the construction phase of restoration activities. Vegetation may need to be removed for
equipment to gain access to the restoration sites. This could result in the temporary
reduction of woody vegetation (shrubs and trees) along stream and riverbanks. Given the
types of restoration activities, vegetation changes would occur primarily in riparian areas
adjacent to the Stillaguamish River and its tributaries.

In the long term, riparian vegetation would increase as a result of streamside plantings.
The species, location, and density of vegetation for planting would vary based on site-
specific conditions. Again, the differences between alternatives are a matter of scale,
location, and timing. Alternative 2 (multi-species) may offer the best long-term benefit
to riparian vegetation. Native plants would be placed in the riparian corridor along
tributaries and the mainstem. In time this vegetation would mature, providing multi-
canopied cover for the streams and river. Streamside vegetation would also be available
for recruitment to the system through bankline erosion or other mechanisms. Monitoring
for invasive species that could establish in the newly constructed projects will need to
occur. If species such as reed canary grass, tansy ragwort, false bamboo, or another of a
number of weedy species impact they new habitats, they will need to be controlled in the
appropriate manner.

Impacts to wetlands would depend on the location and type of restoration activity.
Activities under any of the alternatives could affect wetlands in two ways: during
construction of restoration projects, and as an element of the restoration (i.c., restoration
of degraded wetlands).

As a part of subsequent environmental reviews for individual projects, site-specific
impact analyses would: (1) identify the type of wetlands involved, (2) describe the
impacts to the wetlands, (3) evaluate alternatives to avoid or improve these wetlands, and
(4) identify practicable methods and measures to minimize harm to the wetlands.

During construction, mitigation measures will be employed, including the enhancement
of existing wetlands, creation of new wetlands, erosion control, and bridging if an
important wetland would be influenced by surface water flow.

4.2.2. Fisheries

The overall purpose of the restoration plan is to improve the health of the Stillaguamish
River ecosystem for fish and wildlife by restoring the amount/quality of spawning and
rearing habitat, as well as water flow and quality. All of the alternatives discussed so far
have some potential for doing this. Under the no-action altemative, the assumption is
that fisheries enhancement would still be pursued by a variety of entities and agencies but
at a smaller scale and would be less organized. Alternative 2 looks to enhance fisheries
habitat for a variety of species (but predominantly salmonids). Alternative 2 also places
emphasis on a ecosystem based approach that focuses on maintaining or restoring
watershed processes that salmonid species are dependent upon. Alternative 3 looks to
improve habitat for.chinook through a variety of ways, such as artificial production and
habitat improvements.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration “November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 55


Pollock, M and G.Pess. 1998. The Current and Historical Influence of Beaver on Coho
Smolt Production in the Stillaguamish River Basin. Prepared for Stillaguamish Tribe of
Indians.

Robinson, R., W. Hansen, and K. Orth. 1995. Evaluation of environmental investments
procedures manual, interim: cost effectiveness and incremental cost analyses. U.S.
Army Corps of Enginéers Institute for Water Resources Report 95-R-1.

Rosgen, D.L. 1994. “A classification of natural rivers.” Catena 22: 169-199.

Schlosser, IJ. 1991. “Stream fish ecology: a landscape perspective.” Bioscience 41:
704-712. :

Sedell, J.R., P.A. Bisson, F.J. Swanson and S.V. Gregory. 1988. “What we know about
large trees that fall into streams and rivers.” Pages 47-81 in: C. Maser, R.F. Tarrant, J.M.
Trappe and J.F. Franklin (eds) From the Forest to the Sea: A Story of Fallen Trees.
USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GT-229.

Sedell, J.R., GH. Reeves, F.R.Hauer, J.A. Stanford, and C.P. Hawkins. 1990. “Role of
refugia in recovery from disturbances: modern fragmented and disconnected river
systems.” Environmental Management 14: 711-724.

Sheldon, D. 1996. Deepwater Slough Restoration Feasibility Analysis. Skagit System
Cooperative, La Conner, WA. 123pp plus appendices.

Simenstad, C.A., C.D. Taner, R.M. Thom, and L.L. Conquest. 1991. Estuarine habitat
assessment protocol. U.S. EPA Region 10, Seattle. 201pp plus appendices.

Simenstad, C.A., and R.C. Wissmar. 1996. Variability of estuarine and riverine
ecosystem productivity for supporting Pacific salmon on the Pacific Northwest coast.
NOAA Coastal Ocean Program, Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystem Region Study
(draft).

Smith, H.I. 1907. Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia and Puget Sound. Jn American
Museum of Natural History Memoir 4(6), pp. 301-441. Suzzallo Library, University of
Washington.

Smith, RD. A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M. Brinson. 1995. An approach for
assessing wetland functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands,
and functional indices.

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky. R.M. Hughes. And R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem
approach to salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Environmental
Research Services Corp. Corvallis OR.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 119


2.2 Natural Resources
2.2.1. Vegetation

Forests. Since the retreat of the last glaciers, coniferous trees have dominated forests of
the upper basins. The landscape is characterized by three major coniferous zones, which
are caused by differences in elevation, aspect and moisture. The Western Hemlock zone
predominates the lower elevations (up to 2,000 ft.), while the Silver Fir zone (2,000 to
3,200 ft.) occupies higher elevations, and the Mountain Hemlock zone (3,000 to 4,400 ft.)
(USFS 1992). The autecology of these species includes fire and disturbance adaptation,
which tended to perpetuate them as the dominant species. Other trees present in the
landscape include westem red cedar (Thuja plicata) and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis),
however, they are not dominant except in a few isolated areas (Weinmann, pers. comm.).
While the historic vegetation composition in the North and South Forks has been stable
since retreat of the last glaciers, distribution has varied as a result of changes in regional
weather patterns and major fires.

At settlement, the forests consisted of large stands of mixed confers between 200 and 400
years old; this stand age is consistent the predicted fire frequency for the area. Some
older forest stands were estimated to be up to 1,000 years old, but these were limited in
area and distribution (Weinmann, pers. comm.). Hardwood tree species were not
common and usually restricted to specialized habitats. Red alder (Alnus rubra) and/or
vine maple (Acer circinatum) colonized and dominated newly burned or newly opened
areas. Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) dominated the well-drained riparian
areas (e.g., braided channels). Big leaf maple (Acer macrophylum) and red alder
dominated the poorly drained riparian zones (e.g., back channels). Oregon ash (Fraxinus
latifolia) grew on relatively stable lake margins or adjacent to bogs (Weinmann, pers.
comm.). Open prairies or other habitats dominated by herbaceous species were not
common.

At the turn of the century logging practices were a major cause of forest fires, which were
started in the log yards or by the locomotive engines used for transport. Although
Northwest forests were adapted to regenerating fires, logging radically altered the pre-
settlement patterns of major fires every 200 to 400 years (USFS 1996). Out-of-control
slash burns and railroad sparks started major fires with alarming frequency, sometimes as
often as every 4-5 years (USFS 1996). These frequent large-scale fires resulted in a shift
of forest-stand age from older mature forests to younger, fragmented tree ‘patches’ or
plantations. Most of the remaining forest today contains forests patches of a relatively
young age.

Logging practices also dramatically altered the vegetation present in the Stillaguamish
Basin. Loggers cut almost all of the larger, mature stands of western hemlock, Douglas
fir, and silver fir. After logging, forest managers either allowed the clearcuts to naturally
colonize or they were planted. This resulted in a change from fairly continuous, equally
aged forest stands to a series of varying-aged forest patches. The edge effect of such a
‘staggered-setting’ system of clearcutting has indirectly affected additional habitat. This

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 21




Final Environmental Assessment
Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration

Lead Agencies:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District and Snohomish County, Washington

Abstract: ‘

Since settlement, the Stillaguamish River has been extensively altered by industry,
urbanization, agriculture, and historic forest practices. Partial filling of the estuary,
revetment and channelization projects by the Corps of Engineers in the 1930s, levee
construction, and timber harvest has led to the degradation of fish and wildlife habitat
throughout the basin. Despite this history, there are numerous opportunities for
ecosystem restoration work in the watershed.

The proposed Ecosystem Restoration Plan recommends restoration features throughout
the Stillaguamish River—from the tidal estuaries to the spawning and wildlife areas of
the upper basin. The Plan includes proposed restoration features at 13 sites; these
projects would restore and re-establish stream, riparian, wetland, and tidal habitats,

_ providing critical habitat for salmonids.

The Ecosystem Restoration Plan was developed with the full coordination of interested
federal, state, and local agencies as well as the project sponsor, Snohomish County. The
recommended plan also has the support of the Stillaguamish and the Tulalip Indian
Tribes, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Stillaguamish Implementation Review Committee, and other interested
parties.

The following document is the Environmental Assessment (EA), pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for the recommended basin-wide restoration plan. It
is also anticipated that this document could be adopted under Washington State’s
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) at a later date. The purpose of this document is to
evaluate what types of approaches to habitat restoration have been considered under the
Ecosystem Restoration Plan, and then actual projects that are the outcome of the
preferred restoration methodology. Snohomish County may adopt this NEPA EA under
the appropriate Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) procedures; it is
anticipated that separate SEPA documents will be prepared for site specific actions.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page i


Bruseth, N. 1949. Indian Stories and Legends of the Stillaguamish, Sauks and Allied
Tribes. Seattle Public Library.

Bryan, A. 1955. An Intensive Archeological Reconnaissance in the Northern Puget
Sound Region. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. OAHP
Reference Library.

Butler, B.R. 1961. The Old Cordilleran Culture in the Pacific Northwest. In Occasional
Papers of the Idaho State College Museum, Number 5. Pocatello, Idaho. Suzzallo
Library, University of Washington.

Campbell, S. 1991. State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45SN308.
On file at OAHP, Lacey, Washington.

Collins, B., T. Beechie, L. Benda, P. Kennard, C. Vedhuisen, V. Anderson, and D. Berg.
1994. Watershed assessment and salmonid habitat restoration strategy for Deer Creek,
North Cascades of Washington. Report to Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians and
Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Collins, B. 1997. Effects of land use on the Stillaguamish river, Washington, ~1871 to
~1990: implications for salmonid habitat and water quality and their restoration. Report
to the Tulalip Tribes Natural Resources Department (Marysville, WA), Snohomish
County Department of Public Works (Everett, WA), Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians
(Arlington, WA), and Washington Department of Ecology (Olympia, WA).

Doll, A. 1994. Review and evaluation of programs for determining significance and
prioritization of environmental resources. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for
Water Resources Report 94-R-7.

Dorsey, J. 1927.Affadavit concerning traditional sites and site-use of the Stillaguamish
Indians. Notarized July 26, 1926. Filed October 3, 1927, Court of Claims. Entered as
Commission Exhibit No. 3, Docket No. before the Indian Claims Commission. (Lane
1975:Appendix 1, p. 3). OAHP Reference Library.

Embrey, S.S. 1987. The relation of streamflow to habitat for anadromous fish in the
Stillaguamish River Basin, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources
Investigations Report 86-4326. Tacoma, WA. 115pp.

Essex, Alice. 1971. The Stanwood Story. Published by the Stanwood NEWS,
Stanwood, Washington.

Everest, F H., R.L. Beschta, J.C. Scrivener, K.V. Koski, J.R. Sedell, and C.J. Cederholm.
1987. “Fine sediment and salmonid production: a paradox.” Pgs. 98-142 in E.O. Salo
and T.W. Cundy (eds) Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions.
Univ. Washington Institute of Forest Resources Contr. No. 57. 471pp.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 115


Department of Fish and Wildlife, the city of Stanwood, and the Stillaguamish Diking
District.

5.2.1. Initial Project Identification

As a first step in addressing the project objectives, the Reconnaissance Study Team
reviewed the planning documents and studies described in Section 1.5 of this document
and developed a preliminary list of potential projects. Particularly useful were potential
sites and actions identified by the Restoration Subcommittee of the Stillaguamish -
Implementation Review Committee (SIRC) and the Forest Service. A preliminary
analysis of critical factors limiting coho populations (Pess 1997) included a more detailed
assessment of 13 of the highest-priority projects identified by the SIRC. In addition to
these documents, the Reconnaissance Study Team solicited direct input from a variety of
agencies involved in resource management within the basin.

In April 1997, the Reconnaissance Study team conducted a series of field reviews to
assess a variety of potential projects and determine their significance for habitat quality
on the ecosystem level. The field assessments were conducted with the assistance of
resource professionals from local, state, and federal agencies as well as the tribes.

This process produced a list of 15 potential restoration projects suitable for more detailed
assessment. Most of these candidate projects were located within the lower mainstem
portion of the basin. This is primarily because the mainstem, its adjacent floodplain, and
the (formerly) intertidal areas have undergone the most extensive alteration. Three
additional projects had flood damage reduction potential in addition to possible
ecosystem restoration effects; these 3 flood projects have been removed from
consideration, and are currently being studied under a different Corps authority. Five
additional projects were added and evaluated after completion of the Reconnaissance
Phase study. :

Some projects upstream of the mainstem were also determined to be appropriate for
inclusion in the next step of the assessment process, generally because they may be
particularly important in addressing the critical need to restore salmonid habitats. These
involve reconnection of of-channel habitats and blocked tributaries along the Forks.

Most of the potential projects in upper portions of the basin were not selected for further
review because they: 1) were not considered to conform to relate to traditional Corps
interests; 2) did not address more than one of the selection criteria; 3) were already under
consideration for implementation under other programs such as the President’s Forest
Plan; or 4) were either too large and long-term or too small (no ecosystem-level
significance) for implementation under the guidelines of the Corps’ ecosystem restoration

program.

These projects can be grouped into three general restoration approaches: (1)
reconnection of distributaries, side channels, wetlands, and similar off-channel habitats;
(2) re-establishment of appropriate channel characteristics and riparian vegetation on
tributary streams that currently traverse open fields; and (3) restoration of habitats that
have been differentially impacted within the basin, and are now uncommon relative to

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 64


5.3.4. Old Stillaguamish Channel

This project is located at the confluence of Hat Slough and the Old Stillaguamish
Channel, in the estuarine portion of the Stillaguamish Basin (T31N R4E Section 5). This
location is just downstream of the City of Stanwood, at River Mile 8 on the Old
Stillaguamish River Channel (RM 3 on Hat Slough).

Historically, the “old” Stillaguamish channel was the main river channel, and Hat Slough
was a small narrow backwater carrying water only during high flow events. An early
settler by the name of Hat widened and deepened the slough, presumably for log storage.
Floods throughout the early 1900s expanded the slough, and a flood in 1920s caused the
main river channel to shift. Today, during much of the summer and early fall, the old
river channel is a stagnant, tidally influenced slough with poor water quality and high
water temperatures. Whenever flows in the Stillaguamish mainstem are low, fresh water
enters the Old Channel only during flood tide. Tides enter the Old Channel from both
ends, then ebb back the way they came—there is little net downstream flow.

The project objectives are to improve the Old Stillaguamish Channel’s water quality and
riparian corridor. Cool, oxygenated flow is sought in the channel. To achieve this goal, a
reverse tidegate would be installed in the channel about a quarter of a mile downstream
from the confluence with Hat Slough. The tidegate would be constructed of concrete and
span the entire channel width, but would be fish passable. The tidegate would capture
freshwater during flood tides, producing an average daily downstream flow of roughly
1.5 million cubic feet.

One notable change since the Draft Environmental Assessment was written: this project
is now being considered under the Corps’ Section 1135 authority, so that itcan be ~
constructed in a more timely manner.

5.3.5. Confluence

The confluence site is located in the Stillaguamish’s lower basin, on Koch Slough
upstream of the Stillaguamish River/Koch Slough confluence and the Burlington
Northern Railroad, and downstream of the Larson Road Crossing (T31N R4E Section 2).

A large gravel bar, approximately 200 feet wide and 800 feet long, is located in the Koch
Slough channel. During summer and fall, a side channel is exposed along the right side

of the gravel bar. However, the lack of a steady volume of cool, oxygenated flow during
these dry periods makes this side channel insufficient for fish passage and rearing. =
Objectives for this site include adding complexity to the project reach, providing access

to approximately 1100 feet of side channel habitat, and creation of approximately 500

feet of off-channel seasonal rearing habitat. This project consists of: (1) construction of

an engineered log jam at the upstream head of the existing gravel bar, (2) construction of
six smaller bank jams along the side and main channels, and (3) excavation of an existing

overflow channel.

The large logjam, a Bar Apex Jam (BAJ), would promote increased flow into the existing
low velocity channel along the right bank. This cool, oxygenated flow would provide

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 74


2. EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 Physical Characteristics

The Stillaguamish River Basin is the fifth largest tributary to Puget Sound, draining a 684
square mile watershed with more than 975 miles of rivers and tributaries. The basin has
an east-west orientation with the upper basin on the west slope of the Cascades Mountain
Range and the lower basin within the Puget Sound Trough.

For planning and orientation purposes, watershed can be divided into three large sub-
basins: the North Fork, the South Fork, and the lower basin. The North and South Forks
converge at the town of Arlington. In the lower basin, the resulting mainstem branches
into both channels and sloughs. These channels and sloughs converge west of Silvana
and the Stillaguamish is again one river for three miles, until two distributary channels
are formed near the town of Stanwood. Hat Slough enters Port Susan, and the old
Stillaguamish channel drains into Skagit Bay via West Pass and Port Susan via South
Slough. Refer to Figure 1 for a location map.

The Stillaguamish Basin’s headwaters are in the North Cascades, a topographically
diverse area characterized by peaks and valleys shaped by glacial activity. The South
Fork drainage begins at Three Fingers Peak (6,854 feet). Above the town of Silverton,
the South Fork loses about 2000 feet in elevation in 3 miles, then opens up to a valley
floor. The River then flows 26 miles through this gradually widening valley, which is
bordered by high mountains and ridges. Elevation drops 1,000 feet to the head of Robe
Canyon, then another 600 feet in the 8 miles to the mouth of Canyon Creek. Below
Canyon Creek, the South Fork flows an additional 12 miles northwesterly through a
canyon and then over Granite Falls. The South Fork continues an additional four miles
through a narrow floodplain to its confluence with the North Fork.

The North Fork headwaters form at an elevation of about 4,550 feet. The first 16 miles
of the North Fork, including the major tributaries of Squire, Boulder, and Deer Creeks,
flow through narrow valleys with steep gradients. Near the city of Darrington, the North
Fork emerges from the higher mountains and enters a wide valley characterized by
braided channels, back channel sloughs, and oxbow lakes. Its confluence with the South
Fork occurs at an elevation of 52 feet. The mainstem gradually slopes downward as it
meanders through a wide, fertile floodplain towards Port Susan where it meets the waters
of Puget Sound.

2.1.1. Geology

The Stillaguamish Basin, like other river basins arising in the Cascade Range along Puget
Sound, has been shaped by a number of geologic processes and events. The two major
geologic processes along the Pacific Northwest Coast are the movement of tectonic
plates, which is manifested by seismic activity and volcanism, and glaciation. The
Cascade Mountain Range is the result of several periods of tectonic uplift and volcanic
eruptions. High volcanic peaks such as Mount Rainier, Mt. St. Helens, and Mount Baker
continue to build in modern times (Kruckeberg 1991).

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 10


Ill. Implementation of this Agreement
A. Dispute Resolution

The Corps and the SHPO will together attempt to resolve any disagreement arising from
implementation of this Agreement. The Council will assist in attempting to resolve any disagreement
if so desired by either party. If the Corps-determines that the disagreement cannot be resolved, the
Corps will request the further comments of the Council in accordance with CFR § 800.6(b). Any
Council comment provided in response will be considered by the Corps in accordance with 36 CFR §
800.6(b)(2), with reference only to the subject of the dispute. The Corps’ responsibility to carry out
all other actions under this Agreement that are not the subjects of the dispute will remain unchanged.

B. Terms of this Agreement

This Memorandum of Agreement will continue in force for five (5) years from date of execution of

this Agreement. Prior to the end of the five year period, this Agreement will be reviewed for possible
modifications, termination, or extension, If revisions to this Agreement are needed, the signatories to
this Agreement will consult to make such revisions in a manner consistent with 36 § CFR 800. At the

request of any of the signatories, this Agreement may be reviewed for possible modification or
termination at any time.

Execution and implementation of this Memorandum of Agreement evidences that the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, has taken into account the effects of the Project on historic
properties.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SEATTLE DISTRICT

District Engineer Date

WASHINGTON STATE OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION

State Historic Preservation Officer Date


Bob Everitt, Regional Director
Washington State Department of
Fish & Wildlife

16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
Mill Creek, WA 98012-1296

Mike Chamblin

Washington State Department of
Fish & Wildlife

19018 Mill Creek Boulevard
Mill Creek, WA 98102

Pat Stevenson
Environmental Coordinator
Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians
Box 277
Alington WA 98223

Michael Purser

Snohomish Co. Surface Water Mgmt
2731 Wetmore Ave. Suite 300
Everett WA 98201

Karen Chang

USFS Darington District
1405 Emmens St.
Darrington, WA 98241

Chuck Hazelton
23224 Marine Dr
Stanwood WA 98292

Jenny Baker

Snohomish Co. Conservation District
91* Ave. NE

Suite C

Everett WA 98205

Seattle Audubon Society
8050 - 35th Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98115«Next Record»

Sarah Suggs

Washington State Department of Ecology
3190 - 160th Avenue SE

Bellevue, WA 98008

Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
P.O. Box 40900
Olympia, WA 98504-0900

Cultural Resources Coordinator Coordinator
Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians

Box 277

Alington WA 98223

Max Albert
208" SW
Lynwood WA 98036

Kip Killebrew

Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians
Box 277

Alington WA 98223

Kurt Nelson

Fish and Wildlife Resources
Tulalip Tribes

7615 Totem Beach Rd.
Marysvill WA 98271


AS
>»
yoy yynog Le
is sINg bv ZO
j !
; ISS a uoj8ury
7 x s x WaysuInyy
Ag
ml They € Xe ‘
hadhsar} . f . 3 t ez
. ; AAT ‘ae ia alll
: \ whe:
mem AU
, ; e 2 Wet tet
i“ ¢ a . ar a a be ul
N\ Ww y poor
‘ Py Cee
ENig,
f al

YP SN * bs
: Sd u
= sat - acts
- Ne ~
39697 ee yor wion \4\ Se

‘Ss ONT


Resident Trout Non-native char, such as the brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), are
present in many upper-watershed lakes. WDFW introduced brook trout into the basin to
provide sports fishing opportunity; they are now in several outlet streams associated with
these lakes. Native resident trout spawn and rear in almost all Basin stream and lake
waters. Rainbow and cutthroat trout occur throughout the mainstem, and the North and
South Forks. Resident trout are also above Granite Falls, however, fishery experts do not
know whether rainbow trout were present above Granite Falls prior to the construction of
the fish ladder. Some stocking of cutthroat and rainbow trout has occurred throughout
the basin.

Other Resident Fishes Native non-game species found in the Stillaguamish Basin include
large-scale sucker (Cataostomus macrocheilus); torrent, coast range, shorthead, and
prickly sculpins (Cottus spp); pacific, river and western brook lamprey (Lampetra spp.);
peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus); three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus);
mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni);, speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus); and
redside shiner (Richardsoni balteatus). Exotic species within the basin likely include the
largemouth and smallmouth bass (Micropterus spp.), yellow perch (Perca flavescens),
and brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus). WDFW does not have specific population
estimates for either native or exotic non-game species.

2.2.3. Wildlife

Historically, the extensive stands of mature forest in the Stillaguamish Basin supported
many species of wildlife, including those predators with large home range requirements,
such as the grizzly bear (Ursus chelan), black bear (Euarctos americanus), gray wolf
(Canis lupus), and cougar (Felis concolor). Other mammals found throughout the basin
included Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus), black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus
columbianus), beaver (Castor canadensis), California wolverine (Gulo gulo),
Townsend’s bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) and small mammals such as Townsend
chipmunk (Eutamias townsendi), martin (Martes americana), chickaree (Tamiasciurus
douglasi), redback voles (Clethrionomys gapperi) and deer mice (Peromyscus
maniculatus). Beaver played a very large role in creating complex systems of pools and
wetlands in the smaller tributaries and back channels.

Avifauna historically associated with the Basin’s forest stands included bald eagles
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), spotted owls (Strix
occidentalis), marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus), and other species of
passerine birds and raptors. The marshlands and eelgrass beds of the Stillaguamish
estuary supported a great variety of shorebirds and waterfowl. The estuary is on the
Pacific flyway and provided important resting and feeding habitat for migratory birds
such as black brant (Branta nigricans) and harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus). It
also provided overwintering habitat for northern migrant species such as snow geese
(Chen hyperborea) and tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus). In addition, the mild winters
allowed for large resident populations of some species to stay in and around the estuary
all year. Resident species included the great blue heron (Ardea herodias), pintail duck
(Anas acuta) and gadwall (Anas strepera).

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 28


« Modification of project goals and objectives

References that used to help develop the final monitoring program include:

= Planning Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring Programs, Ronald M. Thom et
al., 1996, IWR Report 96-R-23

= Planning and Evaluating Restoration of Aquatic Habitat from an Ecological
Perspective, David Yozzo et. al., IWR report 96-EL-4 1996.

Prior to initiating any fish monitoring, permits will be obtained from the appropriate
resource agencies (USFWS, NMFS, WDFW).

7.6 Operation and Maintenance

An operation and maintenance plan will be developed for each project during the final
design phase and prior to construction of the project.

8. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The proposed restoration projects would have beneficial cumulative effects with other
habitat enhancement projects, and would tend to counteract some of the adverse impacts
of development projects on habitat and related natural resources. The potential for
cumulative short-term construction impacts is limited by the potential for the projects
under consideration to overlap in time and space. The beneficial effects of habitat
restoration are less localized and temporary, so they have more potential for cumulative

impacts.

Restoration projects are designed to'restore or enhance lost or degraded habitat functions
and to reduce the fragmentation of habitat areas. The projects are expected to restore
ecological functions among the habitats throughout the Stillaguamish River, so that
overall impacts should be beneficial to species which use these habitats.

There are no anticipated additional indirect impacts to wildlife other than those described
in the previous sections. There is potential for both beneficial and adverse cumulative
impacts to wildlife resulting from restoration and enhancement activities conducted under
any action alternative plan (e.g., converting upland to wetland) and other projects
occurring in the vicinity of the primary and expanded study areas.

It is anticipated that restoration would benefit threatened and endangered species by
increasing foraging habitat, providing habitat for degraded natural resources and services,
and creating additional habitat. It is anticipated that adverse cumulative impacts to
endangered, threatened and/or sensitive species would not occur

Indirect air quality impacts of restoration projects implemented under any action
alternative would result from vehicle emissions from employees driving to and from the
project sites during construction and for post-construction maintenance and monitoring.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 98


elements are, by definition, critical habitat. Areas without either primary constituent
element are excluded by definition.

2.3.6. Northern Spotted Owl

The northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) was federally listed as a threatened
species throughout its range on June 26, 1990. The primary reason for this listing was the
reduction and fragmentation of habitat that was projected to continue under the forest
practices utilized at the time of listing.

Three subspecies of Spotted owls occur in North America: the northern spotted owl, the
California spotted owl (S. 0. occidentalis), and the Mexican spotted owl (S. o. lucida).
The current range of the northern spotted owl is from southwestern British Columbia,
through western Washington, western Oregon, and northern California south to San
Francisco Bay (USFWS 1990). In Washington, the northern spotted owl occurs on the
Olympic Peninsula, in the western lowlands, and in the Cascades, generally below
elevations of 1280m. «

Spotted owls are primarily nocturnal perch-and-pounce predators, and thus they possess
exceptional eyesight and hearing, as well as feathers modified to facilitate silent flight.
Although spotted owls are nocturnal, during the day they forage opportunistically and
may move short distances to change roosting position in response to changes in ambient
temperature or exposure to direct sunlight. Spotted owls prey on a broad array of species,
such as insects, birds, and small mammals; however, primary prey items are woodrats
(Neotoma fuscipes and N. cinerea) and flying squirrels.

Habitat for the spotted owl can be divided into two basic categories: nesting, roosting
and foraging (NRF habitat), and dispersal habitat. Spotted owl NRF habitat is
characterized by: (1) a multilayered, multispecies canopy dominated by large [>76 cm
diameter at breast height (dbh)] conifer overstory trees, and an understory of shade-
tolerant conifers or hardwoods; (2) a moderate to high (60-80%) canopy closure with an
understory that is open enough to allow spotted owls to fly within and beneath it; (3)
substantial decadence in the form of large, live coniferous trees with deformities such as
cavities, broken tops, and dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.) infestations allowing
formation of the contiguous habitat for nesting; and numerous large snags, and ground
cover consisting of large accumulations of logs and other woody debris (Thomas et al.
1990). 3

The northern spotted owl nests in tree cavities, on debris platforms, and in the old nests of
other large birds. Spotted owls normally lay one or two eggs, although three or four egg
clutches are not uncommon. The female incubates the eggs for approximately 30 days.
Once the eggs hatch the owlets are fed by their parents until they leave the nest 3 to 5
weeks after hatching. In Washington, nesting occurs between March 1 and July 31, and
fledging occurs between August 1 and September 30 (USFWS 1999).

Dispersal of juvenile owls begins in the early fall. Usually juveniles move from their
natal area to a breeding site, and occasionally adults move from one breeding site to

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 35


4.5.7. Public Services and Utilities

The nature and scope of the restoration activities likely to be implemented preclude
significant, basin-wide impacts to public services and utilities. Specific short-term
impacts from construction activities should be minor and localized.

4.6 Hazardous and Toxic Wastes

As with any proposed construction activity, the potential to encounter hazardous and
toxic waste exists. While any of the alternatives needs to address this potential, the
extent of this occurrence differs by project sites considered under each alternative.
Proximity to industrial sites in areas such as Arlington or Stanwood probably would have
the highest chances of encountering some wastes. Also areas that have been in
agricultural production for long periods and have used chemicals for control of nuisance
species also run some risk. Site specific evaluations for restoration activities would need
to occur under any of the scenarios.

4.7 Conclusions

Under No Action (Alternative 1), restoration projects would be limited to a small number
of individual projects rather than the proposed program that could result in a larger
cumulative contribution to resource restoration. Undoubtedly there will be other
restoration activities on-going within the Basin through several different venues. To date,
there is no single restoration program dedicated to the Stillaguamish Basin other than
what is discussed in this document. In contrast, both of the action alternatives
(Alternatives 2 and 3) would consolidate restoration efforts in the basin under one
“umbrella” plan, resulting in large-scale habitat improvements throughout the basin. One
potential consequence of the No Action Alternative would be that, for a variety of
reasons (e.g., funding limitations, issues of land ownership, and manpower limitations),
restorations would be limited to a small number of projects rather than a program that
could result in a larger cumulative contribution to resource restoration. Also, additional
adverse effects on aquatic and watershed resources could occur as a result of not restoring
the degraded resource under a more comprehensive watershed approach. Finally, sites
considered for restoration purposes might be developed for other non-habitat purposes if
the plan was not implemented.

In general, Alternative 2 would provide ecological benefits to a larger area of the basin
and to more species than Alternative 3. Alternative 2 would include restoration efforts
throughout the basin to benefit multiple fish, riparian, and river-dependent species,
whereas Alternative 3 would focus on chinook salmon habitat in the mainstem river and
major tributaries only.

Therefore, Alternative 2 has the greatest potential for resulting in benefits to basin
habitats. The approach to habitat restoration outlined under Alternative 2 will provide the
basis for project selection under the Stillaguamish Ecosystem Restoration Plan.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 60


- >» * a ie Ty R
- 22-65 Ae : K-SN-65" 32B-6



display a broad array of tactics that include variation in age at seaward migration,
variation in length of freshwater, estuarine, and oceanic residence, variation in ocean
distribution and ocean migratory patterns, and variation in age and season of spawning
migration. In an extensive review of the literature, Healey (1991) used differences in life
history patterns to divide eastern Pacific chinook salmon into two broad races: “stream-

type” and “ocean-type.”

Like all other Puget Sound chinook, those observed in the Stillaguamish Basin are of the
ocean-type race (NMFS 1998). Ocean-type chinook migrate to sea during their first year
of life, normally within three months after emergence from spawning gravel. Growth and
development to adulthood occurs primarily in estuarine and coastal waters (NMFS 1998).
Ocean-type chinook return to their natal river in the fall, though actual adult run and
spawning timing is in response to the local temperature and water flow regimes (Myers et
al. 1998). After spawning, females remain on the redd from 4 to 26 days until they die or
become too weak to hold in the current (Neilson and Banford 1983). During this period,
females will vigorously defend the redd against the spawning activity of newly arriving
fish. Duration of incubation varies, depending on location of redds, but is generally
completed by the end of February. Young chinook reside in stream gravels for 2 to 3
weeks after hatching (Wydoski and Whitney 1979) before moving to lateral stream
habitats (e.g., sloughs, side channels, and pools) for refugia and food during their
migration downstream and out to Puget Sound. Peak emigration occurs from March to
June.

Chinook have been have been highly valued by indigenous peoples since time
immemorial, and commercially harvested since the mid-nineteenth century. Several
anthropogenic factors have contributed to the decline of Puget Sound chinook stocks.
Agricultural diking and the removal of large woody debris along with sources of its
recruitment are most often implicated as the primary causes of habitat degradation in the
Stillaguamish Basin (NMFS 1998, WDFW and Washington Treaty Tribes 1994).

Designated critical habitat for the Puget Sound ESU Chinook includes all marine,
estuarine and river reaches accessible to the species in Puget Sound (NMFS 2000).
Critical habitat consists of the water, substrate, and the adjacent riparian zone of
accessible estuarine and riverine reaches. Excluded are areas above specific dams or
above longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for
at least several hundred years). Major river basins containing spawning and rearing
habitat for this ESU comprise approximately 13,761 mi? of Washington.

2.3.2. Bull Trout

The Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout population segment was listed as a threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (64 FR 16397), in October 1999.

Bull trout is a western North American char in the family Salmonidae. Bull trout
populations have declined through much of the species’ range; some local populations
are extinct, and many other stocks are isolated and may be at risk (Rieman and McIntyre
1993). Bull trout characteristically occupy high quality habitat, often in the less disturbed

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 31


habitats such as side channels. All of these components depend in part on characteristics
of the terrestrial system, such as continuity and quality of riparian plant communities and
floodplain wetlands. Therefore, the following general guidelines were adopted for
selecting and evaluating potential restoration projects:

= Projects should address local management objectives, which place the highest
priority on restoration efforts that‘will benefit salmonid populations. In addition, due
to the critical need to halt and reverse population declines among certain salmonids,
the selected projects should have some immediate benefits to fish in addition to
contributing to long-term ecosystem recovery.

= Projects should address basic ecosystem functions and processes, in that they focus
on habitat continuity, quality, and the restoration of systems that will be self-
sustaining.

= Projects should have clear benefits to a wide variety of other species in addition to
salmonids.

= Projects should involve engineering expertise traditionally associated with the Corps
(i.e., manipulation of hydrology and sediment).

= Projects selected for inclusion in the program must produce environmental benefits
that justify their cost. A cost effectiveness analysis must be conducted to ensure that
least cost alternatives are identified for various levels of environmental output; costs
and benefits may be calculated in both monetary and non-monetary terms. A final
group of candidate projects will be selected from cost-effective alternatives based on
the increment of environmental benefit relative to cost associated with each project.

