Untitled

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
EMERGENCY FLOOD CONTROL AND BANK PROTECTION

NORTH FORK STILLAGUAMISH RIVER
OSO, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON

Prepared by:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle District

January 2009
Final Environmental Assessment
Emergency Flood Control and Bank Protection: North Fork Stillaguamish River, Oso, Snohomish County, Washington
ABSTRACT

On J anuary 25, 2006, a large landslide occurred on the North Fork Stillaguamish River near Oso,
off of Highway 530 (T 32N, R 7E, NW part of Section 12) in Snohomish County, Washington.
The approximate size of the initial slide was 200 yards in width by 200 yards in length. It
completely blocked the existing channel of the North Fork Stillaguamish. The blocked portion is
a rather steep bend, resulting in the river cutting inside the curve. Inside the bend of the river is a
small private community of 10 homes. It was necessary to take immediate action to protect the
residences from flooding, if a rainstorm was to raise river flows.

Snohomish County Emergency Management responded, and requested assistance from the US
Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District (USACE). Informal consultation occurred with the
Stillaguamish Tribe, the Washington Dept. of Ecology, and the Washington Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife, as well as the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). Action was taken to stabilize the bank and to train the river
in a new channel. This action is described in detail in Sec. 2.2 of this document.

Pursuant to Sec. 102(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act, this Environmental
Assessment is being prepared to analyze and disclose impacts of the emergency and followup
action to the human environment. Effects determinations pursuant to Sec. 7 of the Endangered
Species Act are included in this document for listed species of fish and wildlife in the project
area, although separate, formal consultation pursuant to the ESA has been completed with
NOAA Fisheries and the USFWS. Finally, evaluation pursuant to other requirements
(regulations, executive orders etc.) are included as well.

Need. On the North Fork Stillaguamish River (Figs. 1-3) near the town of Oso, a major landslide
occurred on J anuary 25, 2006, and blocked the river channel (Fig. 2), creating an imminent
danger of flooding for a community of 10 homes, called Steelhead Haven, adjacent to the
location of the slide. Emergency response measures were undertaken by Snohomish County,
Washington, and assistance of the USACE was provided under PL 84-99 emergency authority.

Purpose. The purpose of this action was to provide emergency flood protection and river
channel stabilization in response to the Oso landslide of J anuary 25, 2006, on the North Fork
Stillaguamish River.

Description of Action. This action is an emergency measure, with followup action to further
stabilize the site, including the following measures. After the slide pushed the river into
pastures on the left (south) bank, trees were mechanically uprooted along the upper 150 feet of a
new channel alignment, and the new channel was notched incrementally from downstream to
upstream. The upstream end of the new channel was opened to allow the river to enter it. A
450-ft stretch was stabilized with large rocks, on an incline of about 1.5V on 1H. J ust
downstream, along a 250-ft stretch, two groins of large woody debris were placed
perpendicularly into the bank, in trenches about five feet wide by four feet deep, and cabled
down using extendable-fluke Manta Ray anchors and large rock. Sandbags were placed between
the woody groins, and willow shoots planted between the layers of bags. The rootwads were
placed outward into the river channel. A log jam was placed in crisscross fashion on the inside
ii
of the upstream end of the new channel to help keep the river from cutting into the corner. It was
placed on a rock foundation about 2.5 feet below the event water level, 30 feet long by five feet
wide. A log revetment at the downstream end was anchored with manta ray anchors. The slope
behind it consists of fill with smaller trees and woody debris, and some willows were planted in
the top of the bank.

A rock end-wall was placed at the upstream end of the rock revetment. It has about a 3H:1V
slope and is buried about five feet below existing ground line. Having such a line of defense
made of rock is important for future flood fights, as it keeps the river from cutting behind the
rock revetment. Some trees were removed along the rock revetment to allow the construction
equipment access to the rivers edge. The top of bank along the rock revetment and log jam area
was hydroseeded and ecology blocks were put up to prevent it from being used as a road.

A new road was built with 4x8 quarry spalls overlaid with 1-inch gravel. Sand bags were
placed near residences by the local fire department and the Snohomish County Department of
Emergency Management.

Following the emergency action, the Stillaguamish Tribe built a log revetment set back to the
right (north) of the new channel, bracing the toe of the slide. That was not part of the action
being evaluated in this EA.

In fall of 2006 a flood of record occurred, and the river migrated rightward (northward) to the
base of that revetment. A gravel bar was formed at the toe of the new rock revetment, effectively
setting the emergency bank armoring back from the river.

Snohomish County proposes mitigation at two sites.

Steelhead Haven: Since the new channel was created in early 2006, the channel has
migrated northward toward the cribwall and deposited a gravel bar between the emergency bank
protection structures and the thalweg. The gravel bar extends out from the riprap approximately
100 feet to the water during typical winter flows. The riprap forms the margin of the active
channel during higher flows.

The county will re-grade the bank at a 3-to-1 slope using materials from the gravel bar. The bank
currently is 8 to 10 feet above the gravel bar. Grading would be done from the gravel bar by
pushing material up to the bank using a bulldozer or similar piece of machinery. Snohomish
County will build a soil lift on the upper two feet of bank to provide a planting area. The front
edge of the planting area would be formed using logs anchored into the bank. Besides forming a
solid front edge to retain soils, the logs would protect the planting area during high water events.

Chatham Acres: Chatham Acres is located several miles upstream from the Steelhead
Haven site on the North Fork Stillaguamish. The 23-acre site is armored by four rock groins and
riprap between the groins. The bank was armored in 2000 to protect homes from high flows.
The Chatham Acres development was purchased by Snohomish County several years ago as part
of a Flood Emergency Prevention grant. All of the homes have been removed, and the site is
being restored by Snohomish Countys Surface Water Management Native Plant Program. The
iii
site is on the inside of the meander bend, mostly forested, and has a large side channel complex
that cuts across the site.

Snohomish County will remove three of the four rock groins, 200 feet of large randomly spaced
rock, and hundred-foot sections of rock between groins 1 and 2 and between groins 3 and 4.
Combined, over 450 lineal feet of rock will be removed. In order to access these areas, an
overgrown access road would need to be cleared. This road was used in 2000 when the rock was
placed and is mostly vegetated with Himalayan blackberry. Rock removal would be done from
the banks, and minimal in-water work is anticipated. All disturbed areas will be planted with
native woody vegetation. These plantings would not be monitored and maintained as those at
Steelhead Haven, but would be included in the revegetation efforts at the site by the Native Plant
Program.

3. Summary of Impacts Main impacts of the preferred alternative include the following, none of
which are considered significant:
Short-term stabilization of river channel
Unquantifiable contribution to global climate change through machinery exhaust emissions
Prevention of channel migration leftward toward residential area
Short-term sediment loading (though possibly less than with no action)
Minor short-term impacts to air quality due to exhaust emissions
Stabilization which might promote regrowth of vegetation and forest
Short-term impact on fish habitat and therefore fish production, including loss of shade,
cover, and insect and organic input; also short-term sedimentation.
Relatively quick re-establishment of a migration channel compared to the no-action
alternative
Short-term loss of riparian habitat for birds and mammals, including a feeding and migration
corridor
Likely adverse effects to species listed under the Endangered Species Act, including Puget
Sound Chinook, Puget Sound steelhead, and Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout, for which
mitigation is proposed.
Minor effects to esthetics.
iv
CONTENTS
1 Introduction, Background, Purpose and Need ........................................................................ 1
1.1 Introduction and Background ......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Need ................................................................................................................................ 4
1.3 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 4
2 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 No Action ........................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Open New Channel (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................... 4
3 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................. 8
3.1 Physical Characteristics .................................................................................................. 8
3.1.1 Geology ................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.2 Climate .................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.3 Hydrology ............................................................................................................. 10
3.1.4 Physical Alterations. ............................................................................................. 11
3.1.5 Sediment Load. ..................................................................................................... 11
3.1.6 Flood Control. ....................................................................................................... 12
3.1.7 Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 12
Temperature ...................................................................................................................... 13
3.1.7.1 Dissolved Oxygen ............................................................................................. 14
3.1.7.2 Fecal Coliform .................................................................................................. 14
3.1.8 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 14
3.1.9 Noise ..................................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Natural Resources ......................................................................................................... 15
3.2.1 Vegetation ............................................................................................................. 15
3.2.1.1 Forests ............................................................................................................... 15
3.2.1.2 Wetlands and Riparian Areas ............................................................................ 16
3.2.2 Floodplains ............................................................................................................ 16
3.2.3 Fisheries ................................................................................................................ 17
3.2.3.1 Anadromous Fish .............................................................................................. 18
3.2.3.2 Resident Fishes ................................................................................................. 19
3.2.4 Wildlife ................................................................................................................. 20
3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................ 21
3.3.1 Chinook Salmon.................................................................................................... 22
3.3.2 Bull Trout .............................................................................................................. 23
3.3.3 Steelhead ............................................................................................................... 24
3.3.4 Bald Eagle ............................................................................................................. 25
3.3.5 Marbled Murrelet .................................................................................................. 26
3.3.6 Northern Spotted Owl ........................................................................................... 27
3.4 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 28
3.4.1 Ecosystem Changes .............................................................................................. 28
3.4.2 Prehistory, Ethnography and Ethnohistory ........................................................... 29
3.5 Socio-Economic Resources .......................................................................................... 30
3.5.1 Transportation and Navigation ............................................................................. 30
3.5.2 Land and Shoreline Use ........................................................................................ 30
3.5.3 Recreation ............................................................................................................. 30
3.5.4 Population ............................................................................................................. 31
v
3.5.5 Public Service and Utilities ................................................................................... 31
3.6 Hazardous and Toxic Wastes ........................................................................................ 31
3.7 Esthetics ........................................................................................................................ 31
4 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives, and Unavoidable Adverse Effects .............. 31
4.1 Physical Characteristics ................................................................................................ 32
4.1.1 Geology ................................................................................................................. 32
4.1.1.1 No-Action ......................................................................................................... 32
4.1.1.2 Open New Channel ........................................................................................... 32
4.1.1.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ..................................................................... 32
4.1.2 Climate .................................................................................................................. 32
4.1.3 Hydrology ............................................................................................................. 32
4.1.3.1 Flows ................................................................................................................. 32
4.1.3.1.1 No-Action ................................................................................................... 32
4.1.3.1.2 Open New Channel ..................................................................................... 33
4.1.3.1.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Effects .............................................................. 33
4.1.3.2 Physical Alterations. ......................................................................................... 33
4.1.3.2.1 No-Action ................................................................................................... 33
4.1.3.2.2 Open New Channel ..................................................................................... 33
4.1.3.3 Sediment Load. ................................................................................................. 34
4.1.3.3.1 No-Action ................................................................................................... 34
4.1.3.3.2 Open New Channel ..................................................................................... 34
4.1.3.4 Flood Control .................................................................................................... 35
4.1.3.4.1 No-Action ................................................................................................... 35
4.1.3.4.2 Open New Channel ..................................................................................... 35
4.1.4 Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 35
4.1.4.1 Temperature ...................................................................................................... 35
4.1.4.1.1 No-Action ................................................................................................... 35
4.1.4.1.2 Open New Channel ..................................................................................... 36
4.1.4.2 Dissolved Oxygen ............................................................................................. 36
4.1.4.3 Fecal Coliform .................................................................................................. 36
4.1.4.3.1 No-Action ................................................................................................... 36
4.1.4.3.2 Open New Channel ..................................................................................... 36
4.1.5 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 36
4.1.5.1 No-Action ......................................................................................................... 36
4.1.5.2 Open New Channel ........................................................................................... 37
4.1.6 Noise ..................................................................................................................... 37
4.1.6.1 No-Action ......................................................................................................... 37
4.1.6.2 Open New Channel ........................................................................................... 37
4.2 Natural Resources ......................................................................................................... 37
vi
4.2.1 Vegetation ............................................................................................................. 37
4.2.1.1 Forests ............................................................................................................... 37
4.2.1.1.1 No-Action ................................................................................................... 38
4.2.1.1.2 Open New Channel ..................................................................................... 38
4.2.1.2 Wetlands and Riparian Areas ............................................................................ 38
4.2.1.2.1 No-Action ................................................................................................... 38
4.2.1.2.2 Open New Channel ..................................................................................... 39
4.2.2 Floodplains ............................................................................................................ 39
4.2.2.1 No-Action ......................................................................................................... 39
4.2.2.2 Open New Channel ........................................................................................... 39
4.2.3 Fisheries ................................................................................................................ 39
4.2.3.1 Anadromous Fish .............................................................................................. 39
4.2.3.1.1 No-Action ................................................................................................... 39
4.2.3.1.2 Open New Channel ..................................................................................... 40
4.2.3.2 Resident Fishes ................................................................................................. 41
4.2.3.2.1 No-Action ................................................................................................... 41
4.2.3.2.2 Open New Channel ..................................................................................... 41
4.2.4 Wildlife ................................................................................................................. 42
4.2.4.1 No-Action ......................................................................................................... 42
4.2.4.2 Open New Channel ........................................................................................... 42
4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................ 42
4.3.1 Chinook Salmon.................................................................................................... 44
4.3.1.1 No-Action ......................................................................................................... 44
4.3.1.2 Open New Channel ........................................................................................... 44
4.3.2 Bull Trout .............................................................................................................. 45
4.3.2.1 No-Action ......................................................................................................... 45
4.3.2.2 Open New Channel ........................................................................................... 45
4.3.3 Steelhead ............................................................................................................... 45
4.3.3.1 No-Action ......................................................................................................... 45
4.3.3.2 Open New Channel ........................................................................................... 45
4.3.4 Bald Eagle ............................................................................................................. 46
4.3.4.1 No-Action ......................................................................................................... 46
4.3.4.2 Open New Channel ........................................................................................... 46
4.3.5 Marbled Murrelet .................................................................................................. 46
4.3.5.1 No-Action ......................................................................................................... 46
4.3.5.2 Open New Channel ........................................................................................... 46
vii
4.3.6 Northern Spotted Owl ........................................................................................... 47
4.3.6.1 No-Action ......................................................................................................... 47
4.3.6.2 Open New Channel ........................................................................................... 47
4.3.7 Essential Fish Habitat ........................................................................................... 47
4.4 Cultural Resources and Indian Trust Assets ................................................................. 47
4.5 Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................................ 48
4.5.1 Transportation and Navigation ............................................................................. 48
4.5.1.1 No-Action ......................................................................................................... 48
4.5.1.2 Open New Channel ........................................................................................... 48
4.5.2 Land and Shoreline Use ........................................................................................ 48
4.5.2.1 No-Action ......................................................................................................... 49
4.5.2.2 Open New Channel ........................................................................................... 49
4.5.3 Recreation ............................................................................................................. 49
4.5.3.1 No-Action ......................................................................................................... 49
4.5.3.2 Open New Channel ........................................................................................... 49
4.5.4 Population ............................................................................................................. 49
4.5.5 Public Services and Utilities ................................................................................. 50
4.5.5.1 No-Action ......................................................................................................... 50
4.5.5.2 Open New Channel ........................................................................................... 50
4.6 Hazardous and Toxic Wastes ........................................................................................ 50
4.6.1 No-Action ............................................................................................................. 50
4.6.2 Open New Channel ............................................................................................... 50
4.6.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Effects ........................................................................... 50
4.7 Esthetics ........................................................................................................................ 50
4.7.1 No-Action ............................................................................................................. 50
4.7.2 Open New Channel ............................................................................................... 50
4.8 Environmental J ustice ................................................................................................... 51
4.8.1 No-Action ............................................................................................................. 51
4.8.2 Open New Channel ............................................................................................... 51
5 Mitigation .............................................................................................................................. 51
6 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................................. 54
7 Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders ................................................. 55
7.1 Federal Statutes ............................................................................................................. 55
7.1.1 American Indian Religious Freedom Act ............................................................. 55
7.1.2 Archeological Resources Protection Act .............................................................. 55
7.1.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ................................................................. 56
7.1.4 Clean Air Act ........................................................................................................ 56
7.1.5 Coastal Zone Management Act ............................................................................. 56
7.1.6 Endangered Species Act ....................................................................................... 56
7.1.7 Farmland Protection Policy Act ............................................................................ 58
viii
7.1.8 Federal Water Pollution Control Act .................................................................... 58
7.1.9 Federal Water Project Recreation Act .................................................................. 58
7.1.10 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ...................................................................... 59
7.1.11 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act .............................................................. 59
7.1.12 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ......................... 59
7.1.13 Migratory Bird Conservation Act ......................................................................... 60
7.1.14 Migratory Bird Treaty Act .................................................................................... 60
7.1.15 National Environmental Policy Act ...................................................................... 61
7.1.16 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act ................................... 61
7.1.17 National Historic Preservation Act ....................................................................... 61
7.2 Executive Orders ........................................................................................................... 62
7.2.1 Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment .......................................................................................................................... 62
7.2.2 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management Guidelines .............................. 62
7.2.3 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands .................................................. 62
7.2.4 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental J ustice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations ............................................................ 63
7.2.5 Executive Order 13007, Native American Sacred Sites, May 24, 1996 ............... 63
7.2.6 Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments ......................................................................................................................... 63
7.3 Executive Memoranda .................................................................................................. 63
7.3.1 Council on Environmental Quality Memorandum, August 11, 1990, Analysis of
Impacts on Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands in Implementing NEPA ........................... 63
8 References ............................................................................................................................. 64
9 List of Preparers .................................................................................................................... 68

