HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP273046(3)Draft'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 (USACE), with the
city --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 project construction and required future
maintenance river dredging operations. (Rustin — There were other mitigation elements
for the project that included the Maplewood Golf Course Revetment enhancement,
habitat planting on the lower river and the Landsburg Gravel Supplementation).
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
Draft Environmental Assessment Page ii
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
206-764-3636
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction................................................................................................................
54-
1.1 Location...................................................................................................................5k
1.2 Background..............................................................................................................54-
1.3 Project Purpose and Need........................................................................................62
1.4 Authority..................................................................................................................62
2. Proposed Action and Alternatives Analysis..............................................................62
2.1 Description of the Proposed Action.........................................................................62
2.2 Alternatives..............................................................................................................7-3
3. Existing Environment................................................................................................8P
3.1 Geology/Soils/Sediments.........................................................................................8-3
3.2 Water Quality...........................................................................................................84
3.3 Vegetation................................................................................................................94
3.4 Fish..........................................................................................................................94
3.5 Wildlife..................................................................................................................10-5
3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species.....................................................................10-4
3.7 Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns.............................................116
3.8 Landuse..................................................................................................................116
3.9 Utilities and Public Services..................................................................................116
3.10 Air Quality and Noise..........................................................................................116
3.11 Transportation......................................................................................................116
3.12 Socio-Economics.................................................................................................116
3.13 Recreation............................................................................................................1,16
3.14 Aesthetics.............................................................................................................126
4. Environmental Effects.............................................................................................12-7
4.1 Geology and Hydrology........................................................................................1.22
4.2 Water Quality.........................................................................................................12-7
4.3 Vegetation..............................................................................................................138
4.4 Fish........................................................................................................................135
4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species.....................................................................149
4.6 Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns.............................................149
4.7 Landuse..................................................................................................................149
4.8 Utilities and Public Services..................................................................................149
4.9 Air Quality and Noise............................................................................................1.49
4.10 Transportation......................................................................................................149
4.11 Socio-Economics.................................................................................................149
4.12 Recreation............................................................................................................159
4.13 Aesthetics.............................................................................................................159
5. Unavoidable Adverse Effects................................................................................154-0
6. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources....................................154.0
7. Cumulative Impacts...............................................................................................154-0
Draft Environmental Assessment Page iii
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
8. Coordination..........................................................................................................164-0
9. Environmental Compliance...................................................................................16.
4
9.1 National Environmental Policy Act.....................................................................16--1
9.2 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation.................................................166-4
9.3 Clean Water Act Compliance..............................................................................1644-
9.4 Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency.......................................................16
-4-
9.5 Hydraulic Permit Approval..................................................................................1.744
9.6 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act....................................................................1744
9.7 National Historic Preservation Act......................................................................174-2
9.8 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice..................................................174-2
10. Conclusion.........................................................................................................184-2
11. References..........................................................................................................1.84-?
TABLE 1. Protected Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Vicinity .................. ???
TABLE 2. Determination Summary Table..................................................................... ???
APPENDIX A. Figures and Design Drawings..............................................A-1
Draft Environmental Assessment Page iv
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
1. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this Environmental
Assessment evaluates the impacts of construction of a side channek'nearbetween river
mile (RM) 3.4 and 3.6 along the Cedar River in the City of Renton.ng County
Washington. The goal of the project is to create off -channel spawning an-c 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 Cit f Renton as
the local project sponsor, constructed the Cedar River Section 2c) Floo ontrol Project
between 1998 and 2000. The project consisted of dredging within; afid 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 perio3to serve as
mitigation for the assumed loss of salmonid spawning habitat in the lower 1.25 miles of
the Cedar River following the initial project construction and required future 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: planting of replacement or additional vegetation, removal of sediment and
installation of clean spawning_ gravel in the channel along with general' cleaning and/or
repair of entire channel including intake structure and outlet.
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 5
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 between the USACE and the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
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
Z.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, riprap 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 012,000 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. . Excavated materials will be transported off -site and disposed
of at one of two options. One option is a commercial disposal facility.