5.2 Reconnaissance Study

As described in Section 1.3 of this document, a Reconnaissance Study entitled
Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration General Investigation was completed in
December 1997. The purpose of this study was to examine the need for ecosystem
restoration in the Stillaguamish Basin; to identify potential projects; to determine the
federal interest in planning for such projects; and to assess the level of interest and
support of non-federal sponsors in the identified projects. Projects that were considered
appropriate for possible inclusion in a basin-wide restoration program were
recommended for further evaluation under a Feasibility Phase Study.

The Reconnaissance Study drew on a wide variety of information to identify sources of
ecosystem degradation and restoration options for the Stillaguamish River Basin. These
sources include an extensive body of published literature, resource studies conducted by
local, tribal, state, and federal agencies, and the knowledge and recommendations of
resource managers working in the basin. Agencies represented on the Reconnaissance
Study team included: Snohomish County, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Forest Service, the Tulalip Tribe, the Stillaguamish Tribe, the Washington

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 63


These indirect emissions would be a very small fraction of the total airshed contaminant
burden during construction, with long-term indirect emissions to be significantly less.

Cumulative long-term (residual) air quality is expected to improve from implementing
any of the proposed restorations through extensive plantings. Oxygen production may
increase. Construction activities are not expected to contribute any increase in criteria
pollutant emissions. .

Indirect impacts include those that may be attributed to the proposed action but are
further removed in time or distance from the direct effects. Such impacts to land use and
aesthetics are not anticipated to result from any of the alternatives, particularly since no
significant direct effects to this resource are anticipated.

Carefully coordinated design and monitoring should make detrimental cumulative
environmental impacts insignificant, including those resulting from the incremental
impacts of the project. Since other habitat restoration or-environmental remediation
projects, land development or redevelopment activities, and the local governmental plans
or policies would also be regulated by the same federal and state land planning and
management regulations, it is unlikely that there would be adverse cumulative effects.
Indeed, local ordinances, policies, and plans stress the importance of integrated efforts for
the preservation and restoration of the area’s vital natural resources. Therefore, there are
no known actions, or current or future proposals, from which significant cumulative
impact to land use or aesthetics could result in the study area.

Due to the fact that the potential for direct impacts upon utilities and public services from
any of the discussed alternatives is small, any chance of additional substantive, direct,
indirect, or cumulative impacts should also be remote.

Since none of the action altemnatives are proposed to be conducted in areas designated for
housing, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on population and housing should be
negligible. Since none of the action alternatives are proposed to be conducted in areas
designated for transportation projects, no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts on
transportation are expected.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 99


APPENDIX A

Draft Memorandum of Agreement between the
_ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation


Many details recorded about other tribes by anthropologists near the turn of the century,
such as village sites, are lacking for the Stillaguamish because they were not well studied
prior to Indian Claims Commission litigation in the 1950s. On the other hand, according
to Lane (1975), “Because many of the Stillaguamish remained on the ancestral lands and
continued their traditional modes of getting a living, local and traditional knowledge was
retained to a greater degree than would have been the case among descendents raised on a
reservation in the territory of another people.” It is known that the North Fork was the
location for most villages, although people probably used the South Fork for hunting;
archeologists have found evidence of a fish site below Granite Falls (Miss and Campbell,
1991). Like other Northwest Coast groups, the Stillaguamish River Basin people spent
winters in permanent villages consisting of from one to several large cedar plank houses,
each of which typically housed several families. The villages were located on rivers at
tributary confluences, on lakes, and on sheltered shorelines (Bruseth 1949; Dorsey 1927).
During the spring, summer, and fall, the village occupants split up into smaller groups
and moved to seasonal camps and resource locations to fish, hunt, and collect a variety of
resources as they became available. Temporary wood frame and mat shelters were
commonly used at these seasonal occupation sites. Although overland trails
supplemented travel between villages, camps, and resource locations, the river and its
tributaries provided efficient transportation routes through the densely forested territory.
Early accounts noted the skill with which the Stillaguamish poled dugout canoes upriver
and shot rapids on the return trip (Lane 1975).

Salmon was the most important element of the subsistence economy, but the
Stillaguamish exploited a wide variety of fish, shellfish, roots, bulbs and berries, and
mammals for use or trade (Nelson 1994). The Stillaguamish constructed fish weirs at
various places in the rivers to create a barrier and trapped, speared, or netted the fish as
they returned to spawning streams. According to James Dorsey (Quil-Que-Kadam), a
tribal member who was bom around 1850 and lived his entire life on the Stillaguamish
River, fish traps were located at most of the occupation sites along the river (Dorsey
1927). Marshy shores, meadows, and prairies provided habitat for large and small game
and contained edible roots, bulbs, and berries. Many of the prairies in the Puget
Lowlands noted by early settlers and shown on old maps, including some in the
Stillaguamish River Valley, were likely created and maintained by burning. Prehistoric
and historic tribal land use within the basin included cultivation of native plants such as
wild onion, Indian carrot, wapato, and possibly camas at Kent Prairie near Arlington.
The Stillaguamish, along with other tribes in the Puget Sound region, also cultivated
potatoes after they were introduced by the Hudson’s Bay Company and before the arrival
of most white settlers (Lane 1975). The Stillaguamish people also gathered edible roots at
Sauk Prairies in the Territory of the Sauk-Suiattle Indians.

Although early explorers estimated the locations of several villages in Stillaguamish
territory, the most complete and accurate inventory of occupation sites within the general
project area comes from James Dorsey’s affidavit submitted to the Indian Claims
Commission in 1927. According to Dorsey, a large village was located south of
Stanwood on present day Leque Peninsula (45SN1); two more on either side of the river
near Florence; one between Florence and Silvana; another south of the delta at Warm

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 41


6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED PLAN

This section of the Environmental Assessment evaluates the potential impact of the
preferred plan. The intent is to analyze both the positive and negative aspects that could
result if the preferred plan were implemented. Additional site-specific environmental
analysis would occur prior to construction of individual restoration projects. Project-
specific impacts would be evaluated as part of the environmental review/permitting
process for these projects.

For the purposes of this evaluation, the 13 proposed projects could be categorized into
seven broad types restoration activities. These different types of actions would generally
result in the same types of effects, both long term beneficial effects and short-term
construction-related effects. Therefore, these categories will be referred to in the brief
impact evaluation that follows. The categories are their corresponding projects are:

1) Estuarine Restoration: Port Susan, South Pass, Hat Slough

2) Off Channel Improvements: North Meander, South Meander, Confluence
3) Tributary Rehabilitation: Portage Creek, Cloverdale

4) Landslide Stabilization: Hazel Slide, Gold Basin Slide

5) Water Quality Improvements: Old Stillaguamish Channel :

6) Bankline Retrofitting: Maintenance Sites

7) Fish Passage: Koch Slough Weir

6.1 Physical Characteristics
6.1.1. Geology and Soils

Under the proposed plan there will be short-term impacts to soils which result from the
movement and use of construction equipment. The level of impact will vary from site to
site depending on location, current level of disturbance, soils type, presence of hard-
surfaced roads for access and other factors. Construction activities would result in
temporary disturbance to soils at the construction site, and soil compaction. Extensive
excavation would occur during construction of the tributary rehabilitation and off-channel
improvement projects. Most of the projects involving LWD structures would also result
in bed and bank disturbances. Depending on the project, this material would either be
repositioned on the site, or taken off-site for disposal. Long-term impacts to soils would
be associated with the ongoing function of the restoration activities. Since the
Stillaguamish River system is dynamic, the movement of alluvium exposed to river flows
will continue over the long term. The effects of specific restorations will be site-
dependent and will be determined and minimized through site-specific design of projects.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 82


1.4.1. Hydrology and Geomorphology

There have been significant changes in the way water moves through and within the
Stillaguamish basin, the morphology and distribution of channels, and the recruitment,
movement, and storage of sediments. The complex interrelationships among these
factors, and the influence of human activities and changes in plant/animal populations,
are currently the subject of a major study on patterns of historic change in the
Stillaguamish Basin (Collins 1997.). Some of the major anthropogenic changes to basin
hydrology and geomorphology are discussed below.

Channel condition has changed significantly in some places (Collins 1997). Both
aggradation and degradation have been observed in various locations, channel widths and
the occurrence of in-stream islands have been modified, and certain channel segments
and tributaries have been substantially re-aligned or structurally modified. Major .
structural intervention has included the extensive diking of the lower mainstem,
numerous revetment projects, and the installation of a weir across the mouth of Cook
Slough in 1939. Each of these actions was designed specifically to modify the way water
moves and is stored within the channel system and floodplain. Diking of the tidally-
influenced portion of the mainstem eliminated an extensive network of tidal blind
channels, and other mainstem diking and bank work effectively isolated floodplains and
sloughs from the river at all flows except major flood events. Loss of large woody debris
had a major influence on in-channel processes. In addition to having direct effects on
terrestrial and aquatic habitat condition and availability, splash-damming, channel
snagging, and riparian logging may have contributed to channel downcutting (Collins
1997).

Sediment recruitment, storage, and movement are a particularly complex issue. Gravel
mining within basin channels has had direct effects, along with probable indirect
influences offsite. Sediment inputs are naturally high in many areas due to the inherent
instability of soils and lacustrine parent materials on steep slopes. However, some major
slides appear to be related to land management actions. Major slide areas and sediment
sources in recent decades include the DeForest Creek slide in the Deer Creek basin on the
North Fork, the Hazel slide on the North Fork, and the Gold Basin slide on the South
Fork.

The changes in hydrology, channel behavior, and sediment movement described above
have differentially influenced various portions of the basin. However, the lower
mainstem reaches and its associated floodplain have undergone the most dramatic
alterations. The fundamental dynamic nature of the lower river has been largely arrested,
particularly with regard to hydrologic connectivity between the channel and floodplain,
and with regard to channel migration. This simplification and stabilization of the system,
in turn, has had direct and indirect adverse consequences for native plant communities
and fish and wildlife habitats (Collins 1997).

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page3


12. CONCLUSIONS...

6.1.4. Water Quality......cccsecsssssessees
6.2 Natural Resources.
6.2.1. Vegetation.
6.2.2. Fisheries
6.2.3. Wildlife.
6.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
6.4 Cultural Resources..........000
6.5 Socio-Economic Resources .
6.6 Hazardous and Toxic Waste:
6.7 Conclusions

Di, MOINTRORING 6a cpczssccces cssscccasayssassccsctsusaespssnsassotce Sasbsessoueceonasa goipaaiseaig otasiyoes 96

8: (CUMUBATIVE BEEECTS sscsssscsscesciarassneissscuissiesnntsaracssecth cna ntbaa ee Keene 98

9. SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

10. IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE RESOURCES ...cssssessessssesssssesessneesee 100

11. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE... svnnsntnnnnsinstsinennnninnnee 101
11.1 Compliance with Environmental Statutes.. wo OL

11.1.1. National Environmental Policy Act
11.1.2. State Environmental Policy Act.

11.1.3. Endangered Species Act...... 102
11.1.4. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. 102
11.1.5. Clean Water ACt.......sssscssssssses 103
11.1.6. Coastal Zone Management Act. 103
T1172; Clean Air Acts sssssssctsscssessscesscss 104
11.1.8. National Historic Preservation Act.. 105
11.1.9. Washington State Hydraulic Code... 105

11.1.10 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justic:
11.1.11 Native American Coordination.

13. RERERENCES osccccssssncsosvsessvssssnivonssunesasonsscesasuisenssonecisssslnusestsnessonasesnenss tenestscensusene 114

APPENDIX A Draft Cultural Resources Memorandum of Agreement
APPENDIX B Distribution List

APPENDIX C Comment Letters

APPENDIX D Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report
APPENDIX E Finding of No Significant Impact

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page iv




Most level areas in [Snohomish County], excluding the lowest river
floodplains and terraces, consist of outwash plain or glacial till. They are
post-glacial surfaces with little Holocene sediment accumulation.
Archaeological sites on these landforms may be of any age and are not
deeply buried.

If humans were in the region during the brief marine transgression between
12,500 and 11,000 years ago, some of their activities may have been
associated with shorelines higher than today’s. [The 500 ft (150 m) contour
of project area topographic maps provides an approximation of such a
shoreline.] Old terraces may be found at the foot of the mountains and on
the margins of a few prominent glacial till features.

Marine shorelines dating from 5,000 to 9,000 years ago are presently
submerged, probably eliminating a significant portion of the prehistoric
record. Sites associated with the present shoreline are likely to be younger
than 5,000 years. Older marine sites may be found along shorelines backed
by steep glacial landforms formed by till and outwash. Marine terraces may
also be found inland among the major river valleys where sea water

preceded valley fill.

Alluvial accumulation in the Stillaguamish and Snohomish valley bottoms is
extensive but the rate of progradation is unknown. Ages of sites in this setting
should decrease toward the river mouth. Sites also have the potential to be deeply
buried, and if waterlogged, to contain well preserved organic artifacts.

Prehistory. Use of the Stillaguamish River Basin by humans is believed to have occurred
soon after the retreat of the Pleistocene glaciers around 12,000 years ago. The earliest
regional evidence of human occupation consists of a small number of fluted Clovis or
Clovis-like projectile points characteristic of the period between 12,000-11,000 years
ago, and Olcott sites, thought to represent a period of occupation prior to development of
marine-oriented Northwest cultures. The Olcott Site (45SN14), located on an old
Stillaguamish terrace, serves as the type site for a basalt tool industry believed by some to
date between 8,000 and 5,000 years ago. Olcott assemblages are characterized by tools
manufactured from locally obtained cobbles, including large leaf-shaped and stemmed
points, and cobble and flake tools. Features are rarely encountered at these sites and, due
to poor preservation conditions, plant and animal remains have not been found. The
interpretation of the Olcott Phase as representative of early settlement in western
Washington is not universally accepted because researchers have yet to associate absolute
dates (e.g., carbon-14 samples) with the Olcott assemblages. The early dates assigned to
Olcott sites are based on their location on old landforms and the fact that Olcott-type
artifacts have been dated at between 8,000 and 5,000 years ago when located in stratified
sites near Canada’s Fraser River. Some, however, have pointed out that Olcott-style
artifacts have been located at datable younger sites and the assemblages may have a
functional derivation and thus are not temporally distinctive.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration : November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 38


5.3 Recommended Plan

Those projects that received the highest RER scores were selected for inclusion in the
recommended plan. The following section discusses individual projects proposed under
the recommended plan; the locations of these projects can be found in Figures 5, 6, and
7. However, not all of these projects may be built as a result of real estate issues,
extensive costs, or a lack of local sponsorship. The proposed construction schedule for
these projects is over the next ten years.

5.3.1. Port Susan

This project consists of twelve sites located in the estuarine portion of Port Susan Bay
near the mouth of Hat Slough (T31N R3E). The sites are scattered throughout the
tideflats in the eastern portion of the Bay.

The purpose of the project is to increase habitat diversity and complexity in the estuary
by creating intertidal marsh habitat. Historically, Port Susan Bay had a large and diverse
array of estuarine habitats, such as vegetated shallows, extensive mudflats, and fringing
marshlands. As early as the 1870s sea dikes were constructed at the land-water interface
in an effort to convert marshes to agricultural land. This conversion, while eliminating
tidally-influenced wetlands and sloughs, did not alter the tideflats on the exterior of the
sea dikes. Presently, there are uncharacteristically wide expanses of flats interspersed
with just a few marsh islands in the southeastern portion of the bay. While mudflats
provide many benefits to fish and wildlife, most notably benthic and epibenthic

* production, this area could benefit from additional marshland. Nutrient export to the
mudflats could make them more productive, and marshes would provide refuge from
predators. Pls, more marsh would add to both the species diversity and habitat
complexity in the area.

Each of the twelve sites would be occupied by a barge with a clamshell dredge at high
tide. The equipment would be held in place and work would commence at low tide. The
dredge would excavate a large hole, into which large pieces of wood (30’ dbh with root
wads) would be placed. The wood would be interwoven so that key members meshed
forming a “V” shape with the root wads facing out. The material that was excavated
would be placed back into the hole and also on top of the wood, along with some large
rock, to hold the cribs in place. Several stacked members (20’ dbh) would be placed on
top of the structure to capture sediment. Much of the structure would be buried, but
several key members would be exposed and the top of the structure would be-at an
elevation of +10 MLLW. If the final elevations were suitable, estuarine emergent
vegetation would be planted.

This pilot project would test two hypotheses: (1) can interlocked large woody debris be
used to trap sediment coming out of Hat Slough and raise the bed elevation to that which
supports intertidal marsh habitat, and (2) do suitable scour channels form on the bayward
side of the structures to allow juvenile salmonids access the area at low tide. Since this
project is experimental in nature we intend to develop a monitoring plan to test our
assumptions,

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 69


basin, between RM 8.25 and 22. Twenty-one of the maintenance sites are on the
mainstem Stillaguamish, while five are located on Cook Slough.

The Corps currently maintains these sites by brushing and/or cutting down small trees,
and placing riprap for bank stabilization. There are also several sites that are maintained
by Snohomish County and the State of Washington. Very little or no maintenance is
currently being performed these sites!

This project seeks to restore and enhance channel complexity and riparian habitat on the
26 sites maintained by the Corps of Engineers by modifying maintenance procedures or,
in some cases, eliminating maintenance entirely. When an existing bank has become
oversteepened as a result of undercutting, accepted bioengineering alternatives for bank
protection would be implemented. The new measures would provide more riparian edge
than is currently present. These actions should help to reintroduce habitat features that
have been missing since the mid 1930s into this reach of the river.

5.3.9. Koch Slough Weir

The project site is located in the Stillaguamish’s lower basin, on Koch Slough
approximately 1800 feet downstream of the Interstate-5 crossing of the Stillaguamish
River. The weir is located immediately downstream from where the mainstem
Stillaguainish forks to form Koch Slough (T31N R4E Section 2).

The Koch Slough weir, completed in 1937, was designed to keep adequate flows in both
the mainstem Stillaguamish and Koch Slough, and to reduce backwater during flood
events. The weir was repaired and modified several times during the 1980s and 1990s in
efforts to improve fish passage and maintain structural integrity. However, upstream
salmonid migrants, particularly pink salmon, have difficulty passing through the existing
ladder during low flows.

This project involves construction of a new fishway on the existing weir. The proposed
design was developed by Ken Bates of WDFW to function over a wide range of flows.
This “pool and chute fishway” acts as a pool-weir fishway during low flows, when flow
plunges and dissipates in pools. During high flows, the fishway acts as a hybrid between
a pool-weir fishway and a roughened chute structure, creating streaming flow conditions
down the center of the fishway. The new fishway would be keyed into the weir crest,
near the center of the weir to minimize potential poaching. Prior to construction,
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses would be performed to insure that species-specific fish
velocity criteria and flooding constraints are met.

Two sheet pile coffer dams (approximately 50’ x 50’ each) would be installed upstream
and downstream of the weir so that construction can occur in the dry. Construction
would occur during summer low flow months outside of migration periods, as specified
by WDFW. Construction would require the placement of clean, washed quarry spalls in
the Slough to provide temporary vehicle access to the weir during construction. This
material would be removed upon project completion.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 77


Final Environmental Assessment

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration
Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Authority

Snohomish County, Washington
November 2000

US Army Corps
of Engineers®
Seattle District



Wildlife Service (USFWS) habitat surveys evaluating the likely impacts of proposed
actions, which provide the basis for recommendations for avoiding or minimizing such
impacts.

Coordination with USFWS has been ongoing throughout the study process. During the
initial phase of study USFWS provided a Planning Aid letter that was supportive of the
restoration program. In September 2000, the USFWS provided a Coordination Act
Report (CAR) that further discussed fish and wildlife issues and recommendations. The
Final CAR can be found in Appendix D. In the CAR, the USFWS offered their general
support to the restoration program. They had a few questions on specifics of two projects
which will need to be clarified later in the planning process. The USFWS is also a
member of the technical committee that is involved in planning of the restoration
activities. Their involvement in the committee is expected to continue thought the life of
the project.

11.1.5. Clean Water Act

Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a permit’ is required for the
discharges of dredged or fill material into water of the United States. Waters of the
United States is defined to include wetlands. Site or project specific compliance under
Section 404 will occur prior to any construction.

Under Section 401 of the CWA, a Water Quality Certification is required for activities
requiring a federal license or permit, which may result in any discharge into the navigable
waters. The certification, issued by the State of Washington Department of Ecology,
ensures that the discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 301,
302, 303, 306 and 307 of the CWA. In order to obtain the required certification, the State
of Washington may require a water quality modification.

11.1.6. Coastal Zone Management Act

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended requires Federal agencies to
carry out their activities in a manner which is consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved Washington Coastal Zone
Management (CZM) Program. The Shoreline Management Act of 1972 (RCW 90.58) is
the core of authority of Washington’s CZM Program. -Primary responsibility for the
implementation of the SMA is assigned to local government. Snohomish County
implemented the SMA through the preparation of a Shoreline Master Program, which
was approved by the Department of Ecology on December 27, 1974.

Copies of the Draft EA and Draft Restoration Plan have been provided to the Department

of Ecology and Snohomish County. Evaluation of coastal zone consistency will be
performed during project-specific permitting processes.

2 If the lead agency for a project is the Corps of Engineers, a permit is not issued. Instead Corps staff
prepares a 404 evaluation, which demonstrates compliance with the substantive requirements of the CWA.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 103 .


Senator Patty Murray
173 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510 — 4704

Senator Slade Gorton
730 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510

Congressman Jack Metcalf
1510 Longworth HOB
Washington DC 20515

Senator Val Stevens (39")
105 Irv Newhouse Building
PO Box 40439

Olympia 98504-0439

Representative John Koster 9")
414 John L. O’Brien Building
Olympia Wa 98504-0600

Representative Aaron Reardon (38")
317 John L. O’Brien Building
Olympia Wa 98504-0600

Senator Mary Margaret Haugen (10%)
Senate Office

437 John A. Cherberg Building
Olympia WA 98504-0482

Senator Patty Murray

2988 Jackson Federal Building
915 Second Avenue

Seattle WA 98174

Senator Slade Gorton
11120 Gravelley Lake Dr. SW #8
Lakewood WA 98499

Congressman Jack Metcalf
2930 Wetmore Ave #9E
Everett WA 98201

Representative Hans Dunshee (39)
3298 John L. O’Brien Building
Olympia Wa 98504-0600

Senator Jeri Costa (38)

Senate Office

432 John A. Cherberg Building
Olympia WA 98504-0482

Representative Pat Scott (38")
414 Legislative Building
Olympia WA 98504-0600

Representative David Anderson (1 0”)
338 John L. O’Brien Building
Olympia Wa 98504-0600


3.4 Alternative 3: Single-Species Restoration
3.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..
4.1 Physical Characteristics .
4.1.1. Geology.
4.1.2. Climate..
4.1.3.
4.1.4.
4.1.5.
4.1.6.

— Wildlife
4.3 Threatened an:

4.5 Socio-Economic Resources
4.6 Hazardous and Toxic Wastes.
4.7 Conclusions

5. PLAN FORMULATION
5.1 Plan and Criteria Development...
5.2 Reconnaissance Study.........

5.2.1. Initial Project Identification...
5.2.2. Project Evaluatio
5.3, Recommended Plan
5.3.1. Port Susan...
5.3.2. South Pass
5.3.3. Hat Slough...
5.3.4. Old Stillaguamish Channel
5.3.5. Confluence.......
5.3.6. North Meander
5.3.7. South Meander
5.3.8. 26 Maintenance Sit
5.3.9. Koch Slough Weir ..
5.3.10. Portage Creek...
5.3.11. Cloverdale
5.3.12. Hazel Slide.
5.3.13. Gold Basin Slide

6. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED PLAN.
6.1 Physical Characteristics .
6.1.1. Geology and Soils...

6.1.2. Climate......seecsseee 83
GAB: HYGrOlOgY’ sisesssssseaseniasancsscatespeavsinasenteoseasntasrastanssansesrsnsshansetsswnspaseascisenetecieates 83
Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000

Final Environmental Assessment Page iii


11.1.7, Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act required states to develop plans, called.State implementation plans
(SIP), for eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) while achieving expeditious attainment of the
NAAQS. The Act also required Federal actions to conform to the appropriate SIP. An
action that conforms with a SIP is defined as an action that will not: (1) cause or
contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area; (2) increase the frequency or
severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area; or (3) delay timely
attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other
milestones in any area.

Under the Federal General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Parts 6, 51, and 93), direct and
indirect air pollutant emissions that are generated within a nonattainment area or a
maintenance area as a result of a federal action are regulated. Because the activities
proposed by this project would constitute actions by one or more federal agencies, the
activities would need to be considered for conformity with the State Implementation Plan
(SIP). Portions of the project area lie within the nonattainment area for particulate matter
(PM-10) and maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone. As precursors to
ozone, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrous oxides (NOx) are the regulated
air pollutants that are subject to conformity within an ozone maintenance area.

Typical activities anticipated for restoration projects whose emissions (including carbon
monoxide, particulates, volatile organic compounds, and nitrous oxides) would need to be
included in the conformity analysis include, but are not limited to, those mentioned
above. Activities would need to be specified according to location (inside or outside the
nonattainment/maintenance area boundaries), type of equipment, and hours of operation.
From these data, total emission estimates for each of the criteria pollutants (CO, PM-10,
VOCs, and NOx) can be estimated using EPA emission equations and models.

If none of the applicable threshold values are exceeded, the projects are not subject to
further conformity analysis under the SIP. If one or more of the threshold values is
exceeded, measures to offset, mitigate, or otherwise reduce the emissions must be
identified so that there is no net increase in the emissions of that particular pollutant.

The types of projects anticipated are far smaller than highway construction, port
dredging, or commercial development projects. The sites where restoration construction
projects are anticipated to occur are limited in size and the construction duration would
generally be limited. In general, approximately one to three projects per year might be
implemented under this program, not all of which would involve physical construction
activities (e.g., land clearing, construction vehicles, etc.). As a result, it is unlikely that
annual emissions for these projects will exceed the applicable annual thresholds.
Nonetheless, as the projects are specified and scheduled, the annual emission estimate
calculations must be performed to verify that the conformity thresholds are not exceeded.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 104


Anadromous Fish

Chinook Salmon Fishery experts consider the summer and fall chinook found in the
Stillaguamish River as two distinct stocks within a single population. Chinook
populations enter the river beginning in mid-July and spawn from mid-August through
October. The summer stock generally spawns in September in the North Fork, while the
fall stock usually spawns in October in the mainstem and South Fork (WDFW and
WWTIT 1994). Juvenile chinook rear throughout the river system. Fry spend from one
to five months in fresh water before migrating to the estuary. Outmigration for both
stocks occurs from mid-March through June, though a small percentage (less than 10%),
of stream type chinook rear for one year (WSCC 1999). Stillaguamish chinook stocks,
along with all of the Puget Sound chinook stocks, were designated as threatened under
the Endangered Species Act in March 1999.

Coho Salmon Two distinct coho stocks are present in the Stillaguamish Basin:
Stillaguamish and Deer Creek (WDFW and WWTIT 1994). The former is considered a
mixture of native and non-native fish because of releases of hatchery coho from the early
1950s to 1981; the later is a native stock. Coho return to the Stillaguamish in September
and October, and generally spawn in smaller streams with stable streamflow and gravel-
sized substrate from mid-November through January. Coho fry emerge in March and
April, and spend a full year in the watershed before migrating as smolts to salt water.
Juvenile coho rear throughout the watershed, preferring quiet waters such as side
channels, stream margins, and beaver ponds (WSCC 1999). Stillaguamish coho stocks,
along with all of the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia coho stocks, were designated as a
candidate species under the Endangered Species Act in March 1999. :

Chum Salmon The SASSI divides Stillaguamish River chum salmon into North Fork and
South Fork stocks. Stillaguamish chum are believed to be native in origin, however
Grays Harbor chum were introduced in 1916. Chum enter the river from September
through December, with the most movement occurring in early to mid-November.
Spawning occurs from mid-October through December. Chum prefer to spawn in the
upper North Fork, lower South Fork, in side channels, and in larger tributary streams.
Chum fry emerge in March through May, then leave the freshwater system almost
immediately. Juvenile chum may linger in the estuary for up to three months before
migrating into Puget Sound. The 1992 SASSI classified this stock as healthy.

Pink Salmon Stillaguamish pink salmon are also divided into North and South Fork
stocks by the SASSI. These stocks are considered to be native; there is no record of
hatchery introductions. Pinks enter the river from early August to early October, with a
peak run in the South Fork in September. Spawning begins in late September and
continues through October, peaking in mid-October. Pinks spawn throughout the entire
North Fork, on the South Fork as far as Granite Falls, and in the larger tributaries in odd
years. Even year returns of pink salmon are negligible. The SASSI considers the pink
salmon to be native to the Stillaguamish and has recorded no hatchery interactions. The
1992 SASSI classified pink stocks as healthy, however, a consistent decline in the stocks’
body size has been noted.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 26


Any actions that could result in an increase in sedimentation, turbidity or any other
project-specific adverse water quality impacts will be addressed during the permitting
process on a site-specific basis. The impacts resulting from construction activities will be
mitigated through techniques such as the use of sediment curtains or other technologies
designed to reduce sediment transport. Construction equipment will be monitored to
ensure diesel, gas, or oil is not released into waters at or adjacent to the project site.
When considered within the context of all the other activities in the watershed that
continue to degrade Stillaguamish River water quality, the small scale and short duration
of potential restoration construction activities would not result in significant effects to
this resource. Water quality would be expected to improve in the long term as the
function of the restoration projects increase, particularly for those activities designed to
increase streamside vegetation, bank stability, and flows in stagnant side channels.
Streamside planting and protection of riparian zones would further provide filtration of
overland surface water movement and water quality protection, as well as improvements
to stream temperatures due to increased shading.

Mitigation Measures:

= Procedures will be developed for flagging sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands, sensitive
plants, cultural resources, etc.) and utilities off-limits to construction. Best
Management Practices (BMPs) relevant to the operation of heavy equipment at
restoration sites will be implemented to minimize impacts of soil compaction, stream
crossings, construction access roads and staging areas, stockpiling of soil and
construction materials, sanitation, and excavation, and maintenance of equipment
(i.e., refueling, etc.).

= Set erosion control fences, and stabilized construction entrance.

= Connections to the river will be made last. Work will occur behind a berm and in the
dry for as long as practicable.

= In water work will be coordinated with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
to reduce the potential impacts on migratory salmonids.

= Cover newly exposed surfaces with straw or other suitable material to limit erosion.
= Remove all spoil piles.

« Rehabilitate staging area and other disturbed areas outside of channel construction
area.

= Remove temporary erosion control features, such as silt fences, straw bales, and
stabilized construction entrances, upon completion of construction.

= Check roadway for dirt tracking and clean roadway at a minimum of weekly

«  Vegetate area of construction with native plants upon the completion of construction.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 84


Conveyance in the remainder of the ditches would be reduced using LWD and soil plugs.
Existing drainage tile would be removed throughout the site. LWD would also be placed
to direct flow along the new main channel. A network of dendrites branching out from
the new channel would be constructed to provide a means of fish egress as water levels
drop. The entire project boundary within the upper reach (approximately 120 acres)
would be planted with forested wetland species to restore high-quality salmonid rearing
and wildlife habitat. Only native species (no hybrids or horticultural varieties), such as
Sitka spruce, westem red cedar, Pacific crabapple, red alder, red osier dogwood,
hemlock, Pacific ninebark, currant, and thimbleberry, would be planted. Non-native
species currently present at the site, such as reed canary grass and poison hemlock, would
be removed per applicable Snohomish County and Natural Resource Conservation
Service guidelines prior to planting. Snohomish County plans to construct a segment of
the Centennial Trail along the alignment of a former farm road, which roughly bisects the
site. A 10’ diameter (approximate) culvert would be installed where the trail crosses the
new Portage Creek channel.

5.3.11. Cloverdale

The ¢ Cloverdale Farm site is located in the North Fork basin, off of State Route 530 and
115" Avenue NE in the Trafton area of Snohomish County (T32N R6E Section 30). The
site includes the former Cloverdale Farm, which was recently acquired by Snohomish
County, and a grazed pasture that is under private ownership.

A small-unnamed tributary of the North Fork Stillaguamish runs between the Cloverdale
Farm, which was briefly a public golf course, and a field where livestock graze. This
creek is partially ditched and lacks riparian cover; however, there is evidence of coho
spawning and overwintering in this stream. The tributary enters the site from a culvert
under State Route 530 and then runs north through a wooded ravine. The tributary then
enters the grazed pasture, where the landowner has redirected it off his property, east
towards a wetland zone on the County’s land. The tributary continues through the
wetland area until it reaches an abandoned Burlington Northem Railroad embankment at
the site’s northwest boundary. At this point, the tributary flows west through a channel
that runs parallel to the embankment until it reaches the North Fork Stillaguamish River.
Some flow occurs, through a culvert, between the tributary and a small egress channel on
the north side of the railroad embankment; this culvert is known to strand fish. The
landowner has excavated a narrow, straight ditch through his pasture to promote drainage
of the property after winter and spring flooding events. This ditch is in the approximate
location of the former tributary channel. Under the current hydrologic scheme,
groundwater is collected and conveyed too effectively to support the conditions that
would provide adequate salmonid rearing habitat.

The primary project objective at the Cloverdale site is to restore forested wetland rearing
habitat that connects to upstream spawning habitat and the North Fork Stillaguamish. A
portion of the privately owned grazing area would be acquired, then the existing drainage
ditch would be filled and a meandering channel would be excavated. A riparian buffer,
ranging from 150’ to 400’ in width, would then be established. Only native species (no

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 79


management activities (principally logging) on federal and private lands in the upper
basin. These activities have no significant relationship to the past actions and current
responsibilities of the Corps. Therefore, most of the restoration actions considered here
involve the mainstem portion of the river. Several proposed actions concern tributaries to
the North and South Forks, but they are clearly related to hydrologic issues traditionally
within the purview of the Corps.

1.5 Prior Studies and Reports

A variety of resources were consulted in order to identify potential projects suitable for
inclusion in the General Investigation. These include general reviews of processes that
determine habitat integrity in forested river basins (e.g. Abbe and Montgomery 1996,
Bilby and Ward 1989, Bilby et al. 1996, Bisson et al. 1987, Everest et al. 1987, Gregory
et al. 1991, Jorgensen 1990, Jorgensen and Mitsch 1989, Montgomery and Buffington
1993, Rosgen 1994, Schlosser 1991, Sedell et al 1990, Swanson et al. 1988), regional
scientific studies of critical factors influencing habitat quality in the river basins and
estuaries of western Washington (e.g. Beechie et al. 1994, Beechie et al. 1996, Simenstad
et al. 1991, Simenstad and Wissmar 1996), and studies specific to the Stillaguamish-basin
(e.g. Benda et al. 1992, Collins et al. 1994, Pess et. al. 1999, Collins 1997, Polloch 1998
and Pollach and Pess 1998)). Where information from these studies and reports is used
herein, they are included by reference.

In addition, a number of studies and analyses have been initiated in recent years
specifically to characterize the condition of the Stillaguamish Basin. These reports
identify factors limiting ecosystem function, and isolate potential restoration actions that
might substantially improve particular problem areas or deficiencies. The materials
discussed below served as a starting point for project identification.

