HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP273046(1)Environmental Assessment
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project
King County, Washington
Summer 2003
US Army Carps
of EngineersT)
Seattle District
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project
King County, Washington
Summer 2003
Draft Environmental Assessment
Responsible Agencies: The responsible agency for this maintenance work is the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.
Abstract: This document evaluates the impacts of the Cedar River Side Channel
Replacement Project. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), with the
City of Renton as the local project sponsor, constructed the Cedar River Section 205
Flood Control Project between 1998 and 2000. The project consisted of dredging within,
and constructing concrete floodwalls and earthen levees along the lower 1.25 miles of the
Cedar River. A groundwater -spawning channel constructed near River Mile 5.0 of the
Cedar River (within Ron Regis Park) was also constructed during this time period to
serve as mitigation for the assumed loss of salmonid spawning habitat in the lower 1.25
miles of the Cedar River following the initial and maintenance river dredging operations.
Maintenance dredging was assumed to occur every 3 to 10 years to maintain the flood
protection benefits. During the February 28, 2001 Nisqually Earthquake, a landslide
occurred adjacent to the groundwater spawning channel and resulted in the loss of the
channel's function as off -channel habitat. In response, the City of Renton requested and
obtained assistance from the USACE under Public Law 84-99 to replace the channel to
provide the long-term mitigation required for the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage
Control Project. During the summer of 2003, the Corps is planning to construct the
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project. The proposed work includes replacing
the earthquake -damaged side channel with a new river -fed channel containing habitat
features suitable for salmonid spawning and rearing located between River Mile 3.4 and
3.6.
THE OFFICIAL COMMENT PERIOD ON THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
is
Please send questions and requests for additional information to:
Mr. Rustin Director
Environmental Resources Section
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 3775
Seattle, Washington 98124-3755
rustin.a.director@usace.army.mil
206-764-3636
Draft Environmental Assessment Page ii
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
Introduction..................................................................................................................1
1.1 Location.....................................................................................................................1
1.2 Background................................................................................................................1
1.3 Project Purpose and Need..........................................................................................2
1.4 Authority....................................................................................................................2
2.
Proposed Action and Alternatives Analysis................................................................2
2.1 Description of the Proposed Action...........................................................................2
2.2 Alternatives................................................................................................................3
3.
Existing Environment..................................................................................................3
3.1 Geology/Soils/Sediments...........................................................................................3
3.2 Water Quality.............................................................................................................4
3.3 Vegetation..................................................................................................................4
3.4 Fish............................................................................................................................4
3.5 Wildlife......................................................................................................................5
3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species.........................................................................5
3.7 Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns.................................................6
3.8 Landuse......................................................................................................................
6
3.9 Utilities and Public Services......................................................................................6
3.10 Air Quality and Noise..............................................................................................6
3.11 Transportation..........................................................................................................6
3.12 Socio-Economics.....................................................................................................6
3.13 Recreation................................................................................................................6
3.14 Aesthetics.................................................................................................................7
4.
Environmental Effects.................................................................................................7
4.1 Geology and Hydrology............................................................................................7
4.2 Water Quality.............................................................................................................7
4.3 Vegetation..................................................................................................................8
4.4 Fish............................................................................................................................8
4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species.........................................................................8
4.6 Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns.................................................9
4.7 Landuse......................................................................................................................9
4.8 Utilities and Public Services......................................................................................9
4.9 Air Quality and Noise................................................................................................9
4.10 Transportation..........................................................................................................9
4.11 Socio-Economics.....................................................................................................9
4.12 Recreation................................................................................................................9
4.13 Aesthetics.................................................................................................................9
5.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects....................................................................................10
6.
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources........................................10
7.
Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................................10
8.
Coordination..............................................................................................................10
9.
