Environmental Assessment
Reconstruction of the 
North Sauk River Road
Snohomish County, WA
FEMA-1499-DR-WA (Public Assistance)
August 2006

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
FEMA Region X
130 228th Street SW
Bothell, WA 98021-9796


TABLE OF CONTENTS

FONSI	FONSI-1

1.0  PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1  Introduction
1.2  Purpose and Need for Action
1.3  Location and Background

2.0  ALTERNATIVES
2.1  Alternatives Analyzed in this EA
2.1.1  Alternative A  No Action Alternative
2.1.2  Alternative B  East Alignment with Low Walls
2.1.3  Alternative C  DNR Road	
2.1.4  Alternative D  Modified DNR Road (Preferred Alternative)
2.2  Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward

3.0  AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
3.1  Soils, Geomorphology, and Streambank Stability
3.1.1  Affected Environment
3.1.2  Environmental Consequences
3.2  Hydrology and Water Quality
3.2.1  Affected Environment
3.2.2  Environmental Consequences
3.3  Vegetation and Wetlands
3.3.1  Affected Environment
3.3.2  Environmental Consequences
3.4  Fish and Wildlife
3.4.1  Affected Environment
3.4.2  Environmental Consequences
3.5  Threatened and Endangered Species
3.5.1  Affected Environment
3.5.2  Environmental Consequences
3.6  Recreation Resources
3.6.1  Affected Environment
3.6.2  Environmental Consequences
3.7  Visual Resources
3.7.1  Affected Environment
3.7.2  Environmental Consequences
3.8 Environmental Justice
3.8.1  Affected Environment
3.8.2  Environmental Consequences
3.9  Cultural Resources
3.9.1  Affected Environment
3.9.2  Environmental Consequences
3.10  Transportation and Access
3.10.1  Affected Environment
3.10.2  Environmental Consequences
3.11  Socioeconomics
3.11.1  Affected Environment
3.11.2  Environmental Consequences
3.12  Cumulative Impacts

4.0  CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
4.1  Scoping
4.2  Agency and Tribal Coordination
4.3  Other Laws and Regulations	

5.0  BIBLIOGRAPHY
5.1  Literature Cited
5.2  Personal Communications
5.3  Internet Sources

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS


APPENDICES

Appendix A  Critical Areas Report (Bound Separately)
Appendix B  Mitigation Measures
Appendix C  Comments and Responses for March 2005 Draft EA
Appendix D  Comments and Responses for June 2006 Draft EA




List of Tables

Table 3.3-1.	Plant Species Known to Occur in the Project Area
Table 3.4-1.	Anadromous and Resident Fish of the North Sauk River Road 
Project Area
Table 3.5-1.	Federally Listed or Proposed Species that Occur in the North Sauk 
River Road  
Project Area
Table 3.5-2.	Recent Chinook Salmon Redd Counts in the North Sauk River Road 
Project Vicinity
Table 3.8-1.	Race and Ethnicity Profile of Census Tract 537, Snohomish County, 
WA
Table 3.11-1.	Estimated Cost of Each Alternative for the North Sauk River Road 
Project
Table 4.1-1.	Agency Staff that Attended the February 23, 2004 North Sauk River 
Road Scoping Meeting
Table 4.1-2.	Staff that Attended the September 21, 2004 North Sauk River Road 
Tribal Scoping Meeting


List of Figures

Figure 1-1.	General Vicinity Map for North Sauk River Road Repair
Figure 2-1.	North Sauk River Road Alternative Alignments  B, C, and D
Figure 2-2.	USFS Roads and North Sauk River Road Project Area
Figure 3-1.	Hydrology, Topography, and Landscape Features

List of Photographs

Photo 1.	North Sauk River Road washout from downstream end looking 
upstream	
Photo 2.	View from upstream end of washout looking downstream


ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BA	Biological Assessment
BMP	Best Management Practice 
CAO	Critical Areas Ordinance
CEQ	Council on Environmental Quality
CFR	Code of Federal Regulations
cfs	cubic feet per second
Corps	U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
dbh	diameter at breast height
DNR	Department of Natural Resources
DPS	Distinct Population Segment
EA	Environmental Assessment
EIS	Environmental Impact Statement
EO	Executive Order
ESA	Endangered Species Act 
ESCP	Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
ESU      	Evolutionarily Significant Unit
FAC	Facultative
FACU	Facultative Upland
FACW	Facultative Wet
FCo	Federal Species of Concern
FEMA	Federal Emergency Management Agency
FONSI	Finding of No Significant Impact 
FR	Federal Register or Forest Road
FT	Federal Threatened
ft	feet
HPA	Hydraulic Project Approval
mgpd	million gallons per day
MSE	mechanical stabilized earth 
NEPA	National Environmental Policy Act 
NF	North Fork
NOAA	National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES	National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPS	National Park Service
OBL	Obligate
OHWM	Ordinary High Water Mark
ORV	outstandingly remarkable value 
P.L.	Public Law
PHS	Priority Habitats and Species
PT	Proposed Threatened
RM	River Mile
ROW	right-of-way
SC	State Candidate
SHPO	State Historic Preservation Office 
TMDL	Total Maximum Daily Load
U.S.C.	United States Code
UPL	Upland
USFS	U.S. Forest Service
USFWS	U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
USGS	U.S. Geological Survey
WAC	Washington Administrative Code
WAU	Watershed Assessment Unit
WDF	Washington Department of Fisheries (now WDFW)
WDFW	Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDOE	Washington Department of Ecology
WRIA	Water Resource Inventory Area 
WSCC	Washington State Conservation Commission
WSR	Wild and Scenic River
WSRA	Wild and Scenic River Act



1.0  PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1  INTRODUCTION

Record rainfall occurred in Washington State during October 15-23, 2003 that led to 
extensive flooding throughout the region.  Flooding along the Sauk River in Snohomish 
County caused erosion of about 1,000 feet (ft) of the North Sauk River Road east of the 
town of Darrington.  Snohomish County requested funding from the Department of 
Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to repair the 
road.  Because the river now occupies the footprint of the old road and the concern for 
potential effects to fish and the Wild and Scenic values of the river, several alternatives 
were developed to reconstruct a new alignment.  Because the North Sauk River Road 
would be moved away from the river, outside of its former footprint, FEMA must 
complete an Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  Pursuant to FEMAs regulations found in 44 Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 10, FEMA prepared this EA for funding of the 
reconstruction of the road. 

1.2  PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The purpose of FEMAs Public Assistance Program is to assist communities in 
recovering from damages caused by natural disasters. The purpose of the action 
alternative presented in this EA is to restore the North Sauk River Road to its original 
predisaster function and capacity.

The need for the project is to provide continual public vehicle access to Sauk Prairie 
Road for 22 properties held by 15 owners and a private timber company along a 
maintained roadway.  The only vehicle access to these properties was lost when the Sauk 
River washed away about 1,000 feet of the North Sauk River Road, which connects to 
Sauk Prairie Road.

1.3  LOCATION AND BACKGROUND
The North Sauk River Road washout is located at approximately River Mile (RM) 23, 
along the right bank (east) upstream of the town of Darrington (Figure 1-1).  The road 
washout is located about 1.3 miles from the intersection with Sauk Prairie Road (Photo 
1).  Adjacent forest land is owned by the Washington Department of Natural Resources 
(DNR).  

Currently, residents must walk around and beyond the washout to reach their properties.  
Snohomish County installed a locked gate near the intersection with Sauk Prairie Road, 
and residents have vehicle access to the remaining road section.  The road is barricaded 
with concrete blocks near the washout.  Snohomish County also secured the area to 
protect life and property by clearing debris off the road, placing road barriers at the 
downstream end of the washout, and creating a small vehicle turn-around for the property 
owners at the end of the road.


Photo 1.  North Sauk River Road washout from downstream end looking upstream.


Photo 2.  View from upstream end of washout looking downstream. 


Figure 1-1.	General Vicinity Map for North Sauk River Road Repair


2.0  ALTERNATIVES
The following sections describe alternatives analyzed in detail in this EA, as well as 
alternatives that were initially considered but not carried forward in the full analysis. 

2.1  ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THIS EA

Evaluation of the range of potential alternatives to restore vehicle access resulted in four 
alternatives carried forward for analysis:  (1) Alternative A  the No Action Alternative, 
(2) Alternative B  an East Alignment, (3) Alternative C  the DNR Road, and (4) 
Alternative D  the Modified DNR Road.  The following sections describe these four 
alternatives.  Alternative D was added following comments received on the March 2005 
Draft EA.

2.1.1  Alternative A  No Action Alternative
NEPA requires the analysis of the No Action Alternative, against which the effects of the 
action alternatives can be evaluated and compared.  For the North Sauk River Road 
project, the No Action Alternative would keep the road in its current state of disrepair.  
No effort would be made to restore vehicle access to private residences or the private 
timberland farther upstream from the road washout.  Snohomish County would continue 
to maintain the remainder of the road from the washout to Sauk Prairie Road.  FEMA 
funding, while available for reconstruction of a damaged road, is not available for a buy-
out program with unwilling sellers.  Thus, Snohomish County would be responsible for 
the cost of any buy-out program.  

2.1.2  Alternative B  East Alignment with Low Walls
Under Alternative B, the North Sauk River Road would be constructed along the 563 ft 
elevation contour, east of the washout portion (and river channel) and above the ordinary 
high water mark (OHWM) (Figure 2-1).  The new road would be similar in construction 
to the remaining portions, an unimproved gravel road 22 ft wide and 1,450 ft long.  The 
design minimizes cuts into the hillside, and mechanical stabilized earth (MSE) walls 
would be used to stabilize fill.  These structures would be needed on the fill slope to 
accommodate the seepage of water that is evident along the toe of the slope.  MSE wall 
systems are typically constructed of free-draining granular materials that allow seepage 
and maintain the integrity of the road prism.  In addition to the drainage issues, some 
areas of the road corridor contain old landslide debris that would require stabilization.  
Under Alternative B, the MSE walls on the downslope side of the road would be up to 8 
ft high and visible from the opposite side of the river.  No features would be constructed 
within the OHWM, but some construction equipment may need to work from within the 
active channel.  Depending on the flows, water may or may not be present in this portion 
of the channel during construction.  Blasting would be required along the exposed 
bedrock at the downstream end of the site to move the road into the adjacent bedrock 
slope and away from the river.  Once past the topographic constraint of the ridge, the road 
would be moved farther from the river.  Alternative B would employ Best Management 
Practices (BMPs) to minimize construction-related erosion and sedimentation (see 
Appendix B).  Construction would be completed over one construction season during the 
summer when rainfall is significantly less frequent than the rest of the year.  All State 
standards for water quality and stormwater control would be met.  All action alternatives 
would use gravel from a permitted source.

Construction timing for Alternative B would meet the in-water work window of July 1  
August 15 as listed for the Sauk River by the Washington Department of Fish and 
Wildlife (WDFW) (for salmon and bull trout).  Adjacent upland work would be ongoing 
before and after the in-water work window, but other action alternatives (C and D) could 
be constructed in one season.  Alternative B would meet FEMA mandates to return the 
function of the road at the lowest reasonable cost.

2.1.3  Alternative C  DNR Road
Alternative C (Figure 2-1) would traverse through a DNR clearcut at about the 680 ft 
elevation contour, reaching a high point of about 760 ft, and then descending to connect 
with an existing DNR road at the upstream end above the damaged section of the North 
Sauk River Road (upslope and east of the river channel and washout).  The reconstructed 
road segment under this alternative is about 100 to 250 linear ft from the river channel 
and from 30 to 300 ft above the river elevation.  The length of new road construction for 
Alternative C is about 2,900 ft.  At the upstream end of the project, about 700 ft of 
existing DNR road would need to be graded, widened in places, and new gravel added.  
On the downstream end, the new road would begin about 350 ft from the damaged 
section.  The road is designed according to Snohomish County standards for a primitive, 
gravel road.  The width of the road would be 20 ft in most places but would expand to 22 
ft in areas that require a guard rail.  The exact location of the alignment would be 
determined following additional engineering studies.  The new alignment would traverse 
the clearcut where slopes are up to 50 degrees (Snohomish County 2004) and would join 
the existing DNR road, which intersects the North Sauk River Road 250 ft upstream of 
the damaged road segment.  The road would cross 13 Type 5 streams and one Type 4 
stream, which would require culverts ranging from 24 to 48 inches in diameter.  Some of 
the crossings may require box culverts.  These streams are not fish-bearing and all but 
one are ephemeral.  Fills and cuts would be balanced along this alignment.  The 200 ft of 
the old roadbed that would remain on the upstream and downstream end would be 
blocked to prevent vehicle access. 

Construction would be completed over one construction season, during the summer when 
rainfall is significantly less frequent than the rest of the year.  All State standards for 
water quality and stormwater control will be met.  

2.1.4  Alternative D  Modified DNR Road (Preferred Alternative)
Alternative D (Figure 2-1), the Preferred Alternative, involves construction of 
approximately 1.2 miles of road traversing the DNR clearcut referred to in Alternative C 
as well as a stretch of approximately 250 ft of mature timber dominated by Douglas-fir 
(Pseudotsuga menziesii).  The new road would connect with the existing DNR road at the 
upstream end above the damaged section of the North Sauk River Road (upslope and east 
of the river channel and washout).  This new road segment ranges from 200 to 1,000 
linear ft from the river channel and from 10 to 240 ft above the river elevation.  The 
existing DNR road would, as in Alternative C, need regarding and widening in places 
with new gravel.  The width of the new road would be 18 ft in most places, reducing to 
14 ft in constrained areas.  The road would cross 14 Type 5 streams and one Type 4 
stream, which would require culverts ranging from 18 to 24 inches in diameter.  Some of 
the crossings may require box culverts.  These streams are not fish-bearing and all but 
one are ephemeral.  The road would sag (contoured concrete to allow overflow) at the 
crossings, allowing high flows to overtop the road and preventing a road washout.  This 
sag would be hardened to prevent erosion during high flows.  The remaining 200 ft of the 
old roadbed would be blocked to prevent vehicle access.  Alternative D would restore 
year-round access to the private residences and move the road segment from the 100-year 
floodplain; hence, it would not be affected by channel migration of the Sauk River.

Construction would be completed over one construction season, during the summer when 
rainfall is significantly less frequent than the rest of the year.  All State standards for 
water quality and stormwater control will be met.  