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project vicinity map in Snohomish County, western Washington. North is toward top
of figure. .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Vicinity of Oso slide, with approximate slide footprint indicated. Town of Oso is to
west (downriver) of this location. Dashed section lines indicate 1-mile scale. North is toward
top of figure..................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3. Aerial photos of Oso slide area, with elements of emergency repairs noted. ................ 3
Figure 4. As-built drawing of Oso landslide emergency work. River flows from right to left,
entering view from lower right. ...................................................................................................... 6
Figure 5. View looking downstream at completed work along bank. ........................................... 7
Figure 6. View of upstream corner of completed project. ............................................................. 7
Figure 7. View from upstream corner of completed project, showing upper end of Stillaguamish
Tribe log revetment. Water adjacent to revetment is backwater and not part of main channel,
which is in foreground. ................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 8. Proposed mitigation features (wood and plantings in soil lift) at Steelhead Haven (Oso
slide site). ...................................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 9. Proposed mitigation features at Chatham Acres site (removal of 3 rock groins, plus
rock in between groins 1 and 2, and between groins 3 and 4). ..................................................... 54

ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Stillaguamish River average annual anadromous fish production by species, 1956-1965
(thousands). ................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 2. Endangered and Threatened species in project vicinity. ................................................ 21

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Coordination Under Sec. 106 of National Historic Preservation Act
Appendix B: Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination
Appendix C: Endangered Species Act Coordination
Appendix D: Clean Water Act Sec. 404 Analysis
x

1 Introduction, Background, Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction and Background

off of Highway 530 (T 32N, R 7E, NW part of Section 12see Figs. 1-3) in Snohomish County,
north of Seattle, Washington. The approximate size of the initial slide was 200 yards in width by
200 yards in length. It completely blocked the existing channel of the North Fork Stillaguamish.
The reach that was blocked is a rather steep bend, and the river cut inside the curve. Inside the
bend of the river is a small private community of 10 homes. It was necessary to take immediate
action to protect the residences from flooding, in case a rainstorm should raise river flows.

Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District (USACE). Action was taken to stabilize the bank and
to train the river in a new channel. This action is described in detail in Sec. 2.2 of this document.

Pursuant to Sec. 102(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act, this Environmental
Assessment is being prepared to analyze and disclose impacts of the emergency and followup
action to the human environment. Effects determinations pursuant to Sec. 7 of the Endangered
Species Act are included in this document for listed species of fish and wildlife in the project
area. Finally, evaluation pursuant to other requirements (regulations, executive orders etc.) are
included as well.
1

Figure 1. Project vicinity, Snohomish County, western Washington. North is toward top of
figure.

2

Figure 2. Vicinity of Oso slide, with approximate slide footprint indicated. Town of Oso is to
west (downriver) of this location. Dashed section lines indicate 1-mile scale. North is toward
top of figure.

Figure 3. Aerial photos of Oso slide area, with elements of emergency repairs noted.

3
1.2 Need

On the North Fork Stillaguamish River (Figs. 1-3) near the town of Oso, a major landslide
occurred on J anuary 25, 2006, and blocked the river channel (Fig. 4), creating an imminent
danger of flooding for a community of 10 homes adjacent to the location of the slide.
Emergency response measures were undertaken by Snohomish County, Washington, and
assistance of the USACE was provided under PL 84-99 emergency authority (33 USC 701.n).

1.3 Purpose

The purpose of this action is to provide emergency flood protection and river stabilization to
protect 10 residences of the Steelhead Haven community at Oso, Washington, in response to the
Oso landslide of J anuary 25, 2006, on the North Fork Stillaguamish River.

2 Alternatives

The following describes the alternatives considered for this environmental assessment.

2.1 No Action

This alternative would involve no response to the landslide. The river might or might not
remove the blockage on its own; the channel might shift; flooding might or might not occur in
adjacent developed areas.

2.2 Open New Channel (Preferred Alternative)

This action is an emergency measure, with followup action to further stabilize the site, including
the following measures. After the slide pushed the river into pastures on the left (south) bank,
trees were mechanically uprooted along the upper 150 feet of a new channel alignment, and the
new channel was notched incrementally from downstream to upstream. The upstream end of the
new channel was opened to allow the river to enter it. A 450-ft stretch was stabilized with large
rocks, on an incline of about 1.5V on 1H. J ust downstream, along a 250-ft stretch, two groins of
large woody debris were placed perpendicularly into the bank, in trenches about five feet wide
by four feet deep, and cabled down using extendable-fluke Manta Ray anchors and large rock.
Sandbags were placed between the woody groins, and willow shoots planted between the layers
of bags. The rootwads were placed outward into the river channel. A log jam was placed in
crisscross fashion on the inside of the upstream end of the new channel to help keep the river
from cutting into the corner. It was placed on a rock foundation about 2.5 feet below the event
water level, 30 feet long by five feet wide. A log revetment at the downstream end was anchored
with manta ray anchors. The slope behind it consists of fill with smaller trees and woody debris,
and some willows were planted in the top of the bank.

4




5

Figure 4. As-built drawing of Oso landslide emergency work. River flows from right to left, entering view from lower right.
6

Figure 5. View looking downstream at completed work along bank.

Figure 6. View of upstream corner of completed project.

7

Figure 7. View from upstream corner of completed project, showing upper end of Stillaguamish
Tribe log revetment. Water adjacent to revetment is backwater and not part of main channel,
which is in foreground.

3 Affected Environment

Seattle District of the Corps of Engineers prepared an Environmental Assessment (USACE
2000) for Stillaguamish River Ecosystem Restoration. The material for this section is taken
directly from that document, except where updated. Some of this material is abbreviated; that
which is not included directly is hereby incorporated by reference.

3.1 Physical Characteristics

The Stillaguamish River basin is the fifth largest tributary to Puget Sound. It is 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 subbasins: 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.

The Stillaguamish basins headwaters are in the North Cascades, a topographically diverse area
characterized by peaks and valleys shaped by glacial activity. The North Fork headwaters form
8

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, backchannel 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.

3.1.1 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).

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 J urassic Period metamorphic rock in the western portion, and
Tertiary Period sedimentary and volcanic rock in the east.

The most recent period of Washingtons 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.

3.1.2 Climate

The Stillaguamish basins 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 basins 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 J uly through September.

9

3.1.3 Hydrology

The pre-settlement morphology of the Stillaguamish River was typical of recently deglaciated
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.

Due to intense logging in the North Fork Stillaguamish 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.

Peak streamflows generally occur in the late autumn and winter, typically from rain-on-snow
events. More than 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 fourteen 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 (~6.6 ft) 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.

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.

10

3.1.4 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 presettlement 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 estuarys 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. 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.

3.1.5 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).

11

Bortleson et al (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
Riverand, therefore, the greatest sediment loadis 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 et al 1980). Bortleson attributes
possible increased sediment rates to farming, land clearing, logging, and/or dredging upstream.

3.1.6 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, and constructed, 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 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 rivers 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.

3.1.7 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. In 1989, the Department of Ecology identified the
lower Stillaguamish as an impaired water body because of water quality problems (WDE 1989).
12

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 J uniper Beaches) met Class B standards.

Nonpoint source pollution is a major cause of deteriorating water quality in the Stillaguamish
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).

The Washington Dept. of Ecologys 2004 Sec. 303(d) Water Quality Assessment (WDE 2005)
shows classifications for the North Fork Stillaguamish as follows:
Category
1

5 Temperature
4A Fecal Coliform
1 Dissolved oxygen
1 pH
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
1
Category 5: Polluted waters that require a TMDL. Placement in this category means that Ecology has data
showing that the water quality standards have been violated for one or more pollutants, and there is no TMDL or
pollution control plan. TMDLs are required for the water bodies in this category.
Category 4: Polluted waters that do not require a TMDL is for waters that have pollution problems that are
being solved in one of three ways. Category 4a is for water bodies that have an approved TMDL.
Category 1: Meets tested standards is for clean waters. Placement in this category does not necessarily mean
that a water body is free of all pollutants. Most water quality monitoring is designed to detect a specific array of
pollutants, so placement in this category means that the water body met standards for all the pollutants for which it
was tested. Specific information about the monitoring results may be found in the individual listings.
13

result in areas where there has been a loss of deep pools and where the stream is shallow.
Removal of large woody debris, increased sediment supply, and increased peak flows are
generally implicated in causing such conditions.

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 J une 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).
3.1.7.1 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.
3.1.7.2 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. A number of commercial dairy farms are
currently operating in the watershed, which produce large amounts of manure. Fecal coliform
bacteria affect shellfish harvest around Port Susan. 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.

3.1.8 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. The project site is not in a
maintenance (formerly called non-attainment) area for air quality (WDE 2006).

