermittent flow problems and probably also have elevated stream temperatures due to the lack of a forest canopy. These tributaries provide limited habitat capacity to anadromous salmonids due to their small size, intermittent flows, and inaccessibility. Habitat alterations similar to those in the mainstem have taken place in most of these tributaries. Lack of wood and riparian vegetation, and substantial fine sediment inputs, also limit the function of this habitat. The over-wintering refuge and migration pathway potential gives these tributaries unique importance, especially for coho, steelhead, and cutthroat. Analysis: Most information was gathered from the incomplete Ohop/Tanwax/Powell watershed analysis, which identified fish problems associated with low flow water issues in Tanwax. The Tribe has identified wetlands in the Tanwax basin of significance for a variety of fish and wildlife in a 1996 inventory of commercial forestry land owned wetlands.
Proposed Solution/ Identify and protect key wetlands that regulate and control flow in Tanwax Creek. This project is Phase 1 of two continual phases, which were divided up for budgetary Project Description purposes.
Design Assumptions: Estimated 250 acres with an averaged cost of $4,500/acre for unbuildable land in the area, including potential boundary line adjustments.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Land Acquisition acres $ 4,500 125 $ 562,500 $ - Stewardship plan acres $ 500 125 $ 62,500 $ - Landowner outreach LS $ 25,000 1 $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total $ 650,000 $ - Contingency (20%) $ 130,000 Total Land Costs $ 780,000
Project Prioritization Summary Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ - Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ - Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ - Other Factors Sub-Total $ - Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ - 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ 780,000 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 dollars (4%) $ 31,200 Project Cost $ 811,200 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Tanwax Creek Wetland Protection Phase 2 Project Number: CIP11-TWU-AC02 Project Type: Protection Sub-Basin: Upper Tanwax Creek
Existing Conditions: Many of the small lowland streams that are tributaries of Tanwax Creek have intermittent flow problems and probably also have elevated stream temperatures due to the lack of a forest canopy. These tributaries provide limited habitat capacity to anadromous salmonids due to their small size, intermittent flows, and inaccessibility. Habitat alterations similar to those in the mainstem have taken place in most of these tributaries. Lack of wood and riparian vegetation, and substantial fine sediment inputs, also limit the function of this habitat. The over-wintering refuge and migration pathway potential gives these tributaries unique importance, especially for coho, steelhead, and cutthroat. Analysis: Most information was gathered from the incomplete Ohop/Tanwax/Powell watershed analysis, which identified fish problems associated with low flow water issues in Tanwax. The Tribe has identified wetlands in the Tanwax basin of significance for a variety of fish and wildlife in a 1996 inventory of commercial forestry land owned wetlands.
Proposed Solution/ Identify and protect key wetlands that regulate and control flow in Tanwax Creek. This project is Phase 2 of two continual phases, which were divided up for budgetary Project Description purposes.
Design Assumptions: Estimated 250 acres with an averaged cost of $4,500/acre for unbuildable land in the area, including potential boundary line adjustments.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Land Acquisition acres $ 4,500 125 $ 562,500 $ - Stewardship plan acres $ 500 125 $ 62,500 $ - Landowner outreach LS $ 25,000 1 $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total $ 650,000 $ - Contingency (20%) $ 130,000 Total Land Costs $ 780,000
Project Prioritization Summary Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ - Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ - Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ - Other Factors Sub-Total $ - Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ - 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ 780,000 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 dollars (4%) $ 31,200 Project Cost $ 811,200 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Benbow Drive Culvert Replacement Project Number: CIP11-TWU-C01 Project Type: Culvert Replacement Sub-Basin: Upper Tanwax
Existing Conditions: Benbow Drive East is located between Twin Lakes and Whitman Lake, and crosses the low area where overflow from the Twin Lakes drains into Whitman Lake. Field observations noted debris at the culvert inlet and signs of roadway overtopping. The existing crossing consists of two 24-inch concrete culverts with a debris cage surrounding both inlets. During a site visit on May 16, 2007, it was noted that the debris cage had collected a considerable amount of debris, and that is could be restricting flow into the culverts. Also, the downstream ends of the culverts were completely submerged. Analysis: A hydrologic analysis was completed to verify sufficient capacity of the roadway culverts. The area draining to the culverts was estimated to be about 235 acres of mixed forest and agricultural land use. The 100-year flow rate was estimated to be 69 cfs. Hydraulic calculations found that the existing parallel 24-inch culverts are not adequately sized to convey the 100-year flow rate without overtopping the road.
Project Description: The hydraulic analyses indicated a 9-foot wide by 5-foot high concrete box culvert would convey the 100-year flood event flow with no overtopping. Road raising is avoided by placing the top of the box culvert, which is designed for H-20 loading, at the roadway grade with no cover. The box culvert also provides fish passage per the WDFW “No Slope” requirements. The debris barrier should be reinstalled and cleared with routine maintenance. Alternatively, a debris barrier or trash rack requiring less maintenance could be installed. This project is based on field observations and existing information (e.g. 5-ft contours), therefore, prior to detailed design a survey should be conducted to confirm the assumed channel and culvert geometry (e.g. bed slope, culvert invert elevations, channel depth, and roadway elevations).
Design Assumptions: Cost estimates are based on a review of Pierce County bid tabs, WSDOT historical unit bid costs, Contech estimates, and engineering judgment. The site will be surveyed for 1 day to improve/verify design specifications. Assumed cost of trash racks is $1000 per inlet/outlet. Project is within the right-of-way and will not require the acquisition of additional land. Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Mobilization 10% - - $ 9,350 $ - Erosion and sediment control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - SPCC Plan LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Traffic control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Survey LS $ 500 1 $ 500 Total $ - 9' x 5' concrete box culvert installed LF $ 1,600 45 $ 72,000 Contingency (20%) $ - Wing walls Each $ 2,000 4 $ 8,000 Total Land Costs $ - Trash rack Each $ 1,000 2 $ 2,000 Misc. site restoration LS $ 8,000 1 $ 8,000 $ - Project Prioritization Summary $ - Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 102,850 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ 35,998 Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 12,357 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 151,205 Total Score 0 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 37,801 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 (4%) $ 9,494 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Project Cost $ 198,600 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Webster Road Culvert Replacement Project Number: CIP11-TWU-C02 Project Type: Culvert Repair and Channel Excavation Sub-Basin: Upper Tanwax
Existing Conditions: Roadway flooding was reported at Webster Road near the intersection with State Route 161. Field observations noted that the culvert under Webster Road, approximately 1200 feet northwest of State Route 161, is damaged at the inlet. The 18-inch CMP culvert is bent at the inlet in a way that is an obvious hindrance to conveyance. It was noted during a site visit that the cover over the culvert does not meet the minimum 2-foot requirement. The culvert also had rusted along the bottom, which may indicate standing water for a long period of time. Local residents suggested that there are beavers in the area and that they may have contributed to backups.
