Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP273046(2)Biological Assessment Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project King County, Washington May 2002 5� i:�> teq PT - US Army Corps of Engineers® Seattle District I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Location.................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Authority................................................................................................................... 1 2. Description of the Project Area and Action Area ....................................................... 2 3. Description of the Proposed Action............................................................................ 4 4. Conservation Measures.............................................................................................. 5 S. Environmental Baseline and Effects of the Proposed Action ..................................... 6 5.1 Vegetation................................................................................................................. 6 5.2 Geology/Soil/Sediments........................................................................................... 6 5.3 Water Quality............................................................................................................ 6 5.4 Biota.......................................................................................................................... 6 Invertebrates.................................................................................................................... 6 Fish.................................................................................................................................. 7 6. Evaluation of Project Effects on Protected Species .................................................... 7 6.1 Bald Eagle................................................................................................................. 8 6.2 Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout............................................................................... 9 6.3 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon................................................................................ 10 6.4 Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho Salmon......................................................... 12 7. Interrelated and InterdepercderatFffects................................................................... 13 8. Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................... 14 9. Conclusion................................................................................................................ 14 10, Essential Fish Habitat........................................................................................... 14 11. References..............................................................................................................16 APPENDIX A. Photographs of the Project Site Tables and Figures TABLE 2. Protected Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Vicinity.12 TABLE 3. Determination Sununar y Table 23 FIGURE]. Location and Vicinity Map. 2 FIGURE 2. Plan and Section Vielvs. S Biological Evaluation Page ii Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project May 2002 1. INTRODUCTION 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 constricting concrete floodwalls and earthen levees along the lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River. A groundwater -spawning channel constricted 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 of -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 2002 o s is planning to construct the Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Figures 1 and 2) The proposed work includes replacing the earthquake - damaged side channel wr a new river -fed channel containing habitat features suitable for salmonid spawning and rearing located between River Mile 3.4 and 3.6. In accordance with Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, this document examines the potential impacts of this work on species protected by the Act. 1.1 Location This project is located in the floodplain along the left bank edar River in the City of Renton, King County Washingto Please see Figure 1. A2 Authority The Cedar River Side Channel Project was 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. Biological Evaluation Page 1 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project May 2002 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA AND ACTION AREA In conjunction with the City or Renton, several sites were considered and evaluated for the location of the replacement channel. Numerous criteria were used to evaluate each site including the existing hydrology, geology, flood protection, ecology, and ability to produce salmonid spawning and rearing habitat at the site (City of Renton 2002). The results of this in-depth analysis ddz=ned the location of a new river -fed spawning channel at the "Rolling Hills Site A" (Figure the best alternative. The 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 swale 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 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. Figure 1. Location and Vicinity Map Biological Evaluation Page 2 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project May 2002 8 R IT IS H C O L U M B I A MLLIKKAM \ C Mr, vEraaH ErERETT PROJE TJ11111001 SEATTLE MA W AS`HINGT0N I TAC— p ISME ELLEMS G I OLr IA I S H � w CHEHAL IS TA- n ��ALLA MALLA O z 0 i O wenuw �AMcaNEn,a VICINITY MAP ? 