Environmental Compliance.......................................................................................10
9.1 National Environmental Policy Act.........................................................................I
I
Draft Environmental Assessment Page iii
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
9.2 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation.....................................................11
9.3 Clean Water Act Compliance..................................................................................11
9.4 Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency...........................................................11
9.5 Hydraulic Permit Approval......................................................................................11
9.6 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act........................................................................11
9.7 National Historic Preservation Act..........................................................................11
9.8 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice......................................................12
10. Conclusion.............................................................................................................12
11. References..............................................................................................................12
TABLE 1. Protected Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Vicinity .................. ???
TABLE 2. Determination Summary Table..................................................................... ???
APPENDIX A. Figures and Design Drawings
FIGURE 1. Location and Vicinity Map............................................................... A-??
FIGURE 2. Plan and Section Views.....................................................................A-??
FIGURE 3. Marine Resources in the Vicinity of Ediz Hook . .............................. A-??
APPENDIX B. Photographs of the Project Site
Draft Environmental Assessment Page iv
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
1. INTRODUCTIONS
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 's Environmental Assessment
evaluates the impacts of construction of a side channel n r river milea(RM) 3.4 and 3.6 along
the Cedar River in the City of Renton, King County Washington. The goal of the project is to
create off -channel spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids (primarily sockeye and Chinook)
within the Cedar River basin. The new spawning and rearing habitat (about 10,000 square feet)
will serve as a direct replacement for the groundwater channel that was destroyed as a result of
the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake. The groundwater channel was originally constructed as
mitigation for the United States Army Corps of Engineers Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard
Reduction Project.
1.1 Location
This project is located in the floodplain along the left bank between RM 3.4 and 3.6 on the Cedar
River in the City of Renton, King County Washington (T21N, R05E, Section 21). The project
location is east of the Royal Hills Neighborhood; west of the Maple Garden Neighborhood
within City owned property.
1.2 Background
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), with the City of Renton as the local
project sponsor, constructed the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Control Project between 1998
and 2000. The project consisted of dredging within, and constructing concrete floodwalls and
earthen levees along the lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River.
A groundwater -spawning channel constructed near River Mile 5.0 of the Cedar River (within
Ron Regis Park) was also constructed during this time period to serve as mitigation for the
assumed loss of salmonid spawning habitat in the lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River following
the initial and maintenance river dredging operations. Maintenance dredging was assumed to
occur every 3 to 10 years to maintain the flood protection benefits.
During the February 28, 2001 Nisqually Earthquake, a landslide occurred adjacent to the
groundwater spawning channel and resulted in the loss of the channel's function as off -channel
habitat. In response, the City of Renton requested and obtained assistance from the USACE
under Public Law 84-99 to replace the channel to provide the long-term mitigation required for
the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Damage Control Project.
The City of Renton Surface Water Utility will be required to monitor and maintain the channel to
provide spawning and rearing habitat. Monitoring may include: adult and redd counts, fry
production surveys, and riparian habitat monitoring. Maintenance may include: cleaning and/or
repair of entire channel including intake structure and outlet.
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 1
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
1.3 Project Purpose and Need
This project is necessary to reestablish a salmonid spawning and rearing side -channel to the
Cedar River to fulfill the mitigation agreements betwee th CE and the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. These agreement
1.4 Authority
The Cedar River Side Channel Project is authorized by Public Law 84-99 (USCA 701n). Corps
rehabilitation and restoration work under this authority is limited to flood control works damaged
or destroyed by flood. The rehabilitated structure will normally be designed to provide the same
degree of protection as the original structure. Because the 1988 groundwater -fed side channel
was an essential feature of the Section 205 Cedar River Flood Control Project, the PL 84-99
authority authorizes its rehabilitation or replacement.
2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
2.1 Description of the Proposed Action
The project consists of the following construction elements:
• The construction of an intake structure (consisting of concrete box culvert, trash
rack, control valve, geogrids, and approximately 140 feet of pipe) at the upstream end of the
channel to convey flow from the Cedar River.
• The construction of an open -channel outlet approximately 1,200 feet downstream
from the intake structure in order to allow flow to re-enter the Cedar River and adult/juvenile
fish to migrate to or from the channel.