Analysis: The drainage basin was delineated in GIS using 5-ft contour data. Land use was estimated using aerial photography and tax parcel informaton. Discharges were calculated using WWHM3 for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm events. The 25-year event was then modeled in HY-8.0 to determine capacity of the culvert under Webster Drive. FEQUTL was used for proposed culvert sizing. Manning's analysis on the surrounding channels showed that they were adequately sized as well.
Project Description: Since the culvert is damaged and rusted, it should be replaced. A 5-foot wide by 3-foot high concrete box culvert would adequately convey the 100-year flow rate without a submerged inlet. Limitations in cover are addressed by the top of the box culvert assumed to set at the existing roadway grade. The box culvert design meets WDFW requirements for fish passage using the “Stream Simulation” methodology. It is also recommended that the 12-inch culvert to the east be removed or repaired and cleaned out. This project is based on field observations and existing information (e.g. 5-ft contours), therefore, prior to detailed design a survey should be conducted to confirm the assumed channel and culvert geometry (e.g. bed slope, culvert invert elevations, channel depth, and roadway elevations).
Design Assumptions: Cost of ditch maintenance and cleanout of the 12" driveway culvert is including in the 'Misc. site restoration' line item. No survey is required because the project is small. This project will be constructed within the right-of-way and will not require acquisition of additional land.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Mobilization 10% - - $ 5,960 $ - Erosion and sediment control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - SPCC Plan LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Traffic control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - 5' x 3' concrete box culvert installed Each $ 1,000 45 $ 45,000 Total $ - Wing walls Each $ 2,000 4 $ 8,000 Contingency (20%) $ - Trash rack Each $ 800 2 $ 1,600 Total Land Costs $ - Misc. site restoration LS $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000 $ - $ - Project Prioritization Summary $ - Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 65,560 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ 22,946 Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 7,877 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 96,383 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 33,734 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 (4%) $ 6,438 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - Project Cost $ 136,600 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Thomas Road Culvert Replacement Project Number: CIP11-TWU-C04 Project Type: Culvert Replacement Sub-Basin: Upper Tanwax
Existing Conditions: Roadway flooding problems leading to flooding of private property were reported near 34328 Thomas Road East. A property owner reported frequent flooding of the roadway and overflow of ditches, which causes runoff to wash out the road and flow into the dwelling. Residents also reported that the drainage ditches have not been adequately maintained. Field observations noted that construction and improper sediment control could be causing sediment build up in ditches and conveyance structures. Analysis: The drainage basin was delineated in GIS using 5-ft contour data. Land use was estimated using aerial photography and tax parcel information. Discharges were calculated using WWHM3 for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storm events. The 25-year event was then modeled in HY-8.0 to determine capacity of culvert under Thomas Road East. The culvert was found to be undersized. The ditches along Thomas Road were analyzed using Manning's Equation and found to be adequately sized.
Project Description: Maintenance should be conducted at the site to clean out sediment and debris buildup in conveyance structures. It is recommended that the 12-inch culvert be replaced with a 3-sided concrete box culvert, 6-foot wide by 5-foot high to allow for conveyance of the 100-year flow rate and provide the necessary geometry for fish passage. The top of the box culvert is assumed to be set at the elevation of the existing roadway with no cover. Field survey and detailed hydraulic analyses should be performed before project implementation. Inlet conditions at the storm drain downstream of the culvert should be inspected to ensure proper capture of flow. This project is based on field observations and existing information (e.g. 5-ft contours), therefore, prior to detailed design a survey should be conducted to confirm the assumed channel and culvert geometry (e.g. bed slope, culvert invert elevations, channel depth, and roadway elevations). Design Assumptions: Cost estimates are based on a review of Pierce County bid tabs, WSDOT historical unit bid costs, Contech estimates, and engineering judgment. The site will be surveyed for 1 day to improve/verify design specifications. The project is within the right-of-way and will not require acquisition of additional land.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Mobilization 10% - - $ 9,010 $ - Erosion and sediment control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - SPCC Plan LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Traffic control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Survey LS $ 500 1 $ 500 Total $ - 6' x 5' concrete box culvert installed LF $ 1,500 50 $ 75,000 Contingency (20%) $ - Wing walls Each $ 2,000 4 $ 8,000 Total Land Costs $ - Trash rack Each $ 800 2 $ 1,600 Misc. site restoration LS $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000 $ - Project Prioritization Summary $ - Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 99,110 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ 34,689 Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 11,908 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 145,707 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 50,997 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Project Cost $ 196,800 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Ohop Creek Property Acquisition Phase 1 Project Number: CIP14-OHL-AC01 Project Type: Protection Sub-Basin: Lower Ohop Creek
Existing Conditions: Major habitat alterations have occurred in the Ohop Creek subbasin. There has been a decrease in the amount of large wood in the creek. The removal of streamside and overhanging vegetation, including standing trees, has eliminated the source of large wood and shade for the creek. A few areas have not been affected by the encroachment and therefore need to be protected. Some areas have been affected, but are in need of acquisition for implementation of the Ohop valley restoration project.
Analysis: The EDT model results show that protection of functioning habitat with this reach would highly benefit Nisqually salmon and steelhead and would greatly aid the recovery of threatened species.
Proposed Solution/ Acquire available properties along Ohop Creek. Since smaller properties enter and leave the real estate market fairly quickly, it is important to be able to react to those Project Description opportunities with these funds. A similar fund that was focused on small properties along the Nisqually River has been very successful in acquiring critical small parcels.