2.2  ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD
A number of alternatives were reviewed but eliminated from further consideration due to 
environmental effects, failure to meet the project purpose, or cost.  The first option 
considered was to reconstruct the road along the pre-existing centerline.  It quickly 
became apparent that this was not a viable option.  The river bend has moved into the 
location of the old roadway.  Reconstruction of the road along this alignment would 
require extensive fill and slope protection, and high flows would continue to erode and 
overtop the road.  Because of the long-term erosion, costs, and the effects to aquatic 
resources and the Wild and Scenic River values (see Section 3.6), this option is not 
viable.  

A second road alignment considered the use of an abandoned DNR road that intersects 
the Sauk Prairie Road about 200 yards north of the river from the North Sauk River Road 
intersection.  This road ascends upward about 300 ft above the river.  During the scoping 
process, commenters suggested that this road could be extended downslope to meet the 
upstream end of the North Sauk River Road.  This option would require the extensive 
purchase of right-of-way (ROW) and clearing of second-growth forest, which would be 
substantially more expensive than the alternatives that were carried forward for analysis.  
In addition, the road would cross through DNR-managed forests and an existing gravel 
mining claim, which would require negotiations and likely add to the costs. A second, 
shorter road alternative through DNR land has been carried forward in the alternatives 
analysis.

A third road option initially considered was the use of the existing Forest Roads (FR) #24 
and #22 on lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), which make an 
approximately 16-mile loop from the Sauk Prairie Road to the upper North Fork (NF) 
Road upstream of the current washout.  There are four existing washouts on FR 22 on 
USFS land and a large landslide just outside the USFS boundary on the North Sauk River 
Road (Figure 2-2).  The large landslide downstream (northwest) of these repairs will 
likely never be repaired because of its size and potential effects to the aquatic and Wild 
and Scenic resources of the river (pers. comm., Hamilton 2004).  In addition, FR 24 
reaches elevations of 3,300 ft, which would preclude year-round access due to snow.  The 
length of the road, higher elevation and issues with snow, and upgrade costs removed this 
alternative from further consideration.

Several design options were considered for reconstructing the road near the existing river 
bank.  These options would have required construction activities within or immediately 
adjacent to the current river channel for approximately 200 linear feet.  In addition, 
extensive bank protection would have been required to prevent erosion during storm 
events.  The potential effects to aquatic resources and the Wild and Scenic River values 
were deemed excessive, and these options were dropped from further consideration.

And lastly, several agencies suggested that buy-out of the properties be considered as an 
alternative.  Land owners have been approached about the option of buy-out but do not 
prefer this option.  Under the Public Assistance Programs alternative project policy, 
property buy-out using FEMA funds is not an option for alternative projects.  Snohomish 
County could pursue the condemnation option on their own, but there would be no 
Federal action involved and no need for NEPA documentation.  From a functional 
standpoint, the No Action Alternative addresses this option as described in further detail 
above.  


Figure 2-1.	North Sauk River Road Alternative Alignments  B, C, and D


Figure 2-2.	USFS Roads and North Sauk River Road Project Area



3.0  AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND  
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The following sections address the existing conditions by resource and the potential 
effects of the alternatives considered.  Cumulative impacts are discussed separately for all 
resources in Section 3.12.  Measures to minimize project impacts are incorporated into 
the three action alternatives (i.e., Alternatives B, C, and D).  

3.1  SOILS, GEOMORPHOLOGY, AND STREAMBANK STABILITY

3.1.1  Affected Environment
The project site is situated at the base of the southwest-facing slope of Gold Mountain. 
Geology in this area, as mapped by Tabor et al. (1988  cited in Elekes 2004), consists of 
Darrington Phyllite (bedrock) overlain by Holocene-age landslide deposits.  The loose, 
granular soils of these historical landslide deposits are generally shallow along steep 
slopes (>45 percent) of the project area, and exposed bedrock is now evident in places 
along the altered riverbank and upslope from the North Sauk River Road washout.  

Shallow, loose granular soils of the project region formed from collapsed eroded faces of 
recessional outwash that was deposited into the expanding floodplain by retreating glacial 
ice.  The age of deposition of these landslide deposits is thought to be late Pleistocene or 
early Holocene (10,000-13,000 years old).  Although under existing climatic and 
geologic conditions many of these landslide deposits remain stable atop the underlying 
bedrock, changes and extremes in river geomorphology, surface hydrology, and 
surrounding land uses may result in slumping and surficial slides. 

According to Snohomish County Soil Survey data, the loose landslide deposits forming 
surface soils in the project area are classified as Pilchuck sandy loam.  This soil type is 
formed in alluvium and is regionally found within floodplains, typically in long, narrow 
bands along dynamic river systems.  Pilchuck sandy loam is an excessively drained soil 
characterized by high permeability and slow run-off rates.  Included in this unit are small 
areas of soils that have a surface layer of loam, gravelly loam, or cobbly loam in the 
upper part of the substratum.  The steeper slopes along the river are classified as the 
Elwell-Olomount complex, 15 to 30 percent.  This map unit is found on mountainsides 
and ridgetops.  The unit is about 65 percent Elwell silt loam and about 20 percent 
Olomount gravelly loam but intricately intermingled and impractical for separate 
mapping.  The complex is well drained but often shallow above bedrock (U.S. Soil 
Conservation Service 1983).

In addition to existing data on geology of the project region (e.g., Tabor et al. 1988, U.S. 
Soil Conservation Service 1983), reconnaissance studies on surface soils confirming 
specific site geology were conducted by W&H Pacific in February and April 2004 and by 
EDAW, Inc. in August 2004. Observations made during these field studies provided 
justification for geological division of the project area into two distinct terrains: (1) a 
downstream section consisting of steep slopes with shallow bedrock overlain by till, fill, 
and colluvium/landslide deposits; and (2) an upstream section dominated by flat fluvial 
terrace deposits (Figure 3-1).  The ancient landslide deposits are stable, but small surficial 
slides were noted in several places.  Soils on the slopes may be shallow in places, and 
proper drainage is a concern for road construction in the Elwell-Olomount complex.  The 
upstream and downstream portions of the project area are divided by a recent debris flow.  
Land and debris movement in this localized area likely resulted from upslope clearcutting 
and resultant increases in surface stormwater runoff.  An active stream channel remains 
in this area with evidence of continued ephemeral surface flow including gravel sorting, 
drift lines, and debris accumulations. 

With the washout of the North Sauk River Road, the downstream section now includes 
areas of exposed bedrock and shallow landslides along the riverbank and steep slopes 
with numerous seeps and surface flows.  Ephemeral flows in ravines percolate into the 
porous substrate at the base of the slope.  The road in this section was established on 
compact, non-stratified sandy fill on top of Pilchuck soils, which are common along 
watercourses. Pilchuck soils are stable but need proper drainage for road construction 
(U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1983).  The upstream half of the project area includes a 
fairly level fluvial terrace with a loose surface layer of non-stratified, gravelly sand 
mantled by a thin layer of fine sandy deposits.   The one small Type 4 stream on the site 
drains into these deposits, and there is no surface water flow connection to the river.

Geomorphologic forces resulting from the movement of the Sauk River channel at the 
project site would continue to erode the right bank. Elekes (2004) notes that the new 
channel profile is 6 to 7 ft lower in elevation, as evidenced by a drop terrace marking the 
boundary between the old channel and the new channel alignment.  In addition, a massive 
stable log jam matrix of woody debris and sediment just upstream of the washout along 
the left bank of the Sauk River diverts flow and erosive geomorphological forces toward 
the unstable right bank at the project site.  Continued erosion along the right bank in the 
project area has resulted in the recent collapse of a large Douglas-fir at the south end of 
the road washout.  Because the left bank of the new river corridor is significantly higher 
in elevation than the new channel profile along the right bank, the river is expected to 
remain in its current location for an extended period of time (Elekes 2004). However, 
geomorphological forces will continue to undermine right bank stability in those areas 
where loose sediment deposits remain.   

3.1.2  Environmental Consequences
3.1.2.1  Alternative A  No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, project geology would remain in post-washout 
conditions as currently exist.  Surface conditions are unstable in many locations along the 
river and North Sauk River Road where the washout and associated localized slides have 
undercut steep slopes.  Barring any major channel shift, which appears unlikely in the 
foreseeable future, the river channel will continue to migrate into the right bank alluvial 
deposits.  It is likely that surficial sliding and slumping along portions of the existing 
roadbed will continue and the area will be a sediment source for some time. 


Figure 3-1.	Hydrology, Topography, and Landscape Features


3.1.2.2  Alternative B  East Alignment with Low Walls

Under Alternative B, the road would be realigned east of the existing alignment.  Direct 
impacts from the footprint of this new alignment would alter surface soils in the southern 
section of the project area.  Currently, soils in this potential ROW location consist of a 
native sandy-loam in the Pilchuck series, a soil type typical of forested floodplains in the 
region.  Construction activity within 20 ft of the river would disturb the duff layer and 
soil structure, mobilize soil particles, and even with BMPs contribute to minor 
sedimentation increases in the Sauk River.  Construction would occur during the dry 
season, minimizing the potential for significant rainfall events and the corresponding 
runoff.  

Within the northern section of the project area, the ROW alignment under Alternative B 
would require blasting of the steep slopes and placement of MSE walls.  Screening 
measures would be required to keep blast debris from entering the river channel.  Along 
the northern section of the project area under Alternative B, the roadway alignment 
would be stabilized with high (8 ft) MSE walls to reduce the need for cut-slopes.  These 
walls would accommodate slope seepage and ephemeral surface runoff while supporting 
fill needed for the new roadway alignment.  The MSE wall also would affect the channel 
migration capability of the river.  The base of the MSE wall would be above the OHWM, 
but higher flows would reach the base of the wall.  Detailed hydrologic modeling to 
determine the elevation of stormflows in relation to the elevation of the base of the wall 
has not been completed at this time.  All road options are out of the officially designated 
FEMA 100-year floodplain, although because of the recent channel movement the FEMA 
map for the right bank is now inaccurate.  Further investigation and design will be 
necessary to determine the specific engineering needs for each road segment.  Depending 
on the depth to bedrock and the soil and drainage characteristics, the roadbed would be 
placed on bedrock, native soil, or imported material.

The downstream portion of the project area, where the MSE wall is needed, consists of 
phyllite bedrock overlain with till.  This metamorphic rock is very resistant to erosion, 
but the overlaying till is not.  Portions of the riverbank in this area have exposed bedrock 
while other areas have an overlying till layer.  Thus, the MSE wall would restrict erosion 
in those areas where bedrock is not exposed.  In the long term, river movement would be 
minimal in the downstream portion of the project area because of the underlying bedrock 
when compared to the alluvial deposits farther upstream.

The upstream portion of the alignment is flat and would not require blasting.  In addition, 
in the upstream half the road alignment would be 100 to 125 ft from the river because 
there are no topographic constraints.  Over time, the river channel may continue to 
migrate into this flat, alluvial area and could ultimately damage a new alignment at some 
unknown future date.  Adding deflectors along the river side of the alignment in 
anticipation of this future event could protect the road from future channel migration.  
Engineering considerations will need to account for drainage and soil stability in the 
vicinity of the old landslide debris in the middle section of the alignment.  This would 
likely include removal of unstable soils and placement of rock-filled rectangular baskets 
to provide stability and groundwater seepage beneath the road base.  Culverts placed 
under the roadbed in this area would account for surface flows from the adjacent DNR 
clearcut. 

Because of adherence to stormwater control standards, construction BMPs, and 
construction timing windows, no additional mitigation measures are necessary.  
Alternative B would affect the channel migration capacity of the Sauk River, would cause 
minor temporary erosion and sedimentation during construction, and would require a 
moderate amount of blasting for the downstream segment.

3.1.2.3  Alternative C  DNR Road

As with Alternative B, the DNR road alignment (Alternative C) would require clearing 
and grading that would disturb soils.  Road standards would be the same as Alternative B, 
but the road in Alternative C is substantially farther from the river (100 to 250 ft) than in 
Alternative B.  Thus, soil disturbance would have a negligible effect on aquatic resources.  
The DNR route (2,900 ft of new road) is longer than Alternative B (1,450 ft of new road), 
but there is substantial vegetation between this alignment and the river that would aid in 
soil stability and retention.  To ensure slope stability across the several ephemeral 
drainages, the use of properly sized culverts and potentially box culverts would be 
installed as necessary.  Alternative C would traverse soils of the Elwell-Olomount 
complex, which are generally suitable for road-building with appropriate drainage 
considerations (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1983 and Elekes 2004).  

Significant blasting would be required where the new alignment would ascend from the 
existing North Sauk River Road at the downstream end of the project.  Small bedrock 
outcrops and bedrock covered by a thin overburden are present adjacent to the road in 
this location.  To minimize the need for blasting and to use a milder grade, the alignment 
would avoid a steep hillslope and begin the ascent to the 760-ft elevation farther 
downstream from this steep slope.  Blasting would still be required, however.  BMPs 
would be employed to keep blast material from entering the river.  Because this section of 
the new road is 100 ft from the river, the containment of blast material can easily be 
accomplished.  The remaining 80 percent of the alignment would not require blasting.  
Because this road alignment is away from the river, there would be negligible effects to 
geomorphology.  Because of the adherence to stormwater control standards, construction 
BMPs, and construction timing windows, no additional mitigation measures are 
necessary.

3.1.2.4  Alternative D  Modified DNR Road

The Modified DNR Road would involve clearing and grading similar to Alternatives B 
and C, as discussed above.  Alternative D would be located farthest from the Sauk River 
compared with the other alternatives (i.e., A, B, and C): approximately 1,000 ft at the 
downstream starting point, 200 ft east of the sandbar and damaged North Sauk River 
Road area, and 300 ft at the upstream endpoint.  The positioning of this alignment would 
minimize the necessity for blasting as it would avoid a steep slope and begin the ascent to 
the 760-ft elevation farther downstream from this steep slope.  However, some blasting 
would be required in the northern sections of the construction area.  The exact amount 
will depend on the final design.  These portions of the slopes would be supported with 
MSE walls, gravity block walls, and rock buttresses.  BMPs would be employed to 
prevent sediment from entering the river.  The blast zone would be at least 200-500 ft 
from the river so this could easily be accomplished.  The presence of forested and 
vegetated land between the proposed construction realignment area and the river would 
aid in soil stability and retention.  The remainder of the road would not require blasting.  
As in Alternative C, Alternative D would pass through soils of the Elwell-Olomount 
complex (U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1983).  Where appropriate, culverts 18-24 in 
diameter would be installed to ensure proper drainage access, and box culverts may be 
installed as necessary.  Construction would occur during the dry season when all but one 
of the drainages are dry.  In addition, the Type 5 drainages drain directly into a roadside 
ditch or into porous sediments at the base of the slope and into the ground.  There is no 
surface water flow to the river from these drainages and thus no effects to water quality.  
The one Type 4 drainage in the middle of the project area drains into porous alluvial 
sediments on a long, flat bench.  No surface water flows into the river from this drainage.  