Puget Sound Wetland Restoration Program (Stillaguamish Basin Project)

This project is being conducted by the Washington State Department of Ecology, with
support from EPA, the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, and NOAA, and with
the participation of various governmental agencies, tribes, groups, and individuals. The
project consists of a large-scale watershed analysis intended to identify and prioritize
wetland restoration opportunities based on their potential to address losses of critical
wetland functions and related problems such as flooding, depressed salmon populations,
degraded water quality, and loss of wildlife habitat. Resources incorporated into the
project Geographic Information System include soils, wetland inventory, surficial
geology, and similar attributes. The project database includes approximately 1600
specific candidate restoration sites and associated characteristics suitable for use in
developing analyses of restoration potential, functional potential, and rankings of sites
within specific areas or to meet specific functional restoration objectives.

Stillaguamish Implementation Review Committee, Restoration Subcommittee

The Stillaguamish Implementation Review Committee (SIRC) is a group of citizens and
agency representatives responsible for coordinating implementation of water quality
improvement actioris recommended in a Watershed A lan developed in 1990. The
Restoration Subcommittee developed a draft set of su':-’-»-'n condition summaries and

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page7


The goals of this alternative are to implement capital improvement projects that would
assist in increasing chinook populations in the Stillaguamish Basin in a manner consistent
with regulatory requirements. These capital improvements would focus on improving
life cycle requirements for the salmon within the Stillaguamish River Watershed and Port
Susan Estuary. Restoration activities would be designed to increase the critical spawning
and rearing habitat for and the number and/or distribution of chinook salmon.

Under this alternative, resource information on Stillaguamish River chinook salmon
(historic condition, current distribution and population, life history, habitat needs and
population genetics) would continue to be gathered to further improve the restoration
projects.

This alternative would be implemented through the Stillaguamish River Ecosystem
Restoration Program administered jointly by the Corps of Engineers and Snohomish
County. Snohomish County would be the local sponsor for various Corps projects. The
public, local, state, federal and tribal groups would be solicited to identify potential
projects. A technical committee would use the project selection criteria to evaluate
projects submitted by the various agencies and groups. After evaluation and ranking of
projects, a feasibility analysis of the top-rated projects would be conducted. The
feasibility analysis would include design, cost, permitting, access, and land purchase
factors. All projects would also have to go through an incremental cost analysis to
provide the economic justification for the proposed project.

Under this alternative, the geographic focus will be at the north and south forks, the lower
mainstem and Port Susan, with the intent to manage restoration based on the total
resource need rather than through individual programs as would be the case under the No
Action Alternative.

Examples of activities that might be conducted as part of Alternative 3 could include:

= Constructing artificial spawning channels by excavating new channels at various
places along the north and south forks.

=. Construction of hatcheries for chinook salmon.
« Levee removal and construction intertidal sloughs in Port Susan Bay.

= Construction of off-channel rearing areas for chinook smolts along the mainstem.

Under this alternative, monitoring of restorations and restoration success would be
accomplished from a watershed (ecosystem) approach, and utilizing the monitoring
protocol and GIS database program developed as a part of the Reconnaissance Study.
The monitoring plan would be based on the program goals and objectives, chinook use at
the project sites, overall chinook population trends in the Stillaguamish Basin, and
measurable improvements to chinook habitat components at the project sites. The timing
of construction of projects under this alternative would occur over a ten-year period.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration ‘November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 50


« Significant modifications to an approved work plan must be reviewed for cultural
and historic resources if new disturbance to native sediments is included.
Modifications must be approved before the work can be carried out or continued.
This would include changes requiring modifications of permits, or alterations to the
scope or intent of the project.

= Minimize the total construction area disturbed by clearing.

= Avoid use of heavy equipment and techniques that will result in excessive
disturbance.

= Flag cultural and historic resources prior to construction, and monitor construction
activities to ensure flagged properties are avoided.

= Have an onsite inspector who is familiar with how to address cultural resource
issues.

= Monitoring should be performed within one year of project completion to ensure that
restoration activities implemented at individual sites do not create unintended
consequences for cultural and historic resources in the vicinity of the projects.

6.5 Socio-Economic Resources

The nature and scope of the restoration activities proposed under this plan preclude
significant, basin-wide socio-economic impacts from occurring. No splitting of
neighborhoods, isolation of ethnic groups, or separation of area residents from
community facilities would occur. Property values should not decrease, and the
economic health of area businesses should not be adversely impacted.

Aesthetic qualities of the Stillaguamish Basin would not be significantly affected by any
of the proposed projects. Minor changes to views in localized areas and the temporary
presence of construction vehicle would occur in the short term. The planting of riparian
vegetation that would occur with the off-channel improvements, tributary rehabilitation,
and bankline retrofitting projects may create a more natural appearaiice, thereby
improving aesthetic qualities.

Construction vehicles may temporarily disrupt local traffic. Public services may be
temporarily impacted by construction activities. The relatively high-risk nature of heavy
construction may increase the likelihood of medical services being required at individual
project sites. Construction equipment and careless smoking may increase the potential
for fires in the area, especially during the dry summer months. Potential adverse impacts
would not be expected to be significant. .

A variety of recreation uses occur in or near the Stillaguamish river. Fishing, swimming
and boating are the most common. Several of the projects include the placement of large

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 91


697

ens

CRN a re eS Pe OO er mee ee ane RC

i \ a ae
YIANVIW ‘HL aS, ia T /

YACNVAW HLNOS
HONOTS NOSAWOHL
~ HONOTS YOOD

uM
HONOTS YOOD

—

MARW) FIV.LAOd: A

- HONOTS YOOK'S
avoun
SALIS 97 \ yr
: ‘Ono S.
IT

FONANTINOD

mente SON € 4 L

FE)

ONVULNA ATILLS ATO
7 :
Ww /

HONOTS LVH WAL

JONVULN HOF

. ev L

SAdOT JAAHL

SSVd HINC



portions of a drainage. Necessary key habitat features include channel stability, clean
spawning substrate, abundant and complex cover, cold temperatures, and lack of barriers
inhibiting movement/habitat connectivity (Reiman and McIntyre, 1993). A combination
of factors including habitat degradation, expansion of non-native species, and over-
harvest are thought to have contributed to the decline and fragmentation of indigenous
bull trout populations.

Bull trout are known to exhibit four types of life history strategies. The three freshwater
forms are: (1) adfluvial, which migrate between lakes and streams, (2) fluvial, which
migrate within river systems, and (3) resident, which are non-migratory. The fourth
strategy, anadromy, occurs when the fish spawn in fresh water after rearing for some
portion of their life in the ocean.

Bull trout spawn during the fall, potentially from late August to mid-November.
Initiation of breeding appears to be related to declining water temperatures. In
Washington, Wydoski and Whitney (1979) reported spawning activity was most intense
at 5 to 6°C. Spawning occurs primarily at night. Groundwater influence and proximity
to cover are reported as important factors in spawning site selection. The period from
egg deposition to emergence from the gravel may take as long as 220+ days;
development is temperature dependent. Juvenile bull trout, particularly young of year,
have very specific habitat requirements. Small bull trout are primarily bottom-dwellers,
occupying positions above, on, or below the stream bottom. Bull trout fry are found in
shallow, slow backwater side channels or eddies. Migratory bull trout rear in tributary
streams for several years before migrating downstream into a larger river or lake to
mature (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). The adult bull trout, like its young, is a bottom
dweller, showing preference for deep pools of cold water rivers, lakes and reservoirs

(Moyle 1976).

_ 2.3.3. Coho Salmon

The Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU coho salmon was declared a candidate species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (64 FR 16397), in July 1995.
The Stillaguamish Basin is located in this ESU.

The life history and habitat requirements of coho are similar to chinook, except that coho
typically spawn in shallow tributary streams and usually spend more time rearing in fresh
water. After | or 2 years in ocean waters, adult coho return to their parent rivers
beginning in August, and begin to spawn in late October. Coho larvae spend 2 to 3
weeks absorbing the yolk sac in the gravels of the redd before they emerge. Juvenile
coho salmon then rear in freshwater for approximately 15 to 18 months prior to migrating
downstream to the ocean. Newly emergent fry usually congregate in schools in pools of
their natal stream. As coho grow they move into riffle habitat and aggressively defend
their territory, resulting in the displacement of excess juveniles downstream to less
favorable habitat (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). This aggréssive behavior may be an
important factor maintaining the numbers of juveniles within the carrying capacity of the
stream, and distributing juveniles more widely downstream. As territories are
established, individuals rear in selected areas of the stream and feed on drifting benthic

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 32


identifiable shoreline middens, these surveys often focused on ethnographically recorded
village sites (Miss and Campbell 1991). Researchers recorded some of the sites
originally visited by Harlan Smith around Stanwood and the lower Stillaguamish. During
this time, the lithic assemblage discovered by Leo Olcott on an old glacial outwash
terrace (45SN14) generated much interest in the “Olcott” or “Old Cordilleran” complex
described by Butler (1960). This prompted professional and amateur surveys to locate
more Olcott-type sites throughout the Puget Sound region and the list of sites recorded in
the early 1960s, especially in Snohomish County, reflects this bias. Since the 1970s and
the implementation of federal historic preservation mandates, professional archaeologists
have conducted numerous, but limited, project-related cultural resources assessments in
Snohomish County. The vast majority of these were small project and covered specific ©
APEs outside the current project area. Although no systematic cultural resources survey
has been conducted in the project area, Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc.
(NWAA) undertook an overview of prehistoric cultural resources within Snohomish
County and attempted to relocate 98 previously recorded prehistoric sites (Miss and
Campbell 1991). Unfortunately, two-thirds of the sites could not be relocated. In the
current project area, NWAA personnel attempted to revisit 45SN1 (Harlan Smith’s Shell-
heap #1 and the village site noted by Dorsey and Bruseth) on Leque Peninsula south of
Stanwood but were refused access by the land owner. The NWAA team also visited and
re-recorded badly disturbed 45SN2 (Smith’s Shell-heap #2) and relatively intact midden
45SN3, both north of Stanwood (Stenholm 1991a); 45SN308 near the confluence of
Pilchuck Creek and the Stillaguamish (Campbell 1991); 45SN65 north of the river east of
Arlington (Stenholm 1991b); 45SN33, a potential Olcott site east of the Stillaguamish
and Jim Creek confluence; and 45SN63, east of Arlington. Due to their focus on
prehistoric sites, Chris and Campbell did not examine historic sites associated with the
Hempel Creek homesite, sawmill and log flume, and Gold Basin town site around Gold
Basin Campground. Because landslide consolidation is being considered across the river
from the campground, these are the closest recorded sites to any of the proposed non-
levee restoration areas.

2.5 Socio-Economic Resources
2.5.1. Land and Shoreline Use

Please refer to Figure 4 for a land use/vegetation map of the Stillaguamish Basin. Land
along the mainstem and tributaries below Arlington is primarily in agricultural
production or urban development. In the larger population centers, industrial,
commercial, and residential land uses are common. The majority of this land is privately
owned. However, timber production can also be important in the larger tributaries (such
as Pilchuck Creek).

Most land along the South Fork and its tributaries, from Granite Falls to Arlington, is also
privately owned. This area is primarily agricultural, with a growing rural ‘hobby-farm’
population. The largest exception is the Jim Creek tributary which is almost entirely
within the Naval Réserve Station. On the South Fork above Granite Falls, timber
production is the most prevalent land use. The majority of the area is within the Mt.
Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, which is in U.S. Forest Service ownership. The

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmenta: Assessment Page 44


12. CONCLUSIONS

This Environmental Assessment has included an examination of all practicable
alternatives for meeting the goals and objectives of the Stillaguamish Ecosystem
Restoration Study. The selected program alternative, the multi-species approach, and its
associated projects are the most effective option that also meets the sponsor’s needs. The
proposed plan provides improved fish and wildlife benefits at a reasonable cost. The plan
is consistent with national policy, statutes and administrative directives. The plan has
been reviewed in light of overall public interest, which includes the views of the local
sponsor and interested agencies. As a result of the long construction timeframe—ten
years to complete all the projects—and the foregoing analysis, the projects contained in
this study are not considered to be major federal actions that will significantly affect the
quality of the human environment. Therefore, it has been determined that the preparation
of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Please reference the signed
“Finding of No Significant Impact” in Appendix E.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 113


« Improving estuarine habitat — intertidal habitat could be increased by removing or
breaching levees and allowing tidal inundation into areas that were formally blocked.
A variety of species could use these habitats for rearing.

= Reconnecting former river meanders back to the mainstem to provide off-channel-
rearing habitat.

= Moving the river away from on-going landslides.

= Increasing streamside vegetation - through planting along tributaries, especially the
Portage Creek area.

This alternative would be implemented through the Stillaguamish Ecosystem Restoration
Program administered jointly by the Corps of Engineers and Snohomish County.
Snohomish County would be the local sponsor for various Corps projects. Candidate
projects would be identified and evaluated by a panel of biologists and other technical
staff using evaluation criteria (i.e., an objective rationale for selecting the locations and
types of restorations). All projects would also be subject to an incremental cost analysis
to provide the economic justification for the proposed project. The timing of construction
of projects under this alternative would occur over a ten-year period. This alternative
would rely upon willing landowners; real estate actions would be accomplished through
easements and-fee simple purchase. Under this alternative, monitoring of restorations
and restoration success would be accomplished from a watershed (ecosystem) approach,
utilizing the monitoring protocol and GIS database program developed as a part of the
Reconnaissance Study.

3.4 Alternative 3: Single-Species Restoration

This alternative focuses on restoring fish habitat to benefit a single species—ESA-listed
chinook salmon or bull trout, for example—rather than a multi-species restoration
approach.

Over the past several decades, effort has been focused on improving specific plant and
animal species populations and habitats under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Recovery plans have been developed and implemented for such ESA-listed species such
as the bald eagle, grizzly bear, northern spotted owl, and marbled murrelet. In March
1999, NMFS listed the chinook salmon as threatened. As a result, programs are currently
underway to address the restoration of the species under ESA. This species would likely
be the one selected as the target species for a Federal restoration program.

The single-species alternative is not meant to comply with all legal implications
associated with recovery under the ESA, but rather address the actions that could be
accomplished under a voluntary restoration effort focusing on habitat improvements that
benefit chinook salmon. The program would not address all of the chinook recovery
needs but would make a significant improvement over current conditions.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 49


To: Pat Cagney
From: George Pess
RE: comments on the Draft EA for the Stillaguamish River

General comments —

I reviewed your document and concur with the preferred alternative of a multi-species
approach. I support most of the restoration projects you identified and most of the design
alternatives, but would change the order of the prioritized list of some of the projects, and
include more design options in others.

The report was adequate, however much of the preliminary information is not well
referenced. General statements about “perceived conditions” are used throughout which
can reduce the overall credibility of the report. I suggest you make sure to use the proper
reference for the proper sentence. This is the third ACOE document I have reviewed in
the Stillaguamish that includes major generalizations that are not referenced.

References that need to be in the EA

1. Page 3 - Collins, B.D. 1997. Effects of land use on the Stillaguamish River,
Washington, ~1870 to ~1990: Implications for salmonid habitat and water quality and
their restoration. Report to the Tulalip Tribes, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians,
Snohomish County Public Works, and the Washington State Department of Ecology.
130 pp. .

2. Page 4 - Pess, G.R., Collins, B.D., Pollock, M.M., Beechie, T.J., Haas, A., and
Grigsby, S. 1999. Historic and Current Factors that Limit Coho Salmon
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) Production in the Stillaguamish River Basin, Washington
State: Implications for Salmonid Habitat Protection and Restoration. A report
prepared for Snohomish County Department of Public Works and the Stillaguamish
Tribe of Indians 46 pp.

3. Page 4 - Pollock, M.M. 1998. Current and historic riparian conditions in the
Stillaguamish River Basin, Washington. Report to the Tulalip Tribes and
Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians. 51 pp.

4. Page 7 - Pollock, M.M. and Pess, G.R. 1998. The current and historical influence of
Beaver (Castor canadensis) on Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) smolt production in the
Stillaguamish River Basin, Washington. Report to the Tulalip Tribes and
Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians. 30 pp.

5. Page 14 - Pess, G.R. and L. Bendd. 1994. "Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of
Spawning Chinook Salmon in the North Fork Stillaguamish River, WA." Geological

Society of America (GSA) Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 26, No phat). Seattle,
WA October, 1994.


remainder of the upper South Fork basin is in large land holdings by timber companies or
small private holdings.

The Jand along the North Fork mainstem and many of its tributaries is primarily in
private ownership, although some State-owned lands are present. Agriculture is the
dominant land use along the mainstem, while timber production by large land-holding
companies is prevalent along the tributaries. The upper reaches of the North Fork and its
major tributaries are within the boundaries of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.

2.5.2. Recreation

The major recreational areas within the Stillaguamish watershed are concentrated in the
upland forested areas or along the River. Snohomish County, local municipalities, and
state/federal agencies are currently involved in improving a trail system along the
Stillaguamish River. Existing facilities include numerous municipal parks, golf courses,
and picnic facilities near the Stillaguamish River. Considerable water recreation occurs
in the river during the summer months, while fishing occurs year around. Many portions
of the Basin are in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, which contains several
campgrounds and trail heads. Much of the Basin’s recreation is centered around the town
of Darrington, where the mountain loop highway provides access to hikers, berry pickers
and the occasional gold miner.

2.5.3. ‘Population

Most of the Stillaguamish Basin’s current population lives in or around the Cities of
Arlington (at the Forks), Granite Falls (on the South Fork), and Stanwood (at the mouth).
Although there is some suburban encroachment, most of the area remains in agricultural
or timber production. Agricultural areas are located along the valley bottoms of the
tributaries, the Forks, and mainstem. Timber production occurs in the eastern portions of
the basin and along the upper tributaries. The number of hobby farms is also increasing
along the South Fork, west of Granite Falls. In 1995, the population of was estimated at
90,000, and was expected to grow by about 2% a year.

2.5.4. Public Service and Utilities

The Basin has a well-developed infrastructure with a compliment of police, fire, hospitals
and emergency medical services associated with the major population centers. Public
schools are distributed throughout the basin as well. Wastewater treatment facilities can
be found in Stanwood, Arlington, Granite Falls and Darrington, the rest of the Basin is
typically on septic systems. Potable water is available from a variety of providers
including public utility districts, water districts, community water associations and
individual wells. Electricity is also available from a few different providers including
local utility districts and larger power companies.

2.6 Hazardous and Toxic Wastes

Land surrounding the Stillaguamish river and its tributaries is used for major agricultural
activities. All agricultural areas are suspect for herbicide, pesticide, and insecticide
contamination of soil and water. Because of the long agricultural history of the area of

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 45


5.3.2, South Pass

The projected is located in the Stillaguamish estuary, adjacent to South Pass, near where
the Old Stillaguamish channel empties into Port Susan Bay (T32N R3E Section 26). The
site, formerly in agricultural production, is currently owned by the State Department of
Fish and Wildlife. State Highway 532 bisects the property.

This portion of the estuary was diked for agricultural production. These sea dikes,
combined with the filling of sloughs, interrupted tidal flow and diminished nutrient
export from the marshes to adjoining habitats such as mudflats. This project offers an
opportunity to restore, on a large scale, the tidal hydrology of a portion of the former
estuary. Work on this property will reconnect the Bay’s mudflats with a historic marsh
area.

Project features include removal of sea dikes and excavation of a tidal channel. The dike
material would be placed in existing borrow ditches to match the existing ground line.
One section of the southern dike system, approximately 100’ in length, bisects a slough.
This dike section would be breached, the culvert would be removed, and the area would
be excavated down to reconnect the slough. LWD would be placed and, if elevations
were appropriate, emergent vegetation would be planted at the new connection. Two
new setback levees would be constructed from imported material. The alignment of the
northern cross levee would be adjacent to Highway 530, for flood protection. The exact
location of the‘southem cross levee has not yet been negotiated; this site is a significant
haven for snow geese during the winter, so measures would be taken to insure that their
needs continue to be met.

5.3.3. Hat Slough

The projected is located in the Stillaguamish estuary, on the right bank of Hat Slough
near its mouth at Port Susan Bay (T31N R3E Section 1 and T31N R4E Section 6). The
site, over 300 acres in size, is currently in agricultural production. The Nature
Conservancy and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are attempting to purchase the property.

Like the South Pass project discussed above, the purpose of this project is to restore tidal
hydrology to a portion of the site. A sea dike on the southern and western portions of the
property would be breached in up to eight locations. These breaches, approximately 50’
wide, would occur where remnant or existing channels were/are located. Any culverts at
these locations would be removed, and new channels about 400’long would be excavated
on the landward side of the breach to allow for new slough formation. The excavated
material would be used to fill borrow ditches used to construct the original dike. The
banks of the new channels would be planted with emergent vegetation, and LWD would
be placed in the channel. A new set-back cross levee would be constructed from
imported material. Its exact alignment has not yet been determined, as this site also
supports a significant number of snow geese during the winter.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 73


6.1.2. Climate

No significant impacts to the climate of the region are expected as a result of these
restoration projects.

6.1.3. Hydrology

The majority of proposed restoration activities on the Stillaguamish are designed to
modify stream, side channel and/or wetland morphology to benefit fish resources and
other wildlife. All proposed restoration projects will, to some degree, affect surface
water conditions within the Stillaguamish basin. Construction impacts to surface water
would be minor since construction activities are not expected to alter surface water
patterns or quantities. Impacts on stream morphology would be long term rather than
construction-related, however. Main and side channel modifications, installation of in-
channel structures (e.g., woody debris), and modifying tributary and mainstem flows all
represent activities that, in the long term, would alter the morphology of the
Stillaguamish river system. Such stream modifications, associated primarily with the off
channel improvement and tributary rehabilitation projects, are directed toward restoring
the long-term function of aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Channel modifications or
installation of in-channel habitat features would alter channel complexity and diversity.
Ultimately fish habitat characteristics such as substrate embeddedness, pool frequency
and quality, and off-channel habitat will improve as a result of project-related changes in
stream morphology. Increases in streamside vegetation along tributaries and the
mainstem could result in seasonal modifications in surface water (i.e., higher use of
groundwater during the growing season). Short term impacts to groundwater could occur
from construction at the proposed sites, and the level of impact would vary from site to
site depending on location, current level of disturbance, soils type, presence of hard-
surfaced roads and other factors.

6.1.4. Water Quality

Impacts to water quality would occur during construction from the movement and use of
construction equipment at the restoration sites, and from the excavation or addition of
gravels and other soils. The level of impact would vary from site to site depending on
location, current level of disturbance, soils type, presence of hard-surfaced access roads,
and other factors. As with any in-stream construction project, even with best
management practices (see below under mitigation measures) there will be a short-term
release of some sediment. Due to timing restrictions, impacts to migratory salmonids are
expected to be minimized. Drainage and grading/erosion control plans would need to be
prepared for each specific project proposed. In general, it can be anticipated that even
with erosion control, some sediments would move off-site into tributaries, side channels
and the mainstem of the Stillaguamish river. Along with these sediments, naturally
occurring soil nitrogen and phosphorous would be mobilized, and the concentration of
these nutrients can be expected to increase in runoff from the site.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 83


Questions surround the Olcott sites in addition to chronological questions. Some have
argued that early residents of the Puget Sound lowlands relied on a subsistence strategy
based on terrestrial mammals (some now extinct) because salmon and shellfish were
scarce before c. 5,000 years ago. Low productivity of these marine resources was likely
due to instability of river regimes and intertidal zones associated with isostatic rebound
and sea level rise. Sea level rise between 9,000 and 4,500 years ago, however, inundated
coastal sites that contained additional information from this early period. Therefore, .
rather than being a manifestation of an independent big game hunting society, the so-
called Olcott Phase may be no more than the upland component of a complex economic
system that has had its marine-oriented portion “removed” from view by sea level rise.
The Olcott Phase is an important area of further research that may be advanced by
information held in the archaeological record of the Stillaguamish River Basin.

As the various environments evolved within the post-glacial Stillaguamish River Basin,
its inhabitants adapted to the changes. Fishing, hunting, and plant gathering became more

. specialized as these groups gained experience in regional and seasonal resource
exploitation. After about 5,000 years ago, larger populations organized in more complex
ways exploited a wide range of locally available resources, including shellfish, salmon,
small mammals, berries, roots, and bulbs. Shell middens are numerous on saltwater
shorelines; the apparent lack of earlier shell midden sites is due to inundation of earlier
shoreline sites by rising sea levels, which did not attain near-modem levels until c. 5,000
years ago. Ground stone, bone, antler, and shell tools, associated with fishing, marine
mammal hunting, and plant processing, became increasingly more common and
diversified. Emphasis on salmon exploitation grew over time as large-scale fishing,
processing, and storage technologies were developed.

Evidence of a well-developed massive woodworking technology, cedar plank houses, and
semi-permanent villages appears in the archaeological record by c. 3,500 years ago.
Materials imported from east of the mountains to the project area for lithic tool
manufacture evidence increased contact and trade with groups in eastern Washington.
Resource specialization, increased population, improved food storage methods, and
establishments of larger villages were all signs of a more sedentary lifestyle after
approximately 2,500 years ago.

Full scale development of marine-oriented cultures on the coast and inland hunting,
gathering, and riverine fishing traditions as represented in the ethnographic record is
apparent after c. 2,500 years ago. A wide variety of ground and chipped stone and bone
artifacts made of both local and imported materials occur, representing complex and
diversified technologies for fishing and sea mammal hunting, processing, and storage.
Large-scale woodworking and cedar plank houses occupied by a large semi-sedentary
population are also well represented. Wood artifacts, including fishhooks, wedges,
cordage, and basketry, have been recovered from sites exhibiting good preservation
environments.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 39


ACCEPTED for the:

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

(name and title of signer provided by Coucil) Date


“VAZO

ABojoog | sopun sjuowrasmnbar perspay soo “soomMosar

SoA oyjtoeds-o0forg ‘QuaumlsA08 [e007] pue seare [B}SeOD/IUT}II0Ys JO UONSA}O1g WY Wwawasdeueyy suyas0ys

Adaqeng uonersasuog syenby pue yy 88S-b61d
ON MatAay oytoadg yooforg SASN | woursBeuvyy ysas0g ym Aousjs1suod saplAorg 9161 9 JUOWOTBUBY IsoI0,J ;BUOHEN
“pouinbas “saasasoid Boe peingeu 4eyIqey 2;
ON uonezuoyne asn oyloads-y9afo1g NGM Jo uawodeuew ‘aoJaWIWOD pur UO! MOXY 06'6L “UD ‘spur’] onenby
*M9IAQI [B90]
*pounbor osye Aew uonejuauinoop

Vdas oytoads-190forg ‘ayers ay) Aq AB0j00q, “SOANBUID}TE Jo UONEN}eAD 4}99fo1d pasodosd MO’ £F YO

ON | paidope st yq Jt souerjdwios jemeg Aouade woojjayeys pea] Jo syoeduit [eyuauuosAua jo ainsojosiq | ‘(wdaS) Vv Adt[od JeusWUOMAUA DEI

aS

‘spziq £10,218 tur 0} So! vy JO youd! “bas 12

oN aytoads-ro0foig Ter9pag pur spiiq Aroyesrur yo ysaarey sareinBoy | €0L OSN YI ‘WV Areal, prg AsovesS1y

“syonpoud pus ‘sued “bas 19 19€1

oN oytoads-yoaforg Tes0pog yoy) pue speunuew ouput Joy uoNoMOIg | OSN 91 OV UONSsoIg euNUEYY SUEY
suonejndod

‘awooUr Mo] pue AyOUIUT UO ‘S21 i suonejndog

‘sumexBord Jo s1993J9 [eUIWTUOIIAUD 10 SwWOdU]-MO'] pue suoneindog AyoUlyy

uoneusWNo0p WdaN ueuiny dsi9Ape pue Yysiy yates ul donne [eUaWUOMAU ssoxppy 0}

ON | ‘oytoeds-yooford pur onewwesdorg espa Surssoippe pue uoneoynuapy | suonoy jwopa] *g68ZI JOpIO SANNIOXy
“spupy

“poajoaut ue{puy pus spur] o11QNd Uo saqis pue soounosad “bas 19 OL DSN 91

oN spur] o1jqnd uaym o1toads-yoaforg [eapay Jea1Sojoaeyase 103 uoNda}01d samoag | “oy UONODOIg SdosNOSoY JeoIdojoaeyoTy
“ppaay “saqin Asojeusis

‘ON, esopay ye MatAad forjioads-yo9fo1g esapa.y 0} S1y3u Surysy pue Sununy porrssoy Saquy Arwary WIM sonBasy, [eepey

PPAd] “sooanosau ouiosiyoad “bas 19 OLb OSN ZI ‘(VdliN)

oN ‘ayeIS 1B MarAaL Soy}oads-199}01q Saqu ‘a1eS pue du0}S1Y Jo UONSI}OId/UONeAIOSIIg PY vOHeAIsI1Y NWO}! [PUONEN,

wag aoueyduod Aauady aqusuodsay adoag uoyjENsay/Mey



Nelson, M.A. 1994. A Cultural Resources Investigation of a 40 Acre Parcel Near
Arlington, Snohomish County, Washington. Report prepared for Cantrell and Associates.
Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. OAHP Reference Library.

O'Donnell, B.P., N.L. Naslund, and C.J. Ralph. 1995. “Patterns of Seasonal Variation of
Activity of Marbled Murrelets in Forested Stands.” Pages 117-128 in C.J Ralph, G.L.
Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for
conservation of bull trout. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.
General Technical Report INT-302.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1995 Research Reports (Chapter I Chinook.
Biennial Report on the Status Of Wild Fish in Oregon).

Pess, G.R. and L. Benda. 1994. Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Spawning Chinook
Salmon in the North Fork Stillaguamish River, WA. Geological Society of America
(GSA) Abstracts with Programs, Vol.26, No.7, PA-440. Seattle WA.

Pess, G. 1997. Restoration strategy and potential projects. January 12 memorandum to
Stillaguamish Tribe and Snohomish County representatives. 10pp.

Pess, G. 1997, Restoration prioritization of potential projects. April 3 memorandum to
Snohomish County, Stillaguamish Tribe, and Corps of Engineers representatives. 20pp.

Pess, G. 1997. Historical habitat reconstruction as a guide for protection and restoration
in the Stillaguamish River Basin, U.S.A. (draft)

Pess, G.R., B.D. Collins, M.M. Pollock, T.J. Beechie, A. Hass and S.Grisby. 1999.
Historic and Current Factors that Limit Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
Production in the Stillaguamish River Basin, Washington State: Implications for
Salmonid Habitat Protection and Restoration. A Report prepared for Snohomish County
Department of Public Works and the Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians. 51pp.

Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid
bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers. U.S. EPA Office of Water EPA
444-4-89-001.

Platts, W.S.,.and twelve others. 1987. Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with
applications to management. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-221. 177pp.

Pollock, M. 1997. Restoration prioritization of potential projects. April 3 memorandum
to Snohomish County, Stillaguamish Tribe, and Corps of Engineers representatives. 2pp.

Pollock, M.M, and G.R. Pess. 1998 Current and Historic Riparian Conditions in the
Stillaguamish River Basin, Washington. Report to the Tulalip Tribes and Stillaguamish
Tribe of Indians. S1pp.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 118


DRAFT
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND THE
WASHINGTON STATE OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STILLAGUAMISH ECOSYSTEM
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), Snohornish County, the Stillaguamish Indian
Tribe, and the Tulalip Indian Tribe propose ecosystem restoration within the Stillaguamish River Basin,
Snohomish County, Washington to be completed as funding becomes available (the Project); and

WHEREAS, the primary intent of restoration activities for the Stillaguamish River system is to change
existing channel and bank characteristics to be representative of more natural conditions; and

WHEREAS, the Corps has completed a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate 38
potential restoration sites for the Stillaguamish Ecosystem Restoration Study and determined that the
Project may have an effect upon properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places (National Register) (Attachment 1) and has consulted with the Washington State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to Section 800.13 of the regulations (36 CFR § 800) implementing
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470s) as revised June 1999; and

WHEREAS, the concemed Stillaguamish Tribe and Tulalip Tribe (the Tribes) have been invited to

* participate in the consultation and to concur in this Memorandum of Agreement pursuant to 36 CFR §
800.2; and

WHEREAS, the Corps desires to modify, relocate, or terminate construction of those alternatives that will
adversely affect National Register listed or eligible properties; and

NOW, THEREFORE, the Corps and the SHPO agree that the project shall be administered in accordance
with the following stipulations to satisfy the Corps’ Section 106 responsibility for all individual aspects of
the Project.

STIPULATIONS
The Corps shall ensure that the following measures are carried out:
I. Historic Properties Inventory, Evaluation, and Effect Determination
A. Historic Properties Inventory

1. The Corps will ensure that the area of potential effect (APE) is clearly identified for each
restoration site a minimum of 90 days prior to expected notice to proceed and that historic
property identification is initiated at that time.

2. The Corps will ensure that an inventory of historic properties for the APE of each restoration
site is conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
Guidelines for Identification (48 FR 44720-23). The survey shall be conducted in consultation
with the SHPO and a report of the survey, meeting the standards of the SHPO, shall be submitted
to the SHPO and the concerned Tribes for review within 30 days of initiation of the process.
SHPO will have 10 days to submit comments and/or objections. If SHPO fails to submit




TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND isssssnsnssvcessssssasnecsassssve
1.1 Project Authority..............
1.2 Project Purpose and Scope
1.3 Project History...
1.4 Resource Problems

1.4.1. Hydrology and Geomorphology ..

1.4.2. Vegetation Composition, Structure, an

1.4.3. Fish and Wildlife Habitat.............sssssssssssssseeneenceee

1.4.4. Relationship of these Problems to Federal Interest in Restoration...
1.5 Prior Studies and Reports

NAARWNNHE He

2. EXISTING CONDITIONS...
2.1 Physical Characteristics
2k;
212.
213.
2.1.4,
2AS.
2.1.6.
2.2 Natural Resources.
2.2.1. Vegetation.
2.2.2, Fisheries
2.2.3. Wildlife.
2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
2.3.1. Chinook Salmon
2.3.2. Bull Trout......
2.3.3. Coho Salmon.
2.3.4. Bald Eagle.....
2.3.5. Marbled Murrelet..
2.3.6. Northern Spotted Owl...
2.4 Cultural Resources.........+.
2.5 Socio-Economic Resources .
2.5.1. Land and Shoreline Use
2.5.2. Recreation.
2.5.3. Population.
2.5.4. Public Service and Utilities...
2.6 Hazardous and Toxic Wastes...

3. ALTERNATIVES.
3.1 Overview.......
3.2 Alternative 1: No Action.
3.3 Alternative 2: Multi-Species Approach (Preferred Alternative).

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page ii


FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration Project
Snohomish County

1. Background. The proposed action is described in the attached environmental
assessment (EA) and will restore fish and wildlife habitat at up to thirteen separate
restoration sites located on or near the Stillaguamish River (including the tributary of
Portage Creek) in Snohomish County, Washington. This project will: remove or set back
levees to allow for improved tidal inundation and estuarine function, improve water
quality in the Old Stillaguamish Channel, reconnect remnant river meanders to the
mainstem of the river, improve riparian vegetation by plantin. native trees and shrubs,
control sediment input to the river by isolating large landsli¢ from the river, improve
wetland functions, provide for improved fish passage, and te better stream habitat
by the placement of woody debris.