Design Assumptions: 80 acres of undeveloped land along Ohop Creek.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Land Acquisition acres $ 5,000 80 $ 400,000 $ - Stewardship plan acres $ 1,000 80 $ 80,000 $ - Landowner outreach LS $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total $ 495,000 $ - Contingency (20%) $ 99,000 Total Land Costs $ 594,000
Project Prioritization Summary Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ - Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ - Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ - Other Factors Sub-Total $ - Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ - 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ 594,000 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 dollars (4%) $ 23,760 Project Cost $ 617,800 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Ohop Creek Property Acquisition Phase 2 Project Number: CIP14-OHL-AC02 Project Type: Protection Sub-Basin: Lower Ohop Creek
Existing Conditions: Ohop Creek is the second largest Nisqually tributary below LaGrande Dam. It is an area of historic agricultural use that is being converted to rural residential use. The area has undergone many changes, resulting in the decline of salmon productivity. Channel confinement modifications such as ditching and channelization have occurred. There has been a decline in the amount of key habitat and habitat diversity, including loss of large woody debris, streamside vegetation, pools, and riffle habitat. These factors have led to reduced channel stability, increased summer stream temperatures, increased fine sediment levels, and reduced food availability. There has also been an increase in Analysis: Apredation restoration by non-nativeplan for lower fish. Ohop Creek was developed. The project will re-elevate the 4.0 miles of severely channelized creek back into its original floodplain, recreating a 5.2- mile-long stream. The creek’s original meander pattern and its connection to the adjacent floodplain and wetland areas will be restored. The project will also re-vegetate approximately 490 acres of the surrounding valley floor, which is dominated by wetlands. Several large properties in the valley are in protected status; however, almost 1 mile of Ohop Creek is unprotected. Proposed Solution/ Acquiring properties along this reach will help ensure the long-term success of the Ohop Valley Restoration Project. This acquisition will protect about 0.65 mile of Ohop Project Description Creek (both sides) and 114 acres of Ohop valley and uplands. These uplands would block other protected areas to the north, south, and east to a large (several hundred acres) fish and wildlife corridor and refuge area. This phase on Ohop Creek Property Acquisitions is intended benefit restoration activities.
Design Assumptions: Purchase approximately 114 acres near Eatonville. The cost of the property is based on assessed value around $8,200/acre.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Land Acquisition acres $ 8,200 57 $ 467,400 $ - Stewardship plan acres $ 500 57 $ 28,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total $ 495,900 $ - Contingency (20%) $ 99,180 Total Land Costs $ 595,080
Project Prioritization Summary Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ - Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ - Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ - Other Factors Sub-Total $ - Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ - 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ 595,080 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 dollars (4%) $ 23,803 Project Cost $ 618,900 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Ohop Creek Property Acquisition Phase 3 Project Number: CIP14-OHL-AC03 Project Type: Protection Sub-Basin: Lower Ohop Creek
Existing Conditions: Ohop Creek is the second largest Nisqually tributary below LaGrande Dam. It is an area of historic agricultural use that is being converted to rural residential use. The area has undergone many changes, resulting in the decline of salmon productivity. Channel confinement modifications such as ditching and channelization have occurred. There has been a decline in the amount of key habitat and habitat diversity, including loss of large woody debris, streamside vegetation, pools, and riffle habitat. These factors have led to reduced channel stability, increased summer stream temperatures, increased fine sediment levels, and reduced food availability. There has also been an increase in Analysis: Apredation restoration by non-nativeplan for lower fish. Ohop Creek was developed. The project will re-elevate the 4.0 miles of severely channelized creek back into its original floodplain, recreating a 5.2- mile-long stream. The creek’s original meander pattern and its connection to the adjacent floodplain and wetland areas will be restored. The project will also re-vegetate approximately 490 acres of the surrounding valley floor, which is dominated by wetlands. Several large properties in the valley are in protected status; however, almost 1 mile of Ohop Creek is unprotected. Proposed Solution/ Acquiring properties along this reach will help ensure the long-term success of the Ohop Valley Restoration Project. This acquisition will protect about 0.65 mile of Ohop Project Description Creek (both sides) and 114 acres of Ohop valley and uplands. These uplands would block other protected areas to the north, south, and east to a large (several hundred acres) fish and wildlife corridor and refuge area. This phase on Ohop Creek Property Acquisitions is intended benefit restoration activities.
Design Assumptions: Purchase approximately 114 acres near Eatonville. The cost of the property is based on assessed value around $8,200/acre.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Land Acquisition acres $ 8,200 57 $ 467,400 $ - Stewardship plan acres $ 500 57 $ 28,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total $ 495,900 $ - Contingency (20%) $ 99,180 Total Land Costs $ 595,080
Project Prioritization Summary Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ - Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ - Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ - Other Factors Sub-Total $ - Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ - 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ 595,080 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 dollars (4%) $ 23,803 Project Cost $ 618,900 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Ohop Creek Repetitive Loss Property Acquisition Project Number: CIP14-OHL-AC04 Project Type: Acquisition/Flood Mitigation Sub-Basin: Lower Ohop Creek
Existing Conditions: Based on new claims data, an area along lower Ohop Creek was identified as a repetitive loss area following completion of the Pierce County Repetitive Loss Plan in 2001. The current repetitive loss report as of April 30, 2006, shows one identified property in this area.
Analysis: Ohop Creek is a tributary to the Nisqually River. The principal cause of flooding along this reach is surface water drainage into the creek channel, increasing stream flow above the capacity of the channel. This typically results in overbank flooding. It is estimated that there are approximately five additional properties within this reach subject to similar repetitive flooding as the identified property.
Proposed Solution/ Acquire available properties identified as a repetitive loss property or properties within the repetitive loss area that could potentially sustain future flood damages. Project Description
Design Assumptions: Assessed value for 2008 was estimated to be $337,100 based on Pierce County Assessor's database. Purchase estimate assumed to be assessed value plus 50 percent.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Land Acquisition acres $ 23,739 14.2 $ 337,100 $ - Plus 50% - - - $ 168,550 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total $ 505,650 $ - Contingency (20%) $ 101,130 Total Land Costs $ 606,780
Project Prioritization Summary Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ - Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ - Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ - Other Factors Sub-Total $ - Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ - 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ 606,780 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 dollars (4%) $ - Project Cost $ 606,800 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Lower Ohop Valley Restoration Phase 1 (Segements D, E, and F) Project Number: CIP14-OHL-RST01 Project Type: Restoration Sub-Basin: Lower Ohop Creek
Existing Conditions: Ohop Creek is the second largest Nisqually tributary below LaGrande Dam. It is an area of historic agricultural use that is being converted to rural residential use. The area has undergone many changes that have resulted in the decline of salmon productivity. Channel confinement modifications such as ditching and channelization have occurred. There has been a decline in the amount of key habitat and habitat diversity, including loss of large woods, streamside vegetation, pools, and riffle habitat. These factors have led to reduced channel stability, increased summer stream temperatures, increased fine sediment levels, and reduced food availability. There has also been an increase in Analysis: Assessmentspredation by non-nativeand analyses fish. have identified several alternatives for restoration. The full restoration alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative.