• The excavation of approximately 6 00 cubic yards of floodplain sediments (i.e.,
gravel, sand and silts) and shaping for a distance of 1,000 feet within the existing drainage
course in order to create the replacement channel.
• The addition of large woody debris — approximately 5 to 10 clusters of three
pieces of wood — to create rearing pools and to stabilize banks within the constructed
channel.
• The addition 600-900 cubic yards of gravel to create spawning habitat.
• The construction of a 12-foot wide gravel -surfaced maintenance path adjacent to
the west side of the channel for the length of the project.
• The installation of native trees, shrubs and plants at two locations — along the new
channel and between the Cedar River and the new channel within an existing disturbed area —
in order to mitigate for vegetation disturbance and tree removal (approximately 50 to 100
cottonwood and alder trees) resulting from the construction of the channel and maintenance
road.
• The installation of a gate across the access road to deter illegal vehicular access.
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 2
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
• The installation of educational signs to inform the public of salmon within the
Cedar River basin as well as the impacts of illegal activities on tke habitat area.
Project construction is anticipated to be completed between M�h throu�h November of 2003
for work outside of the river and between June 15th through August 15 of 2003 for in -river
construction. Future maintenance work may be necessary for cleaning and/or repair of the
channel, including the intake structure and outlet.
2.2 Alternatives
No Action. The no action alternative would not repair or replace the groundwater -spawning
channel constructed near River Mile 5.0 of the Cedar River (within Ron Regis Park) that was
altered as a result of a landslide triggered by the February 28, 2001 Nisqually Earthquake.
However, the landslide changed the main flow of the river resulting in the loss of the channel's
function as off -channel salmonid spawning and rearing habitat.
Modification to the Existing Elliot Channel. This tive uld involve modification of the
existing Elliot Spawning and Rearing Channel, n ar an attempt to increase the
available productivity of existing channel. This wou plementing the existing
project with more large woody debris, plantings, and spawning gravel as necessary. However,
this channel is currently functioning with an adequate rate of production and modification to the
channel might have adverse affects to sockeye production and other fish and wildlife species.
Creation of a new Channel
7
3. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Geology/Soils/Sediments
The northwest/southeast trending valleys that contain the Cedar River,jaadLake Sammamish
and,, ,1 iington were formed by the most recent retreat of glaciation approximately 10,000 years
ago. The soils are generally glacially deposited, such as till, outwash or glaciolacustrine
deposits. The Cedar River valley is composed primarily of alluvium deposited with the
meanderings of the Cedar River across its floodplain. Gravels are deposited in many areas of the
floodplain, and flow from the river through these gravel deposits manifests itself in the form of
groundwater flow where floodplain soils have been excavated. The floodplain soils at the
project site are a mix of gravels, sands, and silts from successive flooding events. The project
site lies along the southern shore of the Cedar River and occupies a low bench below a steep
valley slope. The riverbank is abrupt and appears stable. One swble runs immediately at the
base of the valley slope. Another occupies a linear depression at the base of a minor terrace
escarpment midway between the valley slope and the river. The proposed spawning channel
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 3
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
would be occupying the second swale, which becomes more defined toward the downstream end
of the site. At its highest, the terrace rises about 10 feet above the left side (looking downstream)
of the swale.
3.2 Water Quality
Water quality in the Cedar River is considered Class AA (extraordinary) in the vicinity of the
proposed rearing/spawning channel (RM 3.1). During heavy rainstorms and floods there are
temporary periods of high turbidity, but otherwise there are no other water quality issues. The
floodplain where the rearing/spawning channel will be constructed currently receives river water
during flows greater than about
3.3 Vegetation
The most prevalent community that occurs throughout the site is a cottonwood/alder forest with
an understory of snowberry, salmonberry, and sword fern. In places, vine maple, blackberry,
Indian plum, Japanese knotweed, bleeding heart, giant horsetail, and Pacific waterleaf occur.
New growth of buttercup and nettle was just becoming evident at the time of field investigations.
There is a 300 square foot wetland on site consisting of snowberry, salmonberry, and sword fern.