0 R E G 0 N NOT TOW.&L w STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA z N E D 1 Z OJECT uwnn�E u.a coAsrGume STATION � o PORT ANGELES HARBOR N I N O �p O P 0 R T m A N G E L. E S N � z 7 LOCATION MAP o I' 400' 400' 100' 0 100' 6W 0 U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SEATTLE 0 a w z CORPS OF ENGINEERS SEATTLE, WASHINGTON w PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON EDIZ HOOK REVETMENT NOURISHMENT DATE PUBLIC NOTICE SHEET I FEB 02 CENPS-OD-TS-NS-16 1 OF 2 Biological Evaluation Page 3 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project May 2002 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Construction is scheduled to begin during July 1 - August 31 work window. Duration of the construction is expected to last approximately 2 months. Construction sequencing is outlined in �t Table ~ If the environmental permitting and design process is not complete by the wor w, out of water construction will likely begin in September through November. The, onstruction of the project would then complete during the summer 2003 work window.^ o c1. Equipment that will likely be utilized includes: bulldozer, hydraulic excavator, dumptruck, loader, and crane. ................ Table Construction Sequencing Step 1. Install erosion control. Step 2. Build construction access (15 ft wide, parallel to the channel). Step 3. Insert cofferdams (or other type of water diversion in river at intake and outflow). Step 4..Place vault. Step 5. Build/insert river inlet system. Step 6. Install pipes from vault to inlet, & :from vault to channel. Step 8. Excavatespawning channel. Step 9. Excavatespillway and dendrites. Step 10. Insert stream features (spawning avel, woody debris). Step 11. Install channel bank/slope erosion control and plantings. Step 12. Remove upper co ordain andflood channel. Pump out Ines. Step 13. Remove lower cofferdam *Italics indicates work must be done during the July 1- August 31 work ivindow in either 2002 or 2003. t:ion vehicles will access the site by the existing utilities roads located i ure An additional construction access will be constructed parallel to the river, west o 6 ir;�po;Zhannel location. This access will be approximately feet wide and run feet from the existing utility corridor to the intake stricture (Figure ) and be composed of (spawning size gravels?). Creation of the access road will require the removal of some trees of 6 inches in diameter or greater, however these trees will remain stockpiled on site and placed as habitat features in the channel once the excavation is complete. The existing footpath along the left bank of the Cedar River adjacent to the proposed channel site will be replanted. By siting the access road west of the channel, a buffer of trees will remain. between the river and the side channel. The proposed in -water constriction work will occur during the July 1- August 31, 2002 work window established when juvenile salmonids are least likely to be in the area. This includes the installation and removal of cofferdams (Step 3, Step 12, and Step 13 in Figure ). Biological Evaluation Page 4 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project May 2002 The proposed out -of -water construction will occur during the same time frame if time permits. However, if more time is needed for construction, the excavation of the channel may continue on past August 31, 2002 closure for in -water work. However, no work will occur during the bald eagle wintering season, October 31 February 31 without further consultation with USFWS. 4. CONSERVATION MEASURES Construction will occur when chinook and bull trout are least likely to be present in the action area. The work window :for the Cedar River is July 1— August 31. The work will also occur outside bald eagle wintering season (October 31 — Febniaiy 31). The Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project has been designed to avoid the removal of as many large trees (cottonwoods greater than a six-inch diameter) as possible. Corps survey crews, including a biologist and hydraulic engineer, assisted with the planned routing of the channel. A small number of large trees will be removed during construction, but will not leave the site. These trees will be incorporated into the side channel as woody debris to provide habitat features. Additional wood may or may not be imported to the site to provide additional habitat features. In addition, several construction best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented: ■ biodegradable hydraulic fluids will be used for machinery at the site; ■ no equipment fueling or servicing will occur within 300 feet of the water. ■ removal of existing trees over six -inches in diameter will be minimized; ■ at least one fuel spill kit with absorbent pads will be onsite at all times; and ■ drive trains of equipment will not operate in the water; Biological Evaluation Page 5 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project May 2002 2 rcm o% k� j Z:) O w /Z © §A §& b S ■ � �LU > �B o §§![ ■ LU �\ : . 00 CM ox ® �N k/ L e LU - � > �■ � _� , g � § � d -+- § � ■ � § � § ! _� _- � ■ 2� § � � § ) /! _4a §K & � % � -.N*-iZ6— 004041 _ 00 + mi- @ | � § 5. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 5.1 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, knotweed, bleeding heart, giant horsetail, and Pacific waterleaf occur. 5.2 Geology/Soil/Sediments The northwest/southeast trending valleys that contain the Cedar River, Lakes Sammamish and Washington were formed by the most recent retreat of the 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 Rolling Hills side -channel site are a mix of gravels, sands, and silts??? 