Proposed Solution/ The project will re-elevate the 4.0 miles of severely channelized creek back into its original floodplain, recreating a 5.2- mile-long stream. The creek’s original meander Project Description pattern and its connection to the adjacent floodplain and wetland areas will be restored. The project will also re-vegetate approximately 490 acres of the surrounding valley floor, which is dominated by wetlands. Due to the large size of the project, it is split into three phases (1, 2, and 3). This first phase will restore approximately 1 mile of creek and will be the pilot project to the other phases. It focuses on the Land Trust properties, around Highway 7, which are visible to the tens of thousands of travelers to Mount Rainier National Park every year. It will be the demonstration project for the remaining phases.
Design Assumptions: Design assumptions include excavation of 1.05 miles of new creek channel, filling ~0.5 miles of old channel, replanting 92 acres of the valley floor, and installing 7 pieces of large wood per 100 feet of new channel. Mobilization (10%), incidentals (10%), and contingency (20%) have been included in the line items. Engineering and Administration are estimated at 25%. Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Channel reconnection LS $ 551,146 1 $ 551,146 $ - Large woody debris (inc. installation) LS $ 483,277 1 $ 483,277 $ - Dike removal LS $ 40,957 1 $ 40,957 $ - Off-channel habitat creation LS $ 42,000 1 $ 42,000 $ - Plant removal and salvage LS $ 62,580 1 $ 62,580 Total $ - Plant installation LS $ 155,494 1 $ 155,494 Contingency (20%) $ - Plant material LS $ 273,000 1 $ 273,000 Total Land Costs $ - Roughened channel LS $ 98,000 1 $ 98,000 Site maintenance LS $ 198,800 1 $ 198,800 $ - Project Prioritization Summary $ - Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 1,905,254 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) already incl. Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 169,568 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 2,074,821 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 518,705 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 dollars (4%) $ 103,741 Total Project Cost $ 2,697,300 Project Cost (15% County share) $ 404,595 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Lower Ohop Valley Restoration Phase 2 (Segments A, B, and C) Project Number: CIP14-OHL-RST02 Project Type: Restoration Sub-Basin: Lower Ohop Creek
Existing Conditions: Ohop Creek is the second largest Nisqually tributary below LaGrande Dam. It is an area of historic agricultural use that is being converted to rural residential use. The area has undergone many changes that have led to the decline of salmon productivity. Channel confinement modifications such as ditching and channelization have occurred. There has been a decline in the amount of key habitat and habitat diversity, including loss of large woods, streamside vegetation, pools, and riffle habitat. These factors have led to reduced channel stability, increased summer stream temperatures, increased fine sediment levels, and reduced food availability. There has also been an increase in Analysis: Assessmentspredation by non-nativeand analyses fish. have identified several alternatives for restoration. The full restoration alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative.
Proposed Solution/ The project will re-elevate the 4.0 miles of severely channelized creek back into its original floodplain, recreating a 5.2- mile-long stream. The creek’s original meander Project Description pattern and its connection to the adjacent floodplain and wetland areas will be restored. The project will also re-vegetate approximately 490 acres of the surrounding valley floor, which is dominated by wetlands. Due to the large size of the project, it is split into three phases (1, 2, and 3). This second phase will restore approximately 2.1 miles of creek and includes reforestation of 110 acres of floodplain forest. This phase will connect the first phase of the project to the mouth of the creek and therefore will make both projects even more effective by providing 3.1 miles of uninterrupted restored habitat.
Design Assumptions: Design assumptions include excavating 2.1 miles of new creek channel, filling 1.1 miles of old channel, replanting 110 acres of the valley floor, and installing 7 pieces of large wood per 100 feet of new channel. Mobilization (10%), incidentals (10%), and contingency (20%) have been included in the line items. Engineering and Administration are estimated at 25%. Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Channel reconn LS $ 943,327 1 $ 943,327 $ - Wood delivery and placement LS $ 737,990 1 $ 737,990 $ - Plant removal and salvage LS $ 42,242 1 $ 42,242 $ - Plant installation LS $ 450,982 1 $ 450,982 $ - Plant material LS $ 528,000 1 $ 528,000 Total $ - Site maintenance LS $ 154,000 1 $ 154,000 Contingency (20%) $ - $ - Total Land Costs $ - $ - $ - $ - Project Prioritization Summary $ - Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 2,856,541 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) already incl. Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 254,232 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 3,110,773 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 777,693 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 dollars (4%) $ 155,539 Total Project Cost $ 4,044,100 Project Cost (15% County share) $ 606,600 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Lower Ohop Valley Restoration Phase 3 (Segments G, H, I, J, K, and L) Project Number: CIP14-OHL-RST03 Project Type: Restoration Sub-Basin: Lower Ohop Creek
Existing Conditions: Ohop Creek is the second largest Nisqually tributary below LaGrande Dam. It is an area of historic agricultural use that is being converted to rural residential use. The area has undergone many changes that have resulted in the decline of salmon productivity. Channel confinement modifications such as ditching and channelization have occurred. There has been a decline in the amount of key habitat and habitat diversity, including loss of large woods, streamside vegetation, pools, and riffle habitat. These factors have led to reduced channel stability, increased summer stream temperatures, increased fine sediment levels, and reduced food availability. There has also been an increase in Analysis: Severalpredation assessments by non-native and fish.analyses have been completed which resulted in several alternatives for restoration. The full restoration alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative.