14

3.1.9 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-5 corridor is a constant low level source. Other intermittent sources include equipment
noise from farming operations, logging and construction equipment.

3.2 Natural Resources

3.2.1 Vegetation
3.2.1.1 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 western 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 presettlement 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.

15

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 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.

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
componentapproximately 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 increases 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 basins
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.
3.2.1.2 Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Although logging the upper watershed had dramatic effects on the patterns and distribution of
vegetation, the resulting vegetation has some resemblance to past conditions. The slide covered
a wetland area that was adjacent to the river channel. Since then, the river channel has migrated
northward to the revetment placed following the slide event. Because of the dynamic nature of
the channel, the margins have not fully redeveloped as wetlands at the project site.

3.2.2 Floodplains

The project area includes a 100-year floodplain. The land close to the river, where the Steelhead
Haven residential community is situated, is low-lying, and subject to flooding. The landslide
could have altered the likelihood of flooding there.
16

3.2.3 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 noncommercial resident species are also present in the basin.
Chinook, steelhead and bull trout are listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened.

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 reports 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 1940s (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.

Table 1. Stillaguamish River average annual anadromous fish production by species, 1956-1965
(thousands).
Chinook Coho Chum Pink Sea run
Trout
Steelhead
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 39.5
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 are limited. However,
most recent information indicates a far lower productivity than described between 1956 and 1965
(WDF 1975; WDFW and WWTIT 1994-- hereinafter referred to as the SASSI).

17

The 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 stocks. 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 (C.
Dietrich, WDFW, pers. comm., 2 J une 1997).

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 Strait of J uan 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.
3.2.3.1 Anadromous Fish
There are several species of anadromous fish that use the Stillaguamish watershed. See Sec. 3.3
for discussion of species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act
(Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout).

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 gravelsized substrate from mid-November through
J anuary. Coho fry emerge in March and April, and spend a full year in the watershed before
migrating as smolts to salt water. J uvenile 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. They have since been
designated a Species of Concern (NMFS 2004).

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. J uvenile 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.
18

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 individuals body size has been noted.

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 generally enter the river from J uly through September, and spawn from
August through October. Smolts migrate out of the river from March through J une.

Cutthroat Trout Sea-run and resident stocks of cutthroat trout are found throughout the
Stillaguamish watershed, though there has 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 J uly 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.

Pacific Lamprey This species is present in the mainstem and North Fork Stillaguamish
(Snohomish County Planning and Development Services 2000). According to EPA (2004), it
has been in general decline, though in 2003 and 2004 there appears to have been a minor
rebound.
3.2.3.2 Resident Fishes

Dolly Varden and Bull Trout Two species of native char are present in the Stillaguamish basin,
bull trout and Dolly Varden. Although sometimes anadromous, Stillaguamish char are for the
most part likely 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.

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.

19

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.

3.2.4 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 arctos), 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), Townsends 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 basins 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.

Common furbearers, usually associated with the riparian areas, were mink (Mustela vison),
muskrat (Ondatra zibethica), weasel (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). 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, Townsends 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,
20

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 (USFWS
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).

3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

The types of habitat degradation discussed above have led to population declines of numerous
fish and wildlife species. Several species under the jurisdiction of the Federal 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 concern in the Stillaguamish River basin.

Table 2. Endangered and Threatened species in project vicinity.
Species Status Critical Habitat
Agency with
J urisdiction
Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened designated USFWS
Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened designated (does
not include project
area)
USFWS
Gray wolf Canis lupus Threatened N/A USFWS
Grizzly bear Ursus arctos horribilis Threatened USFWS
Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened designated (does
not include project
area)
USFWS
Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis Threatened designated (does
not include project
area)
USFWS
Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Threatened designated NMFS
Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened tbd NMFS
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Protected
under
BGEPA
USFWS

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 in Section
4.3, while a more in-depth review is being prepared in separate Biological Assessments prepared
under Sec. 7 of the Endangered Species Act for the USFWS and NMFS.
21

3.3.1 Chinook Salmon

The Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of Chinook salmon was listed as a
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (64 FR 16397), on
March 24, 1999. Critical habitat was designated effective J anuary 2006 (70 FR 52360).
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). 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
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.
Chinook 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
summer and fall, though actual adult run and spawning timing is in response to the local
temperature and water flow regimes (Myers et al. 1998).

Fishery experts consider the summer and fall Chinook found in the Stillaguamish River as two
distinct stocks within a single population. Chinook adults enter the river beginning in mid-J uly
and spawn from mid-August through October. The summer stock generally spawns in
September in the North Fork both above and below the slide location, while the fall stock usually
spawns in October in the mainstem (below the slide location), and South Fork (WDFW and
WWTIT 1994). 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 refuge and food during their migration downstream and out to Puget Sound. J uvenile
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
J une, though a small percentage (less than 10%), of stream type Chinook rear for one year
(WSCC 1999).

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
22

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, SASSI 1994).
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; hereinafter 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. According to NMFS and USFWS
(2008), escapement of North Fork Stillaguamish Chinook has averaged 1,080 fish between 1996
and 2003, which is 81% of the combined Stillaguamish Chinook escapement. NMFS and
USFWS (2008) stated, Historic levels of Stillaguamish Chinook salmon abundance are
estimated by habitat modeling to be approximately 25,000 fish in the North Fork population and
21,000 fish in the South Fork population (Mobrand Biometrics 2004; Rawson et al. 2004).
Habitat modeling indicates that current populations are at about 7 percent of historical level
(Mobrand Biometrics 2004). The recent 8-year average (1996-2003) combined North and South
Fork population adult escapement (fish that survive and return to their watershed of origin) is
1,326 fish. The escapement goal of 2,000 fish for the watershed (Ames and Phinney 1977) has
not been met since 1976. Escapements since 1993 have shown limited improvement, likely in
response to significant reductions in harvest.

3.3.2 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. Critical
habitat was designated effective September of 2005 (USFWS 2005). Coastal-Puget Sound bull
trout critical habitat is at and adjacent to the project location. The 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 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
overharvest 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
o
to 6
o
C. Spawning occurs
primarily at night. Groundwater influence and proximity to cover are reported as important
23

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. J uvenile 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).

According to NMFS and USFWS (2008), The bull trout population in the Stillaguamish River
basin is estimated at fewer than 1,000 adults. In the North Fork Stillaguamish River, as many as
100 adult bull trout have been observed holding near the mouth of the Boulder River. Surveys
documented nearly 300 adult char between river miles 21 and 25 during fall 2001; fewer than
100 adults were counted in the remaining sample years between 1996 and 2003 (G. Pess, NMFS,
in litt. 2003). Other limited snorkel surveys had similar results (M. Downen, [WDFW,] pers.
comm. 2003). These staging adult bull trout are assumed to spawn somewhere in the North Fork
Stillaguamish River. Adult abundance in the Upper Deer Creek and Canyon Creek local
populations is considered low. The Boulder River population probably has fewer than 100
adults.

Threats to bull trout include forest practices, incidental harvest by anglers, introduced species,
and other habitat-related issues.

3.3.3 Steelhead

Puget Sound steelhead were listed as threatened on J une 11, 2007 (NMFS 2007). Critical habitat
for steelhead has not been designated.

Steelhead are the same species as rainbow trout; however,they are anadromous, whereas rainbow
trout remain resident in freshwater throughout their lives. Steelhead (family Salmonidae) differ
from Pacific salmon species in that they may spawn more than once during their lifetimes.
Adults migrating downstream following spawning are called kelts. The pools of small quiet
streams are important for steelhead fry, but as they grow in size they are able to use higher
energy stream habitat. J uvenile steelhead rear for one to three years in freshwater before
outmigrating to Puget Sound.

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 J une. 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 Stillaguamish includes
24

introduced summer steelhead from the Skamania Hatchery (NMFS 2006a). Smolts migrate out
of the river from March through late J une. Puget Sound steelhead are listed as Threatened under
ESA (NMFS 2007).

NMFS and USFWS (2008) stated: According to WDFW 2006, the Stillaguamish winter-run
steelhead abundance has dropped approximately 49 percent between 1994 and 2004. The Deer
Creek population in the North Fork has dropped 17 percent in the same timeframe. In 2004, the
Stillaguamish winter-run included 627 spawning adults and the Deer Creek population had 10
spawning adults.

Threats to Puget Sound steelhead populations include habitat modifications. There is some
concern about the effect of introduced Skamania Hatchery summer steelhead on native
Stillaguamish summer-run stock genetics (NMFS 2006a). Harvest, disease and predation are
also factors.

3.3.4 Bald Eagle

The Washington bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 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 J uly 1999, and a final rule removing bald eagles from the threatened list was
effective on August 8, 2007 (72 FR 37346). The following information is retained because the
species was listed at the time of the emergency action, but no effects determination is made. The
bald eagle continues to be protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

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 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 1998). Bald eagles
select perches on the basis of exposure, and proximity to food sources. Trees are preferred over
other types of perches, which may include pilings, fence posts, powerline poles, the ground, rock
outcrops, and logs (Steenhof 1978).

Bald eagles nest between early J anuary 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
25

and from the nest, and as points of defense of their territory. There do not appear to be any bald
eagle nests or perches near the project area, or foraging areas specifically identified (WDFW
2005).

3.3.5 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 Alaskas 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.

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 euphausiids, mysids, and gammarid amphipods.
Marbled murrelets also aggregate, loaf, preen, and exhibit wing-stretching behaviors on the
water.

Marbled murrelets nest in inland old-growth low-elevation coniferous forests with multilayered
canopies. Murrelets select large-diameter [>81-cm 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 (<84 km) to the marine environment (Hamer and Nelson 1995a). These
structures are typically found in oldgrowth 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 found 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 (ODonnell 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
26

into a distinctive juvenile plumage. A fledglings 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 at least one-half the site
potential tree height. Within the boundaries of designated critical habitat, only those areas that
contain one or both primary constituent elements are, by definition, critical habitat. Areas
without either primary constituent element are excluded by definition. The area of the slide does
not appear to be within critical habitat designated for the marbled murrelet, although a portion of
the designated critical habitat is within about five miles of the project site, to the ESE in sections
14 and 15 of Township 32N, Range 8E (USFWS 1996).

3.3.6 Northern Spotted Owl

The northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) was federally listed as a threatened species
throughout its range on J une 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. o. 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 shadetolerant 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,
27

and ground cover consisting of large accumulations of logs and other woody debris (Thomas et
al. 1990).

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 J uly 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 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%.

Based on available survey information (WDFW 2005), there are no known nests or roosts for
listed birds in the immediate project vicinity.

3.4 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 threshold for classification as historical is generally at least 50 years old.
Also eligible for listing on the NRHP, TCPs are rooted in the communitys history and important
in maintaining the communitys 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.

3.4.1 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 regions 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
28

fluvial deposition, tectonic activity, and recent human impacts such as logging and construction
have all affected the condition and delectability of remaining archaeological sites.

3.4.2 Prehistory, Ethnography and Ethnohistory

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.

Fishing, hunting, and plant gathering became more specialized as 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.

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. 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.

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. 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. According to some early ethnographers (Gibbs
1877) and later researchers, the Stoluck-whamish, or River People, occupied the Arlington area
and upriver (primarily on the North Fork).

It is known that the North Fork was the location for most villages, although people probably used
the South Fork for hunting. 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. 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.

According to J ames Dorseys affidavit submitted to the Indian Claims Commission in 1927,
there was a habitation at the confluence of the North and South Forks at Arlington, and others
near Oso and Hazel. Dorsey recalled a large hunting and processing camp at Mt. Higgins.

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,
29

and access to the river, wetlands, and forests of the basin provide essential economic and
spiritual sustenance to the Tulalip and Stillaguamish people.

The last 150 years of Euro-American settlement and development in the Stillaguamish River
basin have 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.

Site-specific information. At the site of the landslide, there are no known or documented historic
properties (Ellis and Grant 2006).

3.5 Socio-Economic Resources

3.5.1 Transportation and Navigation
Highway 530 generally follows the North Fork Stillaguamish in the project vicinity, though it is
separated from the river by some distance. Access to the local community is by a drive off the
highway. Other than drift boats for fishing, or recreational rafts, there is no navigation along the
river in this reach.

3.5.2 Land and Shoreline Use
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).

The land 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.

In the immediate area of the slide, on the opposite side of the river from where the slide
originated, there is a small community of 10 residences. These residences are served by a private
drive off Highway 530. This area was used for access for emergency work to address the slide.

The side of the river where the slide originated was a slope forested by second-growth conifers
and hardwoods.

3.5.3 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
30

basins recreation is centered around the town of Darrington, where the mountain loop highway
provides access to hikers, berry pickers and the occasional gold miner.

3.5.4 Population
Most of the Stillaguamish basins 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.

The town of Oso had a population of 246 as of the 2000 census (US Census Bureau 2006)

3.5.5 Public Service and Utilities
The basin has a well-developed infrastructure with a complement 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.

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

3.7 Esthetics

The local project area is of esthetic value for the presence of the river and surrounding wooded
hillsides. This is undoubtedly part of the basis for the siting of the local community where the
slide occurred.