The Modified DNR Road is longer than the road segments in Alternatives B and C 
discussed above, with a total length of approximately 1.2 miles.  The new road segment 
would be moved out of the 100-year floodplain where the road and the surrounding soils 
are would not be affected by channel migration of the Sauk River or by soil erosion.  
Because of the adherence to stormwater control standards, the lack of surface water 
connections to the river from the small drainages, construction BMPs, and construction 
during the dry season, no additional mitigation measures are necessary.

3.2  HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.2.1  Affected Environment
The Skagit River basin has a drainage area of approximately 3,200 square miles and 
includes headwaters to the north in British Columbia. It is the largest basin tributary to 
Puget Sound and the largest basin in Washington outside of the Columbia River (Pickett 
1997). The Sauk River drainage is a subbasin within the Skagit River watershed and 
includes 736 square miles in the southernmost portion of the larger Skagit River basin. 
The Sauk River subbasin includes all areas of the Skagit River basin extending south into 
Snohomish County.  The Sauk River is the largest tributary to the Skagit River with about 
59 mainstem miles and numerous tributaries, including the Suiattle and White Chuck 
Rivers (WDF 1975).

Sauk River flows are often subject to extremes in fluctuation. U.S. Geologic Survey 
(USGS) flow data over 79 years of records indicate that Sauk River flows upstream of 
Darrington have fluctuated from a mean daily flow of 443 cubic ft/second (cfs) to a 
maximum of 44,000 cfs (RM 32.5). Downstream of Darrington (RM 5.4), mainstem 
flows are higher from increased contributing surface waters. Downstream of Darrington, 
Sauk River flows range from 1,080 to 106,000 cfs (USGS Flow Data 2006). The project 
site lies approximately midway between the two USGS flow gage stations collecting data 
on the Sauk River. River flows at the project site likely fall between flow measurements 
collected from these gage stations.  The FEMA designated 100-year floodplain for this 
section of the Sauk River is out of date and does not reflect recent channel movement.  
The designated floodplain appears to follow the main river channel prior to the October 
2003 flood and subsequent channel movement.  The 100-year floodplain extends up to 
300 ft into the forest on the left bank, opposite the project site.

A large logjam just upstream of the road washout directs flows toward the right bank.  
The channel migration that coincided with the October 2003 floods moved the channel 
east toward the right bank and lowered the thalweg (deepest point of the channel) 
compared to the channels previous location.  Thus, the river is not likely to shift away 
from the right bank in the foreseeable future (Elekes 2004).

In addition to the Sauk River itself, specific hydrological surface features at the project 
site include: a number of seeps and small surface drainages flowing down steep slopes in 
the northern section of the project site; a stream channel supporting ephemeral flows in 
the debris flow chute separating the northern and southern sections of the project area; 
and a small ephemeral stream flowing north into a wetland complex along the east side of 
the North Sauk River Road at the upstream end of the project site.  Ravines in the 
hillslope carry surface flows during the rainy season.  On four site visits over the summer 
and early fall, there was no surface flow in these ravines.  The one exception is the large 
ravine in the middle of the project area, which contains some landslide debris toward the 
bottom end.  This ravine had some minor surface seeps present even in the middle of the 
summer where the gradient flattens.  The soils of this flat terrace are very porous sands 
and gravel, and the minor flow evident at the base of the slope seeps into the soil where 
the gradient flattens.  Surface flow above this point was intermittent.   There is no surface 
water connection to the Sauk River from this small drainage or any of the ephemeral 
drainages.  All surface water seeps into the ground at the base of the hillslope.   Once the 
late fall rains commenced, surface flows were present in the ravines, depending on the 
time of observation in relation to recent rainfall.  These surface water flows meet the 
DNR Water Typing criteria for Type 5 Waters that are seasonal, non-fish bearing streams 
(WAC 222-16-031).  The larger stream that had some flow during the summer would be 
classified as Type 4 Waters, a permanent, non-fish bearing stream.  None of these ravines 
discharge directly into the river but percolate into the ground as the gradient is reduced, 
or they flow into roadside ditches and percolate into the ground.

Given the extreme soil permeability and the position of the project site at the base of a 
steep elevation, seeps and small surface channels are to be expected  especially at the 
base of the steep slopes. Although seeps in the downstream section continue to collect in 
channel remnants from the roadside ditch, none of these surface flows meet criteria for 
Snohomish County jurisdictional streams. 

The Sauk River subbasin comprises the southern portion of the Upper Skagit Water 
Resource Inventory Area (WRIA #4). WRIAs define watershed areas monitored by the 
Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) for water quality impairments, 
contamination, and degradation. Portions of streams and rivers not meeting basic water 
quality requirements are included on a 303(d) list. No surface waters within the Sauk 
River subbasin are included on WDOEs 303(d) list, and only three small portions of 
streams in north Skagit County are 303(d) listed for all of WRIA #4.  Thus, to date there 
is no need for a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan for the watershed.  This very 
limited number of 303(d) listings provides an indication of the general health and quality 
of water existing in the Sauk River basin and the general watershed of the upper Skagit 
River.  However, water quality monitoring data for the Sauk River subbasin is sporadic.  
Limited sampling in the mid- and lower South Fork Sauk River indicated summer 
temperatures of between 10 and 15 C in 1992, and were given a rating of fair to good 
regarding temperature (WSCC 2003).  Additional water quality monitoring was 
recommended for the Sauk River subbasin by USFS (1996).  

Peak flow impairments have been analyzed in the Sauk River subbasin based on land 
cover and road density.  Using these criteria, four Watershed Assessment Units (WAUs) 
within the Sauk River subbasin have been classified as likely impaired:  Hilt, Rinker, 
Sauk Prairie, and Dan Creek WAUs (all downstream of the project).  Two WAUs were 
rated as functioning with a sensitivity to land use, while all other WAUs were rated as 
functioning (WSCC 2003).  Increased peak flows and sedimentation leading to 
aggradation and channel shifting in the Sauk River have been noted by the USFS (1996).  
Water use is relatively low in the Sauk River basin where an estimated 0.17 million 
gallons per day (mgpd) of surface water and 0.07 mgpd of groundwater are extracted 
(USGS 1998).

Lands within the Sauk River drainage include undeveloped forests and areas managed for 
silviculture. Very few rural communities and developed areas with potential for point-
source pollutant contributions are included within the Sauk River subbasin. Thus, the 
Sauk River has a very limited potential for water quality impairments. While Sauk River 
contaminant risk may be minimal, sediment loading within the river can become extreme 
depending upon precipitation and land use alteration. Sauk River sediment load becomes 
especially high during periods of fall/winter rains and when increased surface flow from 
snowmelt conveys loose surface substrate from surrounding lands (WSCC 2003).  
Downstream of the project, the Sauk River flows through the town of Darrington, near 
lumber storage yards, and farms that are a source of non-point pollution.  

3.2.2  Environmental Consequences
Executive Order (EO) 11988 directs Federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the 
long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of 
floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development.  The effects 
of each of the alternatives to floodplains, hydrology, and water quality are discussed 
below.


3.2.2.1  Alternative A  No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, site hydrology and water quality would be unaltered 
from existing post-washout conditions.  It is likely that some Sauk River channel 
migration would continue, particularly during high flow events, and further erode the 
right bank in the upstream alluvial terrace.  The channel is likely to continue eroding this 
area because of the large logjam just upstream of the road washout that directs flow 
toward the right bank and the lower elevation of the new channel.  This may induce some 
minor landslides where relatively unstable slopes are undermined by river erosion.  The 
project area is likely to remain a minor sediment source to the river for the foreseeable 
future as the riverbank and portions of the old roadbed continue to erode.  Eastward 
movement of the 100-year floodplain would coincide with erosion of the right bank.
                    
3.2.2.2  Alternative B  East Alignment with Low Walls

Because the downstream section of the Alternative B alignment is adjacent to the existing 
river bank, construction would cause minor adverse effects to water quality during 
construction.  Though the extent of potential in- and near-water work would depend on 
water level and flows in the Sauk River during the time of construction (July 1  August 
15), it is likely that work below the OHWM would increase the amount of sediment 
flowing to the river, even with the implementation of BMPs.  The amount of sediment 
entering the river channel during construction would be minor, however, especially 
considering the naturally occurring high sediment load. Furthermore, in-water work, if 
necessary, would likely impact river water quality by increasing turbidity and the amount 
of suspended sediments. All potential impacts from construction would be minor and 
short-term.

For about 125 ft in the downstream section of this alignment, the road is directly adjacent 
to the existing riverbank.  Exposed bedrock may restrict channel migration in this 
vicinity.  The downstream portion of the project area has not been substantially eroded 
during the recent storm events, but high flows, depending on the final engineering design, 
may reach the MSE walls on the downslope side of the road.  The combination of 
existing bedrock and the bottom of the MSE wall also would act as a barrier to channel 
migration in this vicinity.  The road would be constructed outside of the FEMA 100-year 
floodplain; however, because of likely channel migration in the upstream portion of 
Alternative B, the floodplain may shift east over time and toward this portion of the road 
alignment.  Snohomish County standards would be used in designing and constructing 
surface water conveyance from the road surface.  The road would be an unimproved 
gravel surface and would have minor contributions to soil runoff, similar to the existing 
segments of road and the section of road present prior to the washout.

Patterns and direction of river flows and geomorphic forces would be altered by 
implementation of Alternative B, but this alternative was designed to minimize impacts 
to the river hydrology while maintaining the integrity of the road.  Because of the 
adherence to stormwater control standards, construction BMPs, and construction timing 
windows, no additional mitigation measures are necessary.
                    
3.2.2.3  Alternative C - DNR Road

Hydrology and water quality impacts from Alternative C would be substantially less than 
those described in Alternative B because the vast majority of the road would be 
constructed 100 to 250 ft from the river.  Alternative C would be constructed outside the 
FEMA 100-year floodplain and would not be affected by channel migration.  
Construction BMPs would minimize excessive erosion potential during and after 
construction.  Nine ravines crossed by this alternative would require culverts or box 
culverts to pass storm flows.  The culverts would be armored with gabions to protect 
against washouts, and the road crossings would sag to permit high flows to pass over the 
roadway.  Restoration with native plantings would be implemented following 
construction disturbance around each ravine crossing.  The new road section would be a 
long-term source of sediment, but the amount would be negligible, particularly 
considering the distance from the river.  Because of the adherence to stormwater control 
standards, construction BMPs, and revegetation measures, no additional mitigation 
measures are necessary.

3.2.2.4  Alternative D  Modified DNR Road

Alternative D would involve the fewest impacts among the action alternatives regarding 
hydrology and water quality due to the distance between the Modified DNR Road and the 
Sauk River (200-1,000 ft).  As in Alternative C, Alternative D would be located well 
outside the FEMA 100-year floodplain where it would be outside the reach of changes in 
channel migration and river bank erosion.  New road construction would cross 14 
ravines, each of which would be fitted with culverts 18-24 inches in diameter, or with 
box culverts as needed to facilitate drainage flows.  The culverts would be armored with 
gabions to protect against washouts, as in Alternative C.  The new road would sag at 
ravine crossings to permit high flows to pass over the roadway, and the sag would be 
hardened to prevent erosion during high flows.  One of the ravines that would be crossed 
is a Type 4 perennial stream.  Any vegetation removal surrounding ravine crossings 
would be followed with native plant restoration.  

Construction would occur during the dry season and would not case any sedimentation to 
reach the Sauk River because of standard BMPs that would be employed and because any 
surface water occasionally in the drainage ravines percolates into the ground at the base 
of the slope.  The Modified DNR Road could be a long-term source of sediment in some 
areas, but the road would be 200-1,000 ft from the Sauk River with a densely vegetated 
buffer in between the road and the river.  Design and installation of stormwater control 
features also will prevent sediment from reaching the river in overland flow.  Overall, the 
new road would be such a significant distance from the river it would provide a 
negligible source of sediment and would have no effect to the rivers channel migration.  
Potential effects to aquatic species are discussed in Sections 3.4 and 3.5.  Because of the 
adherence to stormwater control standards, construction BMPs, and revegetation 
measures, no additional mitigation measures are necessary.  

3.3  VEGETATION AND WETLANDS

3.3.1  Affected Environment
Vegetation communities in the undeveloped forested areas surrounding the project site 
are typical of the lowland forests of the Pacific Northwest. The deciduous-coniferous tree 
canopy in the project area is dominated by Douglas-fir and bigleaf maple (Acer 
macrophyllum).  This tree canopy, along with a dense understory of salmonberry (Rubus 
spectabilis), vine maple (Acer circinatum), and other native shrub species, provides 
extensive shading and limits the density of groundcover and low-lying herbaceous plants. 
In areas where the native forest community has been recently disturbed (e.g., 
immediately adjacent to the North Sauk River Road and in areas with recent slide 
activity) fast-growing, early successional tree species such as red alder (Alnus rubra) and 
black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) have established as saplings and constitute an 
increased component of the native forest plant community.  Black cottonwood and red 
alder dominate the flat alluvial deposits of the upstream half of this alignment, while the 
downstream area is dominated by Douglas-fir and bigleaf maple.  The DNR clearcut is 
dominated by young Douglas-fir trees with a variety of upland shrubs.  Table 3.3-1 lists 
the plant species observed during the August 2004 site reconnaissance studies. 

Small localized areas with surface saturation and limited hydrophytic plant species were 
observed at the base of the steep slopes in the northern section of the project area during 
the reconnaissance studies. In general, hydrophytic plant species found in these areas 
were limited to horsetail (Equisetum spp.), species also known to be associated with 
sandy/gravelly soils in disturbed areas.  Such areas likely developed within the 
constructed drainage course that previously existed adjacent to the North Sauk River 
Road and do not meet the criteria for a wetland. 

All three factors defining a jurisdictional wetland including a hydrophytic wetland plant 
community, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology were noted in several small wetlands in 
the project area.  The largest wetland (0.2 acre) is located in the DNR clearcut and is 
dominated by a mixed deciduous and young conifer overstory.  The second largest (0.1 
acre) is located near the upstream portion of the project area adjacent to the existing road.  
Obligate wetland plants established in this area include skunk cabbage (Lysichiton 
americanum) and sedge (Carex spp.).  