5.3 Water Quality Water quality in the Cedar River is considered Class AA (extraordinary) in the vicinity of the proposed rearing/spawning channel (RM 3.5). 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 cfs, which is about a year flow. Any increases in turbidity resulting from the proposed action would be minor considering a minimal amount of in -water work. Placement of cofferdams and erosion -control measures around the intake and outflow structures will limit turbidity entering the river. Once the side channel has been excavated, initial turbid water and. fines will be pumped to an upland area. 5.4 Biota Invertebrates Aquatic invertebrates in the Cedar River include many species of aquatic insects, worms, and mollusks. The lower Cedar River has populations of Plcopterans (stoneflies), Ephemeropterans (mayflies), Trichopterans (caddisflies), Dipterans (true flies), Coleopterans (beetles), Megalopterans (alder flies), Arach.nida (spiders), Crustaceans (shrimp, etc.), Molluscans (snails), 1 Puget lobe of the Cordilleran ice sheet. Biological Evaluation Page 6 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project May 2002 Annelida (segmented worms) and Nemotoda (roundworms) (Sibley & Brocksmith 1996). Higher velocity areas with gravel and cobble substrate generally had greater numbers of stoneflies and .mayflies, which prefer highly oxygenated, cool, swiftly running water. Lower velocity areas generally had greater number of crustaceans, mollusks, and worms, which prefer finer substrates. The spawning channel will create additional side channel habitat that is currently not connected to the river. This will increase the potential habitat for aquatic invertebrates. The channel will also provide rearing habitat for juvenile salmon, and it is assumed that aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates will colonize the new channel and provide a food source for juvenile salmon. Fish Resident river and lake fish include cutthroat and rainbow trout, mountain whitefish, northern pike minnow, largescale sucker, peamouth chub, three -spine stickleback, and torrent, coastrange reticulate and prickly sculpins. 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. Chitten.den.:Locks at Ballard. This combined the 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 nun 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 effortsandharvest-restrictions,-- theoretically due to freshwater and ocean survival constraints, and because of an increased frequency in damaging winter floods (WDFW 2002). The proposed action will not alter baseline in -river conditions along the Cedar River. A temporary increase in truck traffic will occur during construction, raising noise levels above ambient condition. 6. EVALUATION OF PROJECT EFFECTS ON PROTECTED SPECIES Three species protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1544) potentially occur in the project vicinity. A list of species potentially affected by the proposed project was requested from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in a letter dated October 24, 2001. A species list was received on November 30, 2001 (FWS Ref.: 1-3-02-SP- Biological Evaluation Page 7 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project May 2002 0219). National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Northwest Region web sites (http://www.nwr.n.oaa.gov/Ihabconlhabwebllistttwr.htm and http://Www.nwr.no I seals/marmamlist. html) Table 2 summarizes the information received from USFWS and NMFS. The following sections briefly summarize relevant life history information on the protected species, synthesize current knowledge on the presence and utilization of the project and action areas by these species, and then evaluate how the proposed project may affect the species concluding with a determination of effect. Table 2. Protected Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Vicinity Species Listing Critical Habitat Status Bald Eagle Threatened — Haliaeetus leucocephalus Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout Threatened — Salvelinus con uentus Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Threatened Designated Oncorhvnchus tshawytscha Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho Salmon Candidate — Oncorhtmchus kisutch 6.1 Bald Eagle The Washington State bald eagle population was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, in February 1978. Since DDT was banned in 1972, bald eagle populations have rebounded. The bald eagle was proposed for de -listing in July 1999. The bald eagle wintering season extends from. October 31 through March 31. Food is recognized as the essential habitat requirement affecting winter numbers and distribution of bald eagles. Other wintering habitat considerations are communal night roosts and perches. Generally large, tall, and decadent stands of trees on slopes with northerly exposures are used for roosting; eagles tend to roost in older trees with broken crowns and open branching (Watson and Pierce 1998). Bald eagles select perches on the basis of exposure, and proximity to food sources. Trees are preferred over other types of perches, which may include pilings, fence posts, power line poles, the ground, rock outcrops, and logs (Steenhof 1978). Bald eagles nest between early January and mid -August. The characteristic features of bald eagle breeding habitat are nest sites, perch trees, and available prey. Bald eagles primarily nest in uneven -aged, multi -storied stands with old -growth components. Factors such as tree height, diameter, tree species, position on the surrounding topography, distance from water, and distance from disturbance also influence nest selection. Snags, trees with exposed lateral branches, or trees with dead tops are often present in nesting territories and are critical to eagle perching, movement to and from the nest, and as points of defense of their territory. Biological Evaluation Page 8 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project May 2002 Birds and fish are the primary food source for eagles in Western Washington, but bald eagles will also take a variety of mammals and reptiles (both live and as carrion) when fish are not readily available (Knight et al. 1990). Utilization of the Action Area indicates that wintering bald eagles may occur in the vicinity of the proposed project. According to the WDFW priority habitat and species database, several bald eagle nests are located within 10 miles of the project area but further than 4 miles from the actual project location. Effects of the Proposed Action Construction activities would occur during the nesting season. Because bald eagle nests are located in excess of four miles from the project location, construction activities would not directly disrupt eagle nesting and rearing of young. No communal night roosts would be affected, as none are present near the site. Construction operations will be complete before the start of the wintering season. Foraging bald eagles may be displaced by the noise of heavy equipment, but the availability of prey will not be significantly disrupted by the proposed construction. Once the charnel is completed and utilized by salmonid.s and other species, it should provide an excellent foraging site for eagles. Eagles should be somewhat accustomed to high levels of human activity in and. near the project site. Eagles tend to tolerate more disturbances at feeding sites than in roosting areas (Steenhof 1978). Effect Detennination Since constriction activities will not occur during the wintering season, will not affect nesting habitat or behaviors, only minor disruptions to foraging activities are expected during construction, and the completed channel should fonn an excellent foraging site, the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle. 62 Coastal/Puget Sotcnd Bull Trout The Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout population segment was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, in October 1999. Bull trout populations have declined throughout much of the species' range; some local populations are extinct, and many other stocks are isolated and may be at .risk (.Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Combinations of factors including habitat degradation, expansion of exotic species, and exploitation have contributed to the decline and fragmentation of indigenous bull trout populations. Bull trout are known to exhibit four types of life history strategies. The three freshwater forms include adfluvial, which migrate between lakes and streams; fluvial, which migrate within river systems; and resident, which are non -migratory. The fourth and least common strategy, Biological Evaluation Page 9 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project May 2002 anadromy, occurs when. the fish spawn in fresh water after rearing for some portion of their life in the ocean. Anadromous sub -adults and non -spawning adults are thought to migrate from marine waters to freshwater areas to spend the winter. Based on research in the Skagit Basin (Kraemer 1994), anadromous bull trout juveniles migrate to the estuary in April -May, then re-enter the river from August through November. Most adult fish entered the estuary in February -March, and returned to the river in May -June. Sub -adults, fish that are not sexually mature but have entered marine waters, move between the estuary and lower river throughout the year. Utilization of the Action Area A resident population of bull trout resides in Chester Morse Lake (upstream of the Landsburg Dam, Masonry Dam and Cedar Falls) in the upper Cedar River watershed and a smaller population occurs between Chester .Morse Lake and the Masonry Dam (City of Seattle, 1999). Individuals from these populations may pay over the dams during high flows, but there are no fish passage facilities for them to pass back upstream again. A couple of native char (most likely bull trout) have been captured in the lower. Cedar River (USACE data), but it is not know if these fish are from the resident/adfluvial population in Chester Morse Lake or the Masonry Pool or anadromous strays from other systems. Since Dolly Varden have not been conclusively observed south of the Nooksack River basin in Puget Sound, it is likely that the native char captured were indeed bull trout. Bull trout are known in the White River basin, south of the Lake Washington basin. The proposed side channel would not likely be suitable spawning habitat for bull trout, but could provide rearing habitat. Effects of the Proposed Action Bull trout have not been observed in the vicinity of the project site, so the likelihood of encountering them is very small. If bull trout were to occur near the side channel replacement site, they may spawn or rear in the area. They may also forage for food sources in the side channel. Construction work will occur outside of the NMFS closure period for in -water work, July 1 through August 31. This closure period corresponds to the portion of the year when juvenile bull trout are