4 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives, and
Unavoidable Adverse Effects

The following section describes the effects of the alternatives, including unavoidable adverse
effects. Mitigation for the preferred alternative is described in Sec. 5.

31

4.1 Physical Characteristics

4.1.1 Geology
4.1.1.1 No-Action
This alternative would have resulted in actively unstable channel-cutting by the river, with
potential consequences to the local community on the left (south) side.
4.1.1.2 Open New Channel
This alternative allowed some short-term stabilization of the river at the toe of the landslide. It
may allow further cutting of the toe of the slope. Since the new channel was created in early
2006, the channel has migrated northward toward the cribwall and deposited a gravel bar
between the emergency bank protection structures and the thalweg. The gravel bar extends out
from the riprap approximately 100 feet to the water during typical winter flows. The riprap
forms the margin of the active channel during higher flows. This effect is not considered
significant, and much of any instability may be attributable to residual instability of the slide
material.

4.1.1.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Effects
The possibility of further channel migration or other landslides continues to exist.

4.1.2 Climate

Neither alternative would have any quantifiable effect on climate in the Stillaguamish basin.
However, emissions from equipment used in the emergency action and that used in the
mitigation actions (see Sec. 4.1.5) will have some unquantifiable effect on global climate change,
which has been correlated with rapidly rising atmospheric CO
2
levels observed over the past
several decades (IPCC 2001[?]). Climate change is expected to create warmer, wetter winters in
western Washington (UW CIG 2008). The effects of the emergency action are not considered
significant in light of the magnitude of atmospheric alteration driving global climate change.

4.1.3 Hydrology
4.1.3.1 Flows

4.1.3.1.1 No-Action
This alternative would not affect overall flow patterns, but localized effects would occur in a new
river channel, or over former riparian areas until a new channel or channel formed naturally.
Localized high flows might occur in that process, although overland sheet flow would also be a
possibility in the meantime. The river elevation following the slide was about four feet higher
immediately upriver of the slide than it was below it, while it began making its way over the toe
of the slide. It is possible that sudden cutting actions, especially in a storm event, could have
taken place as the river sought a new channel. Temporary backwater formation occurred and
may or may not have remained stable for some period of time.
32

4.1.3.1.2 Open New Channel
Quantities of flow would not change under the Preferred Alternative. This alternative provided a
new river channel that should minimize sudden flow fluctuations at the toe of the slide. The
channel is configured to handle normal flows, minimizing the likelihood that flows would back
up and go overbank during normal conditions. Storm events might cause further channel cutting
on the outside of the bend (ie, into the toe of the slide), but the likelihood of damaging flows on
the inside, armored, bank should be minimized. Since the new channel was created in early 2006,
the channel has migrated northward toward the cribwall and deposited a gravel bar between the
emergency bank protection structures and the thalweg. The gravel bar extends out from the
riprap approximately 100 feet to the water during typical winter flows. The riprap forms the
margin of the active channel during higher flows. Effects of the Preferred Alternative on flow
fluctuations are not considered significant.

4.1.3.1.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Effects
The possibility of further channel migration or landslides continues to exist, which may result in
sudden flow fluctuations.
4.1.3.2 Physical Alterations.

4.1.3.2.1 No-Action
The no-action alternative would have allowed natural channel formation at the toe of the slide.
The channel could form over a range of locations and configurations, including on formerly
upland areas with habitation, on the left (south) side of the river. Alternatively, it could have
migrated rightward toward the outside of the river bend, reestablishing itself nearer its former
location. Landslide material might continually be washed downstream as the channel established
equilibrium; however, it would take one to two seasons at least for riparian vegetation to begin
establishing some stability, assuming a general lack of storm flows. Local interests would have
needed to study the channel migration to establish the best way of protecting the local developed
community.

The cut slope, where the slide occurred, would have remained open to further erosion and
slumping, cutting further back into the hillside to the north. Until some new, shallower angle of
repose allows such slumping to subside, vegetation might have difficulty establishing. Further
outwash of alluvial material into the river channel would have remained a possibility, and
downstream sedimentation of river substrate would be likely to continue for some time.

The preferred alternative includes bank protection on the left (inside) bank of the river, to
provide some protection against the river migrating leftward into the adjacent community. Since
the new channel was created in early 2006, the channel has in fact migrated northward toward
the cribwall and deposited a gravel bar between the emergency bank protection structures and the
thalweg. The gravel bar extends out from the riprap approximately 100 feet to the water during
typical winter flows. The riprap forms the margin of the active channel during higher flows.
Landslide material might continually be washed downstream as the channel establishes
33

equilibrium; however, it is expected to take some time for riparian vegetation to begin
establishing some stability, assuming a general lack of storm flows.

The cut slope, where the slide occurred, remains open to further erosion and slumping, cutting
further back into the hillside to the north, although the revetment provides some stability at the
toe. Until some new, shallower angle of repose allows such slumping to subside, vegetation
might have difficulty establishing. Further outwash of alluvial material into the river channel
remains a possibility, and downstream sedimentation of river substrate may continue for some
time.

In light of the proposed mitigation measures, and the ability of the channel to move on its own,
as it has done, the effect of the emergency action on the channel is not considered significant.

The possibility of further channel migration continues to exist, with effects as described in Sec.
4.1.3.2.2.
4.1.3.3 Sediment Load.
The landslide created a major, acute sediment load for the river, and the problem may remain for
some time.

4.1.3.3.1 No-Action
Leaving the channel to cut naturally would have increased sediment load downriver over at least
some period of timeperhaps weeks for the immediate event. This would be exacerbated in the
event of a rainstorm. Gravel, cobble and fine sediment would likely have been transported
downstream, and would settle out according to particle weight and water velocity. Some fine
material would increase turbidity for an extended distance downstream. Over time, erosion of
the toe could have continued, allowing further material to be carried downriver, and this could
impact areas of clean gravel. That would probably be scoured away over the long term in areas
of higher velocity, but until the toe stabilizes, this would have continued to be part of the
sediment load dynamic. Upland erosion is likely to continue for a long time, perhaps years, until
the slope stabilizes enough to host vegetation that can bind the soil. Until that happens, sediment
washout will continue to be higher than in a totally vegetated drainage, and will continue to
result in siltation of downstream substrate.

The Preferred Alternative includes sidecasting of some of the sediment at the toe of the slide,
leaving less to be transported downstream. While this is a very small proportion of what could
be carried downriver anyway, it helped address the immediate situation. Some sediment,
including fines, gravels and cobbles were mobilized from along the cut channel in any case. Fine
material would increase turbidity for an extended distance downstream. Over time, erosion of
the toe could continue, allowing further material to be carried downriver. That would probably
be scoured away over the long term in areas of higher velocity, but until the toe stabilizes, this
will continue to be part of the sediment load dynamic. Upland erosion is likely to continue for a
long time, perhaps years, until the slope stabilizes enough to host vegetation that can bind the
soil. Until that happens, sediment washout will continue to be higher than in a totally vegetated
drainage, and will continue to result in siltation of downstream substrate. Since the new channel
34

was created in early 2006, it has migrated northward toward the cribwall and deposited a gravel
bar between the emergency bank protection structures and the thalweg. The gravel bar extends
out from the riprap approximately 100 feet to the water during typical winter flows. The riprap
forms the margin of the active channel during higher flows. This may remain as it is for some
time, allowing sedimentransport to stabilize at a reduced level.

Since the slide itself is by far the major source of sediment loading, and the emergency action
provided some stability, the effect of the action is not considered significant.

4.1.3.3.2.
4.1.3.4 Flood Control

4.1.3.4.1 No-Action
With no action, the potential would have been high for flooding of the local community in the
short term, and possibly for the long term. Cutting by the river could have taken any of several
directions, and some may have been detrimental from a flood control standpoint. It is possible
that the river would have settled into a channel that would continue to leave the community
exposed to flooding, although if it pushed outward toward the old channel, that may not be an
issue.

Cutting a new channel is expected to stabilize the flood situation for the short term, and probably
the intermediate term to long term. However, monitoring may be necessary, and action might
need to be taken. Since the new channel was created in early 2006, the channel has actually
migrated northward toward the cribwall and deposited a gravel bar between the emergency bank
protection structures and the thalweg. The gravel bar extends out from the riprap approximately
100 feet to the water during typical winter flows. The riprap forms the margin of the active
channel during higher flows. Although flooding of the local community is still a possibility
during high flows, the new channel location may help address this. Effects of the emergency
action are not considered significant.

4.1.3.4.2.

4.1.4 Water Quality
4.1.4.1 Temperature

4.1.4.1.1 No-Action
Loss of trees would have caused loss of shading, with some reduction in cooling during warmer
months, but much of the effect of the slide was on the north side of the river, minimizing that
effect.

35

A temporary loss of vegetation is likely to cause loss of shading for a few years. Higher
Stillaguamish River temperatures can be stressful to salmonids in summer due to cumulative
effects of tree removal and sediment-related channel modification. Stream temperatures may be
elevated to some very minor extent from lack of shade at the project site, but the incremental
effect of 450 feet of unshaded channel cannot be readily quantified. Replanting is to be
undertaken on the south side of the river, and that will reestablish some shading. The natural
channel migration northward means that the effect of tree loss on the south bank is lessened
because of the distance from the protected bank to the channel. In light of that, and considering
the mitigation actions proposed by the County, including revegetation of the south bank and the
offsite mitigation involving rock removal at Chatham Acres, the effect of this action is not
considered significant.

Temporary loss of shade is a likely result of the Preferred Alternative, over several years until
the vegetation begins to mature.
4.1.4.2 Dissolved Oxygen

Neither alternative is expected to affect dissolved oxygen.
4.1.4.3 Fecal Coliform

4.1.4.3.1 No-Action
Although it is unlikely, if the river were to cut a channel inward to the local community, utility
lines and septic systems could be ruptured, in which case, there would be a short-term load
increase for fecal coliform from human waste. The extent of that would depend on how many
residences were affected and what work could be done to stabilize the situation.

This alternative would be less likely than the no-action alternative to result in any fecal coliform
loading from breaching of waste utilities in the local community. Again, the migration of the
river in late 2006 away from the community has lessened the chance of a utility breach, so there
is relatively little chance of a coliform release. This is not a significant effect.

4.1.4.3.2. Adverse effects to waste utilities are probably unlikely, but may not be completely
avoidable.

4.1.5 Air Quality
4.1.5.1 No-Action
This alternative would not be expected to impact air quality, other than minor, short-term
exhaust-related impacts which might go with use of vehicles and aircraft to assess the slide
situation. These would include minor increases in carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and
particulates. These emissions would not exceed EPAs de minimis threshold levels (100
36

tons/year for carbon monoxide and 50 tons/year for ozone) or affect Washingtons Clean Air Act
implementation plan.
Minor, short-term impacts to air quality in the form of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur
oxides and particulates occurred with the Preferred Alternative from the exhaust of machinery
and vehicles used to create a channel and place material in and along the banks. This also would
be expected to occur in conjunction with mitigation actions proposed by Snohomish County. In
addition, vehicles and aircraft used to assess the emergency situation also created a minor, short-
term exhaust-related impact to air quality. These emissions would not have exceeded EPAs de
minimis threshold levels (100 tons/year for carbon monoxide and 50 tons/year for ozone) or
affect Washingtons Clean Air Act implementation plan. This effect is not considered
significant.

Very short-term disruptions in local air quality would be attendant with the action, but would be
minor in any case.

4.1.6 Noise
4.1.6.1 No-Action
Other than minor, short-term increases in engine noise from vehicles and aircraft used to assess
the slide situation, no noise related impacts would be expected from this alternative.
Minor, short-term noise increases from engines and activities of equipment and vehicles
associated with creation of a new channel and stabilizing the left bank resulted from the
Preferred Alternative. Also, there was engine noise from vehicles and aircraft used to assess the
slide situation, but it was of minor, short-term nature. Mitigation actions proposed by the county
would result in similar temporary and minor noise increases. None of these effects are
considered significant.

Very short-term disruptions in local noise levels were attendant with the action, but would be
minor in any case.

4.2 Natural Resources

4.2.1 Vegetation
4.2.1.1 Forests
The slide carried with it a large number of trees of various species. Most were hardwoods,
especially at the toe of the slide, but a number of conifers were also involved. Species affected
included Douglas fir, hemlock, alder and cottonwood.

37

4.2.1.1.1 No-Action
If no action were taken, the forest would regenerate over time, but it would depend on the
stability of the alluvial material and the tendency of the river to migrate. If more erosion took
place, forest regrowth would take longer. Initial river channel cutting at the toe of the slope may
take out some standing trees. Adjacent to the community, the movement of the river channel
could inhibit establishment of new understory and overstory growth. Real canopy development
could be delayed for some time, since it requires several years in any case, and channel
instability might inhibit the start of that process. Alder and Douglas fir are able to colonize open
areas and might be expected to take advantage of any opportunities on stable ground.
Cottonwood regrowth in riparian areas could also be expected under favorable circumstances.
Willows may also colonize low-lying areas.