The preferred option is an existingstockpile tockpile area utilized by a local
developer that has obtained an easement for this purpose on Bonneville
Power Administration easement property. The site is upland of the project
area and river (approximately 0.5 miles) and accessed by utility easement
maintenance roads. The site is ideal. because it is already an existing
stockpile area, it is relatively close to the project area, there are no
wetlands in the area, and traffic impacts to City streets will be minimized.
Final disposition of the material will be in accordance with appropriate
planning and regulatory procedures.
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 6
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
• The addition of large woody debris — approximately 5 to 10 (Ruston —
Check with Pat Nahar to verify the a more precise number of clusters the
number is higher than listed. This number and other that you used were in
the City SEPA checklist, which was prepared well before we had
construction plans to the level of detail that we currently have. Your EA
should reflect the more current construction plans) clusters of three pieces
of wood — to create rearing pools and to stabilize banks within the
constructed channel.
• The addition of 600 900 eubie yards of graveladditions of 600-900 cubic
yards of spawning_ ravel 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 560 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.
• 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 the
habitat area.
Project construction completion is anticipated to -between MaFeh-June through November
of 2003 for work outside of the river and between June 15th through August 15th 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.
Repair of the Earthquake Damaged Channel. This alternative would have required the
moving of approximately 40,000 cubic yards of slide debris to reopen the river channel
and then some work to develop a control structure on the up steam end of the original
channel. This alternative was not selected because of the high threat of additional slides
closing the main river channel again.
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 7
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
Modification to the Existing Elliot Channel. This alternative would involve modification
of the existing Elliot Spawning and Rearing Channel, in an attempt to increase the
available productivity of existing channel. This would include supplementing 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. This site is highly susceptible to flooding
and damages, which limits its long-term viability and productivit a�pawning channel.
(Ruston — Read the April 2002 Evaluation of Two Replacement Sites for the USACE
Cedar River Section 205 Groundwater Channel Report)
Creation of a new Channel at the Renton Elks Club This alternative would have created
a replacement spawning/rearing side -channel on the Renton Elks Club property. The
problem with this site was that it was adjacent to an actively sliding area and there was
concerns that any new projects near this site were likely to be eliminated in a future slide.
3. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Geology/Soils/Sediments
The northwest/southeast trending valleys that contain the Cedar River, Lake
Sammamish and Lake Washington 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 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.
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
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 8
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
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 5,500 CFS, which is about
a 5-10 year recurrence interval flow.
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 (greater
than 6-inch diameter) will be felled to construct the channel and maintenance path.
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 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
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 9
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
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 to adversely affect any species
protected under the Act, largely because construction will occur 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
—
Salvelinus confluentus
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon
Threatened
Designated
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho Salmon
Candidate
—
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 10
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
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
Discussion on water and sewer?
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 11
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 612,000 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 of the
natural bank.
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
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 12
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
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.
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.
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 13
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
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
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
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
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 14
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
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 have 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 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.
However, these potential impacts will be short in duration and considered insignificant.
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.
No federal resources wee will 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.
Seattle Public Utilities proposes to construct and operate a sockeye hatchery and
associated facilities on the Cedar River. The project would consist of a hatchery, as
system to supply virus -free water for hatchery operations, and broodstock collection and
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 15
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
spawning facilities. The new hatchery would be located within King County, about 2
miles northeast of Ravensdale and 3 miles southeast of Maple Valley. The broodstock
collection facility would be located on the lower Cedar River, possibly within several
hundred feet of the USACE proposed replacement side -channel.
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
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. A statement of consistency will be prepare that shows the project
is consistent with the King County Shoreline Management Plan.
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 16
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
9. S 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.
9.7 National 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
Historic Places must be identified and evaluated. A query of the 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
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 17
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
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 no significant impact
(FONSI) is anticipated to be prepared
ll. 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 confluentus) 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.
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 18
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
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 ESQ; 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.
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 ofAmendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan).
<http://www.pcouncil.org/Salmon/
a 14efh/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.
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 19
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
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/vrrial8.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/sockeyeibackground.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.
Draft Environmental Assessment Page 20
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003
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 21
Cedar River Side Channel Replacement Project Summer 2003