Smaller seep wetlands that range from 0.1-0.7 acre occur on the flanks of Gold Mountain.  
Wetlands along the original alignments close to the river were delineated by EDAW 
(2004), and those along the later developed DNR alternative were delineated by Landau 
Associates (2004).  Both reports are available under separate cover (Appendix A). 

A remnant band of old-growth/mature Douglas-fir was left at the downslope end of the 
clearcut, adjacent to the existing road, and extends up the ridge forming a narrow band 
(250 ft wide) between clearcuts of different ages.  



Table 3.3-1.  Plant Species Known to Occur in the Project Area.
(not available online in txt format. Please view the HTML file at: http://www.fema.gov/ehp/docs.shtm)


This band of trees does not meet the definition of an old-growth stand as defined by DNR 
(WDNR 2005).  These criteria include:

*	Many large trees (>100 cm diameter at breast height [dbh])
*	A multi-storied understory
*	Occurrence of large snags (>50 cm dbh, 15 m tall)
*	Accumulation of large dead tree boles

While there are individual old-growth trees in this buffer, the stand would not be 
considered an old-growth stand.  This stand does not support the same community and 
ecological functions as larger stands of old-growth with a multi-layered understory and a 
predominance of large snags and logs, but small stands of large trees do provide diversity 
among the more dominant younger forest (Sillet and Goslin 1999).   This buffer is 
referred to as mature forest but individual old-growth trees occur here.   The overall 
riparian composition in the Sauk River subbasin is moderate with 57 percent mid-seral, 
39 percent late seral, and 4 percent early seral forest cover, not including the White 
Chuck or Suiattle River watersheds (USFS 1996).  A greater percentage of late seral 
stage forest exists upstream of the confluence of the North and South Forks of the Sauk 
River compared to downstream areas.

Large woody material recruitment is somewhat impaired in the Sauk River subbasin 
downstream of the confluence of the North and South Forks of the Sauk River.  This is 
specifically related to the lower levels of conifer cover for the Sauk Prairie, Rinker, and 
Dan Creek WAUs, which flow through USFS land and into the mainstem Sauk River 
downstream of the project area.  Large woody material recruitment in the immediate 
project area appears fair to good because of large conifers near the riparian zone on both 
the right and left riverbanks (WSCC 2003).  

3.3.2  Environmental Consequences
Executive Order 11990 directs Federal agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, or 
degradation of wetlands, as well as to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial 
values of wetlands in carrying out the agency's responsibilities for: (1) acquiring, 
managing, and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; (2) providing Federally 
undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and (3) conducting 
Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and 
related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.  The following 
sections describe the effects to vegetation and wetlands from the three alternatives.

3.3.2.1  Alternative A  No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, vegetation and wetlands would remain unaltered from 
current conditions.  Continued erosion of the right bank may reduce vegetative cover in 
some areas while other portions of the road may eventually be colonized by pioneer 
species such as red alder.  Recruitment of woody material into the channel may increase 
over time as the channel continues to erode the right bank previously occupied by the 
road.  

3.3.2.2  Alternative B  East Alignment with Low Walls

Under Alternative B, approximately 1.3 acres of native vegetation would be cleared 
(assuming a 40-ft wide ROW).  Vegetation in this area is typical of a previously disturbed 
early successional forest with deciduous overstory tree species and an understory of 
salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), elderberry 
(Sambucus racemosa), and vine maple (Acer circinatum).  Several individual mature 
Douglas-fir trees may need to be removed in the downstream section of the alignment, 
depending on the final design location.  Both Alternatives B and C would avoid the 
removal of large Douglas-fir trees to the extent possible.  The wetland at the upstream 
end of the Alternative B alignment can easily be avoided because there are no 
topographic constraints in this area.  In addition, there would be minor, temporary effects 
to upland vegetation from the use of heavy equipment in the road vicinity.  Construction 
of the road would have a minor adverse effect on woody material recruitment by 
removing several large conifers in the downstream portion of the project area.  The 
upstream portion of the Alternative B alignment is dominated by deciduous trees such as 
alder and cottonwood that are less persistent in river systems as woody debris. 

3.3.2.3  Alternative C  DNR Road

The downstream end of the Alternative C alignment would need to cross the remnant 
band of scattered old-growth Douglas-fir that was left as a buffer along the bottom of the 
DNR clearcut.  An estimated six Douglas-fir trees, from 1 to 5.5 ft dbh, would be cut.  
The number of large trees removed would be minimized by shifting the roadway as 
feasible.  Once above this buffer strip, the alignment would traverse through the DNR 
clearcut, which is a mix of 12- to 20-ft tall Douglas-fir and an assortment of upland 
shrubs.  Little understory ground cover is present in this dense clearcut.  The upstream 
end of the alignment would join an existing DNR road where vegetation clearing would 
be minimal.  About 2.7 acres of vegetation would be cleared along this alignment (based 
on a 40-ft wide right-of-way).  Similar to Alternative B, temporary damage to vegetation 
adjacent to the ROW would occur during construction.  The vast majority of vegetation 
removal would occur in the DNR clearcut.  Alternative C would have negligible effects 
to woody material recruitment to the Sauk River.  Removal of large conifers would be 
minimized to the extent possible and would be limited to the downstream section of the 
road that traverses the forested buffer between the remaining road and the DNR clearcut.  
The vast majority of the route is more than 200 ft from the river and would remove 
upland shrub and pole-sized Douglas-fir.

A total of about 0.14 acre of Category III and IV (under the Snohomish County rating 
system) wetland would be affected by Alternative C.  Though each of these wetlands are 
small, the aggregate effects would require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 
requirement for a Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit and coordination with 
Snohomish County.  It may be possible to avoid some wetlands, pending the final 
engineering design.  If not, then appropriate mitigation would need to be developed and 
implemented to meet the Corps permit requirements and those of Snohomish County.  
The Corps requires a 1:1 mitigation ratio (mitigation area:affected area), while 
Snohomish County would require a mitigation ratio ranging from 1.5:1 to 4:1, with 
additional mitigation for damage to wetland and stream buffers.  Mitigation could consist 
of enhancing existing nearby wetlands and wetland and stream buffers and possibly 
restoring and revegetating a section of remaining roadbed.  

3.3.2.4  Alternative D  Modified DNR Road

The Modified DNR Road Alternative would entail the removal of about 3.8 acres of 
clearcut vegetation, 0.2 acre of mature forest, and 0.09 acre of wetland (based on a 28-ft 
wide right-of-way, as well as more detailed clearing limits included in revised 
engineering plans).  A smaller right-of-way calculation was used to match the smaller 
road corridor, lack of guard rails, USFS primitive road standards that will be used, and 
constriction to one lane in places.  These estimates are considered conservative.  An 
unknown number of old-growth/mature trees would be removed, but efforts will be made 
to minimize the number by shifting the roadway under the final design where possible.  
The clearcut area consists of a mixture of Douglas-fir and assorted upland shrubs, as 
described in Alternative C.  The upstream end of the new road alignment would join an 
existing DNR road where vegetation removal would be minimal.  As in both Alternatives 
B and C, some temporary damage to vegetation along the ROW would occur during 
construction, particularly within the DNR clearcut.  Any vegetation removal would be 
followed with subsequent native plant restoration along the new alignment.  Due to the 
significant distance between the Alternative D alignment and the Sauk River (2001,000 
ft), the Modified DNR Road would have negligible effects on woody material 
recruitment.  Any timber removal would be limited to the downstream section of the 
project area traversing the forested buffer bisecting the DNR clearcut area.  

A total of about 0.09 acre of Category III and IV (under the Snohomish County and 
WDOE rating system) wetland would be affected by Alternative D.  Though each of 
these wetlands is small, the aggregate effects may require a Clean Water Act Section 404 
Nationwide Permit with the Corps.  It may be possible to avoid some wetlands, pending 
the final engineering design.  The current calculations for wetland disturbance are 
conservative and are just below the 0.1 acre threshold for a required nationwide Clean 
Water Act Section 404 permit.  Coordination with the Corps after the final design is 
available would be conducted by Snohomish County. In either scenario, Snohomish 
County will need to comply with its environmental and sensitive area regulations.  The 
Corps requires a 1:1 mitigation ratio (mitigation area:affected area), while Snohomish 
County would require a mitigation ratio ranging from 1.5:1 to 4:1, with additional 
mitigation for damage to wetland and stream buffers.  Mitigation could consist of 
enhancing existing nearby wetlands and wetland and stream buffers and restoring and 
revegetating a section of remaining roadbed.  Snohomish County will coordinate with the 
agencies during the permitting process on these details.

3.4  FISH AND WILDLIFE

3.4.1  Affected Environment
The native riparian corridor and managed forests surrounding the project area provide 
suitable habitat for a broad array of terrestrial wildlife species. Federally listed species 
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are discussed in Section 3.5.  

During the August 2004 site reconnaissance, EDAW biologists detected a variety of 
wildlife species common to forests of the Pacific Northwest including: chickadee 
(Poecile atricapillus and P. rufescens), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), belted 
kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), American robin (Turdus 
migratorius), brown creeper (Certhia americana), spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), 
red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus). This 
list of potentially occurring wildlife species is likely to be augmented in the spring and 
summer by migratory species  such as the yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), spotted 
sandpiper (Actitis macularia), and common merganser (Mergus merganser)  that 
preferentially breed along the river and in riparian habitat and upland habitats.

Small mammals likely to occur in the vicinity include deer mouse (Peromyscus 
maniculatus), Pacific jumping mouse (Zapus trinotatus), shrew mole (Neurotrichus 
gibbsii), Douglas squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii), and mountain beaver (Aplodontia 
rufa).  Amphibians common to the vicinity include the Pacific treefrog (Pseudacris 
regilla), Cascade frog (Rana cascadae), rough-skinned newt (Taricha grandulosa), 
northwestern salamander (Ambystoma gracile), and ensatina (Ensatina eschscholtzii).  
Common reptiles in the vicinity include common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) and 
western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis).

The Sauk River supports a diversity of resident and migratory fish species. Most notable 
is the extensive variety of resident and anadromous salmonid species (i.e., salmon and 
trout) that comprise a thriving recreational sport fishery on the river. Table 3.4-1 lists the 
common species that occur in the Sauk River or its tributaries in the vicinity of the 
project area.

Table 3.4-1.  Anadromous and Resident Fish of the North Sauk River Road Project Area.
Species
(not available online in txt format. Please view the HTML file at: http://www.fema.gov/ehp/docs.shtm)

Non-game resident fish species occurring in the Sauk River along the project site include: 
sculpin (Cottus spp.), largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus), and other small non-
game coldwater species. These species hold no State or Federal protected status and are 
not specifically monitored by managing resource agencies. Although non-salmonid 
resident fish species are not considered a part of the Sauk River sport fishery, these 
species commonly occur throughout the subbasin and larger Skagit River watershed. 
Together, Sauk River anadromous and resident fish species constitute one of the 
outstandingly remarkable values contributing to the Federal designation of the Sauk 
River as a Wild and Scenic River by the National Park Service (see Section 3.6). 

3.4.2  Environmental Consequences
3.4.2.1  Alternative A  No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would avoid potential construction impacts at the project site 
and would have no adverse effects on fish and wildlife.  Human disturbance of the area 
would be reduced because of the lack of vehicle access.

3.4.2.2  Alternative B  East Alignment with Low Walls

Temporary disturbance effects to area fish and wildlife resulting from construction of 
Alternative B would be greater than those associated with Alternative C because of the 
greater amount of blasting and the alignments proximity to the river.  Noise disturbance 
from blasting under Alternative B could be substantial and preclude use of surrounding 
habitat by area wildlife during construction.  

To accommodate the new eastern alignment, approximately 1.3 acres of upland and dense 
riparian forest would be converted to roadway.  Forest in this area includes a dense 
overstory of deciduous tree species including bigleaf maple and red alder, and a 
substantial shrub layer dominated by dense salmonberry and snowberry.  This riparian 
forest type provides suitable foraging, nesting, and refugia habitat for a variety of 
terrestrial wildlife species.  Natural regeneration or restoration of native forest in vacated 
sections of the existing ROW alignment may, over time, provide some additional forest 
and shrub cover near the river.  Given the regional context of nearby forestry practices 
and the range of natural forested areas, impacts from habitat loss resulting from 
implementation of Alternative B are considered minor, long-term adverse effects.  
Portions of the old roadbed may be colonized by pioneer species such as red alder.  The 
old roadbed could provide a mitigation opportunity by ripping the road surface and 
planting with native vegetation.    

Similar to the existing road section, Alternative B would remove habitat used by 
migratory and resident birds, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.  Vehicle traffic 
on roads can be a major contributor to small mammal, amphibian, and reptile mortality as 
individuals move from one area to another during daily or seasonal travels.

Road corridors adversely affect small mammals and amphibians from vehicle mortality, 
increased predation along road edges, and direct mortality from road construction 
(Trombulak and Frissell 1999).  The required MSE walls in Alternative B would pose 
barriers to movement for some small mammals and most amphibians.  

Resident and migratory fish would be temporarily affected from the noise and general 
disturbance of the construction near the river.  The project would comply with work 
windows allowed by WDFW and in coordination with the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries.  Construction would occur during the 
low-flow season and in-water work would be minimal.  The magnitude of stress to fish 
generally increases as turbidity level increases and particle size decreases (Bisson and 
Bilby 1982).  Because fish can readily disperse, many species may simply relocate when 
sediment load is increased (Barton 1977).  For instance, avoidance of turbid waters has 
been observed in juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), arctic grayling 
(Thymallus arcticus), and rainbow trout (O. mykiss) (Newcombe 1994; Newcombe and 
Jensen 1996).  This avoidance can expose fish to increased predation and energy 
expenditure.  Because there would be little, if any, in-water work, turbidity effects would 
be negligible.

The project would have long-term effects on the channel-migration capability of the river 
because armoring (the MSE wall) would be necessary to maintain the stability of the road 
prism.  This would have a long-term adverse effect on aquatic resources in this vicinity.  
Bank modification typically reduces the available habitat for salmon and trout  (Beamer 
and Hendersen 1998) and in general reduces aquatic productivity (Dillon et al. 1998).  In 
general, riverbank modification, over the long term, has been shown to reduce salmonid 
access to habitat for spawning (Schmetterling et al. 2001) and affect sediment dynamics, 
floodplain/stream interaction, and nutrient dynamics (Li 1994; Schoof 1980).
Thus, modification of the streambank would represent a long-term adverse modification 
for aquatic habitat along 200 ft of the Sauk River.   