The Preferred Alternative helped stabilize the left (south) bank against further encroachment by
the river channel, and thus provide some measure of protection to forest resources on that side of
the river. Tree removal from the new channel is part of this alternative. Cottonwoods removed
from the new channel form part of the bank protection as large woody debris along with the
rocks placed there. As with the no-action alternative, the forest will regenerate over time, but it
depends on the stability of the alluvial material and the tendency of the river to migrate. If more
erosion took place, forest regrowth would take longer. At the toe of the slide, any movement of
the river channel outward toward the old channel location could inhibit establishment of new
understory and overstory growth. Real canopy development could be delayed for some time,
since it requires several years in any case, and channel instability might inhibit the start of that
process. Alder and Douglas fir might be expected to take advantage of any opportunities to
recolonize stable ground. Cottonwood regrowth in riparian areas could also be expected under
favorable circumstances. Willows may also appear in low-lying areas. Mitigation planting at the
bank stabilization site by the County will add to number and density of growing plants.
Vegetation losses are considered temporary and insignificant, especially in light of the Countys
planned mitigation.

None are expected for vegetation as a result of the project action, other than the immediate
removal and use of trees for construction.
4.2.1.2 Wetlands and Riparian Areas

The slide buried a wetland which had been identified on the inside of the curve of the river
adjacent to the community.

4.2.1.2.1 No-Action
This alternative could have resulted in establishment of wetland function in one or more areas at
or near the base of the slide, depending on location of eventual establishment of a river channel,
as well as localized topography, revegetation, and soil development. Amount of time would be
difficult to determine, and eventual wetland redevelopment is not certain. However, given
normal river channel dynamics, there is some likelihood that it would reoccur in the form of a
riparian wetland, perhaps as part of some overflow embankment.

38

Work was done in material deposited by the slide, which covered any wetlands, so no work was
done in wetlands. The process for wetland formation with the Preferred Alternative might be
different than for the No-Action Alternative, but is considered at least as likely. Again, location
and timescale are not certain, and are highly dependent on river channel migration, revegetation,
and topography. It would be some form of riparian wetland, possibly in conjunction with an
overflow feature. It would also depend on behavior of the landslide and channel migration,
which could create conditions favorable to wetland formation in any number of places along the
riparian corridor.

Disruption of wetland function occurred as a direct result of the landslide, but there is some
likelihood that wetlands will re-establish on their own, so effects will probably be temporary.

4.2.2 Floodplains
4.2.2.1 No-Action
The short-term effect of the landslide may have been to alter the nature of the floodplain,
increasing the likelihood of flooding adjacent to the river on the south side. Longer term effects
would have depended on the reestablishment of a channel and on its conveyance capability,
location and hydraulic characteristics.
This action may have resulted in a similar floodplain to what existed before the slide. It did not
encourage any existing residents to relocate, so they remain in this active area. Floodplain
topography and function are to some extent affected by the bank stabilization, but just as much
by natural processes, including possible further slumping of the soils deposited by the landslide.
The emergency action is not considered to have significantly affected the floodplain.

4.2.3 Fisheries
4.2.3.1 Anadromous Fish

The following includes an estimate of effects on anadromous fish from the alternatives.

The slide buried a section of channel several hundred feet long, covering substrate, cutting off
migration access, and creating a downstream sedimentation event. Any salmon eggs in redds in
that reach were destroyed. Individual overwintering juvenile coho salmon or steelhead that
might have been present in the reach also would have been killed. Adult steelhead or cutthroat
also may have been directly impacted by burial or displacement, as well as by high levels of
suspended solids, which would have impacted gill function, sight-based feeding, and food
organisms.

4.2.3.1.1 No-Action
This alternative would have allowed continued channel cutting and migration at the toe of the
slide, resulting in continued sedimentation of downstream spawning and rearing areas. Fall and
winter rains, and snowmelt in winter or spring, could accelerate this process. It might be one or
39

more years before vegetation takes hold and conditions stabilize to the point that sediment
loading below the slide becomes less likely. Fish species affected would include Chinook
(summer and fall), coho and pink salmon, steelhead (summer and winter) and sea-run cutthroat
trout. Effects could include sedimentation of rearing and spawning areas, as well as blockage of
upstream and downstream migration, depending on how long new channel creation took and
when. Steelhead spawners gill function may also have been affected by high sediment loads
from the slide. Riparian vegetative cover would not establish immediately even if a new channel
stabilized. But potentially within one or two years, willows and alder might have established
from seeds, and from there would have grown relatively rapidly so that over about five years,
they would form some low-level shade cover. There may or may not be instream cover,
depending on how a new channel might cut in relation to the presence of downed timber and
rocks in the slide matrix.

This alternative, with a new channel created immediately after the slide, reduced short-term
concerns for sedimentation. However, there might have been some immediate effects of the
slide itself, as well as possibly the emergency work, in terms of suspended sediments that could
have impacted steelhead spawners by impairing gill function. A new, created channel allowed
more assured upstream and downstream migration. The river cut a new channel on the outside
of the bend, and away from the emergency channel creation. That process would likely have
created sediment transport downstream, which would be an issue for spawning and rearing areas.
Upstream and/or downstream passage may be an issue, but it would depend on the nature of the
new channel and the cutting process. Species affected include Chinook (summer and fall), coho
and pink salmon, steelhead (summer and winter) and sea-run cutthroat trout. Riparian vegetative
cover would not establish immediately, but potentially within one or two years, willows and
alder might establish from seeds. From there they would likely grow relatively rapidly so that in
about five years, they would form some low-level shade cover. Aside from what was established
through keying of downed cottonwoods into the bank, there may or may not be instream cover;
the northward migration of the channel away from the stabilized bank and woody debris has
negated effects of the debris. Input of organic matter and insects might be impacted in the short
term until new riparian vegetation could establish, but this input is highly limited by lack of
proximity to the new channel. Mitigative actions in the form of planting of riparian vegetation
on the south bank will reestablish riparian habitat values of shading, and cover and input of
organic matter, as well as input of terrestrial insects. However, functional value of shading and
cover will take several years to reestablish, and the channel migration away from the south bank
limits the effect of the shading that would eventually result from new plantings. Similarly, input
of nutrients, organics and insects will be limited by any distance from the south bank to the new
channel.

Short term suspension of solids likely resulted from the action. Those may have recurred in the
intermediate to long term, depending on channel stability. Loss of riparian cover in the new
channel would take some time to correct itself unless addressed in some form through plantings,
as outlined under Mitigation, above. Noteworthy is the migration of the channel northward to
the wood revetment in fall 2006; this undoubtedly caused more sedimentation while it happened.

40

4.2.3.2 Resident Fishes

The slide probably impacted adult and juvenile resident fish such as cutthroat trout, bull trout and
Dolly Varden, as well as sculpins, suckers, whitefish, lamprey, sticklebacks, dace and shiners,
along with nonnative bass, yellow perch and brown bullhead, by direct burial or displacement of
individuals, and/or through high levels of suspended solids, which would have impacted gill
function and sight-based feeding. Short-term sedimentation would have silted in habitat. The
exact nature or extent of the impact could not be measured.

4.2.3.2.1 No-Action
This alternative would have allowed continued channel cutting and migration at the toe of the
slide, and would result in potential sedimentation of downstream spawning and rearing areas.
Fall and winter rains, and snowmelt in winter or spring, could accelerate this process. Long-term
continuation of erosion of upland slopes is likely to add to sediment loading for years, which will
impact downstream habitat and fish food organisms. Fish species affected would include
cutthroat trout, bull trout and Dolly Varden, as well as sculpins, suckers, whitefish, dace and
shiners. Effects could include sedimentation of rearing and spawning areas, as well as blockage
of upstream and downstream migration, depending on how long new channel creation took and
when. Riparian vegetative cover would not establish immediately even if a new channel
stabilized, but potentially within one or two years, willows and alder might establish from seeds,
and from there grow relatively rapidly so that in the space of about five years, they would form
some low-level shade cover. There may or may not be instream cover, depending on how a new
channel might cut in relation to the presence of downed timber and rocks in the slide matrix.
Resident fish could re-establish themselves relatively soon after channel stabilization, even in the
short term.

This alternative, with a new channel created immediately after the slide, reduced short-term
concerns for sedimentation. The new, created channel also removed the migration barrier
created by the slide. It is possible that, over time, a new channel might be cut by the river,
probably on the outside of the bend beyond the revetment. As it happened, the river did migrate
up to the revetment in November 2006. Sedimentation from such an event was likely an issue
for spawning and rearing areas. Long-term continuation of erosion of upland slopes will likely
add to sediment loading for years, which will impact downstream habitat and fish food
organisms. Upstream and/or downstream passage may be an issue, but it would depend on the
nature of the new channel and the cutting process. Fish species affected would include cutthroat
trout, bull trout and Dolly Varden, as well as sculpins. Riparian habitat effects would also have
affected resident fishsee Sec. 4.2.3.1.2.

Short term suspension of solids resulted from the action. That may recur in the intermediate to
long term, depending on channel stability, as illustrated in November 2006 when the channel
shifted northward to the toe of the revetment. Loss of riparian cover in the new channel would
take some time to correct itself unless addressed in some form through plantings.

41

4.2.4 Wildlife
The slide would have possibly killed, injured or displaced a number of individuals of various
woodland and riparian animal species present in the affected area at the time of the slope failure.
It is difficult to assess the exact nature or extent of the impact, but smaller species might have
been more likely to be present in the slide footprint.
4.2.4.1 No-Action
It is possible that some smaller animals that were displaced or otherwise disturbed found
temporary refuge in or around the toe of the slide, but the disruption to the habitat and the
continued risk of further disruption would have detracted from the usability of the vicinity.
There would be little disturbance from humans other than the normal activities around the
adjacent habitation; those animals unsuited to proximity to humans would not remain there for
any length of time. Some animals, such as deer, raccoon, opossum and beaver, may be able to
remain for whatever periods of time that were not otherwise interrupted by further activity of the
river or slide. Long-term use of the area would depend on how soon the toe of the slide
stabilizes, but once vegetation has a chance to reestablish, and once channel movement
diminishes, the more human-tolerant species of wildlife might remain in the immediate vicinity
of the toe of the slide. Others might be found on the other side of the river as the main slope
stabilizes.
Under the Preferred Alternative, there is more likelihood of at least temporary stability of the
river channel, but in fall 2006, the channel did migrate, and thus would further have disrupted
wildlife use of the area. In the short term, there might have been more use by tolerant species of
the left (south) bank of the river near the houses than with the no-action alternative. There would
be little disturbance from humans other than the normal activities around the adjacent habitation;
those animals unsuited to proximity to humans would not remain there for any length of time.
Some animals, such as deer, raccoon, opossum and beaver, may be able to remain for whatever
periods of time that were not otherwise interrupted by further activity of the river or slide. Birds
and small mammals might for the short term lose some migration and feeding habitat. Long-
term use of the area would depend on how soon the toe of the slide stabilizes, but once
vegetation has a chance to reestablish, and once channel movement diminishes, the more human-
tolerant species of wildlife might remain in the immediate vicinity of the toe of the slide. Others
might be found on the other side of the river as the main slope stabilizes.

The channel construction may have disturbed wildlife remaining at the toe of the slide, though
due to the large inherent initial disturbance, this effect may be minor.

4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

Based on available survey information (WDFW 2005), there are no specifically documented
perches or roosts for listed birds in the project vicinity. Listed fish may be found in the
immediate area of the project, fulfilling some life history functions such as spawning, migration
or rearing.

42

Mitigation for effects of construction is outlined in Chapter 5, and includes replacement of
riparian cover, and removal of existing rock groins upstream.

Separate Biological Assessments were prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service and
the US Fish and Wildlife Service for species under their respective jurisdictions, including
Essential Fish Habitat for anadromous fish. A joint Biological Opinion (BiOp) dated J une 30,
2008, was received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service. See Appendix C. The Services concluded that the action, as proposed, is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of PS Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), PS
steelhead (O. mykiss), or Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) (bull trout) or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for PS Chinook and
bull trout.

The BiOp included the following Conservation Recommendations:

Monitor and maintain both sites (Oso slide and Chatham Acres) to ensure success of
newly planted vegetation.

Please notify both the NMFS and the USFWS if the COE carries out any of these
recommendations so that we will be kept informed of actions that minimize or avoid
adverse effects and those that benefit listed species or their designated critical habitats.

The BiOp also included the following Reasonable and Prudent Measures to minimize incidental
take:

1. The COE shall ensure that incidental take from project construction activities within
the OHWL, including downstream turbidity, is minimized.

2. The COE shall ensure that incidental take from shoreline and channel modification is
minimized.

3. The COE shall ensure completion of a monitoring and reporting program to confirm
that this Opinion is meeting its objective of limiting the extent of take and minimizing
take from permitted activities, per (50 CFR 402.14(i)(1)(iv) and (I)(3).

Finally, the BiOp also included the following Reasonable and Terms and Conditions:

1. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure No. 1, the COE shall ensure that:
a. Any in water work is conducted during the most current WDFW approved in-
water work window.
b. Erosion control T&Cs, including conservation measures and best management
practices, are monitored and corrective action will be taken, if necessary, to ensure
protection of riparian areas and waterways.

2. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure No. 2, the COE shall ensure that
planting plans for disturbed areas are designed to provide successful establishment of
43

native vegetation on site in the long-term. These plans should be provided to the Services
for review following planting.

3. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure No. 3, the COE shall ensure that a
report documenting implementation of the action as proposed and compliance with the
terms and conditions indicated above is completed. This report shall include the
estimated areas of disturbance and volumes of removal and fill. The report will include
dates and times of activities, by activity type. The report should include photographs of
the project area before, during, and after construction. The report should also include the
level of incidental take that has been observed, including captured, distressed, or dead
bull trout or Chinook salmon. All required reports shall be submitted to the Western
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office and Washington State Habitat Office of the
National Marine Fisheries Service within 1 year of project completion.

The following constitutes a summary of effects to listed species.

4.3.1 Chinook Salmon
4.3.1.1 No-Action
Allowing the river to develop its own channel could, in the short term, have resulted in adverse
effects to Chinook eggs and rearing areas as sediment continued to be carried downstream.
Smothering of redds is a distinct possibility as a result of allowing the slide to continue to erode
on its own. Adverse effects to critical habitat are likely through this alternative in the short term
(days to weeks) because of continued sedimentation of gravels resulting from erosion of the
slide, as well as possible impacts to outmigration of juveniles in the intermediate term (weeks or
months). Suspended solids would adversely affect feeding of juveniles, and possibly production
of invertebrate food organisms needed by the juveniles. Although Chinook in this system are
ocean-type fish which migrate to the estuary within about three months of hatching, their
dependence on plankton and other small invertebrates means they still may be impacted.
In the short-term (days or weeks) sedimentation was less likely. Migration of the channel that
did follow in November 2006 likely caused sedimentation of spawning and incubation areas, but
that was not a direct result of the emergency action. Sedimentation of gravel, smothering of
eggs, and negative impacts to invertebrates which juveniles may feed on were possible outcomes
of that. Chinook in this system are ocean-type fish which migrate to the estuary within about
three months of hatching, but their dependence on plankton and other small invertebrates means
they still may be impacted. Although the slide itself did damage to Chinook critical habitat,
including destruction of riparian forest, the emergency action, in addition, may have adversely
affected Chinook salmon and may have adversely affected its critical habitat.

Short term suspension of solids was likely from the action. That may recur in the intermediate to
long term, depending on channel stability. Loss of riparian cover in the new channel would take
some time to correct itself unless addressed in some form through plantings.

44

4.3.2 Bull Trout

The slide impacted critical habitat for adult and subadult bull trout, if not juveniles, through
sedimentation impacts and blockage of migration.
4.3.2.1 No-Action
Taking no action would have been likely to negatively impact bull trout in the short (days to
weeks) and intermediate (weeks to months) term, by blockage of migration, and sedimentation of
habitat, including possible subadult and feeding habitat.
Over the short-term (days or weeks) there was a reduction in likelihood of sedimentation and the
maintenance of a migration channel. Over the intermediate term (weeks or months), the river
channel might migrate (as it actually did in fall 2006), resulting in sedimentation or possibly
blockage of bull trout migration or feeding areas, but these would not be a direct result of the
action. However, lingering suspension of sediments might negatively affect bull trout feeding, as
well as food organisms and their habitat. This action also would remove a migration blockage
created by the slide. The emergency action may have negatively impacted bull trout.

Short term suspension of solids was likely from the action, as well as from any follow-on
channel migration. Those may recur in the intermediate to long term, depending on channel
stability. Loss of riparian cover in the new channel would take some time to correct itself unless
addressed in some form through plantings.

4.3.3 Steelhead

The slide buried a portion of the river that may have been in use by Puget Sound steelhead
juveniles, and thus may have been directly responsible for some mortality. It may also have
temporarily blocked migration of spawners upstream, and kelts (post-spawn surviving adults)
downstream. Otherwise there may have been sedimentation of rearing and feeding habitat, as
well as blockage of migration over the short (days to weeks) term, if not the intermediate term
(weeks or months).
4.3.3.1 No-Action
Allowing the river to create its own channel would have continued to create sedimentation
impacts, as well as at least temporary migration blockages. The no-action alternative was thus
likely to have negatively impacted steelhead.

The preferred alternative, at least in the short term, addressed sedimentation issues and migration
blockages. Over time, the river channel may migrate on its own, as it has done once, renewing
such concerns. There might still be lingering effects from suspended solids and their effects,
including siltation of spawning areas, impairment of feeding, and negative effects on food
organisms and their habitat. The emergency action itself may have negatively impacted
steelhead.
45

Short term suspension of solids resulted from the action. That may recur in the intermediate to
long term, depending on channel stability, as has happened once with channel migration in fall
2006. Loss of riparian cover in the new channel would take some time to correct itself unless
addressed in some form through plantings.

4.3.4 Bald Eagle

The bald eagle was removed from the list of threatened species on August 8, 2007; it is not
considered further in this section, even though it was listed as threatened at the time of the
emergency action. It is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
4.3.4.1 No-Action
There are no known direct impacts which would have resulted from taking no action, other than
loss of food resources (fish) from the landslide itself.
No direct impacts from either alternative are known to have occurred with the Preferred
Alternative. Any loss of fish production may have an indirect impact on bald eagle feeding and
productivity.

None would be expected under the Preferred Alternative.

4.3.5 Marbled Murrelet

The slide did not occur during the nesting season of the murrelet, and the likelihood of one
being present during the event is extremely low. Nesting season starts in March, so residual
effects of the slide are possible, but extremely unlikely given the young age of the surrounding
forest, the impacts of human development in the area, and a marbled murrelet's affinity for
remote, old growth stands. No documented murrelet nest sites appear in WDFW (2005).
4.3.5.1 No-Action
Based on the foregoing information, the no-action alternative is likely to have no effect on
marbled murrelets.
Based on the foregoing information, the Preferred Alternative is likely to have no effect on
marbled murrelets.

None would be expected with the Preferred Alternative.

46

4.3.6 Northern Spotted Owl

The slide did not occur during the nesting season of the spotted owl, and the likelihood of one
being present during the event is considered extremely low. Owls are somewhat less dependent
than murrelets on old-growth stands for nesting. In general, however, the age of the trees and the
surrounding human environment point to no effect on owls as well. No documented owl nest
sites appear in WDFW (2005) for the project area.
4.3.6.1 No-Action
Based on the foregoing information, it is likely that the no-action alternative would have no
effect on northern spotted owls, nor would it adversely affect their critical habitat.
Based on the foregoing information, it is likely that the Preferred Alternative would have no
effect on northern spotted owls, nor would it adversely affect their critical habitat.

4.3.7 Essential Fish Habitat
The three species of salmon listed for EFH are Chinook, coho, and pink salmon. All three of
these species spawn and rear in the North Fork Stillaguamish River and/or its tributaries. Coho
spawning occurs in the smaller tributaries, whereas Chinook and pink salmon spawn almost
entirely within the main river. The emergency action had adverse impacts to spawning and
rearing habitat for Chinook and pink salmon, but only to coho rearing habitat.

Construction of the mitigation elements may have temporary effects to EFH, although BMPs will
be used to minimize those effects. J uvenile coho are likely to be found in the river throughout the
year, but the work will be done away from the wetted channel. The effects of the emergency
action may have adversely affected EFH. Over the longer term, the project may improve EFH
by allowing channel migration to occur at the Chatham Acres site, resulting in increased channel
complexity.

4.4 Cultural Resources and Indian Trust Assets

In accordance with procedures prescribed in NWSOM 500-1-1, "Plans for Natural Disasters,
Emergency Employment of Army and Other Resources, Natural Disaster Activities under Public
Law 84-99, Appendix D: Protection of Historic Properties" the Corps has performed an after-
action historic properties assessment of the project sites Area of Potential Effect (APE).
Snohomish County has performed a cultural resource assessment of the Chatham Acres
mitigation sites APE (BOAS 2007). No historic properties were identified as a result of the
assessments.

The Corps has determined that the project should result in No Historic Properties Affected and
has coordinated this determination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). A letter
with a report was provided to the SHPO on J anuary 14, 2009, and a letter of concurrence dated
J anuary 20, 2009, was received in response. The Corps has initiated consultation under Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) with the Stillaguamish Tribe, who have
47

not expressed any knowledge of, or concerns with, historic properties at the project site (see
Appendix A).

As a permit condition under Sec. 404 of the Clean Water Act for mitigation work, if any cultural
resources are encountered during construction of environmental mitigation measures on the
project site or at the Chatham Acres mitigation site, work will immediately cease, the area will
be flagged off, and construction activities shall be moved to another area of the project. The
Construction Lead will notify the County archaeologist within one business day who will in turn
contact the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and the Stillaguamish
Tribe.

In the unlikely event of inadvertent human remains discovery work will immediately halt at the
location, the discovery area shall then be flagged off and secured from further disturbance. The
Construction Lead will immediately notify the County archaeologist who will then immediately
notify the DAHP, the Stillaguamish Tribe, law enforcement personnel, and the County Medical
Examiner. Exposed remains will be carefully covered for purposes of protection and screening
from public view and the location will be discreetly marked so as not to draw attention. No
remains will be removed from their place of discovery until appropriate treatment procedures
have been developed in consultation with all concerned parties and applicable laws and
regulations and work will not resume without authorization from the Corps archaeologist.

4.5 Socioeconomic Resources

4.5.1 Transportation and Navigation
4.5.1.1 No-Action
There may have been an immediate-term flooding effect to transportation with this alternative,
with respect to local community access.
Reduction in flood risk to local automobile access for the community was an effect of the
Preferred Alternative.

None are considered likely as a result of the Preferred Alternative.

4.5.2 Land and Shoreline Use

The slide created impacts to the local community on the inside of the river bend, with a potential
for flooding in addition to alteration of the river bank and riparian areas. Neither alternative by
itself would alter the impacts on the right (north) side of the river created by the slide and the
continuing slope instability, and further slope erosion would likely remain a concern.

However, since the new channel was created in early 2006, the channel has migrated northward
toward the cribwall and deposited a gravel bar between the emergency bank protection structures
and the thalweg. The gravel bar extends out from the riprap approximately 100 feet to the water
48

during typical winter flows. The riprap forms the margin of the active channel during higher
flows.
4.5.2.1 No-Action
Not taking action to address the immediate risk to the community would have resulted in a strong
potential for flooding, as well as add to the risk of the river channel migrating in a manner that
could create further impacts in the immediate term. Over the short (days or weeks) to
intermediate (weeks or months) term, further risks might occur, depending on river channel
migration.
The preferred alternative created immediate-term stability for the community and adjacent
riparian areas. Over the short (days or weeks) to intermediate (weeks or months) term, further
risks might occur, depending on river channel migration. Access created to the impact area for
heavy equipment also would alter the local land use configuration. Some reduction in risk to
property owners is associated with the bank stabilization.

None are considered likely as a result of the preferred alternative.

4.5.3 Recreation
4.5.3.1 No-Action
To the extent that the slide impacted game fish resources or habitat, then fishing may be affected
in the North Fork. This could continue to be an issue under this alternative. Any use of the river
by drift boats or rafts would have been disrupted for the short to intermediate term, if not the
long term, depending on channel stabilization.
In the short term, fish resources may benefit, or at least not be further impacted, by the slide, as a
result of the preferred alternative of taking emergency action to stabilize the channel. Thus,
recreation may not be negatively impacted. Over the intermediate term, if the channel migrates,
then impacts to fish and habitat could adversely affect angling. The effect on local river use by
drift boats or rafts may be beneficial compared to the No-Action Alternative, though channel
instability, as with the channel migration in 2006, indicates otherwise.

Short term suspension of solids would be likely from the action, which might affect sportfish.
Those may recur in the intermediate to long term, depending on channel stability. Loss of
riparian cover in the new channel would take some time to correct itself unless addressed in
some form through plantings.

4.5.4 Population
Neither alternative is likely to affect local population levels.

49

4.5.5 Public Services and Utilities
4.5.5.1 No-Action
There is a possibility that not taking action to protect the community at the toe of the slide from
flooding could have resulted in impacts to water, sewer, gas and electrical utilities directly, and
also could impact access to maintain them. Continued damage might result if the channel
migrates.
Under the Preferred Alternative, there would have been less risk of flooding in the immediate
term. Depending on the tendency of the channel to migrate, flooding may still be a problem in
the intermediate term. Flooding might expose electric, gas, water and sewer utilities to damage
if and when it occurred.

No such effects are contemplated other than those described in Sec. 4.5.4.2.

4.6 Hazardous and Toxic Wastes

4.6.1 No-Action
If flooding of the residences in the community occurs, it is possible that household hazardous
materials (cleaners, paints, solvents and so on) might be released. Risk of flooding may be
elevated in the immediate term without emergency action to stabilize a channel.

4.6.2 Open New Channel
Flooding in the immediate term would be less likely than with the No-Action alternative, so
release of household toxic materials would also be less likely. Depending on whether and when
the river might migrate following the emergency action, a risk of flooding may still exist, and
thus pose some risk for release of toxics. The channel shift in fall 2006 should reduce this risk,
however.
4.6.2.1 Unavoidable Adverse Effects
None are considered to exist.