2. Action. The proposed action will occur at up to thirteen separate sites. Actions
include: construction of 12 intertidal estuarine emergent wetlands at Port Susan; set
back existing levees and allow tidal inundation into the project site and to restore tidal
hydrology to several remnant sloughs; provide off-channel juvenile salmonid rearing and
refuge habitat at several sites; facilitate fish passage by modifying existing in-stream
structures; provide riparian vegetation along the levee at existing Corps projects; improve
native wetlands and stream corridor habitat for fish and wildlife; and reduce sediment
input into the river, thus improving overall downstream water quality conditions and
providing off-channel fish rearing habitat by moving the mainstem of the river away from
adjacent landslides.

3. Coordination. Through the NEPA Scoping process, local landowners, although
supportive of the project, expressed concern over potential impacts to farmland from
periodic flooding and loss of farmland to restoration efforts. The Corps is committed to
conducting a hydraulic analysis to evaluate specific project impacts to landowners from
flooding prior to implementing any projects. Moreover, the program is purely voluntary
in nature for private property owners. Preliminary project designs scheduled to be built
on private land have been coordinated with private landowners prior to proceeding to the
detailed design phase of planning.

In order to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act; the American Indian
Religious Freedom Act, the Native American Graves Repatriation Act, and the
Washington State Indian Graves and Records Act, the Corps has maintained coordination
with the State Historic Preservation Officer, affected Indian Tribes, and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation. A draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has been
developed to address these issues. Finalization and agreement by all signatories to the
MOA will be achieved before any projects are constructed. In addition, the Mt. Baker-
Snoqualmie National Forest Archaeological Office will be consulted regarding historic
properties on their land (e.g., sites around the Gold Basin Campground) that may be
affected by the project.


il. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

Coordination with agencies, Tribes and the general public has been an integral part of the
Stillaguamish Ecosystem Restoration program. At the initiation of the study it was
realized that there was no chance for success unless time and effort went into getting the
public Tribes and agencies involved. To this end several mechanism were set up to
facilitate this involvement, including: ,

= Creation of a technical work committee that developed the restoration plan. This
group was comprised of Tulalip and Stillaguamish Tribal staff, U.S. Forest Service,
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Corps,
Snohomish County and local citizens. The technical committee was responsible for
developing goals and objectives, identifying and evaluating projects, providing
resource information that was used in plan formulation and acted as a conduit for
implementing public participation.

= Development and distribution of the Reconnaissance Report. During the initial
phases of.the study a report was generated describing the proposed restoration
activities. The draft report was circulated to obtain comments. These comments
were incorporated into the final document.

= Public Outreach. An informational booth that described the proposed restoration
activities was part of the Stillaguamish River Festival for the past four years:

= Public meetings. Several public meeting were held through out the lower
Stillaguamish River Basin to obtain public input of the restoration plan. Meeting
announcements were published in the local paper and members of the technical
committee moderated the meetings.

= Field Trips. Several field trips were conducted for interested agency and the public
to the various restoration sites.

* This Environmental Assessment has been extensively coordinated with local
agencies and Tribes before the final document was developed. The Draft EA was
distributed to agencies, Tribes and local citizens. A total of 32 copies were sent out
for a thirty-day review (please see the distribution list in Appendix B). At the end of
that period only four comments were received; these letters are included in Appendix
C. Three of the comments agreed with the multi-species approach taken. Two
comments requested more references in the document. These comments were
addressed and included in the Final EA. Another comment concurred with the
recommendation to conduct a professional archaeological survey of the identified
project impact areas. The final EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
will be distributed to the original distribution list that is included in Appendix B.

11.1 Compliance with Environmental Statutes

Various federal and state statutes may apply to the proposed construction
activities. Public hearings may also be required. In-water projects require review

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 101


5. PLAN FORMULATION

5.1 Plan and Criteria Development

As evaluated in the previous section, Alternative 2 has the greatest potential for
improving fish and wildlife benefits throughout the Stillaguamish basin. This alternative
also places emphasis on a ecosystem based approach that focuses on maintaining or
restoring watershed processes that salmonid species are dependent upon.

Ecosystem restoration can be pursued from various perspectives. Beechie et al. (1996)
discussed restoration goals and priorities in the context of salmonid restoration in western
Washington river basins, including one sub-basin of the Stillaguamish River. They stated
that the principal goal of ecosystem restoration should be to restore the watershed
processes that create and maintain habitats and ecosystem functions, but that
prioritization of specific restoration activities may be based on local management
objectives. This means that highest Priority may be given to restoration projects that
address the recovery of particular species or communities, as long as they are consistent
with the overall goal of restoring ecosystem processes and functions.

The concept that restoration of habitat-forming processes is the most fundamentally
sound approach to ecosystem restoration has been endorsed by various authors, and is the
basis for an ongoing ecosystem restoration planning program in the Green/Duwamish
River basin (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District 1997). Within the
Stillaguamish basin, long-range objectives identified by the U.S. Forest Service (1996)
are consistent with this approach in that they encourage re-establishment of late-seral
forest conditions and control of sources of artificially accelerated sediment inputs. Other
planning efforts, such as the Stillaguamish Implementation Review Committee (1995),
similarly identify restoration of processes as an important focus of attention, including
restoration of more natural patterns of hydrology.

Although all of the major resource assessment and planning efforts within the
Stillaguamish Basin recognize that restoration of ecosystem processes is the fundamental
goal of any basin-wide effort, they also emphasize an immediate focus on conditions
influencing salmonid populations and habitats. The economic and cultural importance of
salmonids within the region makes restoration of fish habitats a major local management
priority. Such a focus is consistent with the general guidance for the Corps’ ecosystem
restoration program and current ecological restoration theory. The complex life-histories
of salmonid species, with their requirements for specialized habitat conditions at various
locations within the watershed and at various times of year, make them especially
vulnerable to the cumulative impacts of alterations that have occurred within the basin
over the past century. At the same time, these complex relationships make salmonids
particularly good surrogates for a wide variety of other fish and wildlife species. The
viability of salmonids directly contributes to the health of other elements of the system
through their contributions to food webs and nutrient cycles. Restoration of high quality
salmonid habitat includes consideration of hydrologic patterns and water quality,
sediment movement and storage, availability of specific habitat features such as large
woody debris, and the spatial arrangement and temporal accessibility of specialized

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 62


This alternative would be implemented through the current ongoing agency/sponsor
programs, funding sources and jurisdictions. Examples of current restoration programs
include the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife SHEER program (an inventory
of anadromous fish blockages on streams within the state of Washington), restorations
occurring as a part of the local Conservation District, the Tribes and programs initiated
by Snohomish County.

Monitoring of restorations and restoration success would continue to be fragmented or
non-existent because there is no mechanism to evaluate project successes, shortcomings,
limitations, and contribution to ecosystem improvement.

The project evaluation criteria (i.e., rationale for selecting the locations and types of
restorations) would be based on the wide range of factors currently used by the various
agencies and groups involved in restoration in the Basin. These evaluation criteria
include such factors as available funding and manpower, site availability, site access, and
ease of accomplishing the restoration.

3.3 Alternative 2: Multi-Species Approach (Preferred Alternative)

The Preferred Alternative would be a program to restore ecological resources and
processes that would benefit multiple fish, riparian and riverine-associated wildlife
species. This alternative would focus on implementing a balance of activities that would
not be at the expense of maintaining or improving successful populations of other
species. This approach assumes restoration of larger areas of aquatic environment and
riparian corridors, and providing connections to existing productive habitat that might
otherwise not occur under the No Action Alternative. The emphasis of this alternative is
ecosystem based and focuses on maintaining or restoring watershed processes that
salmonid species are dependent upon. Implementing this approach would result in
improved habitats for a group of species, thereby resulting in improved populations of
other species as part of a balanced natural ecosystem.

The objective of this alternative is to restore critical landscape processes, functions and
structures to a more natural condition in order to support native anadromous salmonids,
while providing some wildlife benefits.

Under this alternative, the geographic focus will be at the watershed level (this includes
the mainstem, north and south forks and major tributaries), with the intent to manage
restoration based on the total resource need rather than through individual programs as
would be the case under the No Action Alternative.

Examples of activities that might be conducted as part of Alternative 2 could include:

= Reducing barriers to fish passage — for example, construction of a new fish ladder at
the Stillaguamish weir that would facilitate upstream fish passage during low river
flows. F

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 48


7. MONITORING

Monitoring is an important element of the restoration plan. There are several reasons for
monitoring to be included in the plan itself, such as to improve the understanding of
restoration methods, to reduce uncertainty in planning such projects in the future, to
facilitate the use of adaptive management principles, and public education.

This section does not contain the actual monitoring plan. Rather it outlines the approach
that the monitoring plan will incorporate. A monitoring plan will be approved by the
technical committee for this study just prior to construction of the first projects in about
2002.

Monitoring will probably occur on a site- or project-specific level, as well as a river reach
level and ecosystem (basin) level. To be meaningful, monitoring will be tied to the
specific restoration goals of a particular project. Some larger scale monitoring will also
be used to determine the cumulative effect of all the restoration projects by monitoring at
the river basin level. Because there is much emphasis on restoring riverine processes
where possible, geomorphic evaluation will be part of the monitoring plan. Analysis of
sediment distribution, river cross sections, flow depths and aerial photos will be used to
evaluate how successful the projects have been.

Three types of monitoring are proposed to answer the following questions:

= Implementation: Did we do what we said we would?
= Effectiveness: Did our actions have the desired effect?

= Validation: Were the assumptions that we made correct?

The steps that will be followed in developing a monitoring plan are described below.

7.1 Develop Specific Goals and Objectives
This will be done at a project level and basin level.

7.2 Develop Performance Criteria

Criteria will be based on program and project objectives. Program objectives are
discussed in Sections 1.2, 3.3, and 5. Specific project objectives have also been
developed.

7.3 Choose Monitoring Methods

Examples of sampling methods under consideration include:

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 96


form of forest fragmentation shifts the landscape into a spatial and temporal mosaic that
results in disruption of habitat corridors and the creation of habitat islands, both of which
can decrease wildlife use and productivity. Timber harvest has also resulted in a
reduction of snags and downed-wood habitats. Today, only about 12% of the basin
currently contains mature stands and there are virtually no continuous forests stands of
any significant size. Please reference Figure 4.

Given time, evergreen trees will eventually dominate a disturbed northwest forest stand.
However, after logging, there is a long period of colonization by deciduous trees such as
red alder and, in some cases, vine maple. Prior to settlement in the Stillaguamish Basin,
deciduous forests were fairly isolated and were usually in areas disturbed by fire,
avalanche, flooding, or other natural phenomena. Today, deciduous forests make up a
significant portion of the forest component—approximately 18-20% of the total forest
cover. Another major change in vegetation composition has been a shift from forest to
open areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation, usually grasses. Open grasslands would
have been a fairly rare component of the post-glacial landscape where emergent wetlands
or recently burned areas were usually the only open areas. Agricultural clearing and
urban development have changed thousands of forested acres into open grasslands, which
currently cover about 10% of the current landscape. Although this may appear to be an
increase in habitat diversity, it actually further fragments forest cover and thus incréases
the “patchy” nature of the landscape.

The most dramatic changes in vegetation composition have occurred in riparian areas.
By 1909 mature cedars, Douglas firs, spruces, pines, hemlocks and deciduous trees in
most of the basin’s riparian zones had been removed (Collins 1997). The majority of the
present riparian zones is either entirely devoid of trees or dominated by young stands of
dense red alder or second-growth conifers. The young deciduous and evergreen trees -
lack the capability of adding any significant levels of LWD to the stream systems now or
in the near future.

Wetlands and Riparian Areas. Habitat in the lower Stillaguamish River Basin
historically consisted of extensive salt water and brackish marsh, freshwater wetlands,
and riparian habitats. In intertidal areas, bullrush (Scirpus maritimus), Lyngby’s sedge
(Carex lyngbyei) and seaside arrowgrass (Triglochin maritimum) dominated (Bortleson
1980). Significant inputs of large. woody debris to the delta area enhanced fish and
wildlife habitat. This, combined with the variety of estuarine habitat types, would have
provided niches for an extremely diverse benthic flora and fauna. Just beyond the extent
of tidal inundation, the valley floor was largely comprised of groves of Sitka spruce and
western red cedar. These trees grew to substantial size and were long lived. One account
in the 1880’s describes a tree 13-% ft in diameter that scaled 50,000 feet of lumber.

Many of the Basin’s emergent and forested wetlands have been converted into
agricultural lands or urbanized. This occurred through the placement of fill, the building
dikes and levees, and the construction of drains, ditches and other methods to remove or
depress surface and-ground water. Prior to European settlement, there was approximately
18 km? of salt marsh habitat. Between 1870 and 1968, about 85% of the Stillaguamish

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 22


Historically, the flows in this channel were larger and the river was deeper. Less
sediment was deposited in the stream, the water temperature was lower and dissolved
oxygen concentrations were higher because of this swifter, deeper stream flow.

Sediment Load. The Stillaguamish has a naturally heavy sediment load because of the
inherent instability of the glacial lacustrine sediments. Clearcutting vast areas of forest
increased sediment loading and exacerbated natural mass wasting events. Pess et. al
(1999) identified sediment choking of the streams as one of the major limiting factors in
salmonid production. Sediment reduces inter-gravel water flow within the salmon redd,
which decreases dissolved-oxygen levels and interrupts the removal of metabolic wastes.
Sediment accumulations in spawning gravels can also prevent fry from emerging (WSCC
1999).

Bortleson (1980) noted one interesting aspect of sediment dynamics on the Stillaguamish
River: maps indicate that the delta outside of the sea-dikes has grown significantly since.
1886. The most dramatic increase has occurred in the southern part of the delta near Hat
Slough, where several inter-distributary islands have formed. Bortleson attributes this
progradation to rapid sediment accumulation, caused by shifts in the sediment load from
distributary channels in the lower mainstem. Bortleson theorized that the relative sizes of
the former channels indicated most of the streamflow went through West Pass and South
Pass. .Hat Slough appeared to be a minor distributary at the time of the 1886 mapping.
Today the primary flow of the Stillaguamish River—and, therefore, the greatest sediment
load—is through Hat Slough. The other distributaries have since narrowed because of
sediment loading in the channels.

The progradation of the marsh is not surprising given the naturally high and unrestricted
sediment loads of the Stillaguamish River. In addition, anthropogenic increases in the
sediment load may also have contributed to the progradation (Bortleson 1980). Bortleson
attributes possible increased sediment rates to farming, land clearing, logging, and/or
dredging upstream.

Flood Control. Extensive river modifications occurred in the mainstem below Arlington,
and at the estuary. Beginning in the 1860s, several private and public entities constructed
flood control levees and dredged channels, for purposes of both flood control and the
conversion wetlands to agriculture. Private individuals also built sea-dikes around salt
marshes mainly for agricultural conversion. Some flood control projects were also
constructed on the North and South Forks. These efforts resulted in cutting off many of
the back channels associated with the original riverway.

The Corps had two authorized projects downstream of Arlington, only one of which was
built. In 1939, the Corps was authorized to provide works to reduce bank erosion and

channel changes on the mainstem between Arlington and Hat Slough, a distance of 15

miles. The project included revetments'at 26 places on the river and Cook Slough; a 275
foot long control weir at the mouth of Cook Slough that limited flow through the slough;
and two cut-off channels, each about 900 feet long, to limit sharp bends in Cook Slough.
As a result, most flow was channeled via North Slough. The Corps modified the weir in

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 18


9. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

The proposed Stillaguamish River restoration program is intended to restore or improve
habitat for anadromous fish, with some benefits to wildlife resources. These activities
will restore a portion of the historic habitat conditions and functions within the
Stillaguamish Watershed. The principal goal of the program is to achieve long-term
enhancement of biological and natural resource productivity in the restoration areas. The
proposed program is expected to reduce the harmful effects of human short-term uses of
the environment that have occurred over time, and to promote long-term productivity
within these restoration areas. This program will result in an improved productivity
condition within the watershed that will benefit aquatic and terrestrial resources.

10. PROBABLE IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENTS OF
RESOURCES

The proposed restoration program would not entail any significant irretrievable or
irreversible commitments of resources. Construction of some habitat improvements
would require importing materials such as rock, soil, gravel, and vegetation.
Construction of structures such as culverts will require building materials such as steel,
wood, plastic, or concrete, all resources that are plentiful and recyclable if so desired.
The restoration projects would entail long-term commitment of land for fish and wildlife
habitat purposes in lieu of other possible societal uses. :

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 100


Endangered Species Act potentially occur in the Stillaguamish Basin. Based upon
correspondences with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), Table 2 was compiled to list the species of concer in the
Stillaguamish River Basin.

Table 2. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species in Project Vicinities

Species Listing Status Projects Agency with
Jurisdiction
Chinook Salmon Listed Threatened All aes
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
Bull Trout Listed Threatened All Essnis
Salvelinus confluentus
Bald Eagle Listed Threatened All USFWS
Haliaeetus leucocephalus | {proposed for de-listing in
July 1999}
Marbled Miltrelet Listed Threatened Hazel Slide | USFWS
Brachyramphus and Gold
marmoratus Basin Slide
Northem Spotted Owl | 1 isted Threatened Hazel Slide | USFWS
Strix occidentalis and Gold
Basin Slide
Coho Salmon A NMFS
Oncorhynchus kisutch eae ue

Sources: Species List Letter from USFWS dated 12/17/99 (Ref. #1-3-00-SP-0103
through 0111), and the National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Region web site
(http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/lhabcon/habweb/listnwr.htm)

Below are brief descriptions of the life history requirements of these protected species.
Projected impacts of the proposed projects on threatened and endangered species are
addressed briefly in Sections 4.3 and 6.3, while a more in-depth review is being prepared
in a separate Biological Evaluation for the USFWS and NMFS.

2.3.1. Chinook Salmon

The Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) chinook salmon was listed as a
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (64 FR
16397), on March 24, 1999. The Stillaguamish Basin is included in this ESU.

Chinook adults migrate from the ocean into the freshwater streams and rivers of their
birth to spawn and die. Within this general life history strategy, however, chinook

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 30


*syoaford sdio_ 0} a[qeordde aq jou Aew syruuiad [zoo] pur oyujs aWOS ,

syyuow Z 01 |

AB0j09q

suaqea a}e}s Jo Aqjenb yoayye 0} jENUD}Og

uoneorydde yuued Ayyenb
J2]BM JO UONBOYIPOW WD}-YOYS ‘O]

OURGINISIP JO SaJoB ¢ ISBaI Je “yours

syuow ¢ 0} | AB0j09q SOB]NS JO ULIO}S DBseYyoSIP 0} jeNUDIOg 6
Sd9}BM B}EIS JO YW JEM
syjuow Z 0} | AIGM ySty Areurpso uri yoeduut 10 yayyq yeaoidde yoofoid ojnespAyy - *g
spur]
ayUyapuy NGM ouenbe paumo-o}es saajoaut y99ford 3] uoneoydde ssovoe onenby = *L,
sdunoow so1ous3e
ayuyopuy Tex9pay/ayeys snoue,, -oid jeoo] pur uonoajas ous Surmoyjog | [eiapay puw ayes IM sBuNIW-o1g “9
sontyediorunur won EyaaA Jo aoUBTEaID JO [IOS
syjuoUut Z 0} | 1890] pue Ayunod ystwoyoug | Jo spre a1qnd a10us Jo Y¢ Jo douEQITYSI,
syjuoul Aqunod ystwoyoug aourydwoo yds syt00ds-joaforg
syjuoul sdiog sounljdwioo ydaN oy!oeds-yooforg
uoneordde
skep 0¢ ABojoog/eo07] | S19}¥M 27eYS 0} JUDde[pE payed0] Joefoud 3] quowidojaaap [enueysqns suIjs10yS “ty
‘A80]00q wsipfooy9 VdaS pue MatAad
syjuoul Z|] 0} | ‘Buruoz/Suruuejg Ajunod ystuoyoug wopenide ‘Suruoz jo uorsstwqns uod—) JeuowuosAUa pue Buu0zjwo0T—“¢
syuawiw2a03
ouyopuy S90lJO auI[aIOYg pue SuuoZ/Suruye]g uonsejas ays ayetidosdde Surmorjo.y Jeooy YM sdunsour-sg “7
auuyapuy uonoipsunf 2007] wors919s ays eUdoIdde Surmojjo.y zoumo Ayadoid yim uonenoday “1
uoneing Aauady Aynqeayddy Ayapy

SoMANIy sueyduoD pus prw1eg Jo Sujguanbag *s aquy,



APPENDIX C

Comment Letters


filtration of overland (particularly sheet flow) surface water movement and water quality
protection, as well as improvements to stream temperatures due to increased shading.
Again, it is the scale and location that produces differences between the alternatives. In
the short term, the no-action alternative would have fewer positive impacts since projects
would occur at a slower pace. Both alternatives 2 and 3 have the potential for long term
water quality benefits as well as short-term impacts. Since the construction period for
either alternative is expected over ten years, the short-term impacts with proper best
management practices would be slight.

In-depth evaluation of project-specific impacts would occur as a part of the
environmental review for individual restoration projects.

4.1.5. Air Quality

Similar to water quality, air quality could be diminished under any of the alternatives on a
short-term basis. Impacts from construction would include particulate suspension from
the moving of soil and emissions of construction-related motorized equipment. Fugitive
dust emissions are expected to contribute an insignificant burden to the ambient air
contaminant load and are not expected to exceed ambient air quality standards. In the
long term, air quality may be slightly improved as vegetation plantings associated with
restoration activities matures.

4.1.6. Noise

Under all of the alternatives, there would be a temporary increase in sound levels due to
the use of heavy equipment and the hauling of materials during construction. The
increase in sound levels would depend on the type of equipment being used and the
amount of time it is in use. The types of equipment used for these types of projects will
typically generate noise levels between 80 and 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet while the
equipment is operating. The sound level impacts resulting from construction would be
short-term and temporary. Depending on location, background noise from existing
sources and noise from other nearby commercial and agricultural activities would mask
construction noise. Construction noise levels would not be continuous and would
generally be restricted to daytime hours. Again the types of equipment would not differ
among the altematives, but the frequency of occurrence, the locations and timing could

be vary.

Overall, the long-term noise impacts of any restoration projects are expected to be far less
than other types of developments such as new roads, or other heavy industrial and
commercial use activities.

4.2 Natural Resources
4.2.1. Vegetation

The proposed alternatives for restoration would require modifications to existing
vegetation during construction, but would improve vegetation resources in the long term.
Under alternatives 2 and 3, short-term impacts to riparian resources would occur during

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 54


“(VdH) [eAoiddy yoaforg orjnespAyy & uteygo 0} Ue vu 10suods ]200] 94, é
“quozal UOT eUSIsaq] JUTaIOYS & Jo/pue juLIEY uoUdopaAag [EHUEISqng OMT[910Yg B UTE}qGO 0} UBM ABUL JOsUOds |Bd0] BY] ,
‘syafoad sdiop 0} ajqeorjdde 9q you ew syruutad Joo] pur ojejs OWS |

“bas

oN “oytoods-yoaforg ABoj00g “Vda “Auyenb sre Jo voweperdap Jo uonusAa1g 3 10bL OSN Zp “(WVO) PY sty UeAID
“payrpour Suraq
Apuauns st yoy ayy, “A[uo suoyoe [Bsapoz

oN soueydwoo jn ssn oy sayddy “aytplim pur ysyy Jo uonomo1g YOY VONEUIPIOOD AAPL PUE UST

*y2A3] _g2U0z [eISEOD ‘bas 39 ISI OSN 91

ON ates 18 MatAas foiyroods-199fo1g 301099 “YVON Jo uonoa}o1d 10 YWIZO WIAs ouRNdwoy | ‘(yWZD) IV waWadeURyy sU0Z |eISBOD

“sotoads paxoSuepua “bas 19 TEST OSN 9T

ON soustjdwioo jenseg SAWN ‘SMASN | — PUB pauaivamp pars!] Jo soueIsIxe ponuUOD “(ysa) py se1sods pasoSuepug
‘sn
at Jo siayem apqudiaeu uiyyim saimjonys Aue

JO uorjonyjsu0o soyepndoy LILY oqediaeu OI Uonseg bas 39 “tor osn €€

SoA % oytoods-yosforg sdiop JO Suoneiay[e JO UOH|INISgoO s}iqryorg “6681 JO OY SJOqIEy] pue SIZATY

SA aypioads-joaforg ABojooq | “sprepueys Ayyenb sajyem ayes ym souEy|duzo 7ZOb pur [0p SUONDAS OY JIE UeD]D
“spueyiom

: nord {'g°f) ay JO sIO}eM UT feLIO}BUE TOE pus POF UONIag ‘bas 19

S24 oyjyoads-yoaforg ‘Wada ‘sop ue o8pasp jo adseyosip Suneinsey | —1$Z1 OSN CE (WMO) PV J2IBAA UEDID

“suoyoe [es9pay 0} Sorddy 80S1-00S1 YD

“soaneusayye Jo uonenyend ‘joofoad pasodosd | Op “POLEb-IZE’ DSN Zp ‘(VdAN) 6961

oN souetjdusos ying | yaa ‘Aousde peo] jeropag Jo syoudut jeyuauIUOIAUS Jo aINsOjOSIG| Joy Adljog [eusuuONAUg [BUOTEN

Tex9paq

wwe aaueyduio; Aauady ajqysuodsay adoag uORENsay/MET

SuonENsaYy pue smu] oquayddy yim aoueydurog “p aquy


|

SING vy € @ b O F

ISUNOD TIOD ATVGUYAAOTI



estuary’s tidal marsh was converted to agriculture; two-thirds of this conversion occurred
between 1870 and 1886 (Collins 1997).

Although logging the upper watershed had dramatic effects on the pattems and
distribution of vegetation, the resulting vegetation has some resemblance to past
conditions. In the lower watershed, however, agricultural and urban development
completely altered pre-settlement habitats. Loggers, farmers, and urban settlers removed
almost all of the native vegetation. Upland and wetland forests were converted to open
pastures, agricultural fields, and urban/rural settlements. Farmers drained emergent
wetlands and diked most of the salt marshes. Many delta distributaries were filled for
agricultural purposes and protected from river flooding by a series of levees, and from
tidal flooding by sea dikes. These actions have destroyed the majority of intertidal
habitat in the lower basin. In addition, a navigation channel from South Pass to
Stanwood was constructed by the Corps in 1945 and maintained until 1986. Figure 4
shows the intertidal habitat that remains on the exterior of the sea dikes around Port
Susan (indicated by the wetlands-emergent category).

2.2.2. Fisheries

The Stillaguamish watershed supports five species of Pacific salmon: chinook
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (O. kisutch), pink (O. gorbuscha), chum (O. keta),
and a small population of sockeye (O. nerka). Two species of anadromous trout,
steelhead (O. mykiss) and searun cutthroat (O. clarki clarki), two species of native char,
bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and Dolly Varden (S. malma), and several non-
commercial resident species are also present in the Basin. Three of these species are
listed or are candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Both chinook and
bull trout are listed as threatened, while coho is a candidate species.

Historically the Stillaguamish basin acted as a series of interconnected habitats that
supplied all of the life history needs of these fish. The once large estuary, with its blind
sloughs and off channel habitats, provided excellent rearing areas. The extensive well-
buffered, cool, stream system in the upper watershed contained all the channel attributes
that salmon and other cold water species require. The numbers of salmon and trout
formerly associated with the Stillaguamish is not well chronicled. All we have are
anecdotal references and that several Native Americans resided in close proximity to their
traditional harvest areas and there were many such villages that used fish traps along the
lower part of the river (Lane 1973). One recent report estimated that historic coho
production alone accounted for 1.5 to 2.5 million smolts per year (Pess et al. 1999).

By the 1940’s (Collins 1997) some of the larger landscape changes were starting to occur
throughout the basin. Agriculture had dominated much of the lower valley and timber
production was well underway. Salmon production information from 1956-1965 shows
the Stillaguamish River to still be a very productive system (Table 1). Consistent with
current populations of anadromous fish, changes in ocean and baitfish population could
have made large differences in population size and health. Catastrophic events such as
fires, earthquakes, landslides, and floods would have also resulted in large fluctuations in
fish populations. :

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 24


project area may be associated with early industry (e.g., timber or mining), homesteading,
communication, transportation, and flood control.

Any one of the potential restoration areas has the potential to encounter cultural resources
and each will have to be subjected to a cultural resources survey sufficiently in advance
of construction and possibly testing and mitigation if historic properties are identified.
There is less potential for disturbance of buried cultural materials at the 26 levee
maintenance locations, however, the levees themselves were part of the 1926 to 1937
Works Progress Administration projects. Although these features of the built
environment do technically meet the 50-year rule for consideration for the National
Register of Historic Places, such engineering features are not unique in the region, or
important to any specific historical events, and repairs and augmentations over the years
have reduced their integrity as sites, and thus the levees do not meet any of the criteria of
significance for eligibility to the National Register. Monitoring construction at the levees
may provide an opportunity to examine soil matrix that was removed from the original
surface for the presence of cultural materials.

A quantitative analysis of impacts to cultural and historic resources cannot occur ona
programmatic level. Therefore, this section qualitatively discusses potential impacts that
could result from implementation of the restoration alternatives. Evaluation of project-
specific impacts would occur as part of the environmental review for individual
restoration projects. #

Under all alternatives, short-term impacts to cultural resources resulting from the
proposed restoration activities could occur during construction. Short-term construction
impacts would result from movement and use of construction equipment at the restoration
sites. The level of impact would vary depending on factors such as the extent of previous
disturbance, the age of the affected sediments, and the action planned.

Long-term impacts to cultural resources would be associated with the ongoing
functioning of the restoration activities. The majority of the proposed restoration
activities are designed to modify stream morphology. Changes in channel position and
morphology, either intended or as an unexpected consequence of habitat improvements,
have the potential to affect sub-surface archaeological material, possibly historical
structures or buildings, or important characteristics of traditional cultural properties.

As specific projects are developed, research and field investigation will be undertaken in
consultation with the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and concerned Tribes and local
governments to gather information necessary for compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (36 CFR 800) and other applicable laws,
regulations and orders. The general procedures will include efforts to identify historic
properties that may be affected by the undertaking; the gathering of sufficient information
to evaluate the eligibility of properties found for the National Register; and consultation
among agencies and concemed parties to avoid or mitigate adverse effects to the
significant properties (see Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in Appendix A). If the

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 89


1.4.2. Vegetation Composition, Structure, and Distribution

Plant community changes also have been most dramatic in the lower mainstem portion of
the basin. The original complex of distributary channels and blind tidal channels
produced a mosaic of dynamic vegetation types that included salt and brackish marshes,
freshwater marshes and shrub swamps, and tidal freshwater swamps integrated with
riparian and floodplain forests. The floodplain forests contained extensive relic channels,
active sloughs, and side channels connected to the river at higher flows. Periodic
movement of the main channel and tributary creeks, as well as beaver activity, produced
a pattern of interspersion of various successional stages and transitional communities
within the matrix of ancient forest stands.

With the arrival of European settlers, the mainstem floodplain was logged and, along
with the intertidal zone, hydrologically altered through channel modification, ditching,
and diking. Original forest cover was removed, beavers were largely eradicated, and the
system of distributary and side channels was greatly simplified. These changes altered
the dynamic nature of the natural vegetation cover, and eliminated much of the mosaic
pattern created by interspersion of plant communities of various types and successional
stages. The modern landscape of the lower valley is agricultural, and the principal
forested areas are relatively small stands dominated by hardwoods. Streamside_
vegetation consists primarily of narrow, discontinuous bands of hardwoods. Freshwater
marshes are very limited in extent. Salt marshes are currently present in a fairly narrow
area outside the dike system, as the intertidal blind channel system was largely
eliminated.

The valley bottoms of the North Fork, lower South Fork, and major tributaries originally
supported forest mosaics reflecting beaver activity and channel movement similar to the
forests of the mainstem floodplain, but more limited in extent (Pess et. al. 1999). This
system interspersed with and transitioned into upland forest types. Mosaic patterns in
upland areas and riparian zones in steep terrain were maintained by fire or by snow and
debris avalanches. Early mining and railroad construction activities required large
amounts of wood, which was initially taken from mainstem riparian areas. Subsequent
logging of tributary basins and slopes often involved highly destructive practices, such as
splash-damming, which not only altered the condition of the logged areas but also often
had detrimental impacts on stream channels elsewhere in the basin (USFS 1995, ODFW
1995, and Sedell 1988). As large-scale logging accelerated in this century, the pattern of
forest cover and processes affecting it, such as fire and landslides, changed dramatically.
Fire return intervals in the pre-settlement system were on the order of centuries, while
fires occurred more commonly during the period of intensive exploitation. Slides
initiated in cut-over and road areas also occurred more frequently than normal rates. All
of these changes have resulted in a basin characterized by a patchwork of early-to-mid
seral forest stands and very little old-growth forest. In addition, the large woody debris
component of both forest and stream ecosystems is assumed to have been substantially
depleted and altered in character (Pollock 1998). ,

Forest Service management objectives in the basin are generally geared toward
increasing the proportion of federal lands in a late-seral condition, with a special

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 4


GOLD BASIN SLIDE

1 01 2 3 4 ~#S Miles

LOWER SE - TRIB 319

TRIB 358¢

| COnrirrac



5.3.10. Portage Creek

This site is comprised of three contiguous reaches of Portage Creek, in the
Stillaguamish’s lower basin. The upper project reach, approximately 4000’ in length, is
contained within the existing Portage Creek Wildlife Refuge Area, owned by the
Snohomish County Parks Department. The middle project reach extends immediately
downstream from the upper reach boundary to Interstate 5 and is approximately 10,600’
long. The lower project reach extends from Interstate 5 to the creek’s confluence with
Koch Slough and is approximately 17,600’ long. Land adjacent to the lower and middle
project reaches is privately owned and currently under active agricultural use.

Although construction of Interstate-5 reduced flow in Portage Creek from historic levels,
current stream flow is adequate to provide fish spawning and rearing habitat. In the
lower and middle reaches, the primary factors that limit fish habitat value are a lack of
shade and a lack of channel complexity/diversity. Nearly all woody debris has been
removed from the channel, and reed canary grass is the predominant bank cover. Within
the upper reach, Portage Creek flows are conveyed through a constructed ditch system,
and are hydrologically disconnected from a former wetland area. This ditched
conveyance system, combined with the network of drainage tiles installed throughout the
site, collectively impede reestablishment of wetland conditions. Currently, there are
approximately seven miles of accessible spawning habitat available upstream of the
upper Portage Creek project reach.

This project would enhance channel complexity and riparian habitat in the lower and
middle reaches of Portage Creek. In the lower reach, LWD would be keyed into the bank
on alternating sides of the low flow channel, approximately every 50 feet. At these LWD
sites, an equivalent area would be excavated from the channel bed/bank to maintain cross
sectional area for flow conveyance; excavated materials would be disposed of on-site (in
upland agricultural lands only). A bank-to-bank riparian buffer (above OHW) would
then be established. Plantings would consist of native species (no hybrids or horticultural
varieties), such as Sitka spruce, western red cedar, hemlock, willow, Pacific crabapple,
cottonwood, big leaf maple, wild cherry, hazelnut, and alder. Dense areas of reed canary
grass would be scarified or removed, where possible. Reed canarygrass would be further
controlled through shading as the native plantings mature; it is anticipated that several
years of reed canary grass control will be needed before patches are entirely shaded out.
Similar LWD debris placement and planting are proposed for the middle reach.

However, in this area a 50’ buffer on each side of the channel would be planted. In
addition, approximately 20% of the banks in the lower and middle reaches, in areas
where farmers run cattle, would be fenced. LWD placement would occur only during
low flows and non-migratory periods, as specified by WDFW. Planting would occur
during February or March.