3.4.2.3  Alternative C  DNR Road

This alternative would require the clearing of 2.7 acres of vegetation, which would have a 
corresponding effect on wildlife.  Most of the required clearing would occur in the young 
clearcut, which is comprised of small Douglas-fir and dense upland shrubs.  Songbirds 
and small mammals that frequent the dense vegetation of the clearcut would be directly 
affected.  Though previously disturbed from forestry practices, the landscape would be 
bisected by a new road, adding to the list of disturbance factors of the vicinity.  
However, relocating the road alignment upslope and away from the river would provide 
substantial benefits for fish and wildlife above the alignment proposed for Alternative B.  
Some blasting near the river may be required for the initial downstream segment, but 
most construction activity would be 100 to 250 ft from the river, significantly reducing 
potential effects to fish and aquatic systems.  Construction noise would affect wildlife as 
they would modify their behavior to avoid the project area and the associated human 
activity.  Vehicle access and human disturbance would increase once the road is rebuilt to 
levels consistent with the pre-washout conditions.  Effects to wildlife would be negligible 
because of the limited access of the road, the unimproved condition, and the blockages 
farther upstream that limit use of the road.  

The small wetlands along this alignment do offer some habitat diversity for wildlife in 
contrast to the upland young clearcut.  These wetlands, although small in area, often 
provide habitat (Snodgrass et al. 2000) for a number of amphibians that would be directly 
affected from loss of habitat.  Wetland impacts would be avoided and minimized 
according to EO 11990.  Impacts to this wetland would require mitigation coordination 
with the Corps and Snohomish County.

3.4.2.4  Alternative D  Modified DNR Road

This alternative would require the clearing of 3.8 acres of vegetation.  While most of the 
vegetation and timber clearing would occur in the DNR clearcut area (as discussed in 
Alternative C), an unknown number of trees would require removal within the mature 
Douglas-fir stand bisecting the clearcut areas.  The new road would traverse 
approximately 250 ft of this buffer, and efforts would be made to minimize tree removal 
by shifting the road where feasible.  Though the clearcut provides marginal wildlife 
habitat value, the loss of 3.8 acres would have a corresponding effect on wildlife that 
currently use this area.  Alternative D would minimize the need for blasting by avoiding 
some of the steeper slopes and gradually approaching the climb to the 800-ft elevation, 
although some blasting would still be necessary.  This would temporarily disturb wildlife 
present in the area, but due to the distance from the river (2001,000 ft) any effect on fish 
would be negligible.  Wildlife would likely temporarily avoid the project area due to a 
combination of construction noise and human presence.  Following construction of the 
new road, vehicle access and human disturbance would increase to levels consistent with 
pre-washout conditions.  Amphibians would incur effects due to installation of MSE 
walls as discussed in Alternative B but on a smaller scale.  Alternative D would instead 
require fewer blastings and fewer, shorter MSE walls.  Effects to wildlife would be 
limited due to the limited access of the road and the blockages farther upstream, limiting 
road usage.

As discussed in Alternative C, the small wetlands in the project area do provide habitat 
for several amphibian species that would be directly affected from any loss of habitat.  
Wetland impacts would be avoided and minimized according to EO 11990.  Impacts to 
this wetland would require mitigation coordination with the Corps and Snohomish 
County.

3.5  THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

3.5.1  Affected Environment
Threatened and endangered species include all plant and wildlife species designated by 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NOAA Fisheries as threatened, 
endangered, or as candidates for listing under the ESA. Federally listed or proposed 
species potentially occurring in the project vicinity are listed in Table 3.5-1.  There is no 
marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) habitat in the project area, and the 
nearest documented marbled murrelet occurrence is about 2 miles south of the project on 
USFS land.  In addition, the general disturbed nature of the project area does not provide 
habitat for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis).  The nearest occurrences of 
spotted owls are located on USFS land about 2.25 miles south and southeast of the 
project area.  There would be no effect to these species from implementation of any of 
the three action alternatives.  A separate Biological Assessment has been prepared to 
meet FEMAs obligation under the ESA.

Table 3.5-1.  Federally Listed or Proposed Species that Occur in the North Sauk River 
Road Project Area.
(not available online in txt format. Please view the HTML file at: http://www.fema.gov/ehp/docs.shtm)

3.5.1 1  Bald Eagle

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is protected as a State and Federal threatened 
species in Washington common to the Skagit River watershed and is likely to occur in the 
immediate project vicinity throughout the year.  The USFWS has proposed delisting the 
bald eagle (64 FR 36454-36464).  Each winter, hundreds of bald eagles converge in the 
upper Skagit River watershed, drawn by the thousands of spawned-out and dead salmon 
that accumulate along area rivers (USFWS website).  Eagles come from as far north as 
the Yukon and Alaska to feast on this nutritious and easily collected food source.  

Eagles of the upper Skagit River watershed, which includes the Sauk River subbasin, 
constitute one of the two largest seasonal concentrations of bald eagles in the lower 48 
states (WDFW 2004c).  Regional eagle migration reaches its peak in late December and 
early January when the largest numbers of eagles are likely to occur in the project 
vicinity.  WDFW Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) data identify a winter communal 
roost site approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the project site.  Birds using this roost 
during the winter may forage along the Sauk River and in the riparian forest habitat of the 
project area.  Eagles have large home ranges, and regional breeding and resident birds 
may occur at the project site throughout the year.  There are no known eagle nests within 
2 miles of the project area.  

During a site visit on December 31, 2004, one adult and five immature bald eagles were 
observed along the Sauk River between Sauk Prairie Road and the large landslide upriver 
from the project.  Late in the afternoon, seven eagles (undetermined age) were circling 
high to the northeast of the project, possibly in the vicinity of the known winter roost 
(Keany 2004).

3.5.1 2  Chinook Salmon

The Skagit River and its tributaries, including the Sauk River, constitute what was 
historically the predominant system in Puget Sound containing naturally spawning 
chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) populations (WDF et al. 1993, Myers et al. 1998). 
Along the project site, the Sauk River mainstem supports spring-, summer-, and fall-run 
chinook stocks. Spring-run chinook salmon in the Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant 
Unit (ESU), the most common chinook stock occurring in the project vicinity, typically 
return to freshwater in April and May and spawn in August and September (WDF et al. 
1993). Summer-run fish begin their freshwater migration in June and July and spawn in 
September, while fall-run chinook salmon begin to return in August and spawn from late 
September through January (WDF et al. 1993). Although the majority of chinooks in the 
Puget Sound ESU emigrate to the ocean as subyearlings (Myers et al. 1998), rearing or 
migrating juvenile chinook may occur in the Sauk River throughout the year. Up-
migrating and spawning adults are likely to occur in the project area from April through 
January, with peak concentrations of spring-run stocks occurring in June through August.  
The Sauk River in the project area has been proposed by NOAA Fisheries as critical 
habitat for the Puget Sound chinook salmon ESU.  Table 3.5-2 shows recent chinook 
salmon redd counts in the general project vicinity.

Table 3.5-2.  Recent Chinook Salmon Redd Counts in the North Sauk River Road Project 
Vicinity.
(not available online in txt format. Please view the HTML file at: http://www.fema.gov/ehp/docs.shtm)

3.5.1.3  Steelhead

Six populations of steelhead have been described in the Skagit Basin  three winter-run 
and three summer-run.  All but one of these is known to be native origin with wild 
production; one summer run is of unknown origin with wild production (WSCC 2003).  
Winter-run steelhead trout spawn in the Sauk River as well as the White Chuck and the 
Suiattle and summer-run steelhead spawn farther south in the North and South Fork 
Rivers (WDFW 2002).  The Puget Sound ESU of steelhead was proposed as threatened 
by NOAA on March 29th, 2006 (NOAA 2006).  Critical habitat has not been designated 
at this time.  The Puget Sound ESU consists mostly of winter-run steelhead with some 
stocks of summer-run steelhead.  While resident steelhead reside entirely in freshwater, 
anadromous steelhead spend 1 to 3 years in freshwater and another 1 to 3 years in the 
ocean prior to returning upstream to spawn.  Summer-runs generally migrate upstream 
from May to October and spawn from February to June.  Winter-runs typically migrate 
upstream from November to April and spawn from March to June.  When both runs are 
present, the summer-runs will spawn farther upstream (Busby et al. 1996).

3.5.1 4  Bull Trout

The Skagit River basin supports the largest natural population of bull trout (Salvelinus 
confluentus) extant in Puget Sound. Bull trout in the project vicinity are known to use the 
Sauk River mainstem for migration and juvenile rearing (StreamNet website).  The Sauk 
River provides spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous, fluvial, and resident life 
history forms of bull trout, with spawning occurring in an estimated 28 tributaries 
(USFWS 1998).  Migratory adults will move near spawning areas in August before 
extreme low flows, and spawn in water temperatures of about 8C, which usually occurs 
in mid-September through October.  Resident fish that live and spawn in the river may 
spawn beside migratory fish.  The fluvial populations (those fish that migrate to 
tributaries from the mainstem river) are usually larger than those that reside all year in the 
smaller tributaries.  After hatching, juveniles typically rear in the parent stream for 2 
years and then migrate in the spring to larger waters for rearing to adulthood. At age 5, 
they migrate back to their natal tributary to spawn. 

WDFW classifies the Lower Skagit River subbasin as supporting healthy populations 
of bull trout (WDFW 2004b).  The USFWS has proposed designating critical habitat for 
the Coastal/Puget Sound DPS (Distinct Population Segment) that includes the Sauk 
River.

3.5.2  Environmental Consequences
A preliminary draft Biological Assessment (BA) has been forwarded to USFWS and 
NOAA Fisheries for an informal review.  Once public and agency comments have been 
incorporated into the NEPA EA, the BA will be finalized and formally submitted for 
agency review. 

3.5.2.1  Alternative A  No Action Alternative

There would be no adverse effects to threatened or endangered species under the No 
Action Alternative.  Without repair of the North Sauk River Road, disturbance in the 
project area would be reduced and portions of the existing ROW would likely revert to 
native riparian forest habitat, a beneficial effect to both terrestrial and aquatic species. 
Without stabilization of eroded right bank slopes, there remains the potential for 
additional bank slides and washouts that act as minor sediment sources to the Sauk River.  

3.5.2.2  Alternative B  East Alignment with Low Walls 

Bald eagles commonly occur in the basin during the winter but not during the summer 
when construction would occur.  Thus, construction would not affect the known eagle 
roost located over 1 mile away from the site and on the opposite side of Gold Mountain.  
Vegetation clearing may, depending on the final design route, remove several large 
Douglas-fir trees.  While these trees could be used as eagle perches because of their 
proximity to the river, there is no shortage of large trees along this reach of the Sauk 
River.  Thus, the effects of vegetation modification on bald eagles are expected to be 
negligible.

Salmon and bull trout could be affected in the short-term by construction and in the long-
term by altered river morphology.  Temporary adverse effects to water quality from 
construction would be caused by minor amounts of sediment mobilized from soil 
disturbance.  BMPs would minimize but not eliminate these effects.  In addition, the 
noise, vibration, and blasting near the rivers edge are likely to modify fish behavior in 
the immediate vicinity during the construction period.  Construction will comply with 
required in-water work windows for this reach of the Sauk River, but there would be 
little, if any, in-water work required.

There would be minor long-term effects to the river hydrology from installation of the 
MSE walls, which would prevent erosion of the streambank adjacent to the road.  This 
would cause adverse effects on the channel migration capacity of the river.  An 
approximately 125-ft section of the road would require an MSE wall in proximity to the 
river.  While outside the OHWM, storm flows would reach the toe of the MSE wall in 
this 125-ft section.  Hydrologic modeling has not been completed to provide a precise 
estimate of the timing and duration of these storm events in relation to the base elevation 
of the MSE wall.  

In general, revetment structures do not provide adequate habitat for juvenile fish that may 
use the margin of the river (Bisson and Bilby 1982; Beamer and Henderson 1998).  The 
MSE wall base, when in the wetted perimeter of storm flows, would provide less suitable 
habitat than a natural riverbank edge that has surface variations, associated woody debris, 
and cobble (Fischenich 2000).  The situation may be mitigated to a small extent because 
this area is on the outside of the river bend where velocities are higher, particularly 
during high flow events when the water would reach the base of the MSE wall.  It is 
likely that fish, particularly juveniles, would avoid this high velocity area and seek refuge 
in lower velocity sections of the river.  At flows equal to or less than the OHWM, the 
MSE wall would not affect the quality of aquatic habitat.  Other than construction-related 
BMPs, no additional mitigation measures are necessary.

For this alternative there would be No Effect to bald eagles.  For chinook salmon, 
steelhead and bull trout the determination would be May Affect, Not Likely to 
Adversely Affect.

3.5.2.3  Alternative C  DNR Road

A few large Douglas-fir trees that could serve as eagle perches would be removed during 
construction.  The vast majority of the alignment would traverse a clearcut where there is 
no eagle habitat.  Given the abundance of large trees along the river in the project area, 
the removal of a few large trees from construction would have no effect to bald eagles.  

Because the Alternative C alignment would be far removed from the river and floodplain, 
the effects to listed fish are significantly reduced relative to Alternative B.  Blasting that 
is needed at the downstream end of the project would occur about 100 ft or more from the 
river, depending on the final road location.  BMPs would be implemented to prevent 
material from reaching the river.  Noise from construction may cause some change in fish 
behavior in the project area, but given the distance of the construction from the river 
(minimum 100 ft), these effects would be negligible.  

The downstream junction of the new road and the remnant section of road is about 30 ft 
in elevation above the river and 100 ft in linear distance from the river.  After this point, 
the road ranges from 150250 ft from the river.  Construction on the remainder of the 
road would not affect aquatic resources as it would be conducted during the summer.  
Careful engineering calculations would be required for the several ephemeral stream 
crossings along the alignment to ensure that culverts have adequate capacity and that 
hydrologic connections are maintained.  These streams do not support fish and do not 
flow directly into the river but percolate into the ground at the toe of the slope.  
Construction during the dry period and the implementation of BMPs would ensure that 
there would be no effects to water quality from construction.  Culvert crossings would be 
designed to withstand storm flows, and the roadbed would dip at these crossings to allow 
for overflow during high flow events.  Because the road would be away from the river, 
there would be no long-term effects to listed fish and no additional mitigation measures 
are necessary.