The wetland occupies a relatively long, narrow low spot in the central swale. Approximately 60
to 100 cottonwoods (great than 6-inch diameter) will be felled to construct the channel and
maintenance path. er
3.4 Fish
According to the Final Environmental Impact Study for the Cedar River 205 Flood Control
Project prepared in August of 1997, there are at least 22 species of fish present in the Cedar
River. In the vicinity of the project site there are sockeye salmon, chinook salmon, coho salmon,
steelhead trout, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, mountain whitefish, northern squawfish, peamouth
chub, three -spine stickleback, largescale sucker, longnose dace, bork lamprey, Pacific lamprey,
and several species of sculpin. Bull trout have not been observed in the vicinity of the proposed
project, but may occur. The Cedar River adjacent to the proposed project is heavily utilized for
spawning by adult sockeye, chinook and coho salmon. The existing natural side channels
downstream of the Elliot levee are utilized for rearing by sockeye fry, chinook fry and juveniles,
coho and steelhead smolts. Three species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act
are likely to occur in the project area, including Bald Eagle, Puget Sound ESU chinook salmon,
and Puget Sound/Western Washington ESU bull trout. In addition, coho salmon, a candidate
species, are also located in the vicinity of the site.
Sockeye
Sockeye salmon typically spawn in streams that flow into large lakes systems to allow juvenile
sockeye to rear for a year or more in a deepwater lake environment before migrating to sea. Prior
to the 1930s, Lake Washington was famous for its large populations of kokanee (the freshwater
form of the sockeye), but sea -run sockeye salmon were thought to be absent. In the year 1916,
the ship canal was opened to serve as a new outlet for Lake Washington and to provide the water
needed to operate the just completed Hiram M. Chittenden Locks at Ballard. This combined the
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 4
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
extensive spawning grounds of the Cedar River with a large lake -rearing environment, provided
an opportunity to develop a major sockeye salmon population in the waters of southern Puget
Sound.
Sockeye were introduced into the Lake Washington watershed in 1935 (and subsequent years)
from the Baker River. The first documented adult returns to Lake Washington were in 1940
when 9,099 sockeye were counted at the Washington Department of Fisheries hatchery on
Issaquah Creek. The run gradually increased, and in 1970 an escapement goal of 350,000
spawners was adopted and in 1971 the first directed fisheries occurred. Since then, sockeye
returns have significantly fluctuated despite supplementation efforts and harvest restrictions,
theoretically due to freshwater and ocean survival constraints, and because of an increased
frequency in damaging winter floods (WDFW 2002).
3.5 Wildlife
Wildlife species likely to be present at the site and surrounding area are black -tailed deer,
cougar, muskrat, coyote, raccoon, Eastern gray squirrel, opossum, beaver, cottontail rabbits,
striped skunk, Norway rats, various small rodents, and feral dogs and cats. Red tailed hawks and
bald eagles utilize the taller cottonwoods for perching and foraging. Mergansers, mallards and
other waterfowl are also present.
3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species
In accordance with Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended,
federally funded, constructed, permitted, or licensed projects must take into consideration
impacts to federally listed and proposed threatened or endangered species. Several species listed
as either threatened or endangered are potentially found in vicinity of the project (see Table 1.).
A Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared and submitted to National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on July 30, 2002. The BA concluded
that the proposed project is not likely, adversely affect any species protected under the Act,
largely because construction will occuTr when chinook and bull trout are least likely to be present
in the project area, and during a portion of the year when bald eagles are most tolerant of
disturbance. The individual effect determinations made in the BA are summarized in Table 2.
The Corps will not proceed with the proposed work until letters concurring with the
determinations made in the BA have been received.