In the upper project reach, the project goal is to redirect Portage Creek from an existing
ditch channel into a newly excavated meandering channel, and to restore the area to
forested wetland. Approximately 750’ of an existing ditch at the eastern end of the site
would be filled, using soil excavated during construction of the new main channel.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 78


SEPA

State Environmental Policy Act

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIP State Implementation Plan

SMA Washington Shoreline Management Act

$02 sulfur dioxide

TCP Traditional Cultural Properties

USC U.S. Code

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS US. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOCs volatile organic compounds

WAC “Washington Administrative Code

WDF Washington Department of Fisheries (precursor to WDFW)
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

WRDA Water Resource Development Act

WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area

WSCC Washington State Conservation Commission

WWTIT Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000

Final Environmental Assessment Page viii


The Tulalip and Stillaguamish Indian Tribes constitutes a distinct, separate community of
Native Americans who rely on Treaty-reserved fish for subsistence, economic, and
spiritual purposes. The implementation of the preferred alternative is not expected to
result in any disproportionate adverse environmental effects or impacts on the health of
tribal members, or other minority/low-income populations.

The project does not involve the siting of a facility that will discharge pollutants or
contaminants, so no human health effects would occur. No interference with Tulalip or
Stillaguamish treaty rights is anticipated, as construction would not physically interfere
with fishing in usual and accustomed places, and the restoration plan is intended to
beneficially impact fishery resources. Implementation of the proposed projects would not
negatively affect property values in the area, or socially stigmatize local residents or
businesses in any way.

11.1.11 Native American Coordination

In the past several years a renewed emphasis has been placed on coordination with Native
American Tribes by federal agencies. Not only are there a legal requirements for federal
agencies to conduct this coordination but there is also an understanding that when natural
resources are involved, the Tribes have both expertise and information to provide. For
the Stillaguamish Ecosystem Restoration, informal coordination occurred from the onset
of the project. While formal coordination meetings have yet to transpire, both the
Stillaguamish and Tulalip Tribes in cooperation with Snohomish County were
instrumental in initiating the study. Both the County and the Tribes were integral in
establishing the Stillaguamish Implementation Review Committee, which first addressed
the resource problems in the Basin. This was followed by a watershed assessment of the
Stillaguamish to address impacts to coho salmon. Both products provided much of the
technical foundation for the Restoration study and led to identification of projects. The
majority of informal tribal coordination for this project has come through the study’s
technical committee (reference the beginning of this section). Both Tribes are members
and regular participants of this group. As the study progresses, the close coordination
that was established from the onset will continue.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 106


There are currently two alternatives for making a connection to the River for the North
Meander. The first alternative would be to construct (excavate) a whole new channel that
flows towards the northwest to the Old Stillaguamish River. This new channel entrance
would be about fifty feet wide and the bottom of the channel would be flush with the.
existing bottom elevation of the Old Stillaguamish River. Large Woody Debris would be
keyed into the bankline to allow for a scour hole to form at the new channel entrance.
Any new or exposed surfaces from the construction would be planted with native
vegetation. The second option for restoration at the North Meander includes excavation
of material to form a new channel connection and entrance to Cook Slough. This option
would probably provide more channel length. However, due to downcutting in the area
over the past several years the amount of fill to be removed would be substantial. Like
the previously mentioned connection to the Old Stilliguamish River, the channel entrance
would be fifty feet wide with woody debris placed at the channel entrance. Both __
alternatives rely on excavating down in the upper channel and capturing groundwater to
produce flow. During construction of either of the alternatives, a one-acre staging area
would be used. In stream work would be scheduled for summer and construction impacts
would be minimized through the use of best management practices. Additional
information on ground water elevation and topography would be obtained during the
plans and specifications phase of the project. This information, combined with real-estate
concems and costs, will provide the information on which alternative is pursued.

5.3.7. South Meander

The project is located in the Stillaguamish’s lower basin, on an old meander channel on
the south side of Cook Slough (T31N R4E Section 12 and T31N R5E Sections 6 and 7).

Like the North Meander discussed above, the south meander, also about 4000 feet long,
was cut off from the lower Stillaguamish in 1936-37 as part of a Works Project
Administration flood control project. Although the South Meander is completely
disconnected from the river, it does provide some wildlife benefits since a large riparian
buffer consisting mostly of deciduous trees is present. Groundwater infiltration does feed
the slough, but this water stagnates in the summer causing water quality concerns.

The proposed plan for the South Meander includes connecting the existing waterbody to
Portage Creek, which then empties into the mainstem just downstream from the project.
This would be done by expanding the existing channel by excavating several high spots
along the channel length. A preliminary evaluation of water surface elevations and
topography seems to indicate that this is feasible. Planting of native vegetation would
occur along the stream channel in areas where there is just pasture. During construction a
one-acre staging area would be used. In stream work would be scheduled for summer
and construction impacts would be minimized through the use of best management
practices. Addition information on ground water elevation and topography would be
obtained during the plans and specifications phase of the project.

5.3.8. 26 Maintenance Sites

This project is comprised of 26 individual maintenance sites constructed during 1930s by
the Works Project Administration. These sites are located in the Stillaguamish’s lower

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 76


by several resource agencies. Restoration work may also require compliance with
various construction codes and health and safety and labor laws.

Key environmental statutes for which some compliance action is required are
discussed briefly below. In addition, Tables 4 and 5 provide a summary of
compliance requirements and sequencing.

11.1.1. National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was enacted in 1969. The act allows for
the preparation of a joint NEPA/SEPA document for a single program or project, to avoid
duplication of effort and reduce paperwork when federal and state/local permits are
required. For this project, the Seattle District of the Corps of Engineers is the federal
NEPA agency and has chosen to develop an Environmental Assessment (EA). The Corps
distributed the draft document to affected Tribes and agencies for a 30-day comment
period, then finalized and redistributed the Final EA. The comments that were received
were incorporated in this final Environmental Assessment. If new information on
individual projects arises, any issues requiring further analysis will be revisited in
subsequent project-specific NEPA documents.

11.1.2. State Environmental Policy Act

The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was developed based upon
NEPA and was enacted in 1971. Snohomish County, Surface Water Management is the
lead local agency for SEPA for this project. The County may adopt this NEPA EA under
the appropriate SEPA procedures. It is anticipated that separate SEPA documents will be
prepared for site specific actions.

11.1.3. Endangered Species Act

In accordance with Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended,
federally funded, constructed, permitted, or licensed projects must take into consideration
impacts to federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species. At this point in the
study, the Corps is in partial compliance with this statute. Programmatic BAs for chinook
and coho salmon, bull trout, bald eagle, marbled murrelet and Northern spotted owl are
currently being prepared for the Stillaguamish Basin restoration program and are
expected to be submitted shortly.

The Corps has consulted with both the National Marine Fisheries Services and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential impacts to federally listed species. The
Corps will continue to consult with both agencies, under the Endangered Species Act
Section 7 consultation process, as necessary and appropriate in order to maintain
compliance with this federal statute.

11.1.4. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 470) requires that wildlife conservation
receive equal consideration and be coordinated with other features of water resource
development projects. This goal is accomplished through Corps funding of U.S. Fish and

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 102


During construction phase, proposed restoration activities may temporarily degrade fish
habitat by delivering sediments from instream and bank disturbances downstream. In the
long term, activities such as importing sediment and LWD, modifying channel cross-
sections, increasing channel complexity, and riparian plantings would aid natural stream
processes (e.g., LWD recruitment, pool formation, retention time and nutrient
transformation of salmon carcasses in the river). In addition, the landslide stabilization
projects would reduce sediment loading and the water quality improvement project would
introduce clean, cool water into a stagnant channel. The estuarine restoration, off-
channel improvement, and tributary rehabilitation projects would provide high quality,
accessible rearing habitat. The level of benefit to be achieved through implementation of
these activities will be based on such site-specific factors as location, existing riparian
vegetation, and proximity to other habitat, stream channel profile, velocity, and a variety
of other factors.

6.2.3. Wildlife

The overall purpose of the planned restoration projects is to improve the Stillaguamish
River ecosystem for fish and wildlife by restoring habitat as well as water flow and
quality. All projects will have an impact on wildlife during construction but will
ultimately produce improved habitat conditions for a variety of wildlife.

Noise from equipment operation and the removal of vegetation to gain access to
restoration sites will temporarily impact wildlife. Construction may also temporarily
degrade water quality due to disturbance in riparian areas during instream construction.
In the long term, however, restoration activities will result in an improvement to wildlife
habitat. The activities of greatest benefit to wildlife would include importing and placing
LWD, planting vegetation along tributaries and the mainstem, increasing floodplain
habitat and wetlands, including tidally influenced areas, and protecting existing wetlands.

6.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

The proposed restoration activities would occur within the range and known occurrences
several fish and wildlife species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (see
Table 2). As required under Section 7 of the ESA, the Corps will evaluate potential
impacts of the proposed projects on protected species in a separate Biological
Assessment, which will be coordinated with the USFWS and NMFS.

Generally speaking, a number of salmonid habitat indicators in the Stillaguamish Basin
are currently considered to be “at risk” or “not properly functioning.” The proposed
projects have been designed specifically to improve a number of these indicators (e.g.,
water quality, streambank condition, floodplain connectivity, and habitat elements such
as LWD, pool frequency/quality, and off-channel habitat). However, in addition to long-
term beneficial effects, some short term detrimental effects may be associated with
construction activities. For example, sediment pulses from bed and bank disturbances
could affect fish in the project area; such impacts would be minimized through
construction timing and implementation of best management practices.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 87


Most recent literature points out the need to take an ecosystem approach and to consider
the role of watershed dynamics in choosing how to accomplish restoration (Kondoff
2000, Spence et al. 1996). This is certainly the intent of the preferred alternative (No. 2).
Alternative 2 would improve fish habitat by increasing use by the wide variety of fish
species in the tributaries and mainstem, albeit with a focus on improving habitat for
salmonids. Actions in the estuary (e.g., creating deltaic habitat, restoring wetlands)
would also benefit a variety of estuarine intertidal fish species.

Restoration activities such as removing barriers, modifying channel profiles, adding
LWD and creating habitat structures are recognized benefits to salmonids (Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife 1998; USFWS unpub; Spence et al. 1996). The level of
benefit to be achieved through implementation of these activities will be based on project
location, existing riparian vegetation, and proximity to other habitat, stream channel
profile, velocity, and a variety of other factors.

Implementation of alternative 3 would result in similar benefits, but with a focus on
mainstem chinook habitat improvements. The impacts/benefits of these alternatives on
fish would be the same as defined for alternatives 1 and 2, but restoration activities would
not occur in the tributaries.

4.2.3. Wildlife

The focus of the project alternatives will be to improve fish and wildlife habitat in the
Stillaguamish basin. During the construction phase, proposed restoration activities will
temporarily impact wildlife habitat elements. Short-term impacts would generally be
from disturbance caused by construct activities. These impacts will include noise from
equipment and removal of vegetation to gain access to the restoration sites.

In the long term, restoration activities would result in some improvement to wildlife
habitat. The activities of greatest benefit to wildlife would include importing and placing
LWD, planting vegetation along tributaries and mainstem, increasing floodplain habitat
and wetlands, and protecting floodplain and wetland habitat. Alternative 2 has the best
chance for long term improvements for wildlife since restoration activities will occur
throughout the basin.

4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

As required under the Endangered Species Act, a programmatic Biological Assessment
(BA) evaluating project impacts on the species listed in Section 2.3 will be prepared for
the preferred alternative of this restoration plan. This BA will follow the USFWS and
NMFS assessment guidelines for effect determinations at the watershed scale.

Generally speaking, a number of salmonid habitat indicators in the Stillaguamish Basin
are currently considered to be “at risk” or “not properly functioning.” The proposed
projects have been designed specifically to improve a number of these indicators (e.g.,
water quality, streambank condition, floodplain connectivity, and habitat elements such
as LWD, pool frequency/quality, and off-channel habitat). However, in addition to long-

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 56


4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE VARIOUS APPROACHES TO
HABITAT RESTORATION

In this section the different approaches to restoration presented in Section 3 will be
evaluated for their environmental consequences. These different approaches will be
compared and contrasted to determine which method would produce the most positive
environmental effects while minimizing adverse impacts.

4.1 Physical Characteristics

One of the intents of restoration activities for the Stillaguamish system is to change the
existing channel and bank characteristics to be more representative of natural conditions.
Soils and stream morphology, both dynamic conditions in riverine systems, would be
modified along the River as a result of these changes. These modifications would occur
for all alternatives including No Action.

4.1.1. Geology

Under all alternatives, short-term impacts to soils resulting from the proposed restoration
activities would occur from construction. Construction impacts would result from the
movement and use of construction equipment at the restoration sites. The level of impact
would vary from site to site depending on location, current level of disturbance, soils
type, presence of hard-surfaced roads for site access, and other factors. Construction
activities would result in temporary disturbance to soils at the construction site, soil
compaction, and removal or modification of coarse channel deposits and/or finer
overbank alluvium. This material would either be repositioned on the restoration site or
taken off-site for disposal. For this discussion it is assumed that alternatives 2 and 3
would have the greatest short term impacts since the frequency and location of projects
under the no-action alternative would be difficult to estimate. Under alternative 2 (multi-
species approach) project location sites would be throughout the basin. While under
alternative three (focuses on chinook) most project sites wou!d be located along the
mainstem and in the estuary.

4.1.2. Climate

Due to the scale and timeframe of the proposed restoration alternatives, none of the
alternatives are likely to affect local climatic conditions,

4.1.3. Hydrology

All of the restoration alternatives would modify surface and groundwater conditions to
some extent, with the intent to improve conditions for salmonid and riparian resources.
The differences between the alternatives are one of scale, location and timeframe. Under
the no-action, it is difficult to predict where changes to hydrology would occur since
detailed plans for restoration outside of this program are not available, For alternatives 2
and 3, the stated objectives are to improve the hydrologic condition. Both of these have
similar time frames, (construction would occur over a ten-year period). Again, alternative
2 (multi-species approach) could occur over a wider area. All proposed restoration
alternatives will, to some degree, affect surface water conditions within the Stillaguamish

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 52


experience rapid down- and bank cutting, which also increases sedimentation.
Nevertheless, resource experts believe that there is a potential to increase production.

Upper South Fork In 1954, a fishway was built on Granite Falls to allow anadromous
salmonids access to spawning grounds above the natural falls. Steelhead, chinook, pink,
and coho gained access to the Upper South Fork as a result, but passage is sometimes
impeded by gravels blocking the structure or low flows. There are resident bull trout in
this portion of the river as well.

North Fork Stillaguamish

Deer Creek Deer Creek and its tributaries have undergone dramatic changes since the
onset of logging. Peak flows, mass wasting of sediment, channel incision and scour are
have changed channel morphology in this geologically unstable area. Even so, Deer
Creek is still important to breeding populations of coho and steelhead.

North Fork Stillaguamish Due to intense logging in this watershed, erosion and
deposition patterns have changed drastically and adversely affected the ability of the

system to support salmonid populations. In addition to changes in habitat quality (i.e.,
loss of riparian vegetation), sediments have buried spawning areas and high flows have
removed LWD. The North Fork is the main producer of most anadromous species and
races, although numbers are dramatically reduced (especially for coho and chinook) from
historic record.

Flows. Peak streamflows generally occur in the late autumn and winter, typically from
rain-on-snow events. More that one-third of the Stillaguamish Basin is located in
elevations prone to rain-on-snow events, between 305 and 914 m in elevation. Ten to 14
of the largest peak flow events on record have occurred in past 20 years (Pess and Benda
1994). From 1978-1987 these high flows resulted in a 4- to 5- fold increase in hill-slope
sediment input from upper North Fork (above RM 34.5). This input changed channel
morphology in several ways. Particular reaches have widened over 100%, and aggraded
or degraded up to two meters in 11 years. This has resulted in the “perching” of many
tributaries above the mainstem and the shallowing of channels, which causes the filling in
of pools, rising temperatures, and low flow problems (Pess and Benda 1994).

Excessively high stream flows can be detrimental to salmon when they cause scouring in
gravel beds containing salmon eggs. Also, the scoured substrate may be redeposited over
downstream salmon redds, smothering the eggs. High flows can also flush large woody
debris out of stream channels.

Flood flows have been higher and flashier than patterns recorded earlier. Resource
experts attribute this to rain-on-snow events in the heavily logged upper watershed. This
is well demonstrated by the unusual number of large flows have occurred in the last 10
years. These flows have cut new channels and contributed to channel instability,
scouring of redds and fish strandings.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 14


scattered locations in Washington. In addition, the 1855 Treaties of Medicine Creek and
Point Elliott called for the resident Indians to cede their traditionally occupied lands in
exchange for reserved lands. This opened up many thousands of acres to Euroamerican
settlement, which occurred fairly rapidly. More settlers arrived with the opening of the
rail-lines across the Cascades (late 1880s and early 1900s). A pattern of settlement
similar to all western Washington basins also occurred on the Stillaguamish (Hollenbeck,
1987).

Loggers first established camps around Stanwood (then known as Centerville) in the
1860s. The primary purpose of the camps was to supply the California boomtowns of the
1849 gold rush. People built sawmills all along the coastlines of Puget Sound to process
the abundant timber that blanketed the entire region. The logging industry began to move
eastward as lowland timber disappeared. There were virtually no roads so loggers floated
most of the timber down the Stillaguamish River to Stanwood and its mills. Eventually
the timber interests built roadways and established railroad connections. This included a
branch line of the Great Northern Railway up the River from Arlington that hauled timber
from the upper Stillaguamish and Sauk River basins. Logging continued to increase
during both world wars because of the high demand for timber. As technologies
changed, timber removal became more efficient and operators were able to reach even the
most remote locations. Trucks became more important than railroads for transporting
timber in the 1930s that also opened up logging in more areas (Hollenbeck, 1987).

In the early 1870s, settlers constructed the first sea-dikes on the estuary near the present
City of Stanwood. This converted some 800 acres of tidelands to agricultural fields. By
the 1886, most of the estuary had been diked and drained (Bortleson, et al., 1980). Flood
control opened the way for industrial, commercial, and residential development.

Mining was an important industry within the basin, especially around the tum of the
century. The first mining locations were near the town of Silverton on the South Fork
(established in 1892). Miners also formed a community at Monte Christo near Barlow
Pass, above the headwaters of the South Fork. A severe flood on the River in 1898
damaged the railroads and caused the mines to close. Fear of starvation during the
coming winter caused the residents to move down towards Granite Falls and abandoned
the town site. After the 1920s, mining operations eventually died out or the companies
scaled back to minimal operations due to the low quantity of gold and falling prices for
other minerals (Hollenbeck, 1987).

Previous Cultural Resources Work. According to Miss and Campbell (1991),
archaeological work in Snohomish County can be grouped into three periods with are
distinguished by geographic and theoretical focus. The first archaeological investigation
in the county, and the project area specifically, was conducted on coastal and riverine
shell middens by Harlan I. Smith of the American Museum of Natural History. In 1899,
Smith interviewed local collectors, recorded “shell-heaps” along the lower Stillaguamish
reach and north of Stanwood and conducted excavations at some of them, and recovered
artifacts for the museum’s collections. Between the 1940s and 1970s, various schools
conducted surveys for academic research around Puget Sound. Concentrating on easily

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 43


3. ALTERNATIVES

3.1 Overview

In this section of the EA, we examine the types of approaches the Corps could use to
restore habitat in the project area. Then we will compare and contrast the different
alternatives, describing the environméntal consequences of these various restoration
approaches (Section 4.). This evaluation will identify the best way to proceed with
choosing specific restoration projects. We will then identify a range of project types that
would occur under the preferred alternative and describe how individual projects were
selected (Section 5.). The last step is to evaluate the environmental consequences of the
specific projects (Section 6.).

Three major alternatives on how to approach habitat restoration in the Stillaguamish
River Basin were identified for analysis in this EA through the planning process. They
are:

Alternative 1 - no action

Alternative 2 - the multi-species (i.e.; fish and wildlife) approach

Alternative 3 - the single threatened fish species approach.

3.2 Alternative 1: No Action

The No Action Alternative would consist of the continuation of a variety of restoration
activities under existing regulations and tribal, agency, and non-governmental
organization restoration programs. Current independent management of the river basin
by various agencies would continue, implementing activities under existing policies.

The goals of this alternative are to continue the implementation of project-by-project
restoration activities through the current agency-based programs. The goals and
objectives for restoration. would be tied to those defined for each separate agency
program rather than to the overarching goals of the watershed-based program.
Additionally, under No Action, the geographic focus and how the restorations will be
implemented will also be tied to the individual programs.

The No Action Alternative assumes that efforts to improve habitat conditions throughout
the Stillaguamish River Basin would continue, but as a fragmented, noncohesive program
with limited funding opportunities. Restorations that do occur would most likely be as a
part of single-jurisdiction actions based on location and funding opportunities rather than
comprehensive resource need. Restoration aspects of No Action could include continued
project-by-project restorations that would incrementally reduce barriers to fish passage,
connect potential habitat and potential major spawning and rearing areas with the
mainstem river, increase estuarine habitat, and increase streamside vegetation.

The geographic focus of this alternative would continue to be scattered throughout the
Basin, in much the same way as past projects.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 47


levels adequate for summer rearing habitat for anadromous salmonids. The design would
provide complex habitat with scour pools and cover, while minimizing fish strandings.
The six bank jams will be designed to protect existing banks, and like the BAJ would
provide cover and complexity while creating holding pools under the exposed rootwads.
Riverbed material excavated while constructing the logjams would be placed in and over
the structures to enhance stability; any excess materials will be disposed of offsite in an
approved landfill. The excavation of approximately 500 feet of an existing overflow
channel that runs parallel to Koch Slough would provide quality off-channel habitat. It
would be excavated until a connection with groundwater (to provide adequate flows of 3-
5 cfs) is made; this is expected to occur at a depth of approximately 10 feet. This channel
would be connected to the mainstem Stillaguamish just upstream of the confluence.
Channel slopes would be planted with riparian vegetation, and LWD may be placed at
50-foot intervals to supplement natural wood recruitment. No spawning is sought at the
project site.

The exact placement and dimensions of the seven logjams cannot be specified until
detailed hydraulic, hydrologic, and structural analyses have been completed. Access to
the site would occur via an existing farm road, and a new temporary road constructed by
extending an existing tumout through a patch of blackberry that runs along the wooded
right overbank. A spur off this new road would connect to the gravel bar; it would extend
down the bank, across the stagnant channel, and to the bar. Two 4000 ft” staging areas
would be established on the right bank, and the gravel bar would provide a laydown area.
Construction would occur in the wet, during summer low flow months outside of
migration periods as specified by WDFW.

5.3.6. North Meander

The project site is located in the Stillaguamish’s lower basin, on an old meander channel
of Cook Slough just downstream from the Stillaguamish Weir (T31N R4E Section 1).

This old meander, which is about 4000 feet long, was cut off from the lower
Stillaguamish in 1936-37 as part of a Works Project Administration flood control project.
Although the North Meander is completely disconnected from the river, it does provide
some wildlife benefits since a large riparian buffer consisting mostly of deciduous trees is
present. Groundwater infiltration does feed the slough, but this water stagnates in the
summer causing water quality concerns.

The goal for the North Meander project is to provide off channel refuge to juvenile
salmonids during time of high flows in the Stillaguamish River. In addition, the project
would provide both summer and winter rearing and refuge for juvenile salmonids. Both
this project and the similar project just across the river (South Meander) represent a real
opportunity to gain back some of the historical rearing habitat that has been lost in the
system. Reconnection of these two old meander bends that are now side-channel sloughs
can increase summer smolt coho production potential by approximately 22,000 and
winter production potential 50,000. There will also be some vegetative plantings in the
project area to improve shade and provide additional wildlife habitat.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 7S


APPENDIX D

Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act Report


i Bill Wallace
tural Re Coordinat
a Tulalip Tribes a DNR Northwest Region

6326 33%A: , 919N Township St
sacrpees an Sedro Woolley WA 92284

Vaughn Collins
Snohomish County Surface Water Mgt. George Pess
2731 Wetmore Av Suite 300 NMESNWESC
2725 Montlake Blvd. E.

1
Everett WA 9820 Seattle WA 98112


restoration strategies that focused on salmon and trout habitat in 13 Stillaguamish sub-
basins (SIRC 1995). The draft document is considered a work in progress that continues
to be refined and modified as the planning process proceeds.

Snohomish County and Tribal Resource Inventory and Planning Documents

Snohomish County Surface Water Management, the Stillaguamish Tribe, and Tulalip
Tribe have developed various resource inventory materials that have been used to isolate
problems and restoration opportunities within the Stillaguamish basin or sub-sections of
the basin. These include aquatic habitat mapping, culvert inventories, stream inventories,
and riparian corridor mapping, in addition to direct monitoring of fish use.

Forest Service studies

The U.S. Forest Service has conducted a Stillaguamish River Assessment (1994) and
watershed analyses on the Upper and Lower South Fork of the Stillaguamish River and
Canyon Creek (U.S. Forest Service Darrington Ranger District 1995, 1996). These
documents thoroughly review conditions within the study areas, including aquatic
habitats, seral and landscape patterns of terrestrial vegetation, fish and wildlife
populations, including species considered endangered or in peril, and patterns of human
use. They include identification of restoration priorities as well as management issues.
The Forest Service has also published a review of restoration activities in the Deer Creek
watershed between 1984-1994 (Movassaghi et al. 1996), which includes an assessment of
the effectiveness of particular actions and recommendations for future initiatives.

Washington State Conservation Commission Limiting Factors Report

This report is an assessment of the habitat factors limiting the production of salmon in the
Stillaguamish watershed, also known as Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 5

This document focuses on all Stillaguamish stocks identified in the 1992 Washington
State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI): chinook, coho, chum, and pink
salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. Searun cutthroat and sockeye salmon are also
discussed. The SASSI currently lists the Stillaguamish summer and fall chinook and
Stillaguamish coho as depressed stocks. The Deer Creek summer steelhead is listed as
critical. In March 1999, the Puget Sound chinook stocks were designated as threatened
under the federal Endangered Species Act. Additionally the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) has listed the Puget Sound bull trout as threatened.

Corps of Engineers Vegetation Mapping and Resource Inventory Compilation

The Seattle District, Corps of Engineers has assembled various resource map coverages
within a Geographic Information System specifically to support this study. Existing
coverages of wetland distribution, soils, surficial geology, stream inventories, stream
blockages, priority species habitats, and similar resources have been adopted directly
from their primary sources. Existing coverages include the Washington Rivers
Information System (Hudson and Knutson 1993), along with modifications and
improvements developed in the course of studies conducted by the Department of
Ecology, Snohomish County, Stillaguamish Tribe, and Tulalip Tribe, as described above.
In addition, the GIS-contains a coverage called “Land Cover,” which depicts vegetation

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 8


STATE OF WASHINGTON

OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
420 Golf Club Road SE, Suite 201, Lacey « PO Box 48343 * Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 + (360) 407-0752
Fax Number (360) 407-6217

August 2, 2000

Mr. Patrick Cagney
Environmental Resources Section
Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
PO Box 3755

Seattle, WA 98124-3755

Log No.: 072600-10-COE.S
Re: Draft EA for Stillaguamish River Ecoystem Restoration

Dear Mr. Cagney;
We have reviewed the materials forwarded to our office for the above referenced project.

We concur with your recommendation to conduct a professional archaeological survey of the identified

project impact areas. We also recommend consultation with the concemed tribes regarding cultural
resource issues. :

These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the
State Historic Preservation Officer. Should additional information become available, our assessment may
be revised. We look forward to further consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing
regulations...

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Please feel free to contact me at (360) 407-
0771 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D.
State Archaeologist
Email: robw@cted.wa.gov


This alternative also relies upon willing landowners; real estate actions would be
accomplished through easements and fee simple purchase.

3.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

The Corps and Snohomish County considered evaluating one other alternative—return to
historic conditions—in this EA. This alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluation
because it was not considered to be politically, socially, or economically feasible. The
intent of the Historic Conditions Alternative would be to restore the basin as closely as
possible to its original condition, as described in the study area history of the basin in
Section 2. This alternative would have included, individually or in combination, the
following components, several of which would be necessary to approach re-establishing
historic conditions: .

= Completely remove the existing dike system that fronts Port Susan Bay to restore
tidal inundation to historic estuarine marsh habitat.

= Remove the Stillaguamish weir to restore historic water distribution in the lower
river.

«= Completely remove revetments along the lower mainstem to restore back channels,
wetlands, and the floodplain.

None of these components are evaluated in this EA.

Whichever restoration approach is pursued, the resultant projects will have to go through
an incremental cost analysis as part of the Corps feasibility process.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 51


FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure: Location Map sc. cccscssssess easssrtearactenscicvionioess gencicenaass snstoeccvebssonasacceseencesers ll
Figure 2. North Fork Mean Daily Discharge Summary Hydrograph............++++++0 16
Figure 3. Peak Annual Flow vs. Water Year, North Fork Stillaguamish................ 17
Figure'4.. Vegetation:and Land USe scssossssosssssssuesscossssogscusscssseuissussecescoszesstsavousssuaesusasis 23
Figure 5. Lower Basin Restoration, Site s.issisc.esesecscsescevceetececssnesceseeceseceeseesees 70

Figure 6. North Fork Restoration Sites

Figure 7. South Fork Restoration Sites

Table 1. Average Natural Anadromous Production by Species, 1956-65.......-..++++. 25

Table 2. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species in the Project Vicinities ...30

Table'3: “Project SCORN sistas seccscsspusosesessustacecesssuestestssaacncesiachacenctaperasmaecemniserens 68

Table 4. Compliance with Applicable Laws and Regulations...........s:ssssssssesssssesesses 107

Table 5. Sequencing of Permit and Compliance Activities ..........s:sssssssessessesesesneseeene 110
Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000

Final Environmental Assessment Pagev


Table 3. Project Scoring

Immediate Long Benefits Reverse | Sustainability/ Eco- Feasibility | RER | Rank
Benefits to Term toother | losses of Habitat system
Salmon Benefits species Rare Forming level
to Salmon habitats Processes effects
S1 S2 $3 | S4 | SS | S6 S7 S8 s9 $10
1 Hat Slough | 4 1 4 1 s 3 4 3 4 4 23 1
Entrance
2 Mainstem 3 2 2 2 3 2 oh 2 3 3 14 16
Hat Slough
3 ‘South Pass 3 1 4 1 s 3 4 3 4 s 23 1
4 Old Stiili 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 4 4 2 19 9
Channel
5 Confluence 4 1 4 1 3 3 4 3 4 3 20 7
6 Koch 4 1 4 1 3 C) 2 3 4 4 22 3
Slough
Weir
7 North 4 1 4 1 3 3 4 2 4 2 18 12
Meander
8 South 4 1 5 1 3 3 4 3 4 3 21 5
Meander :
9 Norman 1 1 1 1 4 2 4 4 2 4 16 14
Road
Wetland
10 S. Fork 2 2 2 2 4 3 2 3 2 3 u 20
Trib 319
il ‘Trib 358C 2 2 3 2 3 2 4 2 3 13 18
12 Trib 169 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 4 3 3 13 18
13 N. Fork 4 2 4 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 16 14
Trib 138
14 Trib 147 3 2 3 2 4 2 2 3 2 3 14 16
15 | Cloverdale | 4 2 4 2 4 3 3 3 3 5 19 9
16 | Port Susan 3 2 4 2 4 2 4 3) 3 2 7 B
7 26 Sites 2 1 J 1 3 1 1 2 2 4 20 7
18 Portage 4 3 5 3 4 2 4 4 3 3 19 9
Creek
19 | Hazel Slide | 3 0) 4 0 2 0 3 2 5 3 22 3
20 | GoldBasin | 3 ) 3 0 2 C) 3 2 4 4 21 5
Slide

Table 3 summarizes the results of the panel’s ratings, the overall RERs, and the ranking
of project priorities based on those scores. The highest-scoring projects involved

reconnections of large sloughs, cutoffs, or intertidal habitats. The lowest-scoring projects

involved reconnection and/or rehabilitation of small tributaries; these lower scores were

largely a function of the perceived lack of ecosystem-wide benefits, and lack of

significant positive effects on overall salmonid populations. Cost analysis of the projects

will also need to occur. Therefore a high RER does not automatically assure that a
project will be constructed, cost will also be taken into consideration.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration
Final Environmental Assessment

November 2000
Page 68



S00/NO0S

spuspe;\ Ma
spusje;\ Ma
SpuBnen
en ued .
UB MOUS
ueveg see)
yequ) Mo7 (a
rete
DUB]
By enjoy Mail
noseyuos Baie.
nose)uoD Mil
NOJEJU0D
snonpjoeq Ball
104 pexi Me

gey Aya)
WIS/SIENE | * ’



15) Cloverdale Golf Course: plant a riparian buffer, and build a fence to prevent
livestock from accessing the creek

The current phase of the study, the Feasibility Phase, was initiated two years after the
Reconnaissance Phase was completed. At this time, the team decided to revisit the
project list to see if any additional information was available that would lead to inclusion
or deletions of additional projects. The technical team met on two occasions to evaluate
the project list using the same project criteria developed for the study. At this time it
became obvious to the technical team that sedimentation issues were important, and that
the first group of projects had not really addressed the issue. As a result, five new
projects were added to the list, two of which aimed at stabilizing major landslides that
deposited material directly into the River:

16) Port Susan: construction of LWD islands on mudflats

17) 26 Maintenance Sites: modify Corps maintenance practices (i.e., incorporate
bioengineering techniques, no longer maintain sites)

18) Portage Creek: redirect creek from ditch to meandering channel, add LWD, plant
riparian vegetation

19) Hazel Slide: stabilize landslide

20) Gold Basin Slide: reduce sediment input to South Fork from Gold Basin landslide.

5.2.2. Project Evaluation

During the Reconnaissance Study, these projects were subject to an evaluation process
involving the application of set restoration effectiveness criteria. This evaluation was
specifically structured to be used in the context of the candidate projects identified in the
initial screening process. For each of seven criterion, each project was assigned a score
in a range of 0 (least effective) to 5 (most effective), based on the professional judgment
of the evaluators and analyses specific to conditions and objectives in the Stillaguamish
basin (e.g. Pess 1997). This scoring process was designed to reflect net gain derived
from each project (i.e., the change from existing’conditions). Information to’support
decisions regarding the distribution and quality of resources, and the effects of proposed
restoration actions, was taken from the resource databases and GIS systems described in
Section 1.5 of this document.

Application of the seven criteria produced a “restoration effectiveness rating” (RER) for
each project; the RER served as an indicator of the probable relative effectiveness of that
project. The evaluation criteria, S1 through S10, are listed below; these criteria are
thoroughly described in the Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration General
Investigation Reconnaissance Report (Corps 1997). The first three criteria relate to
projects that influence salmonids and other species directly, and are scored in terms of the
differential between without-project conditions and with-project conditions. The

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 66


The Corps is continuing to consult with both the National Marine Fisheries Services and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential impacts to federally listed species.
The Corps will continue to consult with both agencies, under the Endangered Species Act
Section 7 consultation process, as necessary and appropriate in order to maintain
compliance with this federal statute. ,

4. Evaluation. An environmental assessment has been prepared for the proposed
work and was circulated to state and federal government agencies, Native American
Tribes and other interested parties. The proposed project will not significantly impact the
Stillaguamish River Basin and its natural resources and, in fact, is expected to provide
overall benefits to fish and wildlife and their habitat. The proposed action will comply
with all applicable laws, regulations, and agency consultations. Construction of the
projects will occur over a 10-year time frame. Monitoring of the restoration sites will be
conducted to insure project goals and objectives have been met.