There would be No Effects to bald eagles from implementation of Alternative C.  For 
chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout, the determination is May Affect, Not Likely 
to Adversely Affect.

3.5.2.4  Alternative D  Alternative DNR Road

Alternative D would involve the removal of an unknown number of individual old-
growth Douglas-fir trees in a mature buffer bisecting the DNR clearcuts.  These trees are 
approximately 250  300 ft from the river.  None of the remnant large trees closer to the 
river would be removed.  The majority of the new road would pass through the DNR 
clearcut, which contains no bald eagle habitat.  Large trees are present along the existing 
road, on the opposite side of the river, and upstream and downstream of the project.  This 
habitat provides an abundance of large trees in the project area in which bald eagles may 
perch.  There are no known winter roost areas, nesting sites, or specific concentrated 
areas of use in the project area that would be affected by construction.  Construction 
would occur during the summer when there is little use of the river by bald eagles.  
Removal of large trees significantly upslope from the river would not affect the ability of 
bald eagles to perch in the river corridor or in the project Action Area. 

Construction related vegetation removal and blasting would be significantly less 
compared to both Alternatives B and C.  Alternative D would follow an elevation contour 
ranging from about 550 to 760 ft and would range from about 200 to 1,000 ft in linear 
distance from the river.  This alternative would place the new road outside of the FEMA 
100-year floodplain.  Because of the large distance from the river and the dense 
vegetation between the proposed road and the river, noise from construction would not 
affect the river or fish.

Because BMPs would be employed to prevent material from reaching the river, the large 
distance between the road and the Sauk River, the lack of any surface water connections 
from the several slope drainages to the river, and use of proper stormwater design, there 
would be no effects to listed fish species that occur in the river.    The new alignment 
would traverse one Type 4 and nine Type 5 streams, which would require installation of 
culverts either 18 or 24 inches in diameter or box culverts if necessary.  In some cases, 
hardened concrete low points (sags) would be used at the crossing to allow stormwater to 
flow over the road.  None of these steep drainages support fish, all but one are ephemeral, 
and all of the drainages percolate directly into the ground at the toe of the slope.  Because 
the road would be 200  1,000 ft from the river, there would be no effects to listed fish 
and no additional mitigation measures are necessary.

There would be No Effects to bald eagles, chinook salmon, steelhead, or bull trout from 
the construction and operation of Alternative D.

3.6  RECREATION RESOURCES

3.6.1  Affected Environment
The  North Sauk River Road provides access to private residences and private timber 
company lands along the eastern bank of the Sauk River.  The existing road was 
constructed and is currently maintained by Snohomish County.  In its current condition, 
the North Sauk River Road does not provide public access to any developed recreation 
facilities; however, the Sauk River is a designated Wild and Scenic River (WSR) segment 
by Congress (Listed on November 10, 1978; WSRA P.L. 90-542, as amended 16 U.S.C. 
1271-1287).   A large landslide near the USFS boundary upstream of the project site 
prevents access to FR 22 and recreation facilities on USFS land (Figure 2-1).

Portions of the Skagit River system (the Skagit River, North and South Forks of the 
Cascade River, Suiattle River, Sauk River, and the North Fork of the Sauk River) were 
designated a WSR in 1978.  The Sauk River from its mouth on the Skagit River to its 
junction with Elliot Creek, about 2 miles northeast of Barlow Pass, was included in this 
designation.  In total, 158.5 miles of river within the Skagit River system are designated 
WSR reaches, including 99 miles classified as Scenic and 58.5 miles classified as 
Recreational.  The Sauk River is classified as a Scenic River.  The outstandingly 
remarkable values (ORV) of the Skagit River system are wildlife (specifically wintering 
bald eagles), fish, and scenery (NPS website).

The primary recreational activities on the Sauk River include angling and whitewater 
boating (pers. comm., P. Kincare 2004).  Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) is the 
primary sport fishery on the Sauk River.  The steelhead trout season on the Sauk River 
begins on June 1 and runs through February 28 (WDFW 2004a).  On March 29, 2006, 
NOAA Fisheries proposed the Puget Sound ESU be listed as a threatened species.  
Critical habitat has not been designated at this time and a final decision should be made 
within one year.  The Sauk River does provide rearing and spawning habitat for steelhead 
trout; hence, a listing of the species would affect the steelhead fishing season (NOAA 
2006, WDFW 2002).  The Sauk River also provides habitat for listed chinook salmon and 
bull trout (see Sections 3.4 and 3.5).  Anglers generally use drift boats year-round on the 
Sauk River, though low water levels occasionally limit their use in late summer/early fall.  
Private whitewater boating occurs on the Sauk River year-round when flows permit.  The 
commercial whitewater rafting season generally begins in April and lasts through July, 
when flow conditions on the Sauk River are most favorable for boating.  There are no 
official boat access points in the project area.  

3.6.2  Environmental Consequences
The Sauk River is a designated WSR.  Under Section 7 of the WSR Act, Federal 
agencies, including FEMA, cannot assist by loan, grant, license, or otherwise in the 
construction of any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on 
the values of a designated WSR reach (USFS 1997).  As such, each of the alternatives is 
described below in terms of its impacts to the three WSR Act objectives: (1) to maintain a 
free-flowing river, (2) to maintain water quality, and (3) to protect and maintain 
designated ORVs.

3.6.2.1  Alternative A  No Action Alternative

Under Alternative A, the washout segment of the North Sauk River Road would not be 
restored.  This alternative would not affect recreation resources beyond the existing 
conditions.  The washout of the North Sauk River Road has not changed the free-
flowing nature of the river, nor has it affected water quality beyond what is reasonably 
expected from normal shoreline erosion.  More information regarding water quality is 
provided in Section 3.2Hydrology and Water Quality.  Additionally, none of the Sauk 
Rivers ORVs would be affected by the washout.  Specifically, the washout likely has 
little to no effect on wildlife in the area, only temporary effects on the rivers fishery 
(potentially from short-term increases in sedimentation and turbidity), and negligible 
effects on the visual quality of the area.  

3.6.2.2  Alternative B  East Alignment with Low Walls

Under Alternative B, the washout segment of the North Sauk River Road would be 
reconstructed, with the alignment shifted to the 563-ft elevation contour. 

Construction would likely temporarily impact the rivers water quality and wildlife and 
fish ORVs during construction, but would not result in long-term adverse impacts to 
recreation resources.  Because construction would occur during low flows, there is no 
need to restrict river flow during this period.

Depending on the exact elevation of the bottom of required MSE walls near the river, 
these structures would limit the channel migration of the river into the right bank at the 
downstream end of the alignment, thus affecting the free-flowing condition of the river, 
a criterion used in determining effects to Wild and Scenic River reaches.  The function of 
this structure is to protect the bank stability adjacent to the road.  The construction of an 
MSE wall that is up to 8 ft tall also may result in long-term impacts to the visual 
character of the area.  Visual impacts associated with this alternative are described in 
detail in Section 3.7.  Reconstruction of the road would allow limited recreational use of 
the river upstream to the large landslide adjacent to the USFS boundary, where not 
encumbered by private land.  

3.6.2.3  Alternative C  DNR Road

Because this alignment is away from the river corridor, it would not affect the free flow 
of the river or any ORVs of the Wild and Scenic designation.  Access for anglers would 
be improved over the current conditions and allow access to upstream portions of the 
river corridor that was possible prior to the 2003 flood.   Construction would cause 
negligible, short-term effects to recreational use of the immediate vicinity by limiting 
access.

3.6.2.4  Alternative D  Modified DNR Road

Similar to Alternative C, this alternative would have no effect on the free flow of the 
river or the wildlife or fish ORVs of the Wild and Scenic designation due to its 
significant distance from the river (minimum 200 ft linear distance).  Construction of the 
new road would renew access to the upstream portions of the river corridor that were 
available to anglers prior to the 2003 flood.  Access to the river would be limited during 
construction, which would cause negligible, short-term effects to recreation. 

3.7  VISUAL RESOURCES

3.7.1  Affected Environment
The general visual character of the Sauk River corridor, including the washout section of 
the North Sauk River Road, is mountainous with periodic vistas of forested hillsides and 
river valleys.  The vegetation along the road, including the washout section, is typical of 
the Puget Sound lowland basin.  The deciduous-coniferous tree canopy is dominated by 
Douglas-fir and bigleaf maple, while the understory consists primarily of native shrub 
species.  The edge of the clearcut on Gold Mountain is bordered by a strip of old-growth 
Douglas-fir that is about 100 ft wide.  Large trees are widely scattered with deciduous 
species, such as bigleaf maple, among the Douglas-fir.  Away from the river, much of the 
southwest-facing slope of Gold Mountain is managed for timber production, and large 
swaths near the washout area have been recently clearcut and are visible from the river.

The washout of approximately 1,000 ft of the North Sauk River Road has resulted in an 
altered riverbank marked by exposed bedrock and shallow landslides.  Due to private 
land ownership along the river corridor, topography, and limited public access, the 
washout section of the road is not highly visible at the landscape level.  The primary key 
observation points of the washout section of the North Sauk River Road are likely from 
the river itself, with some limited views from the road and from private lands across the 
river.  The Sauk River is a designated WSR reach, classified as a Scenic river (see 
Section 3.6.1), and as such, importance is placed on maintaining the scenic quality of the 
viewshed, especially for boaters on the river.

3.7.2  Environmental Consequences
Potential impacts to the WSR designation are described primarily in Section 3.6 
Recreation Resources.  However, because scenery is one of the rivers ORVs, it is 
discussed here in more detail.

3.7.2.1  Alternative A  No Action Alternative

Under Alternative A, the washout segment of the North Sauk River Road would not be 
restored and there would be no effects to visual resources.  The existing washout is 
comparable to other washouts along the Sauk River and is not visually inconsistent with 
natural features upstream or downstream of this section.  Segments of the damaged road 
are likely to be eroded by future channel migration while other areas would naturally 
revegetate and would not detract from the visual character of the area in the long term.  
Additionally, no WSR objectives, including maintaining the visual character of the area 
(a designated ORV), would be compromised under this alternative.

3.7.2.2  Alternative B  East Alignment with Low Walls

Construction would have temporary impacts on the visual character of the river, by 
increasing noise and human activity significantly beyond typical background levels.  The 
constructed MSE wall may, however, affect the long-term visual character of the area.  
Due to its height, the new wall would be visually inconsistent with adjacent natural areas 
and would likely detract from the visual quality of the area.  As visitors to the area 
(primarily boaters on the river) become accustomed to the MSE wall though, the potential 
longer term visual effect may lessen.  Additionally, the new wall would likely be 
comparable to the level of development associated with existing bridges crossing the 
river.  However, this new man-made element would parallel the river in comparison to 
existing infrastructure elements in the area, such as the Sauk Prairie Road bridge.  While 
unimproved roads are present along the river corridor and residences on private land 
occur in scattered locations, the artificial nature of the MSE wall would be a new visual 
intrusion.  Earth-toned colors, a natural rock-like face, and vegetation plantings would 
reduce but not eliminate the effect.  Design of the MSE wall should be coordinated with 
USFS staff regarding visual impacts to river users.

3.7.2.3  Alternative C  DNR Road

Construction of the Alternative C alignment would cause minor, temporary adverse 
visual effects to users of the river corridor. The noise and increased human activity would 
be a minor disturbance element to anyone using the river.  Aside from these temporary 
effects during construction, building this alignment would not cause adverse effects to the 
visual quality of the vicinity.  The DNR alignment would be away from the river and 
partially screened by existing vegetation.  Over the long term, vegetation growth along 
the DNR clearcut would obscure the road from the river.  No mitigation measures beyond 
construction BMPs are necessary for this alternative.

3.7.2.4  Alternative D  Modified DNR Road

The Modified DNR Road would cause minor, short-term adverse visual effects to anglers 
and other visitors along the river corridor, but on a smaller scale compared to Alternative 
C.  Because Alternative D is 200 -1,000 ft from the road, any visual effects would be 
minimal and temporary.  Any cleared areas would be restored with vegetation following 
construction, and eventually vegetation growth would obscure the new road and the DNR 
clearcut from the river.  No mitigation measures beyond construction BMPs are 
necessary for this alternative.

3.8  ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
In the past decade, the concept of Environmental Justice has emerged as an important 
component of Federal regulatory programs, initiated by Executive Order No. 12898  
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low 
Income Populations.  This Executive Order directed each Federal agency to make 
achieving environmental justice by avoiding disproportionately high or adverse human 
health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations a part of its 
mission.  EO 12898 emphasized that Federally recognized Native tribes or bands are to 
be included in all efforts to achieve environmental justice (Section 6.606).

3.8.1  Affected Environment
The demographics of the affected area were examined to determine the presence of 
minority populations, low-income populations, or tribal peoples in the area potentially 
impacted by the three alternatives.  The race and ethnic profile of the local census tract 
from the 2000 census is presented in Table 3.8-1.  

As part of the NEPA scoping process, letters were sent to Tribal contacts, as detailed in 
Chapter 4, Consultation and Coordination.  Snohomish County as a whole has a smaller 
percentage of Native Americans (1.4 percent), and a larger contingent of African 
Americans (1.7 percent) and Asians (5.8 percent, compound to Census Tract 537).  The 
Sauk-Suiattle Tribal lands are in Census Tract 537 as reflected in the larger percentage of 
Native Americans here.  

Table 3.8-1.  Race and Ethnicity Profile of Census Tract 537, Snohomish County, WA.
Race or Ethnicity
(not available online in txt format. Please view the HTML file at: http://www.fema.gov/ehp/docs.shtm)

3.8.2  Environmental Consequences
Under the No Action Alternative, conditions would remain the same at the site, and there 
would be no disproportional impacts to low income or minority populations.  The actions 
in Alternative B, C, and D are limited in scope, would return the previous function of the 
road, and would have no effects to low income or minority populations.  A further 
discussion of socioeconomics is found in Section 3.11.

3.9  CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.9.1  Affected Environment
The following narrative describes the compliance with Section 106 of the National 
Historic Preservation Act.  This refers to the federal review process designed to ensure 
that historic properties are considered during the planning and execution of federal 
projects. The review process is administered by the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation, an independent federal agency, with assistance from the State Historic 
Preservation Office.  There are no historic structures in the vicinity, but cultural resources 
are described below.
Cultural resources include resources of historical and/or archaeological significance.  For 
purposes of this document: the term archaeological resources is used to refer to 
prehistoric or historical subsurface sites or objects; and the term historic resources is 
used to refer to above-ground historic buildings, sites, objects, structures, or districts.  