Table 1. Protected Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Vicinity
Species
Listing
Critical Habitat
Status
Bald Eagle
Threatened
—
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout
Threatened
—
Salvelinu.s confluentus
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon
Threatened
Designated
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 5
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
Oncorhynchus tshaw tscha
Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho Salmon Candidate —
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Table 2. Determination Summary Table
Species
Effect Determination
Critical Habitat Determination
Bald Eagle
Not likely to adversely affect
—
Bull Trout
Not likely to adversely affect
—
Chinook
Not likely to adversely affect
Not likely to adversely affect
3.7 Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns
There are no known cultural resources in the project area.
3.8 Landuse
The project site and adjacent property to the south and east is owned by the City of Renton. All
City of Renton property (i.e. site and adjacent parcels) is considered a natural zone area. Located
to the west of the project site is a City of Seattle right of way for the East Side Supply Line.
3.9 Utilities and Public Services
3.10 Air Quality and Noise
3.11 Transportation
3.12 Socio-Economics
The proposed location has a City of Renton zoning designation as a Resource Conservancy.
3.13 Recreation
The current use of the proposed location is an open space with public hiking/walking trails.
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 6
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
3.14 Aesthetics
The project is located in the wooded flood plain across the Cedar River from several City of
Renton residents.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
4.1 Geology and Hydrology
About 6,000 cubic yards of floodplain deposits will be excavated to construct a new spawning
and rearing channel within the existing floodplain. The channel will be aligned along the course
of a former side channel. The excavated material will be removed from the site.
The minimum critical Cedar River flow is 97 cfs per the City of Seattle Habitat Conservation
Plan. At this flow rate about 5 to 10 cfs will be conveyed into the new channel.
The maximum design flow in the new channel is about 50 cfs. This flow would occur when
Cedar River flows are at about 5,500 cfs just prior to levee overtopping.
Flow from the Cedar River will enter the channel at the inlet of the new channel and return to the
Cedar River after flowing within the new channel system for a distance of about 1,200 ft.
4.2 Water Quality
A wetland delineation and description prepared by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
Environmental Resources Section dated June 5, 2002 was included with the submitted materials.
Based on this assessment, there is a wetland situated along the south side of the riverbank in the
vicinity of the proposed channel location. The wetland occupies a long, narrow spot and is
approximately 300 square feet in size. The proposal includes the excavation of approximately
150 cubic yards of wetland material in order to construct the channel. Pursuant to the wetland
criteria under the City's Critical Areas Regulations, the identified wetland area is exempt from
regulations requiring mitigation (i.e., replacement and/or restoration).
The wetland assessment concludes that outside of this wetland area, the remainder of the site
appears to be well drained and the steep riverbank precludes any sort of wetland fringe
associated with the shoreline.
The project will utilize best management practices, such as silt fencing and other erosion control
measures, to ensure no sediments enters the river during construction, and all cleared areas will
be mulched, seeded and planted to prevent storm water runoff after construction. The project is
limited to in -river construction between the dates of July 15 and August 15 in order to reduce
impacts to salmonids.
With the exception of the inlet and outlet structures, the project will be constructed without any
in -water work. This means that Cedar River water quality will not be impacted during the
clearing/grading and excavation work elements related to channel construction.
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 7
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
There are no adverse impacts to water quality anticipated from the proposed project.
4.3 Vegetation
Native trees and shrubs (that have been observed on -site) will be planted in disturbed areas as
mitigation for construction of the channel and maintenance path. Additional native planting will
occur in an existing disturbed area between the Cedar River and the new channel.
The channel and maintenance road were designed to minimize the impact on the existing
vegetation. Specifically, all trees (with greater than 6-inch diameter) within 25 feet (in both
directions) of the centerline were tagged, surveyed, and located on the construction drawings.
Native trees and shrubs will be planted to reduce and control surface water runoff. The trees and
shrubs will be planted in two locations. First, planting will occur in areas that are disturbed to
construct the new channel with the exception of the channel bottom. Second, an existing
disturbed area between the Cedar River and new channel will be planted to control runoff and
deter access along a beaten path to the river.