Proposed Solution/ The project will re-elevate the 4.0 miles of severely channelized creek back into its original floodplain, recreating a 5.2- mile-long stream. The creek’s original meander Project Description pattern and its connection to the adjacent floodplain and wetland areas will be restored. The project will also re-vegetate approximately 490 acres of the surrounding valley floor, which is dominated by wetlands. Due to the large size of the project, it is split into three phases (1, 2, and 3). This third and last phase will restore an additional 2.1 miles of Ohop Creek consisting of the remaining creek sections up and downstream of the Ohop Valley Road bridge. Together with Phases 1 and 2, this phase will restore a continuous 5.2-mile reach.
Design Assumptions: Design assumptions include excavating 2.1 miles of new creek channel, filling 1.5 miles of old channel, installing 7 pieces of large wood per 100 feet of new channel, and constructing a widened floodplain. Mobilization (10%), incidentals (10%), and contingency (20%) have been included in the line items. This cost estimate includes a 200-foot buffer along the new creek that totals 101 acres. If landowners agree, further expansion of the floodplain forest would increase the plantings up to 288 acres, and therefore increase the Land project Costs cost.1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Channel reconn LS $ 1,254,765 1 $ 1,254,765 $ - Wood delivery and placement LS $ 1,209,365 1 $ 1,209,365 $ - Plant removal and salvage LS $ 42,242 1 $ 146,223 $ - Plant installation LS $ 450,982 1 $ 475,537 $ - Plant material LS $ 528,000 1 $ 484,800 Total $ - Roughened channel LS $ 70,000 1 $ 70,000 Contingency (20%) $ - Site maintenance LS $ 154,000 1 $ 281,554 Total Land Costs $ - $ - $ - Project Prioritization Summary $ - Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 3,922,244 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) already incl. Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 349,080 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 4,271,324 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 854,265 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 dollars (4%) $ 205,024 Total Project Cost $ 5,330,700 Project Cost (15% County share) $ 799,600 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Upper Ohop Shoreline Acquisition Phase 1 (Hancock-Ohop) Project Number: CIP14-OHU-AC01 Project Type: Protection Sub-Basin: Upper Ohop Creek
Existing Conditions: There has been a decline in key habitat and habitat diversity, including loss of large woods, streamside vegetation, pools, and riffle habitat throughout the Ohop valley. These factors have resulted in reduced channel stability, increased summer stream temperatures, increased fine sediment levels, and reduced food availability. The extensive wetlands at the upper end of Ohop Lake is the least degraded reach of the Ohop valley.
Analysis: Assessments and analyses have identified several alternatives for restoration. The full restoration alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative.
Proposed Solution/ Acquire upper Ohop Creek shoreline properties, including 140 acres of the Ohop valley wetland, over 1 mile of Ohop Creek, 0.1 mile of a tributary, and 1,000 feet of Ohop Project Description Lake shoreline. This project is Phase 1 of a two continual phases. The project was divided up into phases for budgetary purposes; however, phases can be combined or completed independently.
Design Assumptions: Purchase approximately 89 acres near Eatonville. The cost of the property is based on an assessed value of around $4,900/acre.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Land Acquisition acres $ 4,900 89 $ 436,100 $ - Stewardship plan acres $ 250 89 $ 22,250 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total $ 458,350 $ - Contingency (20%) $ 91,670 Total Land Costs $ 550,020
Project Prioritization Summary Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ - Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ - Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ - Other Factors Sub-Total $ - Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ - 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ 550,020 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 dollars (4%) $ 22,001 Project Cost $ 572,100 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Upper Ohop Shoreline Acquisition Phase 2 (Hancock-Ohop) Project Number: CIP14-OHU-AC02 Project Type: Protection Sub-Basin: Upper Ohop Creek
Existing Conditions: There has been a decline in key habitat and habitat diversity, including loss of large woods, streamside vegetation, pools, and riffle habitat throughout the Ohop valley. These factors have resulted in reduced channel stability, increased summer stream temperatures, increased fine sediment levels, and reduced food availability. The extensive wetlands at the upper end of Ohop Lake is the least degraded reach of the Ohop valley.
Analysis: Assessments and analyses have identified several alternatives for restoration. The full restoration alternative has been selected as the preferred alternative.
Proposed Solution/ Acquire upper Ohop Creek shoreline properties, including 140 acres of the Ohop valley wetland, over 1 mile of Ohop Creek, 0.1 mile of a tributary, and 1,000 feet of Ohop Project Description Lake shoreline. This project is Phase 2 of a two continual phases. The project was divided up into phases for budgetary purposes; however, phases can be combined or completed independently.
Design Assumptions: Purchase approximately 89 acres near Eatonville. The cost of the property is based on an assessed value of around $4,900/acre.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Land Acquisition acres $ 4,900 89 $ 436,100 $ - Stewardship plan acres $ 250 89 $ 22,250 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total $ 458,350 $ - Contingency (20%) $ 91,670 Total Land Costs $ 550,020
Project Prioritization Summary Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ - Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ - Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ - Other Factors Sub-Total $ - Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ - 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ 550,020 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 dollars (4%) $ 22,001 Project Cost $ 572,100 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Culvert Replacement at 278th Avenue East Project Number: CIP19-ASH-C01 Project Type: Culvert Replacement Sub-Basin: Ashford Reach
Existing Conditions: There are two parallel culverts that convey the Ashford Reach under 278th Avenue East. One is a 48”diameter CMP and the other is a 24" diameter CMP. A large drainge area (approximately 1,200 acres) drains to this crossing.
Analysis: The drainage basin was delineated in GIS using 5-ft contour data. Land use was estimated using aerial photography. Discharges were calculated using WWHM. The 100- year flow was estimated at 810 cfs, the 25-year flow was estimated at 510 cfs, and the 5-year flow was estimated at approximately 265 cfs.
Project Description: The streambed should be cleared of the large boulders at the outlets and an energy dissipation device and channel stabilization are considered for the culvert inlets. Replace two existing culverts with a single 12’ wide by 5’ high concrete box to convey the 5-year discharge. It is also recommended that a trash rack be added to reduce the amount of vegetation blocking the culvert inlet. Project solves flooding problems ASH-01 and ASH-02. This project is based on field observations and existing information (e.g. 5-ft contours), therefore, prior to detailed design a survey should be conducted to confirm the assumed channel and culvert geometry (e.g. bed slope, culvert invert elevations, channel depth, and roadway elevations).