most likely to be present in the Cedar River. ---- -- - -- -- -- -- Effect Determination The proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect bull trout. This determination is based upon the. low likelihood that bull trout would be present in the action area during construction activities, and that creation of a new side channel could provide increased rearing habitat and increased production of bull trout prey. 6.3 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon The Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit chinook salmon was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, in March 1999. Chinook are Biological Evaluation Page 10 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project May 2002 anadromous and semelparous. Within this general life history strategy, chinook display a wide range of variation in life histories including variation at age at seaward migration, variation in length of freshwater, estuarine and oceanic residence, variation in ocean distribution and ocean migratory patterns, and variation in age of spawning migrations. There are two predominant life history patterns in the eastern north Pacific populations: stream -type and ocean -type (Healy 1992). Stream type populations may rear as juveniles in streams for up to a year or more prior to migrating out to marine waters. Spring run populations have a wide range of .rearing strategies, some fish immediately migrate downstream after emerging from the gravel and rear in estuaries, whereas others rear for 1-6 months in freshwater prior to migrating to estuaries. Summer/fall run populations are typically considered to be ocean -type fish. In the Lake Washington basin, all chinook stocks are summer/fall run, and presumably ocean - type fish. The Cedar stock is considered depressed and escapement estimates have ranged from 419-1745 from 1967-19911 (WDFW 1992). Chinook salmon are typically mainstem spawners preferring higher velocity areas than the smaller salmon species. Juvenile chinook have been captured and counted in inclined plane and screw traps in Bear creek and the Cedar River and show a long period of outmigration from the spawning grounds. In the Cedar River, small chinook fry (-40 mm) migrate from January through April. Then, larger chinook (80-150 mm) migrate from May through t least the end of July. Due to the Locks and other shoreline development below the Locks, there is a very limited estuary for j uvenile chinook to rear in. There is some evidence that chinook fry and smolts may rear in near shore areas of Lake Washington, but it is not known whether this is an advantage or disadvantage to their survival. Utilization of the Action Area Adult and juvenile chinook use the entire mainstem of the Cedar River for migration, spawning, and rearing. In general, chinook spawn from about RM 2 to RM 19 (Jones & Stokes, 1999; WDW 1975). No chinook spawning was observed below RM 1.5 in 1998. Due to very few side channels in the Cedar River, there is limited off -channel rearing habitat available to juvenile chinook. This lack of side channel rearing habitat is likely a limiting factor to chinook production. Effects of the Proposed Action The effects of the proposed action on chinook will be similar to those described for bull trout. Construction work will occur outside of the NMFS closure period for in -water work, July 1 through August 31. This closure period corresponds to the portion of the year when juvenile chinook are most likely to be present in the Cedar River. Effect Determination The proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect chinook salmon or designated critical habitat for this species. The project is designed to minimize any in -water work and will also occur during the fish window when few if any juvenile chinook salmon will be in the system. Best management practices to reduce or eliminate the possibility of turbidity Biological Evaluation Page 11 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project May 2002 during construction will. be implemented. The project is designed to benefit chinook salmon and other salmon species by restoring spawning and rearing habitat. 6.4 Puget SoundlStrait of Georgia Coho Salmon. In July 1995, NMFS determined that listing was not warranted for the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU coho salmon. However, the ESU is designated as a candidate for listing due to concerns over specific risk factors. Coho salmon within this ESU are abundant and, with some exceptions, run sizes and natural spawning escapements have been generally stable. However, artificial propagation of coho salmon appears to have had a substantial impact on native, natural coho salmon populations, to the point that it is difficult to identify self-sustaining, native stocks within this region (Weitkamp et al. 1995). In addition, continuing loss of habitat, extremely high harvest rates, and a severe recent decline in average size of spawners indicate that there are substantial risks to whatever native production remains. There is concern that if present trends continue, this ESU is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Utilization of the Action Area The 1992 WDFW Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory notes that coho utilize, to some degree, almost all of the accessible tributaries draining into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Coho returning to these streams typically enter fresh water from mid -September to early November and spawn from late October through January, with some variation