5. Finding of No Significant Impact. The projects contained in this study are not
major federal actions that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
Therefore, the proposed action does not require preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement.

teen aso (MM Prvr

Date Ralph H. Graves
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer



The nature and scope of the restoration activities likely to be implemented (e.g.,
restoration of natural habitat, in-river restoration, etc.) preclude significant, basin-wide
recreational impacts from occurring. Public access to natural resources could benefit
under each of the alternatives, if restoration projects include viewpoints and interpretive
signs. The specific project design process should balance the goals of public access and
habitat restoration. .

The greatest potential for recreational impact exists with the placement of large woody
debris (LWD) within the river and its tributaries. The popularity of boating and floating
recreation within the basin necessitates that individual restoration project environmental
reviews address the placement and visibility of LWD in-river to reduce the potential for
injury to boaters or damage to their equipment. In-depth evaluation of project-specific
impacts would occur as a part of the environmental review for individual restoration
projects.

4.5.4, Visual Quality and Aesthetic Resources

General aesthetic qualities should not be adversely affected under any alternative. Minor
changes in localized views may result; however, this should not affect the overall
aesthetics within the basin. Primary viewers in the vicinity of individual restoration
projects, and the most sensitive to changes in the visual environment, would include
residents and recreational users. Although those viewers in the vicinity of any of the
individual restoration projects may view the visual changes positively, other residents
may view the changes negatively.

4.5.5.

4.5.6. Population

The nature and scope of the restoration activities likely to be implemented preclude
significant, basin-wide socioeconomic impacts from occurring. Short- and long-term
impacts from construction activities (lasting only the duration of the construction period)
will be analyzed and mitigated under the project-specific environmental review process.

Restoration work in the basin should not have significant adverse impacts upon the area’s
neighborhoods or community cohesion for the following reasons:

= No splitting of neighborhoods would occur.
= No isolation of any ethnic group or portion of any ethnic group would occur.

= No new developments would result, other than those that would foster public access
and awareness of the communities’ natural resources.

= Property values should not be decreased.

= There should be no separation of residents from community facilities.

Regional economic impacts, such as the effects of any alternative or project on the spatial
distribution of development, will be insignificant.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment 7 Page 59


WsvaninOuVINOsuON e

HdVOOUAAH ALVIS SWIDS 282 « VauY 29vKUVUG z
3OUVHISIG Aliva NV3N
NOLONIYY YVAN HSINVNOVTILS JN} 661/00/60-8261/1 0700

ve 2uNDId ‘3OVO SOSN NOW O3NIv1GO Viva

nay A
3

TIE ELHRELECCECEECLELELE TEUCUEALIALELECLECLECLET LCE WTP
il TUTCECEHETEEEEETEEPEECCTE ECE ETUC °

g
JOUVHDSIO ATIVO NY3W NOLONITUW UYSN USAIN HSINYNOVTILS ‘4'N

(39) 3:

PEreEPEP PTET FP jf} td Wi +1. 006
aa ss or mm | a

056

ydeasoapéy Areuuing adavyosig Apeg weal yoy YVAON *7 2ANByy


organisms and terrestrial insects. Territories expand as juveniles grow. Feeding and
growth slow considerably in the fall and winter, as food production and fish metabolisms
slow. Outmigration timings are quite variable, but peak outmigration of coho smolts
typically occurs between late April and late May. Juveniles generally spend two years in
the ocean before beginning their spawning migration back to natal streams. Some
precocious males, called “jacks,” return to spawn after only 6 months at sea.

2.3.4. Bald Eagle

The Washington State bald eagle population was listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (64 FR 16397), in February 1978. Since
DDT was banned in 1972, bald eagle populations have rebounded. The bald eagle was
proposed for de-listing in July 1999.

The bald eagle is found only in North America and ranges over much of the continent,
from-the northern reaches of Alaska and Canada to northern Mexico. Bald eagles in
Washington State are most commonly found along lakes, rivers, marshes, or other
wetland areas west of the Cascades, with an occasional occurrence along major rivers in
eastern Washington.

The bald eagle wintering season extends from October 31 through March 31. Food is
recognized as the essential habitat requirement affecting winter numbers and distribution
of bald eagles. Other wintering habitat considerations are communal night roosts and
perches. Generally large, tall, and decadent stands of trees on slopes with northerly
exposures are used for roosting; eagles tend to roost in older trees with broken crowns
and open branching (WDFW 1998a). Bald eagles select perches on the basis of
exposure, and proximity to food sources. Trees are preferred over other types of perches,
which may include pilings, fence posts, powerline poles, the ground, rock outcrops, and
logs (Steenhof 1978).

Bald eagles nest between early January and mid-August. The characteristic features of
bald eagle breeding habitat are nest sites, perch trees, and available prey. Bald eagles
primarily nest in uneven-aged, multi-storied stands with old-growth components. Factors
such as tree height, diameter, tree species, position on the surrounding topography,
distance from water, and distance from disturbance also influence nest selection. Bald
eagles normally lay two to three eggs once a year, which hatch after about 35 days.
Snags, trees with exposed lateral branches, or trees with dead tops are often present in
nesting territories and are critical to eagle perching, movement to and from the nest, and
as points of defense of their territory.

2.3.5. Marbled Murrelet

The marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) was listed as a threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (64 FR 16397), in October 1992.
The subspecies occurring in North America ranges from Alaska’s Aleutian Archipelago
to central California. Primary causes of population decline include the loss of nesting
habitat, and direct mortality from gillnet fisheries and oil spills.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 33


River Basin. Construction impacts to surface water would be minor since construction
activities are not expected to alter surface water patterns or quantities.

Typical activities under all alternatives include placement of large woody debris (LWD),
excavation, re-vegetation, and alteration of in-stream structures. While these activities
are common to all three alternatives, the degree of impacts varies among the different
alternatives. For alternative 1 (no-action), these activities could occur throughout the
basin but probably infrequently. For alternative 2 (multi-species), these activities would
occur along the mainstem, in the estuary and some tributaries over the next ten years. For
alternative 3 (single species), the activities would occur just along the mainstem and
estuary over a ten-year timeframe. The increases in streamside vegetation along
tributaries and the mainstem from re-vegetation activities are not expected to result in
seasonal modifications in surface water. The additional vegetation could result in a
higher use of groundwater during the growing season, however.

In-depth evaluation of project-specific impacts would occur as a part of the
environmental review for individual restoration projects.

Groundwater

Short-term impacts to groundwater could occur from construction of elements of
alternatives 2 and 3. The level of impact would vary from site to site depending on
location, current level of disturbance, soils type, presence of hard-surfaced roads for site
access, and other factors.

Long-term impacts to groundwater would include an increase in recharge from additional
length of channel under alternatives 2 or 3. Again, it would be the extent of change,
where alternative two encompasses a wider area where the work would be accomplished.
While this activity would be beneficial, the overall effect of this contribution to
groundwater is expected to be minor relative to the amount of impervious surface area in
the watershed and the degree to which patterns of groundwater recharge have been
modified.

4.1.4. Water Quality

In the short term water quality would be negatively impacted under any of the proposed
alternatives. This is expected since restoration activities entail moving of soil and the
placement of material adjacent to the mainstem, tributaries and the estuary. Potential
short term impacts of the various alternatives differ on the basis of scale, location and
timing. Given the little information we have on the no-action alternative, we could
assume that this alternative would have the least impact. The short-term impacts under
alternative 2 would be distributed throughout the basin over a ten-year period.
Alternative 3’s short-term impacts would be confined to the mainstem and estuary.

Water quality would be expected to improve in the long term as the function of the
restoration projects-increases, particularly for those activities designed to increase
streamside vegetation, bank stability, and to improve the control of sediment from
landslides. Streamside planting and protection of riparian zones would further provide

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 53


1991 to allow fish passage during low flows. A river bar has built up at the entrance to
the Stillaguamish Channel and, during flood events, the river over-tops the bar and
increases sediment load in the Stillaguamish Channel. Levees have also been built along
portions of the Stillaguamish Channel near Stanwood, and along Hat Slough, to restrict
the river’s natural tendency of changing course. Lower flows result in less gravel
cleansing and shifting in the river, which reduce the number of salmonid spawning areas.
Environmental Assessments for periodic maintenance of the weir and levees are available
from the Seattle District office of the Corps of Engineers.

2.1.4. Water Quality

Water quality in the Stillaguamish Basin varies with land use and topography. The
Washington Department of Ecology rates water quality as Class AA (extraordinary)
upstream of the confluence of Squire Creek in the North Fork and the confluence of
Canyon Creek in the South Fork. In 1989, the Department of Ecology identified the
lower Stillaguamish as an impaired waterbody because of water quality problems
(WDOE 1989). A Tulalip Fisheries Department study (Paulsen et al. 1991) of the lower
Stillaguamish found that the mainstem generally met Class A standards, while tributaries
met Class B standards. Marine sites (Warm and Juniper Beaches) met Class B standards.
The number of reported water quality violations are increasing, as indicated by the
growing number of “303(d)” listings in the Stillaguamish drainage. As defined in the
federal Clean Water Act, a water body listed on a state’s 303(d) list is not expected to
attain water-quality standards after implementation of technology-based pollution
controls.

Nonpoint source pollution is a major cause of deteriorating water quality in the ;
Stillaguamisk Basin; different types of nonpoint source pollution are associated with
different land uses. High sediment loads come from land development, tree harvesting
and erosion. High nutrient levels are from fertilizers, failing septic systems and animal
manure. Bacterial contamination results from septic systems and animal waste. Fecal
coliform levels appear to be influenced by manure spreading, overflow of manure
lagoons, and seasonal livestock access to streams.

Nonpoint sources in the Stillaguamish watershed include onsite sewage disposal on rural
residential land, commercial and non-commercial (hobby farm) agricultural practices,
and forestry practices. These non-point sources are expected to increase with continued
development of the watershed. In the lower watershed, river reaches that contained
hobby farms had the greatest alteration in water quality while the commercial agricultural
sites had less impact. Hobby farm owners generally practice poorer pasture management.
The US Soil Conservation Service estimates there are about 1,060 agricultural operating
units in the Stillaguamish watershed (SCPW 1989).

Temperature. Human-caused increases in stream temperatures are attributed to removal
of streamside vegetation and channel widening as a result of high sediment loads. High
temperatures often result in areas where there has been a loss of deep pools and where the
stream is shallow. Removal of large wood debris, increased sediment supply, and
increased peak flows are generally implicated in causing such conditions.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 19


APPENDIX E

Finding of No Significant Impact


Air Quality

Because of the nature of the activities likely to be implemented, air quality impacts would
most likely be associated with ground clearing activities and emissions from construction
equipment. Such activities would be short-term and would have minimal impact on
overall air quality in the region. On a long-term basis, air quality will either remain
unchanged or improve slightly due to iinereased vegetation in the immediate area of each
restoration project.

Land clearing for individual projects (if required) would result in the generation of
fugitive dust emissions. Clearing activities include grubbing and earth moving, dredging,
soil and sediment storage/transport, digging, grading, burning and planting. These
activities would generate fugitive dust in amounts roughly correlating to the amount of
material being moved and the duration of the clearing activity. Once construction
activities were completed there would be no further fugitive dust emissions.

Please refer to the air quality conformity analysis presented in Section 10.1.8 of this
document for a discussion of Clean Air Act compliance.

Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures could be implemented to minimize fugitive dust
emissions:

= Water all excavated or graded areas.

= Time plantings or other ground covering options (e.g., gravel) to minimize time that
soil is exposed to wind and drying.

= Minimize the total construction area disturbed by clearing, earth moving, or
. excavation.

« Limit onsite construction vehicle speed to 15 miles per hour.

= Sweep paved streets adjacent to the project site at least once per day to remove silt
accumulated from construction activities.

= Maintain all construction vehicle internal combustion engines according to
manufacturer specifications.

Noise

Construction activities would generate short-term noise impacts due to the use of heavy
equipment. Noise impacts would depend on the nature and location of the activity, the
surrounding land uses, the number of sensitive noise receptors (i.e., residences) in the
immediate vicinity of the project, and the types of equipment used. These noise levels
may also have a temporary impact on resident wildlife populations. Such impacts will
last only as long as construction activity occurs, and are therefore not likely to have a
significant impact on these populations.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 85


It is anticipated that the greater project area contains a variety of cultural resources
ranging from prehistoric campsites, specialized resource procurement sites, village sites,
and early historic period sites. Prehistoric site types may consist of inundated occupation
areas (e.g., sites dating between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago), fishing sites (e.g., weirs),
coastal shell middens, inland wet sites, lithic scatters, and rock shelters. In addition,
TCPs and burials are located in the project area. Historic structures and/or historic
archaeological sites occurring within the basin may be associated with early industry
(e.g., timber or-mining), homesteading, communication, transportation, and flood control

Ethnography and Ethnohistory. The historic period is marked by dramatic changes in
native populations and community composition resulting from the introduction of
epidemic diseases and Euroamerican goods and settlement. By the time most
ethnographies were written in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, these
changes had already significantly altered native cultures. The introduction and
transmission of smallpox and other epidemic diseases, which infected some Native
American groups before direct contact with Euroamericans, resulted in a minimum
estimated loss of over two-thirds of the Native American population on the southern
Northwest coast in the first century after contact. The introduction of Euroamerican
guns, iron, blankets, foods, and livestock, which began with the fur trade, also altered
native economies.

Among the groups in and immediately surrounding the Stillaguamish River Basin, there
were close similarities in languages (Salish), political organization, lifestyle, and
religious beliefs. Kinship ties, shared subsistence areas, dynamic trade networks, and
topographic continuity linked groups, provided the basis for sustained relationships, and
generally blurred the political boundaries that were later delineated by whites.
Accordingly, ethnographers differ somewhat in their interpretation of limited early
information from the area and a degree of uncertainty exists as to territorial boundaries
within the project area (Baenen 1981). According to some early ethnographers (Gibbs
1877) and later researchers, the mouth and estuary area of the lower Stillaguamish River
were not occupied by ancestors of the Stillaguamish Tribe. Rather, the Stoluck-wha-
mish, or ‘River People’, occupied the Arlington area and upriver (primarily on the North
Fork) where the Kwa’dsakbiuk (Quadsak), a subgroup affiliated with what would later
become the Swinomish Tribe, occupied the mouth (Swanton 1952). According to
Bruseth (1949), he “had several times visited the ancient camp site on the Leque place
near Stanwood, Tsalbilts home---Quadsak headquarters; seen the enormous pile of old
clam shells.” This site is probably archaeological site 45SN1 on Leque Peninsula.
Others interpret the available information and conclude that the mouth was seasonally
occupied by the Stillaguamish (Tweddell 1953) while still others flatly state that
permanent Stillaguamish villages existed at or near around Stanwood and Hat Slough
(Bryan 1955; Dorsey 1927). For the purposes of this report, and because it seems likely
that the Stillaguamish occupied the estuary area at least on a seasonal basis (possibly in
common use with other groups), the Stillaguamish territory is considered to encompass
the entire project area.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 40


hybrids or horticultural varieties), such as Sitka spruce, western red cedar, Pacific
crabapple, red alder, red osier dogwood, hemlock, Pacific ninebark, currant, and
thimbleberry, would be planted. A new 18” diameter culvert with a debris rack would be
installed to prevent stranding on the north side of the railroad embankment. Snohomish
County may convert the railroad embankment into the Whitehorse bike and pedestrian
trail. This project may include construction of a gravel trail leading off the proposed
Whitehorse trail to the banks of the North Fork; a 24” culvert would be installed to
maintain fish passage. The project design may also incorporate measures, such as LWD
or settling ponds, to control sedimentation originating in the ravine in the southern
portion of the project site.

5.3.12. Hazel Slide

This site is located on the north side of the North Fork of the Stillaguamish River, near
river mile 20 (T32N R7E Section 10).

The Hazel landslide occurs within a deep deposit of unconsolidated sands and underlying
lacustrine silts exposed along the remnant of a large glacial terrace formed after the last
advance of continental ice into Puget Sound. Surface exposures along the landslide
indicate a relatively uniform stratigraphy consisting of about 50 meters of well-graded
sand overlying an unknown depth of horizontally bedded silt. In the Hazel reach, the
North Fork has moved an immense volume of material to create the current valley
topography. Incision of the valley initiated large-scale slumping of the deposits along the
valley margins. Landsliding in glacial deposits such as these tends to be associated with
river erosion into slope toes along meander bends. It is this type of incision, coupled with
patterns of groundwater flow that has made Hazel landslide active for over four decades.
During the past 60 years, the site has undergone two periods of relatively low landslide
activity and two periods of relatively high activity, the latter of which extends to this day.
The gradual changes in landslide geometry resulting from failures at the toe of the slide
can reduce stability of the entire slide mass, thereby increasing rates of activity up-slope
and increasing the potential for catastrophic failure. Therefore, it is thought that
stabilization of the slide toe would stabilize the slide and reduce the potential for a
catastrophic failure.

The purpose of this project is to construct a series of LWD revetments that would deflect
the North Fork away from its right bank, thereby eliminating toe cutting at the slide, and
to create settling ponds for fine materials delivered to the North Fork from the multiple
streams that drain the slide area. These structures would also create adult chinook
holding habitat and mainstem off-channel habitat currently lacking in the North Fork
basin. Revetment A would isolate the landslide from the North Fork and eliminate the
toe cutting that is affecting the stability of the landslide, while creating deep pools. LWD
is expected to accumulate near a stagnation point on the riverward side of revetment A;
this log raft would form a scour pool, providing an excellent salmonid feeding area.
Revetments B, C, and D would create a series of settling ponds to help decrease the
magnitude of fine sediments delivered to the North Fork. These ponds would create a
network similar to beaver ponds. Initially, the pseudo beaver pond complex created

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 80


4.5.2. Land and Shoreline Use

Because the Stillaguamish River Basin contains a wide variety of land use types, this
section qualitatively discusses potential land use impacts that could result from
implementation of the restoration alternatives. Evaluation of project-specific land use
impacts would occur as a part of the environmental review for individual restoration
projects.

General land use patterns and aesthetic qualities should not be adversely affected under
any alternative. Land ownership may be affected if direct land purchase is required;
however this should not affect the overall balance of ownership patterns within the basin.
Land management practices would not be affected since the pertinent local plans and
ordinances, as well as state planning regulations, encourage the preservation and
restoration of the Basin’s vital natural resources.

The nature and scope of the restoration activities likely to be implemented (e.g.,
restoration of natural habitat, in-river restoration, etc.) preclude significant, basin-wide
land use impacts from occurring. Short- and long-term impacts on immediately adjacent
land uses from construction activities (lasting only the duration of the construction
period) will be analyzed and mitigated under the project-specific environmental review
process. .

Public access to natural resources could benefit from the individual restoration projects, if
the project(s) include trails, viewpoints, and interpretive signs. In such cases, given that
roadways and parking must be provided for viewing areas, environmental impacts might
result. The specific project design process should balance the goals of public access and
habitat restoration.

Descriptions of current development trends, and the federal, state, Tribal and local
government plans and policies, have been reflected in the basin’s comprehensive
development plans, including land use, transportation, public facilities, housing, and
community services. Restoration site planning, construction, and maintenance would not
significantly impact development planning within the basin.

Site-specific documentation will assess the potential to induce growth and consistency
with applicable comprehensive development plans adopted for the area. Land use types
will affect the potential for the success of any restoration project more than restoration
activity will impact land use patterns. Land for restoration must not only be available,
but it must also be compatible with existing plans and federal, Tribal, state, and local
regulatory constraints on the use of land for restoration purposes.

4.5.3. Recreation

Outdoor recreation is an integral facet of the quality of life in the Pacific Northwest. The
basin is used for reereation purposes for both water-sports and more passive activities
(e.g., fishing, bird watching, and hiking); therefore, many people would be easily exposed
to disturbances in or near recreational facilities/areas within the basin.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 58


between the landslide and revetment A would be quite expansive. However, as the
creeks drain the slide and deliver sediments, an increasing area would be converted to
fine sediment storage. The eventual equilibrium condition of the slide/pond complex, as
well as the time frame of development, is uncertain. There are two possibilities: the
entire area between revetment A and the landslide could be converted to fine sediment
storage, or stabilization of the landslide could occur prior to filling the entire storage
ponds and some off-channel habitat would remain.

Construction of the log revetment structures would occur in the wet, during summer low
flow months outside of migration periods as specified by WDFW. A temporary access
road and staging area would be constructed through a wooded area (primarily deciduous
trees) and across a large sandbar (sparsely vegetated with willows) on the North Fork’s
left bank. Additional evaluations such as geologic and geotechnical studies need to occur
on this project during the next portion of the study to better define the project.

5.3.13. Gold Basin Slide

This site is located on the north side of the South Fork Stillaguamish, between river miles
32 and 33, across the river from the U.S. Forest Service Gold Basin campground (T30N
R8E Section 14 or 23 {indefinite section boundary}).

Like the Hazel landslide described above, the Gold Basin landslide involves glacial
sediments. However, its mode of operation is quite different. Differences in behavior
between Hazel and Gold Basin result, in part, because of differences in the materials
involved and spatial organization of those materials. The glacial deposits of Gold Basin
are comprised of sand and silt, but their distribution is more heterogeneous, both
vertically and laterally. The spatial heterogeneity in the juxtaposition of permeable
(sand) and impermeable (silt) deposits results in complex and unpredictable patterns of
groundwater flow.

This project has a similar purpose to the Hazel/Steelhead Haven Landslide described
above. Slope failures that occurred in 1998 and 1999 filled the channel that was toe-
cutting the landslide. This has forced the river away from the landslide, into a more
stable configuration. The objective of revetment A is to prevent the river from eroding its
way back through these fines to the toe of the slope, thereby re-establishing more
unstable conditions. Revetment B is positioned to increase the residence time of flows
draining the slide by creating a settling pond for fines from these flows. The expected
post-project conditions would be similar post- construction conditions at Hazel; however,
scour pool development near revetment A is not expected.

Construction of the log revetment structures would occur in the wet, during summer low
flow months outside of migration periods as specified by WDFW. Additional
evaluations such as recreation impacts, geologic and geotechnical studies need to occur
on this project during the next portion of the study to better define this project. Close
coordination and involvement with USFS will also be needed.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 81


Jorgensen, S.E., and W.J. Mitsch. 1989.. “Ecological engineering principles.” Pgs. 21-37
in W.J. Mitsch and S.E. Jorgensen (eds) Ecological Engineering: An Introduction to
Ecotechnology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Kondolf, G.M. 2000. Some Suggested Guidelines for Geomorphic Aspects of
Anadromous Salmonid Restoration Proposals. Restoration Ecology. Volume 8, Number
1. March 2000

Lane, B. 1975. Identity, Treaty Status, and Fisheries of the Snohomish Tribe of Indians.
Report prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Snohomish Tribe of
Indians. OAHP Reference Library.

Miss, C.J. and S.K. Campbell. 1991. Prehistoric Cultural Resources of Snohomish
County, Washington. Report Prepared for the Washington State Office of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation by Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc., Contract No. 2-
90-710-18. US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Library.

Montgomery, D.R., and J.M. Buffington. 1993. Channel Classification, Prediction of
Channel Response, and Assessment of Channel Condition. Timber Fish and Wildlife
Report TFW-SH10-93-002. 84pp.

Movassaghi, G., M. Fisher, J.Doyle, and R. Nichols. 1996. Watershed restoration in
Deer Creek, a ten year review. U.S. Forest Service, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National
Forest, Mountlake Terrace, WA. SOpp.

Moyle, P.B. 1976. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press.

Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S.
Grand, F.W. 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.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 9 March 1998. Endangered and Threatened Species:
Proposed Endangered Status for Two Chinook Salmon ESUs and Proposed Threatened
Status for Five Chinook Salmon ESUs; Proposed Redefinition, Threatened Status, and
Revision of Critical Habitat for One Chinook Salmon ESU; Proposed Designation of
Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho. Federal
Register 63(45): 11482-11520.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 16 February 2000. Designated Critical Habitat:
Critical Habitat for 19 Evolutionarily Significant Units of Salmon and Steelhead in
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, Federal Register 65(32): 7764-7787.

Neilson, J. D., and C. E. Banford. 1983. “Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
spawner characteristics in relation to redd physical features.” Can. J. Zool. 61:1524-
1531.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 117


Stenholm, N. 1991a. State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45SNI1.
On file at OAHP, Lacey, Washington.

Stenholm, N. 1991b. State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45SN65.
On file at OAHP, Lacey, Washington.

Steenhof, K. 1978. Management of Wintering Bald Eagles. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Biological Report (FWS/OBS-78-79).

Stillaguamish Implementation Review Committee (SIRC) Restoration Subcommittee.
1995. First Draft, Stillaguamish Reference Notebook (Summary of 1995 Committee
Work and Meetings). Snohomish County Surface Water Management and Stillaguamish
Tribe.

Swanton, J.R. 1952. Indian Tribes of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. In Bureau of
American Ethnology, Bulletin 145 . Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC. Suzzallo
Library, University of Washington.

Swanson, F.J., T.K. Kratz, N. Caine, and R.G. Woodmansee. 1988. “Landform effects
on ecosystem patterns and processes.” Bioscience 38: 92-98.

Toth, S.E. 1991. An analysis of hydrologic cumulative effects in a large watershed in
western Washington. -M.S. Thesis, University of Washington College of Forest
Resources. 84pp.

Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J.B Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. 4
Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl: A Report of the Interagency
Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl. U.S.
Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National
Park Service. Portland, OR.

Tweddel, C.E. 1953. A historical and ethnological study of the Snohomish Indian
people; a report specifically covering their aboriginal and continued existence, and their
effective occupation of a definable territory. Copy of manuscript. Pacific Northwest
Collections, Suzzallo Library, University of Washington.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. 1997. Green - Duwamish River
Ecosystem Restoration General Investigation Reconnaissance Report. 126pp plus
appendices. -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat Evaluation Procedures. USFWS
Ecological Services 101 ESM.

US. Fish and Wildlife Service. June 26, 1990. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule.
Federal Register 55(123):26114-26194.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 120


Sockeye Salmon
There is a small population of sockeye salmon inhabiting the Stillaguamish (WSCC
1999). It is not known if this stock are strays from other watersheds or a genetically
distinct stock. Stillaguamish sockeye are not listed in the SASSI, and there are no
published reports of escapement data. They are known to spawn in the upper North Fork,
and in several tributaries. Sockeye génerally enter the river from July through

- September, and spawn from August through October. Smolts migrate out of the river
from March through June.

Steelhead Trout Four steelhead stocks have been identified in the Stillaguamish
watershed, including one winter run and three summer runs. The summer-run steelhead
stocks include the mixed wild/hatchery Canyon Creek stock, the non-native South Fork
stock, and a wild Deer Creek stock. Some consider the wild stock found above Granite
Falls to be a distinct fourth summer-run stock. Summer-run steelhead enter the
Stillaguamish River from March through October, peaking at the end of June. Summer-
run steelhead spawn from mid-February to mid-May, with a peak in mid- to late March.
The 1992 SASSI did not inventory the present status of summer-run steelhead, but it was
considered stable and healthy. Winter-run steelhead enter the river from early November
through April, and spawning occurs mainly in the North and South Forks. Winter-run
steelhead are wild stock, and were classified as healthy in the 1992 SASSI. The pools of
small quite streams are important for steelhead fry, but as they grow in size they are able’
to use higher energy stream habitat. Juvenile steelhead rear for one to three years in
freshwater before outmigrating to Puget Sound. Smolts migrate out of the river from
March through late June.

Cutthroat Trout Sea-run and resident stocks of cutthroat trout are found throughout the
Stillaguamish watershed, though there las been no systematic inventory of their
populations (WSCC 1999). Sea-run cutthroats are known to be present in the mainstem,
North Fork, and South Fork below Granite Falls. Resident rainbow trout are believed to
replace cutthroat as the predominant species in tributaries. Sea-run cutthroats enter the
river beginning in late July with peak movement in September. Spawning occurs from
mid-February to mid-May. Young fish rear for two to four years in freshwater before
migrating to the ocean, where they spend about five months before returning to the
Stillaguamish Basin.

Resident Fishes

Two species of native char are present in the Stillaguamish
Basin, bull trout and Dolly Varden. Although sometimes anadromous, it is likely that the
majority of Stillaguamish char are resident. Some hybridization between Dolly Varden
and bull trout is likely due to habitat overlap within the basin. Spawning occurs primarily
in the headwaters of the North and South Forks. The 1992 SASSI stock status was listed
as unknown. In October 1999, the Coastal/Puget Sound population segment of bull trout
was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 27


Due do a variety of factors (i.e., funding, real-estate availability, and technical
feasibility), not all of the restoration projects may be constructed. If successful in
obtaining the necessary lands and funding for the restoration program, the construction of
projects would be phased over a ten-year period starting in 2001. Adaptive management
principles will be applied to this restoration program; results (e.g., stability,
functionality) of the initial projects will be monitored so that the design and
implementation of the remaining projects will incorporate “lessons learned” from
previously constructed projects. While this document is intended to cover the
requirements under NEPA at this time, if there is a notable changes to the basin-wide
restoration effort or if an individual project changes substantially, additional NEPA
evaluation will need to occur.

1.3 Project History

The Ecosystem Restoration Study is being conducted under a Corps study process called
General Investigation. A General Investigation (G.I.) study is usually conducted in three
phases: reconnaissance, feasibility and, if congressional authorization is obtained,
construction. Each phase of the G.I. is increasingly more complex and provides further
layers of detail building on the previous study phase.

A Reconnaissance Study for this restoration program, entitled Stillaguamish River
Ecosystem Restoration General Investigation, was completed in December 1997. The
purpose of this document was to examine the need for ecosystem restoration in the
Stillaguamish Basin, to identify potential projects, to determine the federal interest in
planning for such projects, and to assess the level of interest and support of non-federal
sponsors in the identified projects.

Projects that were considered appropriate for possible inclusion in the program were
recommended for further evaluation under a Feasibility Phase Study. The objective of
this Feasibility Study is to formulate a plan that will be recommended for
implementation. Feasibility Phase analyses of project costs and environmental outputs
are more detailed and quantitative than those developed for the Reconnaissance Study.

This Environmental Assessment is being developed concurrently with the Feasibility
Study. It is a companion report which documents the environmental planning process as
required by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and forms the basis for
environmental coordination of the study. It is anticipated that Snohomish County (the
lead SEPA agency) may adopt this NEPA document at a later date.

1.4 Resource Problems

Over the past century, a variety of conditions and activities have contributed to the
degradation of fish and wildlife habitat in the Stillaguamish River Basin. Some of these
problems do not lend themselves to corrective action through Corps program and are
addressed through other programs, such as Forest Service management plans. Major
changes in ecological processes and patterns that can potentially be addressed through
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) ecosystem restoration projects include:

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 2


7731 14" Avenue NW
Seattle, WA 98117

August 11, 2000

Pat Cagney

Seattle District

US Amny Corps of Engineers
PO Box 3755

Seattle, WA 98124-2255

RE: Draft Environmental Assessment, Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration
Dear Mr. Cagney:

| have reviewed the above-referenced document and want to applaud your agency for
your comprehensive restoration program for the Stillaguamish River ecosystem. As a
geologist who works frequently with damaged streams and rivers, | am heartened to see
an approach to ecosystem restoration that focuses on multiple species and addresses
problems from the estuaries to the headwaters. | strongly support your emphasis on
restoring the natural processes and conditions that form habitat, rather than relying
solely on engineered solutions. The Draft EA appears to be thorough and complete.

Susan J. Perkins
Perkins Geosciences




Beach; another on Hat Slough; another at confluence of the North and South Forks at
Arlington; other near Oso and Hazel; and Dorsey recalled a large hunting and processing
camp at Mt. Higgins. Some of the sites were meeting places shared by neighboring
groups who came to trade or exploit nearby resources. Dorsey also stated that some
cemeteries were associated with village sites, while other burial grounds and individual
plots stood alone. Most of these interments had been desecrated by white settlers by the
time of Dorsey’s affidavit (Dorsey 1927). The following passage from Alice Essex’s The
Stanwood Story (1971) is indicative of the settler’s attitudes toward the remains of the
native peoples.

Another pioneer tale says Charles Mann discovered an Indian cemetery while exploring
the woods near his store at Fir. Hundreds of Indian remains were found hanging in the
trees, some only skeletons. Owls and crows were circling around and upon receiving
word of this discovery, the settlers rushed into the woods and set fire to the ghastly scene.

The Tulalip Tribes are the successors in interest to the Skykomish, Snohomish, Sauk-
Suiattle tribes, and other signatory tribes to the Treaty of Point Elliott. Close tribal ties
may have led Territorial Governor Stevens to consider the signature of Pat-Kanim (Chief
of the Snoqualmie, Snohomish ,and other tribes) to be adequate representation for the
Stillaguamish (Hollenbeck, 1987). The Federal Government eventually assigned the
Stillaguamish people to the Tulalip Reservation but few people actually relocated
permanently to the reservation. Many of the Stillaguamish people and their descendants
continue to live within the Stillaguamish River basin (Hollenbeck, 1987).

The Stillaguamish Tribe gained federal recognition in 1976. Since then, the tribe
acquired nearly 100 acres of land within the Stillaguamish basin. The Stillaguamish
Tribe has a current population of approximately 200 members. Fishing, hunting,
gathering of native plant material, and access to the river, wetlands, and forests of the
basin provide essential economic and spiritual sustenance to the Tulalip and
Stillaguamish people.

History. The last 150 years of Euro-American settlement and development in the
Stillaguamish River basin has fundamentally shaped the conditions found today within
the basin. The initial Euro-American settlement and subsequent development of the
basin was integrally related to logging, mining, railroad construction, and agriculture.
The purpose of this section is to discuss the development history of the basin after
Euroamerican settlement.

Fur trading expeditions of the British first brought frontiersmen and traders through the
Stillaguamish River Valley as the Hudson’s Bay Company expanded its network of posts
in the Columbia region. Euroamerican settlement of the Stillaguamish began in the late
1840s and 1850s. The Donation Land Act of 1850 entitled every single white male to a
quarter section (160 acres) if they resided upon and cultivated the quarter section for four
consecutive years. If married, the individual could receive half of a section (320 acres).
By 1853, Donation land claims had been filed in Seattle, along the Duwamish,
Stillaguamish, and White rivers. By 1855, there were 1,018 land claims in widely

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 42


1. BACKGROUND

The Puget Sound drainage basin is faced with increasing environmental resource
problems that have wide ranging impacts. The Stillaguamish River watershed, within the
Puget Sound basin, contributes to these problems in important ways. Over time, the
effects of industry, urbanization, agriculture, and historic forest practices have resulted in
vast changes throughout the Stillaguamish River watershed. Partial filling of the estuary,
construction of a series of revetment and channelization projects by the Corps of
Engineers in the 1930s, construction of an extensive system of levees, and harvesting of
timber in the upper watershed have led to significant fish and wildlife degradation in the
basin. Summer/fall chinook salmon and bull trout have been listed as threatened, and
coho and sea run cutthroat trout are candidate species for listing under the Endangered
Species Act. Although much of the watershed’s natural habitats for these nationally
significant species have been destroyed or degraded, there are numerous opportunities for
ecosystem restoration.