According to geospatial data of the Washington State Historic Preservation Office 
(SHPO), which documents the occurrence of National and State Historic Register 
resources, Historic Property Inventories, and Historic/Archaeological Sites and Districts, 
there are no documented historic or archaeological resources in the vicinity of the project 
site (SHPO 2004).  However, members of the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe and the Skagit River 
Cooperative have affirmed that the area containing the project site is known to be within 
a region of historic tribal inhabitation.  Sauk-Suiattle Tribal members indicated that 
artifacts had been found during the original road construction, but could offer no details 
or documentation regarding the issue.  USFS staff were able to supply a citation that 
verified the occurrence of artifacts during the road construction (Onat et al. 1980).  There 
is no information available regarding the location of those materials along the North Sauk 
River Road (pers. comm., Hollenback 2005).  In addition, the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe has 
noted the general cultural importance of the Sauk River corridor to their people, who 
have historically made use of its resources and used the river as a travel corridor. 

3.9.2  Environmental Consequences
3.9.2.1  Alternative A  No Action Alternative

Under Alternative A, the roadway would not be restored.  Therefore, this alternative 
would not result in construction impacts to cultural resources.  It is possible that some 
artifacts may be in or near the existing road prism that could be affected by continued 
riverbank erosion.  The extent of this possibility is unknown.

3.9.2.2  Alternative B  East Alignment with Low Walls

Information provided by the USFS indicates that some artifacts were found in the general 
vicinity of the North Sauk River Road during its original construction, but there is no 
documentation indicating where along the road from Darrington to the USFS boundary 
that the artifacts were found.  If any archaeological resources are encountered during 
construction, activity will be stopped and a qualified archaeologist will survey the 
vicinity.  The archaeologist will consult with the SHPO, the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, and the 
Skagit River System Cooperative.  A report will be prepared that documents the findings 
and outcome of the consultations.  Given the implementation of these measures, 
Alternative B would not affect cultural resources and no additional mitigation measures 
are necessary.

3.9.2.3  Alternative C  DNR Road

Because the DNR road would be constructed away from the river, it is even less likely 
than the Alternative B alignment that any artifacts would be encountered during 
construction.  As in Alternative B, construction would be halted if any artifacts are 
encountered.  A qualified archaeologist would be called in to survey and document the 
findings.  Consultation would include the Tribal entities and the SHPO.  With the 
implementation of these measures, there would be no effects to cultural resources from 
construction of Alternative C.  

No additional mitigation measures are necessary.

3.9.2.4  Alternative D  Modified DNR Road

Due to its significant distance from the river, Alternative D would be the least likely of 
the alternatives to encounter archaeological artifacts during construction.  As discussed 
above, discovery of any artifact during alignment would require activity to be stopped 
until a qualified archaeologist had been called to survey the site and document and report 
the findings.  The archaeologist would consult with the SHPO and the Tribal entities.  
Implementation of these measures as outlined would lead Alternative D to have no effect 
on cultural resources, and no additional mitigation measures would be necessary.


3.10  TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS

3.10.1  Affected Environment
The vicinity of the proposed project is served by a limited network of roads that include 
local highways and primitive gravel roads.  The North Sauk River Road is a gravel 
roadway that extends southward from its intersection with Sauk Prairie Road, about 0.6 
mile east of Darrington, WA, along the eastern bank of the Sauk River.  The road 
provides access to 22 properties held by 16 owners (two single-family residences) and a 
private timber company land holding.  

After the washout occurred, North Sauk River Road was closed to general vehicular 
traffic.  As previously discussed, Snohomish County has installed a locked gate near the 
intersection with Sauk Prairie Road and barricaded the washout area with concrete 
blocks.  However, local residential property owners continue to have vehicle access to the 
section of road between the locked gate and the washout.  Only two properties have year-
round residents.  The 90-acre privately owned forest tract, located about 1.25 miles 
upstream of the washout and 0.25 mile downstream of the road-blocking landslide, has an 
approved Forest Practices Application on file with DNR.  The current road status 
prevents transportation of timber from this site to the nearest timber mill in Darrington.

Upstream of the washout, North Sauk River Road extends along the river to connect to 
FR 22, North Side Sauk Road.  FR 22, a single-lane gravel road, continues south along 
the river to an intersection with FR 2420, then proceeds south to its terminus at the 
Mountain Loop Highway near the confluence of White Chuck River with Sauk River.  
The North Side Sauk Road is currently inaccessible from its southern terminus due to a 
washout of White Chuck Bridge near the Mountain Loop Highway as well as multiple 
additional washouts of the road between the White Chuck Bridge and the washout of  
North Sauk River Road (USFS website and pers. comm., Hamilton 2004) (Figure 2-1).

FR 2420, Dans Creek Divide Road, traverses the south and northeast slopes of Gold 
Mountain to join FR 24, Dans Creek Road.  FR 24 is a one-lane gravel road that 
connects to Sauk Prairie Road north of Gold Mountain.  On Sauk Prairie Road, the 
intersection with Dans Creek Road is about 1 mile east of the intersection with North 
Sauk River Road.  As of October 2004, FR 24 was temporarily closed for culvert and 
washout repairs (pers. comm., Hamilton 2004).

Approximately 300 feet east from the intersection of Sauk Prairie Road with North Sauk 
River Road, a roadway under the ownership of DNR extends south from Sauk Prairie 
Road.  The road provides access to a gravel mining quarry adjacent to Sauk Prairie Road 
and then proceeds farther south, into DNR forestland.  The southern terminus of this 
roadway spur is located approximately 0.6 mile northeast of the project site.  The road is 
overgrown with brush and young red alder beyond the gravel mine.

3.10.2  Environmental Consequences
3.10.2.1  Alternative A  No Action Alternative

Under Alternative A, the roadway would not be restored.  In addition, FR 22 and FR 24 
cannot be expected to provide reliable vehicular access to the private properties on North 
Sauk River Road south of project site because of snow at upper elevations and a large 
landslide just outside the USFS boundary (pers. comm., Hamilton 2004) (Figure 2-1).  
Only two properties are occupied year round.  Therefore, Alternative A would result in 
minor adverse impacts to transportation, as the owners of property along North Sauk 
River Road would not have vehicular access to their properties restored.  There would be 
no regional transportation effects because the North Sauk River Road is blocked by a 
large landslide farther upriver.  

3.10.2.2  Alternative B  East Alignment with Low Walls

Alternative B would re-establish vehicle access for landowners with the same type of 
road (20-ft-wide gravel) present prior to the washout.  The road would be built to 
standards similar to the existing segments.  The upstream portion of the road may still be 
vulnerable to channel migration and the corresponding erosion associated with flood 
flows.  This alluvial terrace (Figure 3-1) is composed of river sediments and is much 
more susceptible to erosion and channel migration than the downstream portion of the 
project area.  Evidence of continued erosion since the October 2003 flood was noted on 
several site visits throughout 2004.  A road constructed in this alluvial terrace would have 
to include engineering considerations for future channel migration toward the road.  
In addition, it is possible that other areas of the road upstream of this project could be 
affected by future flooding.  It is difficult to assess the potential for this to occur, but 
given the recent dynamics of the river, there is reason to assume that it is likely at some 
time in the future.  If this were to occur, vehicle access would again be eliminated.  

All action alternatives would result in temporary increases in construction traffic through 
Darrington and along the short section of Sauk Prairie Road leading to the site.  Road 
construction would occur over one summer construction season.  Following construction, 
there would be minimal traffic along the road from residents, landowners, the one private 
timber company, and recreation users.  The level of traffic would resume to the pre-flood 
levels.

3.10.2.3  Alternative C  DNR Road

This alternative also would re-establish vehicle access to the affected properties, but 
because it is upslope and away from the river, it would not be vulnerable to future 
channel migration.  This route is a bit longer and less direct than Alternative B but would 
substantially reduce effects to aquatic resources.  Because this alternative is away from 
the river floodplain, it would not be affected by future channel migration and would 
better ensure long-term vehicular access to the affected properties.  

3.10.2.4  Alternative D  Modified DNR Road

This alternative would involve constructing a new road outside of the 100-year 
floodplain, effectively placing it beyond the reach of impacts from future channel 
migration.  Because the new road would be farther upslope from Alternatives B and C 
and a minimum of 200 ft from the Sauk River, it would not be affected by migration of 
the Sauk River channel.  The new alignment would be a 14- to 18-ft wide gravel road 
with road cut-outs for passing.  The Modified DNR Road would be approximately 1.2 
miles long, the most extensive of the alternatives, but would provide the most consistent 
and long-term access to the affected properties.

3.11  SOCIOECONOMICS

3.11.1  Affected Environment
The four primary industry types in the local area are manufacturing; education, health, 
and social services; construction; and agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and 
mining (U.S. Census 2000).  The median household income in 2000 was $35,052, and 
approximately 8.3% of households live below the poverty level.  

The North Sauk River Road provides access to 22 residential properties, of which 5 are 
currently undeveloped, in addition to a private 90-acre commercial timber property.  Two 
of the residences are occupied year-round while the others are used as seasonal cabins.  
The commercial timber operation has an approved Forest Practices Application on file 
with the DNR.  

3.11.2  Environmental Consequences
The estimated cost of each alternative is provided in Table 3.11-1.

Table 3.11-1.  Estimated Cost of Each Alternative for the North Sauk River Road Project.
Alternative
(not available online in txt format. Please view the HTML file at: http://www.fema.gov/ehp/docs.shtm)

The No Action Alternative could be implemented without buy-out of the properties by 
simply closing the damaged road.  There would be little project cost associated with this 
option, but there would be no vehicle access for landowners.  While individual property 
owners would be inconvenienced from such action, there would be minimal 
socioeconomic impacts at the macro scale.  The small timber operation is the only 
revenue-generating business that would be affected.  

The costs of building Alternatives B, C, or D are substantial because of the difficult 
terrain and the physical and environmental constraints of the site.  The new road 
segments in Alternatives C and D are more than twice as long as Alternative B and would 
require mitigation for effects to wetlands and streams.  These costs would be born by 
Federal, State, and County tax-payers.  There would be no direct costs applied to the 
affected landowners.  

All of the action alternatives would include a temporary influx of construction workers 
and movement of workers and material.  This would cause a minor increase in demand 
for local services such as food, gas, and lodging.  While not significant, these effects 
would benefit the local economy.

Because the area is zoned for one structure per lot, there will be minimal further 
development along the rebuilt road.  Adjacent DNR land and nearby USFS land will not 
be developed.  Under Alternatives B, C, or D, the existing timber operation would 
continue operations under an approved DNR permit, which will have benefits for the 
landowner but will not have major socioeconomic benefits.

3.12  CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts are those that result from the incremental impact of a proposed 
action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 
regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other action (40 CFR 1508.7).  Only 
those resources associated with cumulative effects are discussed below.  

The project is in rural Snohomish County in an area dominated by Federally owned 
forest, with scattered private and State-owned land.  Land-disturbing activities in the 
basin include forestry and associated road building, residential housing construction, and 
minor amounts of mining (WSCC 2003).  A number of flood repair road projects are 
being planned in the basin on Federal and County land, including culvert and bridge 
washout repairs on USFS land and a number of road shoulder repairs in the Sauk River 
and larger Skagit River drainage.  Timber harvest on Federal and State lands has been 
modified in recent years to reduce effects to several aquatic and terrestrial species 
protected under the ESA.  In addition, Federal, State, County, and Tribal efforts in 
watershed management have been initiated and are ongoing, providing benefits to a 
number of resources associated with river and stream corridors.  Lastly, Snohomish 
County is in the process of updating its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), which will 
provide restrictions for land development near sensitive natural resources and 
requirements for mitigation of impacts.  

For aquatic and terrestrial natural and physical resources, there would be no cumulative 
impacts associated with the No Action Alternative.  Natural processes would continue to 
erode the right bank, but this is the natural occurrence in a dynamic alluvial river system.  

Under Alternative B, construction would occur close to the river and would cause minor 
amounts of sediment to enter the river from construction and in the long term.  Though 
insignificant in comparison to other man-made and natural sediment sources (roads, 
natural landslides), the road would be an added source.  The scale of the effects to aquatic 
resources is negligible in comparison to the scale of effects from forestry, previously 
constructed unimproved roads, and natural events in the basin.  The road would re-
establish vehicle access for landowners and could lead to future development of five 
properties that are currently undeveloped.  The new road section would be a primitive 
gravel road according to Snohomish County standards, and similar to what was present 
prior to the washout.  Thus, future use would be similar to what was present in the recent 
past.  The area is zoned as one house per lot so development would be minimal and 
would not significantly contribute to basin-wide cumulative effects from land clearing.  
Increase in recreation use would be limited because repairing this road section would 
provide upstream access only to the large landslide that is adjacent to the USFS 
boundary.  Even after the project road repair, there would be no access to USFS land via 
the North Sauk River Road.

Road repair and vehicle access would allow transport of harvested timber from the 90-
acre private forest parcel upstream of this project.  Forestry practices would follow DNR 
rules for protection of natural resources, but there would be some increase in sediment 
reaching the Sauk River from soil disturbance and truck traffic.  Providing access would 
allow the landowner to transport and sell timber.  

While Alternatives B, C, and D would repair this damaged section of road, it is possible 
that sections of the road upstream of this project could be damaged by future floods.  This 
could eliminate access again to the private properties while the repaired road section 
remained intact.

Alternative C would have similar but lesser cumulative impacts compared to Alternative 
B.  The road would be longer under Alternative C and would remove a greater area of 
young clearcut vegetation, but because it is farther from the river there would be 
substantially less than even the negligible effects from Alternative B regarding natural 
and physical resources. 

Of the four alternatives, Alternative D would have the least cumulative effects.  While it 
would be the longest, measuring approximately 1.2 miles in length, it would be the 
greatest distance from the Sauk River (200-1,000 ft), significantly reducing any impacts 
to aquatic resources.  Construction would include the removal of an unknown number of 
trees from the mature timber section of the project area.  However, these trees are widely 
spaced and BMPs would be employed to minimize tree removal by shifting the alignment 
where feasible.  The majority of the new road would pass through the DNR clearcut, 
similar to Alternative C.  Alternative D would provide the most consistent access to 
landowners and cause negligible effects regarding natural and physical resources.