Design Assumptions: Cost estimates are based on a review of Pierce County bid tabs, WSDOT historical unit bid costs, utility vault estimates, and engineering judgment. The site will be surveyed for 1 day to improve/verify design specifications. The project is within the right-of-way and will not require acquisition of additional land.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Mobilization 10% - - $ 14,250 $ - Erosion and sediment control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - SPCC Plan LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Traffic control LS $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 $ - Survey LS $ 500 1 $ 500 Total $ - 12' x 5' box culvert installed LF $ 2,500 50 $ 125,000 Contingency (20%) $ - Wing walls Each $ 2,000 4 $ 8,000 Total Land Costs $ - Energy dissipation/trash rack Each $ 2,000 2 $ 4,000 Misc. site restoration LS $ 2,000 1$ $ 2,000 $ - Project Prioritization Summary $ - Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 156,750 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ 54,863 Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 18,834 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 230,446 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 57,612 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Project Cost $ 288,100 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Mashel River Properties Acquisition Project Number: CIP20-MAL-AC01 Project Type: Protection Sub-Basin: Lower Mashel River
Existing Conditions: Major habitat alternations have occurred in the Mashel subbasin. Encroachment on the river by development has affected the most productive section of the river through Eatonville. There has been a decrease in the number of large fallen trees in the creek. Many of the side-channels have been eliminated and overhanging vegetation has been removed, including standing trees that would have provided a source of large wood and shade. Removal of the trees has produced an excess of fine sediment inputs from increased soil erosion. Channelization of the Mashel River has also occurred in many areas. A few areas have not been affected by the encroachment and therefore need to be Analysis: Theprotected. EDT model results show that protection of functioning habitat within this reach would highly benefit Nisqually salmon and steelhead and would greatly aid recovery of threatened species.
Proposed Solution/ Purchase a critical properties near Eatonville, including shoreline and adjacent uplands. This would protect both banks along 0.5 mile of the river, including over 45 acres of Project Description riparian/wildlife corridor.
Design Assumptions: Purchase properties totaling 89 acres near Eatonville. The cost of undeveloped land in the area is estimated at about $5,500/acre (county assessment).
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Land Acquisition acres $ 5,500 89 $ 486,750 $ - Stewardship plan acres $ 500 89 $ 44,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total $ 531,250 $ - Contingency (20%) $ 106,250 Total Land Costs $ 637,500
Project Prioritization Summary Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ - Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ - Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ - Other Factors Sub-Total $ - Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ - 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ 637,500 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 dollars (4%) $ 25,500 Project Cost $ 663,000 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Mashel Shoreline Buffer Acquisition Project Number: CIP20-MAL-AC02 Project Type: Protection Sub-Basin: Lower Mashel River
Existing Conditions: Major habitat alternations have occurred in the Mashel subbasin. Encroachment on the river by development has affected the most productive section of the river through Eatonville. There has been a decrease in the number of large fallen trees in the creek. Many of the side-channels have been eliminated and overhanging vegetation has been removed, including standing trees that would have provided a source of large wood and shade. Removal of the trees has produced an excess of fine sediment inputs from increased soil erosion. Channelization of the Mashel River has also occurred in many areas. A few areas have not been affected by the encroachment and therefore need to be Analysis: Theprotected. EDT model results show that protection of functioning habitat within this reach would highly benefit Nisqually salmon and steelhead and would greatly aid recovery of threatened species.
Proposed Solution/ Purchase 1 mile of the Mashel River shoreline in Eatonville. Seek strategic properties for protection and restoration purposes. Project Description
Design Assumptions: Purchase properties totaling 61 acres near Eatonville. The cost of undeveloped land in the area is estimated at about $7000/acre. One developed 5-acre parcel could be acquired.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Land Acquisition acres $ 7,000 61 $ 427,000 $ - Stewardship plan acres $ 500 66 $ 33,000 $ - Developed property LS $ 220,000 1 $ 220,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total $ 680,000 $ - Contingency (20%) $ 136,000 Total Land Costs $ 816,000
Project Prioritization Summary Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ - Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ - Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ - Other Factors Sub-Total $ - Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ - 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ 816,000 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 dollars (4%) $ 32,640 Project Cost $ 848,700 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Mashel Small Properties Acquisition Project Number: CIP20-MAL-AC03 Project Type: Protection Sub-Basin: Lower Mashel River
Existing Conditions: Major habitat alterations have occurred in the Mashel subbasin. Encroachment on the river by development has affected the most productive section of the river through Eatonville. There has been a decrease in the number of large fallen trees in the creek. Many of the side-channels have been eliminated and overhanging vegetation has been removed, including standing trees that would have provided a source of large wood and shade. Removal of the trees has produced an excess of fine sediment inputs from increased soil erosion. Channelization of the Mashel River has also occurred in many areas. A few areas have not been affected by the encroachment and therefore need to be Analysis: Theprotected. EDT model results show that protection of functioning habitat within this reach would highly benefit Nisqually salmon and steelhead and would greatly aid recovery of threatened species.
Proposed Solution/ Acquire available properties along the Mashel River. Since smaller properties enter and leave the real estate market fairly quickly, it is important to be able to react to those Project Description opportunities with these funds. A similar fund that was focused on small properties along the Nisqually River has been very successful in acquiring critical small parcels.
Design Assumptions: 80 acres of undeveloped land along the Mashel river.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Land Acquisition acres $ 5,000 80 $ 400,000 $ - Stewardship plan acres $ 1,000 80 $ 80,000 $ - Landowner outreach LS $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total $ 495,000 $ - Contingency (20%) $ 99,000 Total Land Costs $ 594,000
Project Prioritization Summary Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ - Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ - Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ - Other Factors Sub-Total $ - Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ - 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ 594,000 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 dollars (4%) $ 23,760 Project Cost $ 617,800 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Mashel Eatonville Reach In-stream Restoration Phase II Project Number: CIP20-MAL-RST01 Project Type: Restoration Sub-Basin: Lower Mashel River
Existing Conditions: The Mashel River is the largest tributary to the Nisqually River downstream of La Grande Dam. Salmon productivity has been declining for years because of changes in the river basin. There has been a decline in the habitat diversity, pool habitat, and habitat suitable for spawning. This loss of habitat has been caused by unnatural channel narrowing from bank hardening and dikes. The channel narrowing has caused decreased channel stabilization and increased sediment loading from soil erosion. Summer water temperatures have also increased. Analysis: A 2003 restoration analysis has identified the reach between Box Car Canyon and the confluence of the Little Mashel as the highest restoration priority in the Mashel basin. A second analysis of several sub-reaches identified restoration alternatives to increase the spawning and rearing habitat for salmon and trout.