4.7 Esthetics

The landslide disrupted the esthetic value of the hillside on the opposite side of the river from the
community. That would remain an impact under either alternative.

4.7.1 No-Action
Other than the slide, no effects would occur to esthetics from the No-Action Alternative.

The work done to stabilize the bank altered the view of the river channel, and likely will continue
to do so at least for the short to intermediate term until vegetation reestablishes.
50

None are considered to exist as a result of the Preferred Alternative, given proposed revegetation
as part of the mitigation action.

4.8 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental J ustice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, dated February 11, 1994, requires agencies to identify
and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their
actions on minorities and low-income populations and communities as well as the equity of the
distribution of the benefits and risks of their decisions. Environmental justice addresses the fair
treatment of people of all races and incomes with respect to actions affecting the environment.
Fair treatment implies that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of negative
impacts from an environmental action.

4.8.1 No-Action
No disproportionately high and adverse effects to low-income or minority populations would be
expected under this alternative.

No disproportionately high and adverse effects to low-income or minority populations would be
expected under the Preferred Alternative.
None are considered to exist.

5 Mitigation

Snohomish County Public Works proposes to provide compensatory mitigation for impacts
associated with placing riprap along approximately 400 ft where the emergency work was
performed along the North Fork at Steelhead Lane, by re-grading and planting the bank at
Steelhead Lane and removing riprap at an upriver site, Chatham Acres.

At both locations, best management practices would be used during construction to ensure that
spill prevention and management procedures are in place, including a Surface Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Dust and noise suppression would be employed as necessary.

Steelhead Haven
Since the new channel was created in early 2006, the channel has migrated northward toward the
cribwall and deposited a gravel bar between the emergency bank protection structures and the

Snohomish County would re-grade the bank at a 3-to-1 slope using materials from the gravel bar.
The bank currently is 8 to 10 feet above the gravel bar. Grading would be done from the gravel
51

bar by pushing material up to the bank using a bulldozer or similar piece of machinery.
Snohomish County would build a soil lift on the upper two feet of bank to provide a planting
area. The front edge of the planting area would be formed using logs anchored into the bank.
Besides forming a solid front edge to retain soils, the logs would protect the planting area during
high water events. The planting area would be approximately 10 to 15 feet wide and extend
from the wood structure at the upper end of the project area down to the wood structure at the
lower end of the project, approximately 600 feet. The plant community would comprise native
woody vegetation typical of disturbed areas and suited to growing in well-drained soils and full
sun (conceptual plant list: red alder, Douglas fir, snowberry and thimbleberry). The planting
area would be covered with 3 to 4 inches of wood chip mulch to assist plant establishment by
providing erosion control, protection against weed establishment, and moisture retention. The
area would be monitored and maintained for 10 years to ensure establishment of native species
and control of invasive species. The area is already being treated for control of J apanese
knotweed as part of a larger control effort within the basin.

These actions would mitigate for impacts to aquatic habitat features associated with placing rock
at the site. The gradually sloped bank and riparian vegetation would provide natural habitat
features.

Figure 8. Proposed mitigation features (wood and plantings in soil lift) at Steelhead Haven (Oso
slide site).

52

Chatham Acres
Chatham Acres is located several miles upstream from the Steelhead Haven site on the North
Fork Stillaguamish. The 23-acre site is armored by four rock groins and riprap between the
groins. The bank was armored in 2000 to protect homes from high flows. The Chatham Acres
development was purchased by Snohomish County several years ago as part of a Flood
Emergency Prevention grant. All of the homes have been removed, and the site is being restored
by Snohomish Countys Surface Water Management Native Plant Program. The site is on the
inside of the meander bend, mostly forested, and has a large side channel complex that cuts
across the site.

Snohomish County would remove three of the four rock groins, 200 feet of large randomly
spaced rock, and hundred-foot sections of rock between groins 1 and 2 and between groins 3 and
4. Combined, over 450 lineal feet of rock would be removed. In order to access these areas, an
placed, and is mostly vegetated with Himalayan blackberry. Rock removal would be done from
the banks, and minimal in-water work is anticipated. All disturbed areas would be planted with
Program.

These actions would mitigate for limiting the channel migration zone at the Steelhead Haven
Slide site. Removing the rock would allow the river to access floodplain and side channel
habitat associated with the Chatham Acres site.

Snohomish County is responsible for all mitigation actions, and for necessary real estate actions
to accomplish mitigation and related work.

53

Figure 9. Proposed mitigation features at Chatham Acres site (removal of 3 rock groins, plus
rock in between groins 1 and 2, and between groins 3 and 4).

6 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative effects are those effects on the environment resulting from the incremental
consequences of the proposed action when added to other past, present and reasonable
foreseeable future actions, regardless of who undertakes these actions. Cumulative effects can
result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of
time. Minor and nonsignificant effects or significant localized effects may contribute to
cumulative effects.

Human land management, including forest management practices, over time may have
contributed to the likelihood of the slide occurring. Slope stability may depend on future human
actions, which may include measures taken specifically to stabilize the slide area. This would
increase the effectiveness of the preferred alternative. The revetment constructed by the
Stillaguamish Tribe on the north side of the river should help stabilize the toe of the slide to
54

some degree, and thus be of assistance in this regard, although the channel migration toward the
revetment may be a factor in future stability of the toe.

Further development of homes in the immediate vicinity may increase the risk to property from
further slides and flooding.

Water quality issues from basin development include river temperatures stressful to salmonids in
the summertime, as well as possible sedimentation issues. The removal of vegetation from the
emergency action is expected to exacerbate the temperature effect to some minor degree.
Exactly how much temperature increase would result over 450 feet of bank stabilization would
be difficult to measure, but it is part of an overall pattern in this and other western Washington
basins. Channel migration northward away from the stabilized bank occurred in November
2006, and further exposed the river to solar heating. Short-term sedimentation issues could be
expected from the emergency action, but over the longer term those effects would decrease. The
stability of the toe of the slide may be a larger factor in the likelihood of further sedimentation,
especially given the migration of the channel toward the toe in fall 2006.

7 Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Executive Orders

7.1 Federal Statutes

7.1.1 American Indian Religious Freedom Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) (42 U.S.C.A. 1996) establishes
protection and preservation of Native Americans rights of freedom of belief, expression, and
exercise of traditional religions. Courts have interpreted AIRFA to mean that public officials
must consider Native Americans interests before undertaking actions that might harm those
interests. The Corps and Reclamation will continue to coordinate with affected Native American
Tribes on this study and future implementation plans.

No alternative or alternative combination would have any effect upon Native Americans rights
of freedom of belief, expression, and exercise of traditional religions.

7.1.2 Archeological Resources Protection Act
The Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) (16 U.S.C. 470aa-470ll) provides for the
protection of archeological sites located on public and Indian lands, establishes permit
requirements for the excavation or removal of cultural properties from public or Indian lands,
and establishes civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized appropriation, alteration,
exchange, or other handling of cultural properties.

There are no public lands involved with the project, so ARPA does not apply.

55

7.1.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The BGEPA (16 U.S.C. 668-668d, 54 Stat. 250) prohibits the taking, possession or commerce of
bald and golden eagles, except under certain circumstances. Amendments in 1972 added to
penalties for violations of the act or related regulations.

No take of either bald or golden eagles is likely through any of the actions discussed in this EA.

7.1.4 Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), amended in 1977 and 1990, was established
to protect and enhance the quality of the nations air resources so as to promote public health
and welfare and the productive capacity of its population. The CAA authorizes the EPA to
establish the National Ambient Air Quality Standards to protect public health and the
environment. The CAA establishes emission standards for stationary sources, volatile organic
compound emissions, hazardous air pollutants, and vehicles and other mobile sources. The CAA
also requires the states to develop implementation plans applicable to particular industrial
sources.

This EA analyzes effects on air quality from the two alternatives; there will be no significant
impacts, and the work did not exceed de minimis air quality thresholds.

7.1.5 Coastal Zone Management Act
Under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USCA 1451-1465), Sec. 307(c)(1)(A),
[e]ach Federal agency activity within or outside the coastal zone that affects any land or water
use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner which is consistent to
the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of approved State management
programs.

Snohomish County is considered coastal under the CZMA, and its Designated Shoreline Areas
include the North and South forks of the Stillaguamish River among Shorelines of Statewide
Significance. This project, including planned mitigation measures, has been determined to be
compatible with listed Shoreline Use Activities (see Appendix C, and Snohomish County
[undated]).

7.1.6 Endangered Species Act
The ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544), amended in 1988, establishes a national program for the
conservation of threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants and the habitat
upon which they depend. Section 7(a) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies consult with the
USFWS and NMFS (Services), as appropriate, to ensure that their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or to adversely modify or
destroy their critical habitats.

The emergency action may have adversely affected Puget Sound Chinook, Chinook critical
habitat, Puget Sound steelhead, Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout, and bull trout critical habitat.
Separate biological assessments were prepared by the Corps and sent to NMFS and the USFWS,
56

outlining likely adverse effects and initiating formal consultation, in letters dated J anuary 31,
2008, and March 11, 2008, respectively. The Services provided to the Corps a joint Biological
Opinion dated J une 30, 2008 for the emergency action and follow-on mitigation actions. The
County will physically implement actions recommended by NMFS and USFWS for retention of
emergency features and implementation of mitigation actions.

The Corps will add special conditions as follows from the Biological Opinion through its review
and approval process under Sec. 404 of the Clean Water Act when it receives a permit
application from Snohomish County for retention of emergency features and implementation of
mitigation actions:

Conservation Recommendations:

1. Monitor and maintain both sites (Oso slide and Chatham Acres) to ensure success of
newly planted vegetation.

2. Please notify both the NMFS and the USFWS if the COE carries out any of these
recommendations so that we will be kept informed of actions that minimize or avoid
adverse effects and those that benefit listed species or their designated critical habitats.

Reasonable and Prudent Measures:
1. The COE shall ensure that incidental take from project construction activities within
the OHWL, including downstream turbidity, is minimized.

2. The COE shall ensure that incidental take from shoreline and channel modification is
minimized.

3. The COE shall ensure completion of a monitoring and reporting program to confirm
that this Opinion is meeting its objective of limiting the extent of take and minimizing
take from permitted activities, per (50 CFR 402.14(i)(1)(iv) and (I)(3).

Terms and Conditions:
water work window.


57

3. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure No. 3, the COE shall ensure that a
report documenting implementation of the action as proposed and compliance with the
terms and conditions indicated above is completed. This report shall include the
estimated areas of disturbance and volumes of removal and fill. The report will include
dates and times of activities, by activity type. The report should include photographs of
the project area before, during, and after construction. The report should also include the
level of incidental take that has been observed, including captured, distressed, or dead
bull trout or Chinook salmon. All required reports shall be submitted to the Western
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office and Washington State Habitat Office of the
National Marine Fisheries Service within 1 year of project completion.

7.1.7 Farmland Protection Policy Act
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to identify
and take into account the adverse effects of their programs on the preservation of farmlands.
There are no land use actions among the alternatives that would involve conversion of farmlands
for other purposes.

7.1.8 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is more commonly referred to
as the Clean Water Act (CWA). This act is the primary legislative vehicle for Federal water
pollution control programs and the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into
waters of the United States. The CWA was established to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the nations waters. The CWA sets goals to eliminate
discharges of pollutants into navigable waters, protect fish and wildlife, and prohibit the
discharge of toxic pollutants in quantities that could adversely affect the environment.

This EA evaluates possible impacts to water quality, primarily with respect to suspended solids
and turbidity. There are no other water quality effects anticipated. A CWA Sec. 404(b)(1)
analysis is appended to this document (Appendix B). It is the assessment of the USACE that
this project is consistent with state water quality standards. However, Snohomish County will
be required to obtain a Clean Water Act Sec. 401 Water Quality Certification from the
Washington Dept. of Ecology for emergency features that will remain permanent, as well as for
any follow-on work.

7.1.9 Federal Water Project Recreation Act
In the planning of any Federal navigation, flood control, reclamation, or water resources project,
the Federal Water Project Recreation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.A. 4612 et seq.) requires that
full consideration be given to the opportunities that the project affords for outdoor recreation and
fish and wildlife enhancement. The Act requires planning with respect to development of
recreation potential. Projects must be constructed, maintained, and operated in such a manner if
recreational opportunities are consistent with the purpose of the project.

58

This EA assesses impacts of alternative actions on recreation. The EA also addresses effects on
fish and wildlife which might support recreation.

7.1.10 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1980 (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) requires
Federal agencies to coordinate with USFWS and state wildlife agencies when planning new
projects or when modification of an existing project occurs. The USFWS and state agencies
charged with administering wildlife resources conduct surveys and investigations to determine
the potential damage to wildlife. The USFWS incorporates the concerns and findings of the state
and Federal agencies, including NOAA Fisheries, into a report that addresses fish and wildlife
factors and provides recommendations for mitigating or enhancing impacts to fish and wildlife
affected by a Federal project.

The FWCA does not require the Corps to coordinate with the USFWS for emergency actions.