4.0  CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
4.1  SCOPING
A NEPA scoping meeting was held on February 23, 2004 and was attended by those 
listed in Table 4.1-1.  Snohomish County staff then held a public meeting with FEMA 
participation in Darrington regarding the road repairs on March 13, 2004.  The primary 
comments from residents centered on the need to repair the road as quickly as possible.  

Table 4.1-1.  Agency Staff that Attended the February 23, 2004 North Sauk River Road 
Scoping Meeting.
(not available online in txt format. Please view the HTML file at: http://www.fema.gov/ehp/docs.shtm)


As conceptual alternatives were not yet developed at the scoping phase, general concerns 
of the agencies were discussed at this meeting.  A meeting with the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe 
and the Skagit River System Cooperative, which represents Tribal concerns in the Skagit 
River drainage, was held on site at the Sauk-Suiattle Tribal office on September 21, 2004 
(Table 4.1-2).  

Table 4.1-2.  Staff that Attended the September 21, 2004 North Sauk River Road Tribal 
Scoping Meeting.
(not available online in txt format. Please view the HTML file at: http://www.fema.gov/ehp/docs.shtm)

An additional scoping meeting was held on September 23, 2004 in Seattle and was 
attended by USFS, NOAA Fisheries, the Skagit River System Cooperative, FEMA, and 
Snohomish County staff.  The Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, USFWS, and WDFW were invited 
but did not attend.  USFWS could not attend the meeting but did attend a site visit with 
NOAA Fisheries on October 8, 2004.  

After reviewing scoping comments and collecting additional site information, a final 
update meeting was held on December 8, 2004 to discuss the alternatives and the 
schedule of the NEPA EA.  This meeting was attended by Snohomish County 
Washington Emergency Management Division, FEMA, NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, 
USFS, and the Skagit River System Cooperative.  WDFW and the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe 
were invited but did not attend the meeting.  

Primary issues raised by the public, Tribes, and agencies included the following:

*	Timely restoration of road access
*	Road alignment effects to aquatic systems and listed fish
*	Potential for new road to be affected by channel migration
*	Potential archaeological resource effects
*	Option of landowner buy-out to preclude need for road rebuilding
*	Effects of building close to river

A Draft EA was made available for public comment in March 2005.  Comments received 
on this draft are presented in Appendix C.  Subsequent to receiving these comments, a 
new Preferred Alternative was added (Alternative D) and a revised Draft EA was 
released for public comment in June 2006.  Comments received on this June 2006 EA are 
located in Appendix D.  Two formal comment letters were received for this latest Draft 
EA, in addition to one e-mail and a verbal comment (see Appendix D).  These comments 
noted that the addition of the new alternative significantly reduces the potential impacts.

4.2  AGENCY AND TRIBAL COORDINATION
FEMA has had continued coordination with Tribal entities, and State and Federal 
resource agencies throughout the NEPA process.  The Tribes and agencies provided 
comment on the Draft EA, and these comments have been addressed and incorporated 
into the final document, as appropriate.  In addition, a separate BA has been prepared for 
review by USFWS and NOAA Fisheries, as mandated by the ESA.  Any 
recommendations that come out of that process will be incorporated into the Final BA 
and NEPA document.

During discussions with NOAA Fisheries and USFWS, these agencies strongly 
recommended seeking alternative road alignments other than those near the Sauk River 
that were being considered early in the process.  The concern was the potential for 
unavoidable effects to listed salmon and bull trout that occupy the Sauk River mainstem 
and likely continued hydrologic effects of the river on any road close to the river.  The 
review of additional alternatives eventually lead to the conceptual design for Alternatives 
C and D.

Several meetings (9/21/2004, 9/23/2004, 12/8/2004) and additional phone calls (pers. 
comm., Johnson 2004, Brewer 2005) were conducted with Tribal entities in regard to 
cultural resources.  While the SHPO had no data on the project vicinity, they requested 
that results of the Tribal coordination be sent to their office.  Upon completion of the 
NEPA process, this information will be sent to the SHPOs office.

4.3  OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS
State, Federal, and local laws that apply to the project, depending on the alternative, 
include the following:

*	Endangered Species Act
*	Section 106  National Historic Preservation Act
*	State of Washington National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
Construction Stormwater Guidelines 
*	Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act
*	Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
*	State Water Quality Standards for Construction Projects
*	State Hydraulic Project Approval 
*	State/Snohomish County Shoreline Management Regulations
*	Snohomish County Critical Areas Ordinance
*	Snohomish County Grading Code
*	Snohomish County Drainage Code
*	Snohomish County Cultural Resources Code




5.0  BIBLIOGRAPHY
5.1  LITERATURE CITED
Barton, B. 1977.  Short-term effects of highway construction on the limnology of a small 
stream in southern Ontario. Freshwater Biol., 7: 99-108.
Beamer, E.M., and R. A. Henderson.  1998.  Juvenile Salmonid Use of Natural and 
Hydromodified Stream Bank Habitat in the Mainstem Skagit River, Northwest 
Washington.  Skagit System Cooperative, La Conner, WA.  
Bisson, P.A., and R.E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho 
salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2: 371-374.
Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Leirheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, 
and I.V. Lagomarsino.  1996.  Status review of west coast steelhead from 
Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California.  U.S. Department of Commerce, 
NOAA Technical Memo.  NMFS-NWFSC-27, 261 p.

Dillon, J., T. Littleton, and J. Laufle. 1998. Literature review of revetment and 
canalization impacts on Pacific Northwest aquatic resources with implications to 
Skagit River, Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, 
Seattle, Washington.
EDAW. 2004.  North Sauk River Road Wetland Report.  
Elekes, J.  2004.  N. North Sauk River Road 2003 Flood Damage Repair Conceptual 
Design.  W&H Pacific, Bothell, WA.  
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency).  1999.  Flood Insurance Rate Map 
53061C0502E.

Fischenich, J.C.  2000.  Impacts of Streambank Stabilization Structures.  U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers.  Washington, D.C.

Keany, J. 2004.  Field observations at the North Sauk River Road project area, December 
31, 2004.  

Landau Associates.  2004.  Critical Areas Report N. (sic) Sauk River Road.

Li, H.W.  1994.  Cumulative Effects of Riparian Disturbances along High Desert Trout 
Streams of the John Day Basin, Oregon.  Transactions of the American Fisheries 
Society 123:627-640.  

Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. 
Grand, F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples.  1998.  Status 
review of chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. 
Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 p.

Newcombe, C.P.  1994.  Suspended Sediment in Aquatic Ecosystems: Ill Effects as a 
Function of Concentration and Exposure.  Victoria, BC:  Habitat Protection 
Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 

Newcombe, C.P., and J.O. Jensen.  1996.  Channel Suspended Sediment and Fisheries: A 
Synthesis for Quantitative Assessment of Risk and Impact.  N. Am. J. Fish. 
Manage., 16:693-727.  

Onat, A.R.B, L.A. Bennett, and J.L. Hollenbeck.  1980.  Cultural Resource Overview and 
Sample Survey of the Skagit Wild and Scenic River.   Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie 
National Forest, Seattle, WA.  

Pickett, Paul. 1997. Lower Skagit River Total Maximum Daily Load Water Quality 
Study. Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Investigations 
and Laboratory Services Program Watershed Assessments Section. Ecology 
Publication No. 97-326a.  

Schmetterling, D.A., C.G. Clancy, and T.M. Brandt. 2001. Effects of Riprap Bank 
Reinforcement on Stream Salmonids in the Western United States. Fisheries 
26:6-13.
Schoof, R. 1980. Environmental Impact of Channel Modification. Water Resources 
Bulletin 16(4):697-701.
SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office).  2004.  Electronic Geospatial National and 
State Historic Register, Historic Property Inventory, and Historic/Archaeological 
Sites and Districts data.

Sillet, S.C., and M. N. Goslin.  1999.  Old-growth and forest dynamics in the Douglas-fir 
region of western Oregon and Washington.  Natural Areas Journal.  8:190-201

Snodgrass, J.W., M.J. Komoroski, A.L. Bryan Jr., and J. Burger.  2000.  Relationships 
among Isolated Wetland Size, Hydroperiod, and Amphibian Species Richness:  
Implications for Wetland Regulations.  Conservation Biology 14:2 pp 414:427.

Snohomish County 2004.  Memo on design aspects of the DNR road option.  July 27, 
2004.

Snohomish County. 2003. County General Policy Plan.

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell.  1999.  Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on 
Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities.  Conservation Biology 14:1 pp 18-30.  

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1990. Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and 
Resource Management Plan.

USFS.  1996.  Sauk River Watershed Analysis.  Mt. Baker Ranger District.  Sedro 
Woolley, Washington.  

USFS.  1997.  Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: Section 7.  U.S. Forest Service.  Portland, 
OR.  May 1997.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).  1998.  Bull Trout Interim Conservation Guide.  
Olympia, WA.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey).  1998.  Estimated Use of Water in the U.S. in 1995.  
Circular 1200.  

U.S. Soil Conservation Service.  1983. Snohomish County Soil Survey.

WDF (Washington Department of Fisheries).  1975.  A Catalog of Washington Streams 
and Salmon Utilization.  Vol. 1 Puget Sound.    

WDF, WDW (Washington Department of Wildlife), and Western Washington Treaty 
Indian Tribes.  1993.  Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory.  Olympia, WA.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife).  2004a.  Fishing in Washington: 
Sport Fishing Rules.  2004/2005 Pamphlet Edition.  Washington Department of 
Fish and Wildlife.  Olympia, WA.

WDFW.  2004b.  Salmonid Stock Inventory.  Updated Bull Trout and Dolly Varden 
Appendix.  

WDFW.  2004c.  Priority Habitat and Species Database.

WDFW and WWITT (Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes).  2002.  Washington 
State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory.  WDFW,  Olympia, WA.  

WDNR (Washington State Department of Natural Resource).  1997.  Habitat 
Conservation Plan.

WDNR.  2005.  Definition and Inventory of Old Growth Forests on DNR-Managed State 
Lands.  Olympia, WA.  Available at URL= http://www.dnr.wa.gov/htdocs 
/lm/oldgrowth/final_old_growth_rpt.pdf .  June 2005.

WSCC (Washington State Conservation Commission).  2003.  Salmon and Steelhead 
Habitat Limiting Factors Water Resource Inventory Areas 3 and 4, the Skagit and 
Samish Basins.

5.2  PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Brewer, Shari, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe.  Phone conversation with Jim Keany, EDAW, Inc. 
January 13, 2005.

Carter, Owen.  Emergency Coordinator, Snohomish County Public Works.  Phone 
conversation with Jonathan Childers, EDAW, Inc., October 1, 2004.

Daily, Jan.  Washington Department of Natural Resources, Northwest Regional Office.  
Phone conversation with Jonathan Childers, EDAW, Inc., September 24, 2004.

Hamilton, Wayne.  Assistant Forest Engineer, Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest.  
Phone conversation with Jonathan Childers, EDAW, Inc., September 30, 2004; 
conversation with Jim Keany, EDAW, Inc.  October 29, 2004.  

Hollenback, Jan, Archaeologist, U.S. Forest Service, Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National 
Forest.  Conversation with Jim Keany, EDAW, Inc.  February 10, 2005.

Iverson, Gordi.  President, IP Forestry LLC.  Phone conversation with Jonathan Childers, 
EDAW, Inc., September 29, 2004.

Johnson, Norma, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe.  Phone conversation with Jim Keany, EDAW, Inc., 
September 22, 2004.  

Kincare, Phil, USFS, phone conversation with Sergio Capozzi, EDAW, Inc.  September 
3, 2004.  

VanWormer, Mark, W&H Pacific.  Email to J. Keany, EDAW.  April 26, 2005

5.3  INTERNET SOURCES
NOAA Fisheries Website.  ESA Listing Maps.  Available at URL = 
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/mapswitc.htm.  
NOAA Fisheries Website.  ESA Salmon Listings.  Available at URL = 
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-
Populations/Steelhead/STPUG.cfm.  Accessed April 2006.
NPS (National Park Service).  2004.  National Wild and Scenic Rivers System webpage: 
http://www.nps.gov/rivers/index.html.  Accessed September 3, 2004.
Snohomish County. 2004.  Interactive Permit and Zoning Map on internet at: 
http://gis.co.snohomish.wa.us/maps/permits/index.htm.
Snohomish County. 2004.  Snohomish County Online Property Information on internet 
at: http://gis.co.snohomish.wa.us/maps/property/index.htm.
StreamNet Fish Data Website. http://www.streamnet.org/pub-ed/ff/Species/index.html
StreamNet Website.  Pacific NW Interactive Mapping Data.  Available at URL = 
http://map.streamnet.org/website/snetmapper/viewer.htm.  
U.S. Census 2000.  http://www.census.gov 
USFS Pacific Northwest Fisheries Program Website.  
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/fishing/forests/fishresources/mtbsno_coldwater.html#doll
ybull
USFS. 2004.  Forest Road conditions on internet at: 
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/conditions/road_conditions_report.shtml.
USFWS. 2004. Skagit Eagle Website. http://www.skagiteagle.org/
USGS. 2004.  Sauk River Flow Data 
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv/?site_no=12186000&PARAmeter_cd=00065,0
0060,00062,72020
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) Website.  URL = 
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi/index.htm.  Accessed April 2006.

WDFW Skagit River Bald Eagles Website. 2004. Information on the Skagit River Bald 
Eagle Project. http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/research/raptor/eagle/eagle.htm
WDFW Website.  Species of Concern List including species listed as State Endangered, 
State Threatened, State Sensitive, or State Candidate, as well as species listed or 
proposed for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine 
Fisheries Service.  Available at URL = 
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm.  




6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

EDAW, Inc.

Jim Keany
Project Manager and Lead Ecologist

Kirk Prindle
Terrestrial and Wetlands Ecologist

Jonathan Childers
Environmental Planner

Sergio Capozzi
Recreation Planner

Chris Stoll
GIS Specialist

Peter Carr
Technical Editor

FEMA Region 10

Mark Eberlein
Region 10 Environmental Officer

Bert Bowen
Environmental Specialist

Appendix A

Critical Areas Report
(Bound Separately)


Appendix B 

Mitigation Measures
(not available online in txt format. Please view the HTML file at: http://www.fema.gov/ehp/docs.shtm)

Appendix C 

Comment/Response 
on the Draft EA (March 2005)
(not available online in txt format. Please view the HTML file at: http://www.fema.gov/ehp/docs.shtm)



Appendix D 

Comment/Response 
on the Draft EA (June 2006)

(not available online in txt format. Please view the HTML file at: http://www.fema.gov/ehp/docs.shtm)