Proposed Solution/ Phase I restored in-stream diversity and riparian function in approximately half of the degraded areas in this reach. Phase II would address the remaining in-stream habitat Project Description issues in this reach. Phase 2 would also include additional landowner outreach prior to complete project designs and permitting. Implementation of this project would increase the channel complexity and protect channel banks near Smallwood Park in Eatonville (Reach 4) and near the confluence with the Little Mashel River (Reach 7). Most of this will be accomplished by using the principles of engineered log jam technology. An estimated 11 larger and 3 smaller log jams will accomplish these goals.
Design Assumptions: Engineering estimated as 15% of the project cost. There are four (two in Reach 4 and two in Reach 7) distinct work areas with separate access routes and diversions. No haul off-site.
Land Costs1 Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Mobilization and demobilization LS $ 10,000 1 $ 10,000 $ - Water diversion LS $ 3,500 4 $ 14,000 $ - Clearing and grubbing acre $ 3,000 3 $ 8,250 $ - Erosion control LS $ 2,000 4 $ 8,000 $ - Excavation plus backfill cy $ 9 11,250 $ 101,250 $ - Large woody debris plus delivery each $ 800 350 $ 280,000 Total $ - Small woody debris plus delivery LS $ 7,500 1 $ 7,500 Contingency (20%) $ - Log jam construction each $ 5,000 13 $ 62,500 Total Land Costs $ - Project maintenance LS $ 10,000 1 $ 10,000 Permitting LS $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000
Project Prioritization Summary Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 506,500 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ 227,925 Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 65,364 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 799,789 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 159,958 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2008 dollars (4%) $ 38,390 Total Project Cost $ 998,136 Project Cost (15% County share) $ 149,700 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. Appendix K Capital Improvement Project Nisqually River Basin Plan COST ESTIMATES
Project Name: Mashel Eatonville Reach Riparian Revegetation Project Number: CIP20-MAP-VC01 Project Type: Restoration Sub-Basin: Lower Mashel River
Existing Conditions: Many organizations have been working on restoring the riparian buffer along the Mashel River near Eatonville. A lot of progress has been made, but more willing landowners are interested in helping this important fish and wildlife corridor.
Analysis: A 2003 restoration analysis has identified the reach between Box Car Canyon and the confluence of the Little Mashel as the highest restoration priority in the Mashel basin. The plan also identified several areas in need of riparian restoration or enhancement.
Proposed Solution/ Streamside vegetation plantings in selected areas and along the river as identified in the 2003 assessment. This project will cover only the same reaches as the Mashel Project Description Eatonville Phase 2 project (i.e., Reaches 4 and 7). Therefore, planting will not occur until 2009 at the earliest.
Design Assumptions: We are assuming the reforestation of a 200-foot buffer, 2,100 feet in length (~10 acres) in Reach 4 and a total of 3 acres scattered throughout Reach 7. The density will be 700 potted plants per acre. Tubes will be solid in Reach 4 and mesh in Reach 7. We assume installation will be completed by a Washington Conservation Corps crew. Some chemical site preparation is required in Reach 4. Contingency is 35% based on engineering estimates. Construction Costs1 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost $ - Mobilization LS $ 7,500 1 $ 7,500 $ - Riparian plants (potted) each $ 4 9,100 $ 34,125 $ - Plant protection tubes and stakes each $ 3 9,100 $ 25,025 $ - Installation each $ 2 9,100 $ 15,925 $ - Site prep acre $ 1,500 10 $ 15,000 $ - Incidentals acre $ 250 13 $ 3,250 Total $ - Project maintenance 3 year $ 1,200 13 $ 15,600 Contingency (20%) $ - Total Land Costs $ -
Project Prioritization Summary Flood Hazard Reduction Cost/Benefit Ratio: Total $ 116,425 Water Quality Improvement (Cost/Priority Score) * 45% habitat projects Contingency (*%) $ 40,749 Natural Resource Protection 35% all other projects Taxes (8.9%) $ 13,988 Other Factors Sub-Total $ 171,162 Total Score 0 ** 35% for construction costs up to $100,000 Engineering and Administration (**%) $ 42,791 25% for construction cost between $100,000 - $250,000 Total Land Costs $ - 20% for construction cost above $250,000 Cost Escalation to 2009 (6%) $ 12,837 Project Cost $ 226,800 1. The estimated costs are based on year 2007 dollars and are escalated to year 2008 dollars. VOLUME 2 - APPENDICES NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
APPENDIX L Revisions Resulting from the proposed Pierce County Rivers Flood Hazard Management Plan
Pierce County Public Works & Utilities www.piercecountywa.org/water Surface Water Management
Nisqually and Mashel River, Mainstem Decision Matrix for Moving Draft NRBP Projects to Draft FHMP
ID CODE PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT DECISION TO MOVE PROJECTS RATIONALE
STAYS IN NRBP MOVED TO BOTH FHMP and FHMP NRBP
PRG11-01 Lower Nisqually River Flood Mitigation Update Emergency Response Plan to… SEE NOTE Taken out of Nisqually Plan, but included in the Pierce County Hazard (a) Program Part A. Update Emergency Mitigation Plan. Roy and McKenna are included in the Region 5 Response Plan Hazard Mitigation Plan.
(b) Part B. Nisqually River Hydrologic Study Nisqually River Hydrologic Study Yes Already being recommended in the flood plan
(c)' Revise Flood Hazard Maps-Nisqually Revised flood hazard maps - Nisqually river McKenna Reach Yes Already being recommended in the flood plan River, Mckenna Reach (d) Elevation Survey for Flood-Prone Potential mitigation measures, including raising structures and Yes The Flood Hazard Plan will discuss this mitigation measure at length. Structures in Mckenna property acquisition will be developed.
(e) Mckenna Flood Mitigation Alternatives Community and stakeholder involvement is crucial to the Yes The Flood Hazard Plan will discuss this mitigation measure at length. Analysis and Community Involvement. success of a flood mitigation projects, and should be initiated during early planning stages.