1.1 Project Authority

The Stillaguamish River Basin Restoration Study is authorized by, Section 209 of the
Flood Control Act of 1962 (Public Law 87-874), which authorizes the Corps to conduct a
comprehensive study of the Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters in western Washington.
The Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters authority does not explicitly mention ecosystem
restoration, but later interpretations judged that restoration is an appropriate use of the
authority. Funding for the reconnaissance study was provided in the 1995 Energy and
Water Appropriations Bill. In 1998, the reconnaissance phase was completed and the
Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement with Snohomish County was signed. The feasibility
phase of study was initiated in 1999, which resulted in a Feasibility Report and this
Environmental Assessment (EA).

1.2 Project Purpose and Scope

The overall objective of this plan is to restore critical landscape processes, functions and
structures to a more natural condition in order to support native anadromous salmonids,
while providing some wildlife benefits. The primary planning goal was to formulate
projects that addressed critical habitat restoration needs throughout the Stillaguamish
watershed—from rearing areas in the tidal estuaries to spawning habitat in the upper
basin.

The restoration activities considered in this Environmental Assessment (EA) are being
conducted under a Corps of Engineers program called Ecosystem Restoration, which is
one of the primary missions of the Corps Civil Works program. This restoration study
has involved a comprehensive evaluation of the problems contributing to system
degradation and development of alternative solutions. This report documents
consideration of alternative restoration strategies, identifies a preferred restoration
approach, and evaluates a number of restoration projects using various criteria. Thirteen
proposed projects are evaluated in depth. Snohomish County may adopt this NEPA EA _
under the appropriate Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) procedures; it
is anticipated that separate SEPA documents will be prepared for site specific actions.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 1


another. Without successful dispersal, replacement of individuals that are lost from the
breeding population through death or emigration will not occur, and the population will
decline. Dispersing spotted owls have a greater chance of survival if forest conditions
between designated areas are suitable for foraging and roosting. Thomas et al. (1990)
defined a stand of timber capable of providing for dispersal has trees having a dbh of at
least 28 cm and a canopy closure of more than 40%.

2.4 Cultural Resources

Cultural resources can be the tangible, physical remains of past human activity (e.g.,
archaeological sites, buildings, structures, districts, objects, and landscapes) or traditional
cultural properties (TCPs) associated with the cultural practices or beliefs of a living
community. The age of these resources in the greater project area ranges from thousands
of years to recent times. The term historic properties refers to those tangible cultural
resources that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
regardless of cultural affiliation or age, although the upper limit for classification as
“historical” is generally at least 50 years old. Also eligible for listing on the NRHP, TCPs
are rooted in the community’s history and important in maintaining the community’s
cultural identity. Particularly important to tribal members are sacred landforms,
ceremonial sites, rock art, cairns, certain animal and plant resources, and locations
prominent in mythology and tribal history. Also, the treatment of cemeteries and isolated
interments, regardless of cultural affiliation, must be addressed with respect and dignity.

Ecosystem Changes. The distribution of historic properties and TCPs within the
Stillaguamish River Basin is the result of past environments and the prehistoric and
historic use of the region’s resources. The earliest inhabitants of the region were
dependent on the abundance of plant and animals for survival and historic development
was dependent on extractive industries like logging and mining. The availability and
distribution of necessary food, plant, stone, and other resources structured the mobility
and settlement of early groups as timber, ore, and fertile land influenced the economy and
placement of Euroamerican immigrants. In addition, environmental conditions such as
fluvial deposition, tectonic activity, and recent human impacts such as logging and
construction have all affected the condition and delectability of remaining archaeological
sites.

Two factors, changing climate and changing landscape, have had the greatest influence in
determining where and how native people lived in the Stillaguamish River Basin for the
last 12,000 years.

Climate. The climate and vegetation of the Puget Lowlands changed substantially during
the late Pleistocene and early to middle Holocene. Since that time the climate has been
relatively stable while vegetation has undergone major changes associated with historic
disturbance. Based on pollen studies, it appears pioneer and early successional species
such as lodgepole pine, bracken fern, and alder colonized the newly deglaciated
landscape of western Washington 15,000 years ago, followed by Douglas fir. Between c.
10,000 and 6,000-5,000 years ago, summer temperatures were higher and precipitation

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 36


Gersib, R., and B. Blake. 1997. A survey of community needs and ecological problems
in the Stillaguamish Basin, Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology.

Gibbs, G. 1877. “Tribes of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon.”
Contributions to North American Ethnology, Vol. 1, Part 2, pp. 157-241. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Government Printing Office, Washington DC. Pacific
Northwest Collection, Suzzallo Library, University of Washington.

Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, and K.W. Cummins. 1991. “An ecosystem
perspective of riparian zones.” Bioscience 41: 540-551.

Hamer, T.E., and E. B. Cummings. 1990. Forest Habitat Relationships of Marbled
Murrelets in Northwestern Washington. Nongame Program, Washington Department of
Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Hamer, T.E. and S.K. Nelson. 1995a. “Characteristics of Marbled Murrelet Nest Trees
and Nesting Stands.” Pages 69-82 in C.J Ralph, G.L. Hunt, M. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt
(Tech. eds.). Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. PSW-GTR-152.
Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department. of
Agriculture.

Hamer, T.E. and S.K. Nelson. 1995b. “Nesting Chronology of the Marbled Murrelet.”
Pages 49-56 in C.J Ralph, G.L. Hunt, M. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (Tech. eds.). Ecology
and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. PSW-GTR-152. Albany, CA: Pacific
Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department. of Agriculture.

Healey, M.C, 1991. “Life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).”
Pages 311-393 in C, Groot and L. Margolis, eds. Life history of Pacific Salmon.
University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Hollenbeck, J.L. 1987. A Cultural Resource Overview: Prehistory, Ethnography, and
History. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Report prepared for U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Region. OAHP Reference Library.

Hudson, M. and L. Knutson. 1993. Washington Rivers Information System 1:100,000
Scale Data Descriptions.

Hunt, M. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (Tech. eds.). 1995. Ecology and Conservation of the
Marbled Murrelet. PSW-GTR-152. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station,
Forest Service, U.S. Department. of Agriculture.

Jorgensen, S.E. 1990. “Ecosystem theory, ecological buffer capacity, uncertainty and
complexity.” Ecological Modeling 52: 125-133.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 116


Low summer flows allow salinity intrusion to move upstream further than historic
conditions, when summer flows were above 200 cfs. Low flows can also contribute to a
decrease in rearing space, a decrease in dissolved oxygen, and an increase in water
temperature. Please reference the hydrographs in Figures 2 and 3. Note that these
figures are for the North Fork. Similar discharge is expected out of the South Fork, as
both Basins are about the same size and their discharge near Arlington is nearly the same,
therefore the sum total (below Arlington) is double the North Fork values.

Physical Alterations. Splash dams, which were constructed on small tributaries of
both forks, were some of the first anthropomorphic blockages to fish migration in
the basin. They were used in historic logging operations to transport harvested
logs from upland harvest areas to the mainstem river. They were constructed by
building a log crib dam on a stream, then filling the pool that formed behind it
with logs. The dam was then breached, which violently flushed the logs
downstream where they could be transported to a mill: In addition to migration
interference, splash dams caused serious long-term destruction to aquatic and
riparian habitat when the impounded water and logs were sluiced down river. The
characteristics of the main basin, however, remain relatively unchanged from pre-
settlement conditions in that there are no dams or other artificial impoundments.
Water withdrawals for irrigation and city water supplies are minor. Major changes
have come from the development practices for both logging and agriculture, both
of which dramatically altered channel dynamics on the river and its tributaries.
Several small hydropower facilities were associated with early mining and
logging operations; only one licensed household-sized hydroelectric project
remains today, and it is located on a stream without trout or salmon.

Logging operations routinely cleared large woody debris (LWD) from waterways to
facilitate log transport. LWD provided structure that maintained a high degree of habitat
diversity (instream cover, off-channel overwintering habitat, etc.) and controlled channel
morphology by creating pools and trapping spawning gravel. Agricultural practices
resulted in the channelization of many streams for flood control. Farmers cleared and
drained a high percentage of the wetlands for either pasture or production. Other.
alterations such as creating small dams and stream diversions changed wetland
hydrology. In many cases, these actions resulted in either a simplification of habitat or
complete loss of the wetland.

The estuary’s flow regime has been altered dramatically. Prior to 1920, most of the river
flowed via the North Channel to Skagit Bay. In the early 1900s, steamboats would
navigate up the North Channel and continue upstream to Silvana. Hat Slough was a
small narrow backwater carrying water only during high flow events. A settler by the
name of Hat widened and deepened the slough, presumably for log storage. Floods in the
early 1900s expanded the slough until a flood in the 1920s caused the main river channel
to shift to Hat Slough. Re-routing of the high flows from the Stillaguamish Channel to
Hat Slough has severely degraded the water quality in the Stillaguamish Channel.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 15


BY

and land use over the entire basin (Pacific Meridian 1997). The Land Cover mapping
was commissioned specifically to support the Corps’ 1997 Reconnaissance Study.

Technical Assessment For Chinook Salmon Recovery in the Stillaguamish

Watershed. DRAFT REPORT (July 12, 2000).

This report was developed by the Stillaguamish Technical Advisory Group, which
includes The Stillaguamish Tribe and Snohomish County. The report includes an
evaluation of historic chinook salmon resource conditions, changes to the resource that
have caused a threatened chinook status, restoration goals in the Stillaguamish for
chinook, modifications in hatchery, harvest and habitat and a restoration strategy. There
are figures in the report that depict current chinook distribution, wetlands in the basin and
a landslide inventory.

Other studies

Various studies have been initiated specifically to investigate conditions influencing
salmonids within the basin. Embry (1987) and Toth (1991) conducted hydrologic
studies. The Deer Creek drainage has been the subject of several studies, including a
watershed assessment and restoration strategy commissioned by the Stillaguamish Tribe
(Collins et al. 1994). This latter study identified salmonid habitat-forming processes in
Deer Creek, the causes of changes in those processes over the past half-century, and how
those changes affected steelhead habitats over that period. This historical analysis
approach was used to develop a watershed assessment and restoration plan for the Deer
Creek basin (Beechie et al. 1996). Historic channel conditions and aquatic habitat
distribution in the Stillaguamish basin are the subjects of completed studies (Pess et.al
1999).

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration ‘November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 9


ACRONYMS

BA biological assessment

BAJ bar apex log jam

BMPs best management practices
CCC Civilian Conservation Corps
cfs cubic feet per second

co carbon monoxide

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CZM Coastal Zone Management
dB decibels

dbh diameter at breast height
DNR Washington Department of Natural Resources
DO dissolved oxygen

Ecology Washington Department of Ecology

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERS Ecosystem Restoration Study

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESU evolutionarily significant unit

GIS geographic information system

HPA Hydraulic Project Approval

HTRW Hazardous, Toxic, And Radiological Wastes

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000

Final Environmental Assessment . Page vi


Representative Kelley Barlean (10")
439 John L. O’Brien Building
Olympia Wa 98504-0600

Governor Gary Locke
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 40002

Olympia, WA 98504-0002

Mike Purser

Snohomish County

2731 Wetmore Ave
Suite 300

Everett WA 98201-3501


11.1.8. National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470) requires that a
federal agency having direct or indirect authority to issue a license authorizing an
undertaking shall take into account the effect of the undertaking on historic properties.

The Section 106 process includes research and field investigation in consultation with the
Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation, and concerned Tribes and local governments. The process
generally includes identifying historic properties that may be affected by the project;
gathering information sufficient to evaluate the eligibility of properties found for the
National Register; and consulting among agencies and other concemed parties to avoid or
mitigate adverse impacts on significant properties. If the properties are of value only for
their research potential, and the State Historic Preservation Office approves data recovery
as mitigation, then a determination of “no adverse effect” can be achieved. Mitigation for
traditional cultural properties or properties judged to be significant for reasons other than
research potential may require measures other than data recovery. There is also concern
about discovery of archaeological material or human remains during construction or as a
later consequence of habitat development.

In order. to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, as well as the American
Indian Religious Freedom Act, the Native American Graves Repatriation Act, and the
Washington State Indian Graves and Records Act, the Corps has maintained coordination
with the SHPO, affected Indian Tribes, and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (see MOA in Appendix). In addition, discussions with the Mt. Baker-
Snoqualmie National Forest Archaeologist confirm that the Forest Service will be
specifically consulted in regard to historic properties on.their land (e.g., sites around the
Gold Basin Campground) that may be affected by the project.

11.1.9. Washington State Hydraulic Code

Work that uses, diverts, obstructs, or changes the natural flow or bed of any freshwater or
saltwater of the state requires a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The statutory authority for this requirement
is contained in Chapter 75.20 RCW and Chapter 220-110 WAC.

HPAs may be needed for restoration projects since most would involve some degree of
work within the streambed of the Stillaguamish River and its tributaries (these would be
obtained by the local sponsor for the project). WDFW has provided technical support for
this program and they are members of the technical committee that is involved with
projects selection and design. Continued coordination with WDFW will occur
throughout the remainder of the Ecosystem Restoration study.

11.1.10 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 directs every Federal agency to identify and address
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of agency
programs and activities on minority and low-income populations.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 105


their historic extent. Individual projects may incorporate elements of all three of these
general approaches, however. Intertidal reconnection, for example, may result in the
eventual development of blind tidal channels.

The 15 initial restoration projects are listed below. More information on each of these
projects was provided in the Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration General
Investigation Reconnaissance Report (Corps 1997).

1) Hat Slough Entrance: remove sea dikes, excavate a tidal channel, construct a set-
back levee

2) Mainstem Hat Slough: enhance an existing intertidal channel

3) South Pass: remove sea dikes, excavate a tidal channel, construct a set-back levee

4) Old Stillaguamish Entrance: install a reverse tidegate

5) Confluence of Koch Slough’ and the Stillaguamish River: provide access to side
channel habitat, create of off-channel seasonal rearing habitat, and add LWD to the
project reach

6) Koch Slough Weir: install a fish passage structure

7) Koch Slough North Meander. reconnect the Slough to the mainstem

8) Koch Slough/Thompson Slough: reconnect the Slough to the mainstem [NOTE: in
the Feasibility Phase investigation, this project is called South Meander]

9) Norman Road Wetland: plant a buffer of spruce and cedar around an existing wetland
area

10) South Fork Tributary No. 319: plant a riparian buffer, build a fence to prevent
livestock from accessing the creek, and culvert installation

11) Tributary No. 358C: plant a riparian buffer, and build a fence to prevent livestock
from accessing the creek

12) Tributary 169 (McGovern Creek): plant a riparian buffer, and build plant a riparian
buffer, and build a fence to prevent livestock from accessing the creek

13) North Fork Tributary No. 138 (Koonz Creek): rehabilitate and replace culverts

14) Tributary 147: excavate new channel and plant riparian buffer

' Koch Slough is also known as Cook Slough.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 65


Low water temperatures are an important habitat characteristic for salmonids. The
optimal temperature range for salmon is 12-14°C, with lower temperatures preferred for
spawning. Temperatures in the range of 20-25°C are lethal for adults. Increased water
temperatures may give non-native warmwater species a competitive advantage over
native salmonids. A temperature study was conducted by the Stillaguamish Tribe,
Tulalip tribe, and Snohomish County from June to September 1996. This study showed
that temperatures in the mainstem Stillaguamish and select tributaries fell into stressful
ranges (above 13°C) during a high percentage of the study period (Thornburgh 1999, as
cited by Washington State Conservation Commission 1999).

Dissolved Oxygen. At dissolved oxygen levels of 8 mg/l or less, salmon eggs are
moderately impaired, while adult salmon are affected at or below 5 mg/l. Monthly
monitoring data, collected by the Stillaguamish Tribe and Snohomish County during a
1991-1998 survey period, indicate that dissolved oxygen concentrations in the mainstem
Stillaguamish usually fall within the preferred ranges, while concentrations in the
tributaries usually meet or exceed the standard of 8 mg/l (WSCC 1999). However, in
areas such as Portage Creek dissolved oxygen concentrations are generally lower.

Fecal Coliform. Historically, cattle were not present in the river so fecal coliform levels
would have been extremely low, similar to those found in the upper watershed today.
During storm events, bacteria levels tend to be highest in the tributaries. Approximately
56 commercial dairy farms are currently operating in the watershed, which support about
10,800 cows that produce 235,000 tons of manure per year (SCPW 1989). Commercial
shellfish harvesting is restricted throughout much of Port Susan as a result of bacterial
contamination, (Nelson, Thornburgh, and Halpin 1991). In fact, in 1986 one third of the
tideflats of Port Susan were closed to commercial shellfish harvesting due to fecal
coliform counts of the meat of eastern softshell clams (SCPW 1989). In addition, high
levels of fecal coliform are generally associated with nutrients such as nitrate and
phosphorus. High concentrations of these nutrients can lead to algae blooms which in
turn can lead to a decrease in dissolved oxygen levels.

2.1.5. Air Quality

Air quality in the Stillaguamish Basin is generally good. In the lower valley towns with
high-density housing, some air quality problems occasionally occur. Motor vehicles are
the largest source of air pollutants in Snohomish County, although wood-burning stoves
also contribute. Problems generally occur during the dry late summer when minimal
wind conditions persist for long periods of time, or during mid-winter thermal inversions.
Particulates, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and carbon monoxide are the pollutants of concern.

2.1.6. Noise

Noise is not considered a significant problem in the Basin. Major areas that can produce
noise include the Cities of Stanwood, Arlington, Darrington and Granite Falls. Vehicular
traffic along the I-Scorridor is a constant low level source. Other intermittent sources
include equipment noise from farming operations, logging and construction equipment.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 20


A copy of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act Report has
been provided in Appendix A
of the Feasibility Study


emphasis on protecting riparian areas (USFS 1994). However, recovery of late-
successional characteristics is a slow process, and natural disturbances (fire, avalanche,
etc.) will continue to operate to create early-successional patches. Forest Service
projections of future trends in the basin indicate that increasing population growth and
relatively short timber rotations on non-federal lands will preclude any significant
increase in late-seral vegetation outside of the federal landholdings (USFS 1995).
Therefore, while the patchy nature ofthe forest may gradually be improved within the
upper basin, forest cover in the lower Forks, the mainstem, and many tributary basins is
likely to remain fragmented and discontinuous.

1.4.3. Fish and Wildlife Habitat

The fundamental changes in basic ecosystem structure and processes described above
have had significant impacts on the condition and function of habitats for fish and
wildlife within the basin. The principal changes can be categorized as follows:

Loss and fragmentation of habitat area. Conversion of forest lands and intertidal
wetlands to pasture, urban areas, and other uses has dramatically altered the character and
structure of terrestrial and aquatic habitats, particularly in the former floodplains
associated with the lower forks and Mainstem. The formerly extensive tracts of intertidal
habitat and forest in those areas are reduced to discontinuous fringes along watercourses
and the edge of the Bay. The few remaining “blocks” of habitat are relatively small and
are generally isolated within an agricultural landscape. Within the upper basin there
remain extensive areas that are largely forested; however, logging, fire, road building,
and other influences over the past century have changed the pattern of forest cover. The
modern forest is broken into relatively small patches of various ages, rather than the
much larger patch sizes that formerly characterized the landscape (US Forest Service
1995, 1996).

This general pattern of habitat loss and fragmentation has adverse consequences for
wildlife species that require large contiguous blocks of habitat and continuity of corridors
among habitats. Species with large home ranges (such as bears) and migratory species
that require diverse food resources, cover, and lack of disturbance (such as waterfowl)
can be severely affected by habitat reduction and fragmentation.

Differential loss of particular habitat types. -The general loss and fragmentation of
habitats within the basin has had differential impacts. Certain habitat types have been
particularly depleted. Low-elevation floodplain and intertidal wetlands have suffered a
disproportionate impact relative to upland areas and higher-elevation wetlands. For
example, much of the drainage and land-reclamation activity in the lower basin has been
directed specifically at converting wetlands to farmland. Similarly, although forest cover
has been largely retained in the upper basin, there has been a major shift in age class
distribution such that late-seral systems are relatively rare.

The result of these differential losses of certain habitats has been to significantly impact
fish and wildlife species that depend on those systems to complete all or some of their life
requirements. Species such as the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet, which

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 5


ci-22-00

United States - Forest Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie 1405 Emens Street
Department of Service Natiunal Furest Durriagtoa, WA 96241
Agriculture Darrington Ranger District _ (360) 436-1155

File Code: 2500, 2600
Date: August 25, 2000

Environmental Resources Section
US Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 3755

Seattle, WA 98124

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Assessment
“Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration, Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Authority,
Snohomish County, Washington, July 2000.” The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmje National Forest has
been involved in watershed restoration for many years, and we support restoration from a
watershed-based, multi-species approach that addresses critical landscape processes and
functions.

Our general comments involve adding references for certain statements and data, with a few
comments about content. These and additional editorial comments and clarifications have
already been discussed with Patrick Cagney of your staff, and will not be further detailed with
the expectation that they will be incorporated into the final document. We applaud your
acknowledgement of the importance of monitoring, including public education, and your
approach appears sound.

Some additional considerations:

« Another alternative which may have been eliminated from detailed study is single-species
restoration involving bull trout (also listed as Threatened).

« Site-specific information will need to be considered, likely in an additional environmental
document, for the project at Gold Basin. Impacts to existing recreational facilities should
be explored, You might also consider gathering additional geotechnical and spawning
information at this site.

© We would also encourage you to consider noxious/invasive species in your specific
project designs.

We appreciate being involved in this process, & and look forward to participating in further
refinement of both project design and monitoring for the Gold Basin Slide project. |
Sincerely,

K. Terry Skorheim

District Ranger

& Caring for the Land acd Serving People Prrved on Recysed nS)


Table 1. Stillaguamish River average annual natural anadromous production
by species 1956-1965 (in thousands)

Chinook Coho Chum Pink Sea run Steelhead
Trout
Range 0.64-43.5 33.9-312.7 11.0-258.6 375-1920 58.2-120.7 26.8-60
Average 19.7 100.6 16.97 806.2 79.2 395

Notes: Production values include harvest and escapement. Steelhead and Sea-run Trout
production values include hatchery and natural production. Pink salmon production
values are for odd-years only.

Source: Puget Sound Task Force, 1970 and USFS 1995

The Stillaguamish River supports both wild and hatchery stocks. Various State and
Tribal hatcheries have supplemented the wild runs of summer chinook, chum, and coho
since 1939. Recent data on the anadromous fish production in the Stillaguamish Basin is
limited. However, most recent information indicates a far lower productivity than
described between 1956 and 1965 (WDF 1975; SASSI 1992).

A 1992 salmon and steelhead stock inventory, conducted by the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes
(WWTIT) designated the summer/fall chinook stock as depressed (WDFW and WWTIT
1994; hereafter referred to as the “SASSI”). They based this designation upon
chronically low escapement estimates. The SASSI defines depressed stock as a stock
whose production is below expected levels but above the level where permanent damage
to the stock is likely. The SASSI’s average escapement goal of 2,000 has been met only
twice since 1968.

Stillaguamish and the adjacent Skagit river are managed differently than most Puget
Sound tributaries, as they are managed on a wild stock basis for coho and chinook. This
means that wild coho and chinook are considered the “driver stock.” Harvest rates and
times are set to project these wild stocks, and harvest is limited by projections based upon
return numbers. Escapements for both Stillaguamish coho and chinook have been up and
down over the last few years. Several factors need to be considered in the erratic number
of returns over the years including ocean conditions in the rearing grounds, harvest, and
degradation of habitat (pers. com. Cris Dietrich WDFW 6-2-97).

Salmon and trout migrate, spawn and rear in over 61 miles of mainstem and 65 miles of
South Fork Stillaguamish River and its tributaries. They also use 36 miles of the North
Fork Stillaguamish and 93 miles of its tributaries (WDF, 1975). Salmon and trout use the
mainstem primarily for transportation and rearing. Spawning takes place mostly in the
North and South Forks and its tributaries. Rearing areas are located in the Straight of
Juan de Fuca and the western part of Vancouver Island

The following is a brief overview of the more important species that utilize the
Stillaguamish Basin and some information on their ecology.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 25


To reduce or minimize socioeconomic impacts and impacts on public services and
utilities within the basin, the following measures could be incorporated.into individual
restoration projects:

« All applicable regulatory permits, official project authorizations, and compliance
with federal, state, and local regulations and ordinances must be secured before
project implementation. All terms and conditions in these regulatory permits and
other official project authorizations must be followed to eliminate or reduce adverse
impacts.

= Significant modifications to an approved work plan must be reviewed and approved
by appropriate agency personnel and the landowner(s) before the work can be carried
out or continued. This may include change requiring modifications of permits, or
alterations to the scope or intent of the project.

= Restrict construction activities within 1,000 feet of residences to daytime hours.
Additionally, no construction should be performed within 1,000 feet of an occupied
dwelling unit on legal holidays, or between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on other days.

= Monitor the project sites for evidence of unauthorized use.

= During project construction, have a readily accessible water truck and/or chemical
fire suppression materials available on-site to allow immediate fire response.

= Provide fire extinguishers on vehicles and equipment used during construction.
« Minimize or restrict high fire-risk activities during extreme dry weather periods.

= Provide project staff with cellular phones to enable timely communication with fire
and emergency services.

= Provide appropriate sanitation facilities on-site during construction.

= Field locate and flag any existing underground utilities in the vicinity of the
individual projects, and where avoidance is not feasible, use hand excavation
methods.

6.6 Hazardous and Toxic Wastes

A preliminary evaluation was undertaken to identify the presence of hazardous and/or
toxic wastes in the preferred ecosystem restoration sites, and to estimate the volume of
any contamination. This initial screening included searching records and databases from
EPA, Washington Department of Ecology, and METRO for information regarding known
or suspected contaminated sites. Public groundwater-supply wells, CERCLIS, RCRA,
and EPCRA sites, and PCS facilities were also noted. That information was then plotted
on a map of the study area to determine proximity to preferred ecosystem restoration

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 93


nae
Conservancy.

OF WASHINGTON
August 24,2000 ~

Mark Ziminske, Chief
Environmental Resources Section
Seattle District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 3755

Seattle, Washington 98124- 2255

Dear Mr. Ziminske:

Thank you for sending us the draft. environmental assessment for the Stillaguamish Ecosystem .
Restoration Study.. We appreciate the opportunity to comment as well as the work you and your
staff have puti into this document. . .

The Nature Conservancy i is a private, non-profit organization ‘dedicated to the preservation of

biological diversity. With 42 preserves and over 34,000 active members in Washington,: the

Conservancy is the largest conservation organization in the state. _ With regard to this EA, we are

particularly interested. in the potential impacts to and planned measures for rare and endangered
, Species, plant communities, wetlands, significant matical ateas, and fish and wildlife habitat.

The Stillaguamish River basin ig'a significant: ‘one in terms of salmon recovery in Puget Sound
and we appreciate the Corps’ interest in carrying out restoration activities that would re-establish
critical landscape processes and functions throughout the watershed. The Conservancy is
currently active in terms of its land conservation efforts near the mouth of the Stillaguamish in
the Hat Slough and South Pass areas. We will keep in touch with your staff and look forward to.
coordinating any potential restoration actions with the Corps in this area.

Thanks again for the opportinity to comment. We look forward to working together i in the

Curt Soper
Director of Conservation Programs

217 PINE STREET, SUITE 1100
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 343-4344, FAX (206) 343-5608

recycled paper


Mitigation Measures:
To reduce or minimize temporary noise impacts associated with construction activities,
the following measures could be incorporated into individual projects:

= Restrict construction activities within 1,000 feet of residences to daytime hours.
Additionally, no construction should be performed within 1,000 feet of an occupied
dwelling on legal holidays, or between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on other days.

= All equipment should have sound-control devices no less effective than those
provided on the original equipment. No equipment should have unmuffled exhaust.

= Place stationary equipment as far away from existing businesses and buildings as is
reasonably possible.

6.2 Natural Resources
6.2.1. Vegetation

At some sites, restoration activities would require modifications to existing vegetation
during construction, but generally the proposed projects would improve vegetation
resources in the long term. Restoration activities would primarily affect riparian habitats,
in two general ways: impacts caused by construction activities (i.e., vegetation removal
required for site access), and impacts intended as an element of the restoration.

The estuarine restoration projects, two of which involve dike breaching, would open up
agricultural lands to tidal influence. These areas are then expected to be naturally
recolonized by estuarine emergent vegetation. During construction of projects in the
lower, North Fork, and South Fork basins, riparian and other vegetation may be removed
in order for equipment to gain site access. This could result in a temporary reduction of
woody vegetation along stream and riverbanks. However, all areas where vegetation is
cleared for site access would be re-vegetated with native species. In addition, the
planting of riparian vegetation is a significant component of the off channel
improvement, tributary rehabilitation, and bankline retrofitting projects. The species,
location and density of vegetation for planting would vary based on site-specific
conditions. The species of choice would be those defined as beneficial for riparian
planting by WDFW, USFWS, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

6.2.2. Fisheries

Restoration activities covered under this report would occur within salmonid passage,
spawning, and rearing habitat within the Stillaguamish River system. The overall
purpose of the restoration plan is to improve the health of the Stillaguamish River
ecosystem for fish and wildlife by restoring the amount and quality of spawning and
rearing habitat as well as water flow and quality. The focus of the proposed projects will
be to improve fish habitat in the estuary and lower basins, This approach is necessitated
by declining fish stock and habitat loss.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 86


are dependent on late-seral forests, have become a major focus of management attention
on federal lands within the upper basin. Habitat appropriate for such species has been
largely eliminated from the lower basin. Many aquatic species, including the salmonid
species that are local and regional management priorities, have critical dependence on the
distribution and quality of wetlands and other off-channel habitats. Such habitats have
been decimated in the lower portions of the basin.

Changes in habitat-forming processes. Fish and wildlife habitats within the
Stillaguamish basin are tied to dynamic ecosystem processes. Fire, disease and
avalanches formerly maintained Forest mosaics. In the floodplains of the lower forks and
Mainstem, channel migration and avulsion were constant forces in forming new bars,
abandoned channel segments, side channels, and depressional wetlands. Beaver activity
throughout the basin had major effects with respect to the distribution and characteristics
of wetlands, many of which were ephemeral on the scale of decades or centuries. The
influence of terrestrial plant communities on aquatic systems was significant, in terms of
shading and organic inputs. Inputs of large woody debris, in particular, had effects on
habitat structure, sediment storage, and nutrient processing within channel systems.

Changes in land use, hydrologic controls, and resource exploitation in the period since
European settlement have dramatically altered all of these habitat-forming processes. As
noted above, natural patterns of forest disruption and regeneration have been largely
superceded by harvest patterns and related fire and road impacts. Channel migration has
been arrested by bank stabilization efforts, particularly in the lower mainstem, and other
channel characteristics have been influenced by downcutting and meander cutoffs. Some
of these changes were specific projects undertaken to stabilize the river and reduce
flooding, while others were indirect effects of activities such as gravel mining.

1.4.4. Relationship of these Problems to Federal Interest in Restoration

The preceding analysis documents the history of changes to the hydrology, channel
characteristics, and sediment transport patterns in the Stillaguamish basin. Various
governmental agencies have participated in constructing bank works, weirs, drainage
systems, flood protection levees, and cuttoffs in the Mainstem reaches of the river. In
recent decades, the Corps has taken general responsibility for managing these combined
works as a single “project,” particularly with regard to flood protection. Corps efforts
have included repairs and modifications to levees, the main-channel weir, and various
permitting activities within the channel and in basin wetlands. Overall, the federal
involvement in the “project” that incorporates the many channel and floodplain
modifications within the lower basin is no longer separable from most of the non-federal
actions that have taken place.

The major changes to ecosystem characteristics and processes outlined above are directly
related to the various alterations to channel and floodplain characteristics, and are
therefore at least partly attributable to Corps’ activities. Floodplain clearing, diking, and
channel stabilization are clearly related to the overall “project” that has been directed
toward flood reduction and land reclamation in the lower basin. However, some changes
in habitat quality and habitat-forming processes have been more directly related to land

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 6


woody debris in or near the waters edge. Impacts to recreational boaters could occur
depending on where and how would is placed.

Mitigation Measures:

To reduce or minimize impacts on transportation within the basin, either temporary
impacts associated with construction activities or long-term, the following measures
could be incorporated into individual ‘restoration projects:

= Develop a transportation plan for proposed restoration sites. The plan will include
access considerations, scheduling, traffic control and specific transportation and
traffic measures required by permits.

« Use existing roadways or travel paths for access to project sites.

To reduce or minimize impacts on recreation within the basin, either temporary impacts
associated with construction activities or long-term, the following measures could be
incorporated into individual restoration projects:

«Use properly muffled and maintained construction equipment.
«Minimize dust releases through the use of dust suppression techniques.

= Use proper traffic controls, including flaggers and signage where appropriate, to
minimize traffic difficulties.

= Use existing roadways or travel paths for access to project sites, where feasible.

= For projects that include placing LWD in the mainstem channel, coordination with
recreational boat clubs will occur. It may be possible to post LWD locations on a
Web page for recreational boaters to access. Upstream signage alerting boaters of
LWD should also be included.

= Include public access to natural resources through trails, viewpoints, and interpretive
signs where associated environmental degradation would not be detrimental.

To reduce or minimize impacts on the visual quality and aesthetics within the basin,
either temporary impacts associated with construction activities or long-term, the
following measures could be incorporated into individual restoration projects:

= Place all construction staging and storage areas away from locations that would be
clearly visible from recreational facilities/areas.

= Restore temporary roads and staging areas to pre-construction grades and revegetate
those areas to reduce the amount of visual contrast.

= All waste from project activities must be removed from the project site before project
completion and disposed of properly.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 92


= Estuarine Habitat Assessment Protocol (Simenstad et. al. 1991) will be used on
restoration projects that occur in the estuary (such as the Port Susan and South Pass
projects).

= For other projects standard methods will be used to assess fish presence and use such
methods as seining or electroshocking.

= Percent cover of vegetation and species will be documented.
= For invertebrate analysis, the assessment of biotic integrity will be used (Karr 1981).

= Physical data such as water quality will focus on dissolved oxygen, temperature and
sedimentation and be consistent with the “Standard Methods for Evaluating Water
and Wastewater”.

= Birds and other wildlife will also be evaluated usually for presence/absence and
perhaps some behavior and productivity at selected projects.

The scale of effect for restoration activities is also of interest. This would include both
temporal and spatial scales. Important considerations besides the methodologies will be
the timing, frequency and duration of sampling. From a timing perspective, individual
projects will be monitored over five years but not necessarily every year. A typical
project would be monitored in years one, three and five after construction. From a spatial
perspective, projects will be monitored throughout the river basin.

To determine effects at an ecosystem scale, a variety of methods can be used. They
include financing a screw trap (a tool for a particular type of fish sampling) and analysis.
In areas where large woody debris and gravel is placed, ri river cross section will be
evaluated at several locations over time.

7.4 Manage the Data and Report Results

The Corps will maintain a database on the results and issue a report every two years after
monitoring has been initiated.

7.5 Feedback Mechanisms

Using the results obtained from monitoring and based on project objectives, there will be
an opportunity to adaptively manage the restoration projects. For each project that is not
achieving its potential, contingencies will be developed. These contingencies or
remedies fall into three broad categories:

= No Action

* Maintenance (physical actions to move the program or project towards the desired
objectives)

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 97


13, REFERENCES

Abbe, T.B., and D.R. Montgomery. 1996. “Large woody debris jams, channel
hydraulics and habitat formation in large rivers.” Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management 12: 201-221.

Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain, Jr. R.D. Smith, and R-E. Young. 1987. Wetland evaluation
technique (WET). US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS.

Baenen, J.A. 1981. “Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, and Duwamish.” In
Inventory of Native American Religious Use, Practices, Localities, and Resources, edited
by A.R. Blukis Onat and J.L. Hollenbeck, pp. 395-472. Institute of Cooperative
Research, Inc. Report prepared for Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Contract #53-
05M6-0076N. OAHP Reference Library.

Beechie, T., E. Beamer, B. Collins, and L. Benda. 1996. “Restoration of habitat-forming
processes in Pacific Northwest watersheds: a locally adaptable approach to salmonid
habitat restoration.” Pages 48-67 in D.L. Peterson and C.V. Klimas (eds.) The Role of
Restoration in Ecosystem Management. Society for Ecological Restoration, Madison,
Wi.

Beechie, T., E. Beamer, and L. Wasserman. 1994. “Estimating coho salmon rearing
habitat and smolt production in a large river basin, and implications for habitat
restoration.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14: 797-811.

Benda, L., T.J. Beechie, R.C. Wissmar, and A. Johnson. “Morphology and evolution of
salmonid habitats in a recently deglaciated river basin, Washington State, USA.” Can. J.
Fish Aquat. Sci. 49: 1246-1256.

Bilby, R.E., and J.W. Ward. 1989. “Changes in characteristics and function of woody
debris with increasing size of streams in western Washington.” Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
118: 368-378.

Bilby, R-E., B.R. Fransen, P.A. Bisson, and J. Walter. 1996. Spawning salmon and the
productivity of freshwater ecosystems: establishing goals to maintain ecological
integrity. (Abstract).

Bisson, P.A., R.E. Bilby, M.D. Bryant, C.A. Dolloff, G.B. Grette, R.A. House, M.L.
Murphy, K.V. Koski, and J.R. Sedell. 1987. “Large woody debris in forested streams in
the Pacific Northwest: past, present and future.” Pgs 143 -190 in E.O. Salo and T.W.
Cundy (eds) Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. Univ.
Washington Institute of Forest Resources Contr. No. 57. 471pp.

Bortelson, G.C., M.J. Chrzastowski, and A.K. Helgerson. 1980. Historical Changes of
Shoreline and Wetland at Eleven Major Deltas in the Puget Sound Region, Washington.
Hydrologic Investigations Atlas, U.S. Geological Survey. Suzzallo Library, University

of Washington.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 114


Overall, each of the alternatives may result in temporary, relatively minor negative
impacts as projects are being constructed (for example, construction may generate noise
or dust). However, once projects are completed, the long-term benefits to the basin’s
ecology and aesthetics would be positive. Using the mitigation measures would
minimize negative impacts on recreation, cultural resources, and the environment during
and after construction. ‘

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 61


remaining criteria relate to ecosystem-scale considerations and feasibility, and are scored
according to stated criteria or relative to the effects of other proposed projects. The
potential range of scores for each criterion was 0 to 5.

= Immediate benefits to salmonids (S1. with-project, S2. without-project)
= Long-term benefits to salmonids (83. with-project, $4. without-project)
= Benefits to other species (S5. with-project, S6. without-project)

= Reversing losses of rare habitats (S7)

= Sustainability and contributions to habitat-forming processes (S8)

=  Ecosystem-level effects (89)

= Feasibility (S10)

A panel of experts was convened to apply the scoring criteria to each of the potential
projects identified in the initial stages of the general investigation. This panel consisted
of 6 persons, including representatives of the Tulalip and Stillaguamish Tribes (2
panelists), the local sponsor (Snohomish County, 2 panelists), and the Corps (2 panelists).
All of the panel members were resource professionals familiar with the basin, and all had
participated in field reviews of the potential restoration projects. The panelists reviewed
the scoring criteria, suggested changes, and reviewed the specific proposals for each
restoration project. Each panelist then assigned scores for each criterion for each project
based on his or her best professional judgement. Following discussion of the resulting
scores, a group consensus score was assigned to each rating factor for each project.

A simple formula was used to calculate overall RER for the 15 potential restoration
projects and for 2 of the 3 flood reduction projects. The differentials of each of the first
three sets of Criteria Scores (with-project minus without-project, S1 through S6) were
added to the remaining Criteria Scores (S7 through $10) to derive an overall RER for
each project, as follows:

Restoration Effectiveness Rating (RER) (Project x) =
(S1-S2) + (S3-S4) + (S5-S6) + S7+S8+S9+S10

In their raw form, RERs are dimensionless. For analyses like this, which involve
combinations of many types of restoration actions, the raw RERs allow comparisons
based solely on ecological effectiveness. Measures of cost can be combined with such
measures of environmental outputs to estimate cost-effectiveness. In some instances, it
may be desirable to combine RERs with some aerial measure (acreage, stream miles, etc.)
to support more detailed economic analyses. It is important to note, however, that
combination of disSimilar projects in order to obtain a common unit should be
approached carefully.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 67


Throughout much of the Quaternary Period, the basin underwent continental glaciation.
The ice was typically several thousand feet thick and caused tremendous scouring and
compaction of the volcanic material. Each advance of the ice left behind lateral moraines
of unconsolidated materials and compacted till from underneath the ice. The
Stillaguamish Basin is composed of various lithologies that include Jurassic Period
metamorphic rock in the western portion, and Tertiary Period sedimentary and volcanic
rock in the east.

The most recent period of Washington’s glaciation, the Vashon Stage, occurred
approximately 15,000 years ago. During this period, a mile-thick cordilleran ice sheet
extended just south of the present-day city of Olympia. It completely retreated
approximately 13,000 years ago, and left behind the deposits of gravels and compacted
till material seen today in most soils and surface formations (Kruckeberg 1991). Ice
dams formed glacial lakes in many of the river valleys and left behind lacustrine silts and
clay in the lower elevation valleys. Other surficial deposits include talus (rockfall) and
alluvial and/or debris fans at mouths of tributary valleys. These glacial-lacustrine clays
and silts have been the main source of the significant sediment production of the basin.
Glacial sediments, especially in steeper slopes, are extremely prone to mass wasting and
erosion.

2.1.2. Climate

The Stillaguamish Basin’s climate is typically maritime, with cool wet winters and mild
summers. Average rainfall ranges from 30 inches in the western lowlands to over 140
inches in the forested eastern region. Approximately 75% of the basin’s precipitation
falls between October and March. At elevations greater than 3000 feet, much of this
precipitation falls as snow. Major winter and spring flooding can occur when abrupt
warming results in rain-on-snow events. Spring snowmelt runoff generally peaks in May.
The lowest streamflows occur during dry summer months, typically July through
September.

2.1.3. Hydrology

The pre-settlement morphology of the Stillaguamish River was typical of recently de-
glaciated western Cascade rivers. Headwater streams were steep and set in either
bedrock or boulders, while the lower reaches contained mostly low gradient, alluvial
streams. The area was, and still is, naturally sediment rich with several distributary
channels in the valley bottoms. Tidal effects reach upstream to river mile 7, just above
the confluence with Cook Slough.

The South Fork drainage area covers about 255 square miles, while the North Fork
drainage covers about 284 square miles. Below are descriptions of the major tributaries
to the Stillaguamish, which include brief discussions of the physical factors limiting
salmonid production. This section then tums to more a generalized description of the
Basin’s hydrologic characteristics; particularly those altered during the past century.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 12


sites. The locations of the preferred restoration sites are outlined below along with
potential HTRW issues of concern found during the preliminary screening.

Land surrounding the Stillaguamish river and its tributaries is used for major agricultural
activities. All agricultural areas are suspect for herbicide, pesticide, and insecticide
contamination of soil and water. Because of the long agricultural history of the area of
interest, the presence of background concentrations of these contaminants and their
degradation products is likely. This type of low level contamination is not considered in
this report. This report includes only a qualitative analysis of known sources of
contamination such as those listed in reports and databases as described above. A site
visit will be preformed prior to any construction activities at the selected locations to
visually determine the potential for HTRW hazards by locating clandestine dumping
debris, identifying the condition of existing structures and prior land use, and obvious
physical changes such as vegetation stress, recent grading, landfills and buming. During
construction activities, samples for HTRW assessment should be taken at those locations
identified as highly likely to contain hazards. That assessment will include
characterization and/or quantitative investigation of chemical constituents of
contaminated project sites.

A number of confirmed and suspected contaminated sites are listed in close preximity to
parts of the study area. Several sites are located near the eastern reach of Portage Creek,
south of Arlington; specifically the Unocal Bulk Plant Superfund Site and numerous
hazardous waste sites affecting air, soil, groundwater, and drinking water. Most of the
listed sites appear to be located some distance from ecosystem restoration sites and are
not expected to affect construction activities. However, we will be cognizant of the
proximity of restoration locations to manufacturing facilities, gas stations, hospitals and
other buildings that may have released contaminants into soil or groundwater. As with
any area, a major flood can potentially initiate a release of contaminants from the listed
sites but that subject is outside the scope of this study. Additionally, river sediments may
contain toxic or hazardous compounds that are unknown at this time; however, sediment
testing is outside the scope of this initial survey.

HTRW concemns in the Stillaguamish river area are low with the exception of the area
immediately south of Arlington and adjacent to Portage Creek. Portions of Portage Creek
are immediately south of the city of Arlington where a number of CERCLA, RCRA, and
TCI sites are listed. Specific river relocation areas identified as requiring excavation or
other construction activities will be thoroughly investigated before work commences.
The degree of concern necessary at specific restoration locations will be dependent upon
what is found during the site visit. HTRW personnel will be on site prior to and during
any geotechnical investigations to investigate the site and/or collect soil and water
samples for analysis if necessary. Evaluation of samples will reveal if additional
assessment regarding use of the site in this project are required. All other potential
ecological restoration sites appear to be free of obvious HTRW concerns. Since there is
potential for contamination due to agricultural activities or clandestine dumping at some
sites, however, a full HTRW investigation will be conducted prior to specific restoration
activities in order to decrease the risk of impact to projected activities.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 94


UVAA MALY,

S664 0668 $86) og6t S/6b O46) S96} 096) 596) Os6) Sv6h Ove) Stéh of)

|TUUeG CHEW CRERERREEE HERE REREERERERERER HERO REREE CERRO REECE RED

Wy 19g [eMUOUAjog = — =

VM ‘NOLONITYV UN HSIAWNOVTILS “4'N
YALWM SNSYSA M014 TWONNY vad

000291Z1#30VO SOSN |

YSIWENSE]INS YAO YPAON “AVIA JOVAA “SA MOT JLNUUY YRag “¢ aANTLy

000'0r

MO14 TWANNY YVvad


interest, the presence of background concentrations of these contaminants and their
degradation products is likely.

A preliminary site-specific evaluation of potential hazardous waste issues for proposed
restoration activities can be found in Section 6.6 of this document.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 46


properties are of value only for their research potential, and the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) approves data recovery as mitigation, then a determination
of “no adverse effect” can be achieved. Mitigation for traditional cultural properties or
properties judged significant for reasons other than research potential may require
measures other than data recovery. In addition, there is concern about discovery of
archaeological material or human remains while construction is in progress or as a later
consequence of the new habitat development.

A MOA which sets forth the means by which the Corps will comply with Section 106 of
the NHPA and other statutory requirements has been developed. The MOA will address
such issues as monitoring during construction, treatment of newly discovered historic
properties, and a plan to be applied if human remains are inadvertently discovered during
construction or during long-term habitat development.

The MOA may also include additional stipulations to satisfy state legislation and
concems of state agencies. The SHPO will represent the state’s interests, while the Corps
will represent the interests of all other federal agencies whose lands are affected by the
project in the development and implementation of the PA.

Mitigation Measures:

The MOA will ensure that all applicable federal and state statutes are complied with, and
that terms and conditions in these regulatory permits and other official project
authorizations are followed to eliminate or reduce adverse effects to cultural resources.
All projects would be designed to identify historic properties and mitigate for any adverse
effects. In addition, the following measures could be incorporated into individual
restoration projects:

«  Allregulatory permits, official project authorizations, and compliance with
applicable federal, state, and local regulations and ordinances (e.g., National
Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Level I Contaminants
Survey, etc.) must be secured before project implementation. All terms and
conditions in these regulatory permits and other official project authorizations must
be followed to eliminate or reduce adverse impacts to cultural or historic resources.

« Significant modifications to an approved work plan must be reviewed and approved
by appropriate agency personnel and the landowner(s) before the work can be carried
out or continued. This may include change requiring modifications of permits, or
alterations to the scope or intent of the project.

= Use existing roadways or travel paths for access to project sites, where feasible.

« All waste from project activities must be removed from the project site before project
completion and disposed of properly.

= Include cultural resources studies as early as possible in project design to avoid late
discovery of cultural or historical properties that could delay implementation of a
project.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 90


Common furbearers, usually associated with the riparian areas, were mink (Mustela
vison), muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), weasels (Mustela spp.), raccoon (Procyon lotor),
and snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus). Several amphibian species occurred in the
basin, including Cascade frogs (Rana cascadae) and red-legged frogs (R. aurora).
Historic marine mammal usage in the Port Susan estuary probably included sea otter
(Enhydra lutris), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), harbor seals (Phoca
vitulina), porpoises (Phocoena phocoena, Phocoenoides dalli), and orcas (Orcinus orca).

Several wildlife species are no longer present within the Stillaguamish Basin, or their
populations are so low that they have been listed under the Endangered Species Act.
However, species that are more commonly in edge (or early seral) habitats are now more
abundant. Species that have been eliminated are the gray wolf, grizzly bear, and sea
otter. All are top of the food change predators, and were subject to hunting or active
eradication efforts. Species whose populations have been diminished include the spotted
owl, marbled murrelet, martin, California wolverine, Townsend’s bat and beaver. Many
of these species require a large home range and are typically associated with large
patches of mature forests. In general, much of the species diversity associated with the
historic conditions in the basin remain; what has changed over time is the abundance and
distribution of these species.

There are several reasons for changes in distribution and abundance of wildlife in the
Stillaguamish Basin. The fragmentation of forests from over a century of logging has
resulted in fewer habitats available to forest-dependent species. It also has greatly ~
reduced habitat connectivity, which is crucial for many species. Connectivity of habitat
allows species to migrate seasonally, disperses individuals, and allows the overlap of
territories of potential breeding pairs of ranging animals. In addition, smaller forest
patches have different microclimate conditions, less ability to buffer weather extremes,
and a greater amount of edge. Increased edge reduces interior habitat available for
species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests. As fragmentation
increases, the species associated with late-successional forest decline (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1995).

Loss of wetlands throughout the basin has reduced the available habitat for waterfowl and
shorebirds, with a resultant drop in populations. Logging, agricultural practices and
rural-urban development has fragmented riparian zones in much of the Stillaguamish
basin. This fragmentation has diminished the value of riparian zones as travel corridors
for wide-ranging species. As beaver have been actively trapped and eradicated during the
last 70 years, their role in wetland augmentation and creation of off-channel rearing
habitat for salmon has been greatly curtailed. The under-appreciated function that beaver
provide in habitat forming processes within landscape are just now beginning to be
understood (Pollock and Pess 1998).

2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

The types of habitaf degradation discussed above have led to population declines of
numerous fish and wildlife species. Several species under the jurisdiction of the Federal

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 29


Federal Emergency Management Agency
130 - 228th Street
Bothell, WA 98021

William Stelle, Jr.

Regional Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service
7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115

Val Varne

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101«Next Record»

Curt Soper

The Nature Conservancy

217 Pine Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98108«Next Record»

Washington Environmental Council
615 Second Avenue, #380
Seattle, WA 98104-2245«Next Record»

Curt Beardslee

Washington Trout

P.O. Box 402

Duvall, WA 98019-0402«Next Record»

Alice Kelly

Washington State Department of Ecology
3190 - 160th Avenue SE

Bellevue, WA 98008«Next Record»

Jim Doyle

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest
Supervisor’s Office

21905 Sixth Avenue W

Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043-2278

Gwill Ging

USS. Fish & Wildlife Service

510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102
Lacey, WA 98503«Next Record»

Tracy Drury
600 Dupont St.
Bellingham WA 98225

Sierra Club

Cascade Chapter

8511 - 15th Avenue NE, #201
Seattle, WA 98115«Next Record»

Kathy Anderson, President
Washington Kayak Club

2332 NE 120th

Seattle, WA 98125«Next Record»

University of Washington Library
Government Publications

Suzallo Library, 1st Floor

Box 352900

Seattle, WA 98195-2900«Next Record»

Washington State Department of
Community, Trade, and Economic
Development
Office of Archaeology &

Historic Preservation
P.O. Box 48343
Olympia, WA 98504-8343«Next Record»


Northern Tributaries to the Mainstem

Church Creek Many years of agricultural land use have resulted in the removal of most
of the riparian vegetation in the lower reaches (Jorgenson Slough). Church Creek
provides habitat primarily for cutthroat and coho, with fewer chum (mostly planted) and
steelhead. It is the best cutthroat stream in the Stillaguamish system, with annual smolt
production about equal to that of coho.

Pilchuck Creek Resource experts have assumed that summer low flows in the Pilchuck,
with associated high temperatures, are limiting factors for salmon production. Factors
that have contributed to reduced summer flows include wetland loss, increased bedload
from disruptive land use practices, upstream water withdrawals, and blocked or restricted
culverts. Some of the same factors contribute to “flashy” high flows in the winter.

Harvey/Ammstrong Creek Agricultural run-off, high sediment loading, “flashy” winter
flows and low summer flows, lack of riparian vegetation, and a general lack of instream
channel rearing/holding/spawn habitats are limiting factors for salmonids in this tributary.
Coho, cutthroat and steelhead can be found in Harvey/Armstrong Creek and its accessible
tributaries.

Southern Tributaries to the Mainstem

Tributary 30 This system has low flow problems in late summer and fall, as its main
source of water is springs. Although there are some excellent reaches of rearing and/or
spawning habitat, low summer flow is a limiting factor.

Portage Creek Much of Portage Creek system has been ditched and straightened. Past
and present agricultural activities have caused the loss of many of the systems wetlands
and riparian zones.

Fish Creek Although Fish Creek is adversely effect by agricultural runoff and land
clearing for home-building, there is significant coho spawning in the upper reaches and in
the supporting tributaries. This is due to the presence of highest quality coho spawning
habitat of all the southern Stillaguamish mainstem tributaries.

South Fork Stillaguamish

Lower South Fork Spawning habitat in this portion of the system is fair, as high
sediment loads from the Upper South Fork often bury spawning gravels. Monitoring near
Granite Falls in 1991/92 found the lower South Fork to have some of the highest levels of
total suspended solids in the entire watershed. In its lowermost reaches, the floodplain of
the South Fork widens into a broad valley and floodplain. This reach has high winter
rearing use by coho and steelhead. There are extensive wall-base channels in the
floodplain and draining the terraces.

Canyon Creek In this sub-basin, winter steelhead are present throughout the mainstem.
Summer steelhead are present in the upper reaches of the mainstem, and in the lower
north and south forks. High sediment loading can be a problem, because soils are
generally unstable, gradients are steep, and rainfall is high. The creek beds also

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 13


term beneficial effects, some short term detrimental effects may be associated with
construction activities. For example, sediment pulses from bed and bank disturbances
could affect fish in the project area; such impacts would be minimized through
construction timing and implementation of best management practices.

Several projects are located in or near bald eagle breeding and wintering areas, and two
projects are located near areas where Northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets have
been observed. Construction activities would result in noise above ambient levels, which
could disrupt nesting, feeding, or wintering birds. Prior to commencement of
construction activities at these sites, the USFWS would be consulted regarding the timing
and duration of construction activities as well as any vegetation removal.

4.4 Cultural Resources

The basin contains numerous recorded archaeological, historical, and traditional Native
American properties. Many if not most of the archaeological sites and traditional Native
American locations are closely associated with the Stillaguamish River and its primary
tributaries.

Under all alternatives, short-term impacts to cultural resources resulting from the
proposed restoration activities could occur during construction. Short-term construction
impacts would result from movement and use of construction equipment at the restoration
sites. The level of impact would vary depending on factors such as the extent of previous
disturbance, the age of the affected sediments, and the action planned.

Long-term impacts to cultural resources would be associated with the ongoing
functioning of the restoration activities. The majority of the proposed restoration
activities are designed to modify stream morphology. Changes in channel position and
morphology, either intended or as an unexpected consequence of habitat improvements,
have the potential to affect sub-surface archaeological material, possibly historical
structures or buildings, or important characteristics of traditional cultural properties.

Evaluation of project-specific impacts would occur as part of the environmental review
for individual restoration projects.

4.5 Socio-Economic Resources
4.5.1. Traffic and Transportation -

Implementation of any of the project alternatives and subsequent construction would
require the movement of equipment and materials along existing roadways within the
Stillaguamish Basin. The impact on roadways and traffic will depend on the location and
type of the restoration activities.

Access to proposed'restoration sites will vary from site to site. Construction of
temporary access roads, of variable length, may be required in some cases.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 57


APPENDIX B

Distribution List


“syoafoad [ye 0} ajqeoydde aq you Aeur syuuiad asayy jo awog ,

ON aytoods-jo0folg S]UOUIUIDAOS [B07] *SJ2Aa] QOULSINU PUB ISIOU S}OLSIY SOOUBUIPIO VOUESINN/ISION,

SoA oyjfoads-jooforg JUaWUIIA08 [290] *sontanoe Surpeid pue Suuesjo soyeindoy S2OUBUIPIO SuIpeiy pue Sues}
*sauoz payeudisop

ON ayroads-yoaforg quawWWaA08 [e207] uri juawidoyaaap Jo say syouysay saoueulpiQ Suru0Z

1901

SoA oyroods-oolorg AB0j00q “SIDTEM 3}8IS 0} SOBIBYOSIP SUIZADD | IY [ONUOD UONNI[Og 19}BA UOISUTYsE

“SIDIEM O18}S * MOL

SOX ayjyoads-yooforg AAG JO MOY pur ‘spaq ‘ajt] SHENbe Jo uoND2}014 02°SL “UD ‘Teaoaddy yooforg oyjnespAH
“sIsyeM

SOX oytoads-jooforg NGM 2y8)S 0} uaoelpe Joaquin Jo joWadeuEyy WY 9AND9}0Nq S210,
“matAad feuoNoIpsunt ABojoog SuawussA08 “sgomnosal JANISUDS

ON [e007] “o1y1oads-yoaforg Ayunod pu [e007 JOuoNso}01g “waudojasap uequn sjonUOD PY JswWsseURW] YMOIH

qyuag aoueydwop Aauady ajqisuodsay adoag woe Nsay/MET



‘syquyjapuy aqui. Siy8ta Awan youdut 07 jeNUD}0g OTA [EQUL “OL
syuoUl Z] 01 ¢ ABoj00q satdde pop uoNs0g Udy AY woneoyaD Ayend JVM 1Op “ST
340M Jo odoos uo pusdap IIT sdiop SIDA “S*F] Ul UOBABSXa JO SoINjONNS wuusg Q] uonses sdiod “pL
uonejuauradust yooford =
0} Jord aauasaid satoods Jo uonEnjeAsay uoneUIps009
stpuout Z| 03 9 :Jenpratpuy SAISN ‘SAWN | so1oads poso8uepuo <jje19p9y uo syouduyy py satoads para8uepugq “¢]
310m Jo adoos wo puadap [IIA sdiog S19]BA “S"1) UF [IY 40 98poaq, wuuad pop uoNsag slop “21
uoneojdde
yquow: | NGM * sioyeM a}eIs WOU [BAOWDI JOqUIL, WUL9g IY SIONIWwIY SOT “TT
uopeing Aauady Aynavayddy Aypoy



JARPA
LWD
MOA
MLLW
NAAQS
NEPA
NHPA
NMFS
NO2
NOx
NOAA

NRCS

03
OHW

PHS

ppm

RCW

SASSI

SCPW

Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application
large woody debris

Memorandum of Agreement

mean lower low water

National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Environmental Policy Act
National Historic Preservation Act
National Marine Fisheries Service
nitrogen dioxide

nitrogen oxides

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Natural Resources Conservation Service
National Register of Historic Places
Nationwide Permit

ozone

Ordinary High Water

Priority Habitats and Species

parts per million

restoration effectiveness rating

Revised Code of Washington

tiver mile

Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory

Snohomish County Public Works

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration
Final Environmental Assessment

November 2000
Page vii


Several projects are located in or near bald eagle breeding and wintering areas, and two
projects are located near areas where Northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets have
been observed. Construction activities would result in noise above ambient levels, which
could disrupt nesting, feeding, or wintering birds. Prior to commencement of
construction activities at these sites, the USFWS will be consulted regarding the timing
and duration of construction activities as well as any vegetation removal.

6.4 Cultural Resources

Federal historic preservation policy has been under development since the beginning of
the twentieth century. There are four basic tenets that provide the basis for this policy: 1)
cultural resources are considered valuable to the nation; 2) these resources are finite,
fragile, and non-renewable; 3) the federal government is responsible for the stewardship
of such resources in public ownership for the public good; and 4) the government is
responsible for protecting cultural resources from adverse effects resulting from
federally-funded or licensed undertakings. The National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, (NHPA) requires federal agencies to consider the affects of their
undertakings on properties eligible for listing on the National Resister of Historic Places
(NRHP). This consideration usually involves identifying cultural resources, evaluating
their NRHP eligibility, determining project effects on eligible resources, and assessing.
measures to mitigate adverse impacts. The regulations implementing Section 106 of the
NHPA were revised in June 1999. As lead federal agency on the Stillaguamish
Environmental Restoration Project, the Corps consults with other involved federal
agencies (U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), the Washington State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and affected Indian tribes (Stillaguamish and
Tulalip). The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Washington
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) also require consideration of cultural resources
and effects on tribes. Other federal laws that may apply, especially related to TCP and
human remain issues, include the Washington Indian Graves and Records Act RCW
27.44), American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1971, and the Native American
Graves Repatriation Act of 1990.

As discussed in Section 2.4, it is anticipated that the greater project area contains a
variety of cultural resources including prehistoric campsites, specialized resource
procurement sites, village sites, traditional cultural properties, and historic period sites.
Many of the archaeological sites and traditional Native American locations are closely
associated with the Stillaguamish River and its primary tributaries. The potential for the
discovery of more archaeological sites is high given the geological and modem history of
the middle and lower basin. Additionally, large areas within the basin have never been
subjected to systematic surface or subsurface investigation. Prehistoric site types may
consist of inundated occupation areas (e.g., sites dating between 9,000 and 5,000 years
ago), fishing sites (e.g., weirs), coastal and riverine shell middens, defensive earthworks,
inland wet sites (notable for excellent preservation of organic materials), fire-altered rock
concentrations, lithic scatters, isolated artifacts, and rock shelters. Traditional cultural
properties and burials represent locations of special concern and require sensitive
treatment. Historic structures and/or historic archaeological sites occurring within the

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 88


Marbled murrelets spend most of their lives in the marine environment, where they
forage in areas 0.3 to 2 km from shore. Murrelets often aggregate near localized food
sources, resulting in a clumped distribution. Prey species include herring, sand lance,
anchovy, osmerids, seaperch, sardines, rockfish, capelin, smelt, as well as euphasiids,
mysids, and gammarid amphipods. Marbled murrelets also aggregate, loaf, preen, and
exihibit wing-stretching behaviors on the water.

Marbled murrelets nest in inland old-growth low-elevation coniferous forests with multi-
layered canopies. Murrelets select large-diameter [>81cm diameter at breast height
(dbh)] trees with horizontal branches of at least seven inches in diameter and heavy moss
growth. Characteristic habitat attributes of nesting sites include the presence of nesting
platforms (e.g., forked limbs, dwarf mistletoe infections, witches’ brooms, deformities),
adequate canopy cover over the nest, and close proximity (<84km) to the marine
environment (Hamer and Nelson 1995a). These structures are typically found in old-
growth and mature forests, but may be found in a variety of forest types including
younger forests containing remnant large trees. General landscape conditions may
influence the degree to which marbled murrelets nest in an area. In Washington, marbled
murrelet detections increased when old-growth/mature forests comprised more than 30
percent of the landscape, and decreased when more than 25 percent of the landscape was
clear-cuts and meadows (Hamer and Cummins’ 1990).

Of 95 murrelet nests in North America during 1995, nine were located in Washington.
Nesting occurs over an extended period from late March to late September; however in
Washington, murrelets generally nest between 26 May and 27 August (USFWS 1999).
Marbled murrelets have been observed at some inland sites during all months of the year.
Attendance at breeding sites during the non-breeding season may enhance pair bond
maintenance, facilitate earlier breeding, or reinforce familiarity with flight paths to
breeding sites (O’Donnell et al. 1995).

During the breeding period, the female marbled murrelet lays a single egg in a tree
containing a suitable nesting platform. Both sexes incubate the egg in alternating 24-hour
shifts for approximately 30 days, and the young fledge after 27 to 40 days. Chicks are
fed at least once a day. Adults feeding young fly from marine feeding areas to nest sites
at all times of the day, but most often at dusk and dawn (Nelson and Hamer 1995b).
Before leaving the nest, the young molt into a distinctive juvenile plumage. A fledgling’s
first flight is from the nest directly to the marine environment (Hamer and Cummins
1990).

Critical habitat was designated for the marbled murrelet on May 24, 1996 (USFWS
1996). 32 critical habitat units in Washington, Oregon, and California, encompassing
approximately 1,573,340 hectares of Federal and non-Federal lands, were designated at
this time. Two primary constituent elements considered essential for successful
reproduction were identified: (1) individual trees with potential nesting platforms, and (2)
forested areas within 0.5 mile of individual trees with potential nesting platforms and a
canopy height of atleast one-half the site potential tree height. Within the boundaries of
designated critical habitat, only those areas that contain one or both primary constituent

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 34


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. May 24, 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet. Federal Register
61(102):26256.

USS. Forest Service. 1994. Record of Decision for the Amendments to the Forest Service
and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northem
Spotted Owl. Standards and Guidelines.

US. Forest Service 1992. Field Guide to the Forested Plant Associations of the Mt.
Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. USDA Forest Service Technical Paper R6 ECOL TP
028-91.

U.S. Forest Service Darrington Ranger District. 1995. Watershed Analysis, South Fork
Upper Stillaguamish River. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National
Forest, Pacific Northwest Region.

U.S. Forest Service Darrington Ranger District. 1996. Watershed Analysis, South Fork
Lower Stillaguamish River-Canyon Creek. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Mt. Baker-
Snoqualmie National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998(a). Ecology of Bald Eagles in
Western Washington with an Emphasis on the Effects of Human Activity. Olympia, WA:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Research Division.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Indian
Tribes. 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory, Appendix
I, Puget Sound Stocks, North Puget Sound Volume.

Washington State Conservation Commission. 1999. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat
Limiting Factors: Water Resource Inventory Area 5 (Stillaguamish Watershed).

Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. University of
Washington Press; Seattle, WA.

Yozzo, D., J. Titre, and J. Sexton (eds.) 1996. Planning and evaluating restoration of
aquatic habitats from an ecological perspective. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Evaluation of Environmental Investments Research Program, Institute for Water
Resources Report 96-EL-4.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 121


6.7 Conclusions

Implementing some or all of the proposed 13 restoration projects should supply both
immediate and long-term environmental benefits to the fish and wildlife in the
Stillaguamish Basin. The proposed restoration plan attempts to take a balanced and
reasonable approach. This plan does not propose to rectify all of the pressing issues
associated with maintaining natural resources in a rapidly developing watershed. The
restoration suggested in this plan does not include a retur to the historic condition, nor
does it address important management and regulatory initiatives. The focus has been on
developing a set of restoration options that could be readily implemented. The result of
this planning process is a focus on capital improvement projects that can provide
immediate and long-term benefits to aquatic portions of the system. This plan proposes
to improve ecological functions for a variety of aquatic species over the entire watershed
by focusing on restoring riverine process. The proposal also considers the current
condition of the valley, its residents, and its social needs. The planning effort focused on
improving habitat functions without changing flood conditions or removing existing
infrastructure.

While we consider this restoration plan as an important set of actions, it is not nor does it
intend to be the complete answer to the resource problems of the Stillaguamish Basin. It
is an important first step in balancing resource needs with other competing uses.
However, other changes such as land use planning and fisheries management also need to
occur if habitat degradation is to be truly reversed.

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment Page 95


rates lower, conditions which were marked by the expansion of prairies in the Puget
Lowlands, northward spread of oak and hazel from the Willamette Valley, and increases
of grasses, bracken fern, Douglas fir, and red alder. The abundance of Douglas fir and
alder and higher densities of charcoal in sediments suggest that fire was a factor in
maintaining the prairie and forest associations during this period, Cedar and hemlock
began to increase after c. 7,000 years ago, becoming dominant in lowland western
Washington by about 5,000 years ago. Prairies shrank and wetlands expanded at that
time. These changes marked the onset of cooler, moister conditions and the development
of closed climax forests. After 5,000 years ago, no major changes are evident in the
pollen record until the historic period, when native vegetation was disrupted by land
clearance. Douglas fir has remained a significant element of western Washington forests
for these 5,000 years, probably due to continued periodic catastrophic fires, and the
establishment of old growth cedar-hemlock forests has been cited as an important factor
in the development of the Northwest Coast culture seen during the ethnographic period.

Landscape. The post-glacial adjustment of sea levels, tectonic instability, and the
abruptly changed hydrology of the lower Stillaguamish River have important
implications for site location and discovery. The end of the Pleistocene witnessed great
fluctuations in relative sea level as world-wide warming contributed vast amounts of melt
water to the seas and the newly exposed land rose as it cast off the weight of the glacial
ice. Relative sea levels dropped several hundred feet below present levels, then rose
more than 300 ft higher than current levels for a brief period between c. 12,500 and
11,000 years ago, and finally stabilized to today’s levels about 5,000 years ago.

In addition to isostatic and eustatic sea level changes, other processes affected the
Stillaguamish River Basin and bear on the distribution, integrity, and detectability of
archaeological sites. During the early Holocene, rivers and streams cut valleys through
the drift left behind by retreating glaciers and occupied outwash channels, depositing
alluvium over outwash sediments. Colluvial sediments were deposited on valley slopes
and floors and the Stillaguamish delta prograded, leaving former marine shorelines far
inland. Formation of prominent volcanic peaks of the North Cascades also occurred
during eruptions at the end of the Pleistocene. Glacier Peak tephras were redeposited in
the basin by rivers draining its flanks (Miss and Campbell 1991). In addition, some
topographic changes resulted from tectonic activity, which recent studies suggest has
been fairly common in the Puget Lowlands. One earthquake occurred between 1,100 and
1,700 years ago along a fault extending from south Bainbridge Island to Lake
Sammamish. This event caused rapid uplift south of the fault and subsidence to its north,
landslides into lakes Washington and Sammamish, and a tsunami in Puget Sound. Sites
may have been buried and, in the case of the marine shoreline that existed at the time of
the event, recorded archaeological sites are known to have subsided below the current sea
level during this earthquake. Historic changes, such as river diversions and
channelization have also significantly affected the Stillaguamish River system and pre-
existing cultural resources.

Miss and Campbell (1991) summarize the geologic changes and their implications for the
archaeological record of the project area as follows:

Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration November 2000
Final Environmental Assessment “ Page 37