observed between streams and between years within streams. There have been substantial releases of hatchery -origin coho within this region. Effects of the Proposed Action The effects of the proposed action on coho will be similar to those described for chinook and bull trout. Effect Determination Effect determinations are not made for candidate species. Biological Evaluation Page 12 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project May 2002 Table 2. Checklist for Documenting the Environmental Baseline and Effects of the Action on Relevant Indicators ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE EFFECTS OF THE ACTION Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Restore Functioning Maintain Degrade Water Quality Temperature Y X Sediment X X Chem. Contam./Nut X X Habitat Access and Physical Barriers Adult Access X X Juvenile Access X X Habitat Elem ents Substrate X X Large Woody Debris X X Pool Frequency X X Pool Quality X X Off -channel Habitat X X Refugia X X Channel Cond. & Dyn Width/Depth Ratio X X Streambank Cond. X X Floodplain Connectivity X X Flow/hydrology Peak/Base Flows X X Drainage Network Increase X x Watershed Conditions Road Dens. & Loc. X X Disturbance History X X Riparian Reserves X X Integration of Species and Habitat Conditions X X 7. INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT EFFECTS There are interrelated or interdependent actions associated with the proposed action. Biological Evaluation Page 13 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project May 2002 8. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Further maintenance dredging... the channel would provide for future mitigation.... (Include how often dredged... how much production in channel... how it should help meet the mitigation goals) long term i.e. 100 years Success of the replacement channel is critical for the USACE and City of Renton to meet the mitigation requirements as set forth in the Hydraulic Project Approval for the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Hazard. Reduction. Project. The Corps knows of no other non -Federal actions that are reasonably certain to occur that may adversely affect a listed, proposed., or candidate species within the action area. 9. CONCLUSION Table 3. Summarizes the effect determinations made for each of the species potentially occurring in the project vicinity. Table 3. 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 10. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT The project area has been designated as Essential Fish .Habitat (EFH) for various life stages of species of Pacific salmon. Essential .Fish. Habitat (EFH) for the Pacific coast salmon fishery is those waters and substrate necessary for salmon production needed to support a long-term sustainable fishery and salmon contributions to a healthy ecosystem. Salmon EFH and potential adverse impacts to EFH have been identified by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). Important features of riverine EFH for salmon are: (1) adequate water quality, (2) adequate temperature, (3) adequate prey species and forage base, (4) adequate depth, cover, marine vegetation, and algae in estuarine and near -shore habitats (PFMC 1999). The proposed action will not result in excessive levels of organic materials or inorganic contaminants. The action will not result in physical alterations which could affect water temperature. Water quality (turbidity) may be temporarily impacted during and shortly after placement of the nourishment materials, but no long-term degradation will occur. Beach contours will be modified, but in a way which mimics more natural conditions. The action will not remove large woody debris or other natural beach complexity features, nor is it likely to affect any vegetated shallows. Benthic productivity beneath and adjacent to the gravel/cobble stockpiles will be temporarily impacted, but significant effects to prey species are not anticipated. Biological Evaluation Page 14 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project May 2002 The Corps has determined that the proposed action will. not .reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH for Pacific salmon. No adverse effects to EFH are expected to result from the proposed action. Biological Evaluation Page 15 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project May 2002 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 USACE 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. Goetz, F.A. 1989. Biology of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus. 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 con uentus) 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 con uentus) 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 Biological Evaluation Page 16 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project May 2002 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. 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.peouncil.org/Salmon/ a l 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/wrial8.pdf>. Biological Evaluation Page 17 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project May 2002 A 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.Iuan 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. 1999. Bull Trout in the Stillaguamish River System. Unpublished report. Mill Creek, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 6. 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. Biological Evaluation Page 18 Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project May 2002 T33 H R 6�6