4.4 Fish
According to the Final Environmental Impact Study for the Cedar River 205 Flood Control
Project prepared in August of 1997, there are at least 22 species of fish present in the Cedar
River. In the vicinity of the project site there are sockeye salmon, chinook salmon, coho salmon,
steelhead trout, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, mountain whitefish, northern squawfish, peamouth
chub, three -spine stickleback, largescale sucker, longnose dace, bork lamprey, Pacific lamprey,
and several species of sculpin. Bull trout have not been observed in the vicinity of the proposed
project, but may occur. The Cedar River adjacent to the proposed project is heavily utilized for
spawning by adult sockeye, chinook and coho salmon. The existing natural side channels
downstream of the Elliot levee are utilized for rearing by sockeye fry, chinook fry and juveniles,
coho and steelhead smolts. Three species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act
are likely to occur in the project area, including Bald Eagle, Puget Sound ESU chinook salmon,
and Puget Sound/Western Washington ESU bull trout. In addition, coho salmon, a candidate
species, are also located in the vicinity of the site.
4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
Construction will occur when chinook and bull trout are least likely to be present in the action
area, and during a portion of the year when bald eagles are more tolerant of disturbance. The in -
water work is scheduled to occur between July 16 and mid- to late -September, in accordance
with the fish windows created by WDFW.
Determination Summary Table
S ecies
Effect Determination
Critical Habitat Determination
Bald Eagle
Not likely to adversely affect
—
Bull Trout
Not likely to adversely affect
—
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 8
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
Chinook I Not likely to adversely affect I Not likely to adversely affect
4.6 Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns
No known cultural or historic sites occur in the project area. If any artifacts are discovered
during construction, all work will be stopped and the USACE archeological and cultural
resources staff will further investigate the site and alert the appropriate authorities.
4.7 Landuse
4.8 Utilities and Public Services
4.9 Air Quality and Noise
There will be a temporary increase in noise during construction, but it will be well within urban
limits. Exhaust from the equipment will emit a minor amount of exhaust. Equipment will have
mufflers and exhaust systems in accordance with State and Federal standards. Following
construction, there will be no change in air quality, noise or light parameters.
4.10 Transportation
The project includes improvement of the gate across City of Seattle right-of-way that is expected
to deter illegal vehicular traffic.
4.11 Socio-Economics
4.12 Recreation
During construction, public access will be restricted on the site. Following construction, the site
will be available for passive recreation as appropriate for a natural area. Interpretive signs will
be placed on -site to provide information the following issues: wildlife poaching; trail use impact;
salmonid spawning; and benefits of project.
4.13 Aesthetics
Significant efforts and consideration has been made to maintain the project locations aesthetics,
as well as maintain the wooded view for City of Renton residents who live across the Cedar
River from the project site. The location of the channel has been designed to minimize the
number of large diameter trees that will be removed during construction. Final alignments of the
channel will be field engineered to help preserve the maximum amount of large diameter trees.
Native plants and trees will be planted in the disturbed area, with the exception of the channel
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 9
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
bottom. In addition, an existing disturbed area along the river will be planted with native trees
and shrubs to maintain a buffer of river riverside that will allow for a wooded view for the
residents located across the river from the project location.
5. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
Unavoidable adverse effects associated with this project included: (1) a temporary and localized
increase in noise, which may disrupt wildlife in the area, (2) a temporary and localized
disruption of local traffic by construction vehicles, and (3) a temporary and localized increase in
turbidity levels during construction of the intake and outlet structures in the Cedar River, which
may have affect aquatic organisms in the area.
6. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
The irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources is the use of materials, resources, or
land during implementation of an alternative that makes these resources unavailable for other
uses, given known technology and reasonable economics.
will
No federal resources Wwne be irreversibly and irretrievably committed to this project until the
"Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI) is signed.
7. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions that are
reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this evaluation. Future Federal
actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they
require separate evaluations.
8. COORDINATION
Coordination was conducted with the following resource agencies and their comments integrated
into this document.
City of Renton
King County
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Washington Department of Ecology
9. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 10
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
9.1 National Environmental Policy Act
This Environmental Assessment (EA) satisfies the documentation requirements of NEPA. After
the comment period for this document has ended, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
will be prepared for inclusion with a Final EA.