(f) Revise Flood Hazard Maps-Nisqually A ground survey should be conducted to obtain cross-sections Yes The Flood Hazard Plan will discuss this mitigation measure at length. River, Wilcox Flats Reach within the main steam of the Nisqually River. Additional efforts to update the maps would also be done.
ST11-NIS-ST01 Mainstem Nisqually River LWD The Nisqually River has been noted for a lack of LWD and Yes Under the scope of the FHMP Assessment and Restoration Plan further studies to look at LWD loading needs to be done.
ST11-NIS-ST02 Channel Migration Zone Study for Lower Yes Channel Migration Study Nisqually River ST19-NIS-ST01 Flood Hazard Mapping and Hydraulic Building on the upper Nisqually River CMZ study, re-map the Yes Under the scope of the FHMP Analysis-Upper Nisqually River floodplain, develop base flood elevations, and map floodway.
ST19-NIS-ST02 Upper Nisqually River Sediment and Sediment and LWD are moving off the mountain, which changes Yes Already begun in the USGS Phase 2 Floodplain Mapping Analysis the entire dynamics of the river. Analysis needs to be done.
ST20-LMR-ST01 Little Mashel Restoration Assessment A habitat assessment needs to be done Yes No major flooding issues
CIP11--NIS-FLD01 McKenna Flood Mitigation Projects McKenna has a history of flooding and for the most part is in the Yes Flooding , life and safety needs to be addressed. Listed as a problem floodplain. Mitigation needs to take place. in the P. C. Rivers Flood Hazard Management Plan. CIP20MAL-RSTO1 Mashel Eatonville Reach Restoration A decline in the habitat diversity, pool habitat, and habitat Yes Habitat project, non flooding problem. Phase II suitable for spawning needs attention. CIP11-NIS-AC04 Wilcox Flats Repetitive Loss Property FEMA has identified a repetitive loss property near the end of Yes Habitat project, non flooding problem. Acquisition 41st Avenue South.
P:\D010 BASIN PLANS\Nisqually\Basin Plan\Nisqually Basin Plan - Final Draft 12-29-2011\Appendix L History of Decisions moving projects to flood plan_matrix_Sept_15_2011.xlsx Nisqually and Mashel River, Mainstem Decision Matrix for Moving Draft NRBP Projects to Draft FHMP
ID CODE PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT DECISION TO MOVE PROJECTS RATIONALE
STAYS IN NRBP MOVED TO BOTH FHMP and FHMP NRBP
CIP20-MAL-VCO1 Mashel Eatonville Reach Riparian There are remaining areas along the Mashel River that are Yes Not a flooding problem Revegetation devoid of vegetation and need to be planted over during the next 5 years. CIP 11 NIS RST01 Nisqually River Wilcox Side Channel Due to floodplain restrictions by large channel-redirecting riprap Yes Flooding and habitat problem Restoration levees, there is a lack of side-channels and off-channel wetlands.
CIP20 MAL-AC01 Mashel River Property Acquisition Acquisition only for major habitat improvements and Yes Not a flooding problem alterations. CIP11 NIS RST03 Mainstem Off Channel Restoration Off channel habitat modifications have led to a reduction in Yes Not a flooding problem habitat diversity. CIP11-NIS RST02 Wilcox Flats off Channel Restoration Wilcox Flats needs habitat restoration between RM 28 and 29.5 Yes In both plans because there is a significant flooding history and needs through revegetation projects. habitat restoration. Listed as problem in P.C. Rivers Flood Hazard Management Plan CIP20 MAL-AC02 Shoreline buffers need to be restored to stabilize and enhance Yes Little if no floodplain exists on the property in need of restoration. habitat. Also much of the development has occurred on lots located in the City of Eatonville. CIP11-NIS-AC01 Nisqually River Mainstem Acquisition Important parcel of land approximately 100 acres in size along Yes Preservation of CMZ Phase 1 the Nisqually River needed for preservation of riparian habitat within the Channel Migration zone.
CIP11-NIS-ACO2 Nisqually River Mainstem Acquisition Important parcel of land approximately 100 acres in size along Yes Mostly a high quality habitat restoration project (Renumbered to AC01) Phase 2 the Nisqually River needed for preservation of riparian habitat within the Channel Migration zone.
CIP11-NIS-ACO3 Nisqually River Mainstem Acquisition Important parcel of land approximately 100 acres in size along Yes Mostly a high quality habitat restoration project (Renumbered to AC02) Phase 3 the Nisqually River needed for preservation of riparian habitat within the Channel Migration Zone.
CIP20-MAL-ACO3 Mashel Small Properties Acquisition Development has impacted the most productive habitat Yes Mostly a high quality habitat restoration project portions next to the Mashel River within the Eatonville area. These need to be purchased for restoration purposes
Revised June 8, 2011
P:\D010 BASIN PLANS\Nisqually\Basin Plan\Nisqually Basin Plan - Final Draft 12-29-2011\Appendix L History of Decisions moving projects to flood plan_matrix_Sept_15_2011.xlsx SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO NISQUALLY RIVER BASIN PLAN
PROJECTS REMOVED FROM NRBP1 Project(s)Removed Priority Cost of Project Removed from Plan Programs PRG11-01 (portions) High 270,000
Capital CIP11-NIS-AC01 Medium 1,060, 800 Improvement Projects CIP11-NIS-FLD01 High 10,200,000
Studies ST11-NIS-ST02 Not Ranked 378,000
ST19-NIS-ST01 Not Ranked 100,000
ST19-NIS-ST02 Not Ranked 300,000
BEFORE AND AFTER TOTALS Before Cost of Projects After Removed from Plan Programs 5,612,500 270,000 5,342,500
Capital 30,350,680 11,260,800 19.089,880 Improvement Projects Studies 2,141,500 778,000 1,363,500 TOTAL 38,104,680 12,308,800 25.795,880
CHANGES TO PROJECT COSTS BY PRIORITY Priority Before Cost of Projects After Removed from Plan High 16,851,170 10,470,000 6,381,170 Medium 14,396,410 1,060,800 13,335,610 Low 4,715,600 None 4,715,600
Documents/Water Programs/Projects/D010 BASIN PLANS/Nisqually Plan/Phase 2/ Summary of Changes.docx
1 Mainstem flooding projects were moved from the NRBP to the Pierce County Rivers Flood Hazard Management Plan.