9.2 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation
In accordance with Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended,
federally funded, constructed, permitted, or licensed projects must take into consideration
impacts to federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species. A Biological
Evaluation was submitted to USFWS and NMFS on; The Corps expects to receive
letters of concurrence with the determinations made in the Biological Evaluation.
9.3 Clean Water Act Compliance
9.4 Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, requires Federal agencies to carry out
their activities in a manner, which is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the
enforceable policies of the approved Washington Coastal Zone Management Program.
9.5 Hydraulic Permit Approval
A Hydraulic Permit Approval (HPA) from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is
not required for federal work that involves construction within state waters, since there has been
no waiver of sovereign immunity by the Federal government to require or allow such regulation
of Federal agencies by local governments. The Corps has coordinated the project with WDFW
and has made efforts to incorporate their comments into the project design.
9.6 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 470) requires that wildlife conservation receive
equal consideration and be coordinated with other features of water resource development
projects. This goal is accomplished through Corps funding of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
habitat surveys evaluating the likely impacts of proposed actions, which provide the basis for
recommendations for avoiding or minimizing such impacts. A Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act Report is not required for PL84-99 work.
9.7National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470) requires that the effects of proposed
actions on sites, buildings, structures, or objects included or eligible for the National Register of
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 11
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
Historic Places must be identified and evaluated., e 1993 Washington State
Office of Archaeology and Historical Preservation database indicated that no sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places are located in the project section. the
Corps received a letter from the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation stating that no resources included in or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places have been recorded in the project area. This letter can be found in
Appendix D.
9.8 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 directs every federal agency to identify and address disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects of agency programs and activities on
minority and low-income populations.
The project does not involve the siting of a facility that will discharge pollutants or contaminants,
so no human health effects would occur. The creation of the side channel would not negatively
affect property values in the area, or socially stigmatize local residents or businesses in any way.
No interference with Native American Nations' treaty rights would result from the proposed
project; construction activities would not physically interfere with fishing, or negatively impact
fishery resources.
Since no high and adverse effects are anticipated to result from the project, the Corps has
determined that no disproportional impacts would occur.
10. CONCLUSION
Based on this assessment and on coordination with Federal and State agencies, it is considered
that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. The
proposed project is not considered a major Federal action having a significant impact on the
human environment and does not require preparation of an environmental impact statement
supplement. A finding of so significant impact (FONSI) has been prepared
11. REFERENCES
Bishop, S., and A. Morgan, (eds.). 1996. Critical Habitat Issues by Basin for Natural Chinook
Salmon Stocks in the Coastal and Puget Sound Areas of Washington State. Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission, Olympia, WA., 105p.
City of Renton Surface Water Utility and the USACE. April 2002. Evaluation of two
replacement sites for the USAC'E Cedar River Section 205 groundwater channel.
Fraser, J.D., L.D. Frenzel, and J.E. Mathisen. 1985. "The impact of human activities on
breeding bald eagles in northcentral Minnesota." Journal of Wildlife Management 49:585-592.
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 12
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
Goetz, F.A. 1989. Biology of the bull trout, Salvelinus con uentus. Literature review.
Willamette National Forest, Eugene, OR.
Gregory, R.S., and T.G. Northcote. 1992. "Surface, planktonic, and benthic foraging by
juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in turbid laboratory conditions."
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50(2):233-240.
Haas, G.R., J.D. McPhail. 1991. Systematics and distributions of Dolly Varden (Salvelinus
malma and bull trout (Salvelinus confluent us) in North America. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 48:2191-2211.
Healey, M.C. 1980. "The ecology of juvenile salmon in Georgia Strait, British Columbia."
Pages 203-229 in W.J. McNeil and D.C. Himsworth (eds.), Salmonid ecosystems of the North
Pacific, Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Or.
Knight, R.L., P.J. Randolph, G.T. Allen, L.S. Young, and R.J. Wigen. 1990. Diets of nesting
bald eagles, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, in western Washington. Canadian Field Naturalist
104:545-551.
Kraemer, C. 1994. Some observations on the life history and behavior of the native char, Dolly
Varden (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) of the north Puget Sound
Region. Unpublished report, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Moyle, P.B. 1976. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press.
Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grand,
F.W. Waknotz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook
salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum.
NMFS-NWFSC-35. Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.
National Marine Fisheries Service. March 9, 1998. Endangered and Threatened Species:
Proposed Endangered Status for Two Chinook Salmon ESUs and Proposed Threatened Status
for Five Chinook Salmon ESUs; Proposed Redefinition, Threatened Status, and Revision of
Critical Habitat for One Chinook Salmon ESU; Proposed Designation of Chinook Salmon
Critical Habitat in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho. Federal Register 63(45): 11482-
11520.
National Marine Fisheries Service. March 25, 1999. Endangered and Threatened Species;
Threatened Status for Three Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) in
Washington and Oregon, and Endangered Status for One Chinook Salmon ESU in Washington.
Federal Register 64(56): 14308-14328.
National Marine Fisheries Service. February 16, 2000. Designated Critical Habitat: Critical
Habitat for 19 Evolutionarily Significant Units of Salmon and Steelhead in Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, and California. Federal Register 65(32): 7764-7787.
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 13
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
Neilson, J. D., and C. E. Banford. 1983. "Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
spawner characteristics in relation to redd physical features." Can. J. Zool. 61:1524-1531.
Neilson, J. D., and G. H. Green. 1981. "Enumeration of spawning salmon from spawner
residence time and aerial counts." Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 110:554-556.
Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1999. Identification and Description of Essential Fish
Habitat, Adverse Impacts, and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon (Appendix A of
Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan). <http://www.pcouncil.org/Salmon/
al 4efh/efhindex.html>.
Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for
conservation of bull trout. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. General
Technical Report INT-302.
Simenstad, C.A., K.L. Fresh, and E.O. Salo. 1982. "The Role of Puget Sound and Washington
Coastal Estuaries in the Life History of Pacific Salmon: An Unappreciated Function." Pages
343-364 in V.S. Kennedy (ed.), Estuarine comparisons, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Steenhof, K. 1978. Management of Wintering Bald Eagles. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Biological Report (FWS/OBS-78-79).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. November 1, 1999. Determination of Threatened Status for Bull
Trout in the Coterminous United States. Federal Register 64(210): 58910-58932.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Section 7 Consultations on the Bald Eagle. Proceedings
of the Biological Assessment Preparation and Review Workshop, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Western Washington Office, March 1999.
Washington Department of Ecology. 2000. Final 1998 Section 303(d) List. Water Quality
Program. <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/1998/wrias/virial8.pdf>.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes.
1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory: Appendix 1, Puget Sound
Stocks, Hood Canal & Strait of Juan de Fuca Volume. Olympia, Washington.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. Salmonid Stock Inventory, Appendix: Bull
Trout and Dolly Varden. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish
Program.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. Lake Washington Sockeye.
http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/sockeye/background.htm
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
System. Unpublished report. Mill Creek, WA:
Region 6.
Draft Environmental Assessment
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project
1999. Bull Trout in the Stillaguamish River
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Page 14
Summer 2003
Watson, J.D. and D.J. Pierce. 1998. Ecology of Bald Eagles in Western Washington with an
Emphasis on the Effects of Human Activity. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Wildlife Research Division.
Weitkamp, L.A., Wainwright, T.C., Bryant, G.J., Milner, G.B, Teel, D.J., Kope, R.G., and
Waples, R.S. 1995. Status Review of Coho Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-24. Northwest Fisheries Science Center,
Seattle, WA.
Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and
Salmon Utilization: Volume 1, Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries.
Williams, G.D., and R.M. Thom. 2001. Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Modification Issues
White Paper. Prepared for the Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, and
Transportation. <http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/ahg/>.
Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. University of
Washington Press; Seattle, WA.
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 15
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003