7.1.11 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) (16 U.S.C.A. 4601-11) assists in
preserving, developing, and ensuring accessibility of outdoor recreation resources. The LWCFA
establishes specific Federal funding for acquisition, development, and preservation of lands,
water, or other interests authorized under the ESA and National Wildlife Refuge Areas Act.
Funds appropriated under the Act are allocated to Federal agencies or as grants to states and
localities.

There are no actions in this EA involving funds under the LWCFA.

7.1.12 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), requires Federal agencies to consult
with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The objective
of an EFH assessment is to determine whether or not the proposed action(s) may adversely
affect designated EFH for relevant commercially, federally-managed fisheries species within the
proposed action area. The assessment also describes conservation measures proposed to avoid,
minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to designated EFH resulting from the
proposed action.

EFH is addressed along with effects on anadromous fish in this document. An assessment was
also provided in the Biological Assessment prepared separately from this document for NOAA
Fisheries concerning effects to anadromous fish listed under the Endangered Species Act. In a
Biological Opinion dated J une 30, 2008, NMFS provided the following conservation measures
for EFH, the first two of which are from the Incidental Take Statement in the Biological
Opinion:

59

water work window.


3. For a third conservation recommendation, the COE should establish a long-term
monitoring and maintenance program to ensure the survival of newly planted native
vegetation.

The Corps will add special conditions for these measures through its review and approval
process under Sec. 404 of the Clean Water Act when it receives a permit application from
Snohomish County for retention of emergency features and implementation of mitigation
actions:

7.1.13 Migratory Bird Conservation Act
The Migratory Bird Conservation Act (MBCA) (16 U.S.C. 715 et seq.) requires that lands,
waters, or interests acquired or reserved for purposes established under the Act be administered
under regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior. The MBCA addresses
conservation and protection of migratory birds in accordance with treaties entered into between
the United States and Mexico, Canada, J apan, and the former Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics. It protects other wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, and restores
or develops adequate wildlife habitat. The migratory birds protected under the MBCA are
specified in the respective treaties. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to manage timber,
range, agricultural crops, and other species of animals, and to enter into agreements with public
and private entities.

The alternatives under this EA are evaluated with regard to effect on bird habitat, but do not
affect acquisition of lands under the MBCA.

7.1.14 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) establishes a Federal
prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take,
capture or kill, possess, ... or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in the terms of this
Convention . . . for the protection of migratory birds . . . or any part, nest, or egg of any such
bird. This prohibition applies to birds included in the respective international conventions
60

between the United States and Great Britain, the United States and Mexico, the United States and
J apan, and the United States and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The alternatives considered in this EA are evaluated with regard to effects on birds and their
habitat. None of the alternatives would result in harm to migratory birds beyond the current
range of natural variability.

7.1.15 National Environmental Policy Act
The NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) provides a commitment that Federal agencies will consider
the environmental effects of their actions. It also requires that an EIS be included in every
recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The EIS must provide detailed
information regarding the proposed action and alternatives, the environmental impacts of the
alternatives, appropriate mitigation measures, and any adverse environmental impacts that cannot
be avoided if the proposal is implemented. Agencies are required to demonstrate that these
factors have been considered by decisionmakers prior to undertaking actions. This document has
been undertaken specifically in pursuit of NEPA.

7.1.16 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (25 U.S.C. 3001)
addresses processes and requirements for federal agencies regarding the discovery, identification,
treatment, and repatriation of Native American and Native Hawaiian human remains and cultural
items (associated funerary objects, unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of
cultural patrimony). Consistent with procedures set forth in applicable Federal laws, regulations,
and policies, the Corps will proactively work to preserve and protect natural and cultural
resources, and establish NAGPRA protocols and procedures.

No evidence of Native American graves, human remains or associated cultural items has been
found in the project area.

7.1.17 National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 of the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470) requires that Federal agencies evaluate the effects of
Federal undertakings on historical, archeological, and cultural resources and afford the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation opportunities to comment on the proposed undertaking. The
lead agency must examine whether feasible alternatives exist that would avoid eligible cultural
resources. If an effect cannot reasonably be avoided, measures must be taken to minimize or
mitigate potential adverse effects.

No listed properties or archeological resources are known in the project area. A letter was sent to
the Stillaguamish Tribe on Sep. 26, 2006, soliciting information or concerns on historic
properties that may be affected by the project, and a response dated October 3, 2006, indicated
no concerns (see Appendix A). The Corps has determined that the project should result in No
61

Historic Properties Affected and has coordinated this determination with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO). Coordination has occurred with the Washington Department of
Archeological and Historic Preservation. A letter was sent to the SHPO dated J anuary 14, 2009,
and a concurrence was received dated J anuary 20, 2009 (Appendix A).

7.2 Executive Orders

7.2.1 Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment
Executive Order 11593, dated May 13, 1971, outlines the responsibilities of Federal agencies to
consider effects to historic properties in consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation where a Federal undertaking may adversely affect a property. Agencies are also to
preserve, rehabilitate, and restore listed historic properties on the National Register. Agencies
are encouraged to avoid, or at least mitigate, an adverse effect on listed properties. The
executive order furthers the purpose and policies associated with the NEPA; the NHPA; the
Historic Sites Act of 1935 and the Antiquities Act of 1906.

no concerns (see Appendix A).

7.2.2 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management Guidelines
Executive Order 11988, dated May 24, 1977, outlines the responsibilities of Federal agencies in
the role of floodplain management. Each agency shall evaluate the potential effects of actions on
floodplains and should avoid undertaking actions that directly or indirectly induce growth in the
floodplain or adversely affect natural floodplain values.

This EA evaluates effects of alternatives on flooding and floodplains. No additional
development in any floodplain is anticipated as a result of the alternatives considered.

7.2.3 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands
Executive Order 11990 encourages Federal agencies to take actions to minimize the destruction,
loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of
wetlands when undertaking Federal activities and programs. Minor, short-term, indirect impacts
to wetlands adjacent to the levees or roadways could occur during construction of improvements.

This EA assesses effects on wetlands; there are no affected riparian areas.

62

7.2.4 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898, dated February 11, 1994, requires Federal agencies to consider and
address environmental justice by identifying and assessing whether agency actions may have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-
income populations. Disproportionately high and adverse effects are those effects that are
predominantly borne by minority and/or low-income populations and are appreciably more
severe or greater in magnitude than the effects on non-minority or non-low income populations.
This EA addresses environmental justice effects of the alternatives it evaluates.

7.2.5 Executive Order 13007, Native American Sacred Sites, May 24, 1996
Executive Order 13007 directs Federal agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of
Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners. Agencies are to avoid adversely affecting
the physical integrity of such sacred sites and to maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites when
appropriate. The act encourages government-to-government consultation with tribes concerning
sacred sites. Some sacred sites may qualify as historic properties under the NHPA. No sacred
sites are known in the project area.

7.2.6 Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
This order requires Federal agencies to be guided by Tribal sovereignty and rights when making
policy affecting Tribal governments, and to have a process for Tribal representatives to have
meaningful and timely input on regulatory policies significantly or uniquely affecting their
communities.

no concerns (see Appendix A). The Corps seeks to provide meaningful and timely opportunities,
via government-to-government consultation, for Tribes to comment on agency policies that may
have significant or unique effects on tribal interests.

7.3 Executive Memoranda

7.3.1 Council on Environmental Quality Memorandum, August 11, 1990,
Analysis of Impacts on Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands in
Implementing NEPA
This Council on Environmental Quality Memorandum establishes criteria to identify and
consider the adverse effects of Federal programs on the preservation of prime and unique
farmland, to consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could lessen adverse effects, and to
ensure Federal programs are consistent with all state and local programs for the protection of
farmland. There are no prime or unique farmlands in the project area.
63

8 References

Ames, J ., and D. E. Phinney. 1977. The 1977 Puget Sound summer-fall chinook methodolgy:
escapement estimates and goals, run size forecasts, and in-season run size updates.
Washington Department of Fisheries Technical Report 29. Olympia, Washington. (not
seen; cited in NMFS and USFWS 2008)

BOAS, Inc. 2007. Project 200601.19, Chatham Acres Report. Letter report prepared for
Snohomish County Dept. of Public Works.

Bortleson, 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.

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).

Ellis, E. and D. Grant. 2006. After-action historic properties assessment for the Oso landslide
Stillaguamish River flood fight, Snohomish County, Washington. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Seattle District. Seattle, WA.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Three Species of Lampreys as Threatened or
Endangered. Federal Register 69(247):77158-77167.

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

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2001(?). Climate Change 2001: Working
Group I: The Scientific Basis. World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Online at
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/001.htm. Accessed 20 Feb 2008.

64

Lane, B. 1973. 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.

Mobrand Biometrics. 2004. Future Scenario Population Performance. Ecosystem diagnosis and
treatment model report to Snohomish County Surface Water Management May 14,
2004. (not seen: cited in NMFS and USFWS 2008)

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. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-
NWFSC-35. 443 pp.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 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.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 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.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004. Endangered and Threatened Species;
Establishment of Species of Concern List, Addition of Species to Species of Concern
List, Description of Factors for Identifying Species of Concern, and Revision of
Candidate Species List Under the Endangered Species Act. Federal Register
69(73):19975-19979.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. Endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants; Designation of critical habitat for 12 evolutionarily significant units of west coast
salmon and steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; Final rule. 70 FR 52630-52858.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006a. Listing Endangered and Threatened Species
and Designating Critical Habitat: 12Month Finding on Petition to List Puget Sound
Steelhead as an Endangered or Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act.
Federal Register 71(60):15666-15680.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2007. Endangered and Threatened Species: Final
Listing Determination for Puget Sound Steelhead. Federal Register 72(91):26722-26735.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008.
Endangered Species ActSection 7 Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson-
65

Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation,
Emergency Flood Control and Bank Protection Project Middle North Fork Stillaguamish
River, Sixth Field HUC 171100080106, Snohomish County, Washington. NMFS
Northwest Region, Seattle Washington; USFWS Western Washington Office, Lacey,
Washington.

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.

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, B.E. Rieman, 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.

Pess, G. 2003. NOAA Fisheries (NMFS), Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Unpublished
Stillaguamish Bull trout data, 1996 to 2003. (not seen; cited in NMFS and USFWS
2008)

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.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.

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. 51pp.

Rawson, K., et al. 2004. Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team/Shared Strategy, Stillaguamish
Plan: Chinook Salmon Populations November 2004 Technical Feedback. (not seen;
cited in NMFS and USFWS 2008)

SASSI (WDFW [Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife] and WWTIT [Western Washington
Treaty Indian Tribes]. 1994. 1992 Washington State salmon and steelhead stock
inventory (SASSI). Olympia, Washington. J une 1994.

Snohomish County Planning and Development Services. 2000. Long range planning: draft
supplemental environmental impact statement. Appendix E. Online at:
http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/PDS/Divisions/LR_Planning/Projects_Pro
grams/GMA/Agriculture_Resource_Lands/Mineral_Resource_Lands_Planning/DSEIS/.
Accessed 3 May 2006.
66

Snohomish County. [undated]. PDS Code Development: Shoreline Management Program.
Online at
http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/PDS/Divisions/Code_Development/Shore
lines/Management_Master/. Accessed 7 Feb 2007.

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

Thomas, J .W., E.D. Forsman, J .B Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R Noon, and J . Verner. 1990. A
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, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
National Park Service. Portland, OR.

USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers). 2000. Final Environmental Assessment: Stillaguamish
River Ecosystem Restoration. Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Authority. Seattle
District, Seattle, Washington. 121 pp. Online at
http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/ers/reposit/Final_Stilli_EA.pdf.

US Census Bureau. 2006. Population Finder. Online at http://www.census.gov/. Accessed 17
Apr. 2006.

USFS (US Forest Service). 1992. Field Guide to the Forested Plant Associations of the Mt.
Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. Technical Paper R6 ECOL TP 028-91.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2006. Western Washington Field Office, Div. of
Listing and Recovery. Online at http://www.fws.gov/westwafwo/se/index.html.
Accessed 17 Apr 2006.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife; Final Rule; Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Draft
PostDelisting and Monitoring Plan for the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and
Proposed Information Collection; Notice. Federal Register 72:37346-34372.

UW CIG (University of Washington Climate Impacts Group). 2008. Climate Change Scenarios.
Online at: http://cses.washington.edu/cig/fpt/ccscenarios.shtml. Accessed 11 Febuary
2008.

WDE (Washington Dept. of Ecology). 2005. Washington States water quality assessment.
Online at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2002/2002-index.html. Accessed 7
Feb 2007.

67

WDE (Washington Dept. of Ecology). 2006. Air quality maps of maintenance areas. Online at
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/other/namaps/web_map_intro.htm. Accessed 22
Feb 2007.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1998. Ecology of Bald Eagles in
Western Washington with an Emphasis on the Effects of Human Activity. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Research Division, Olympia, WA.

WDFW (Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife). 2005. Priority habitats and species polygon
and wildife heritage, spotted owl and marbled murrelet point databases. Licensed
Geographic Information System database. Olympia, Washington.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2006. Oncorhynchus mykiss:
Assessment of Washington States Anadromous Populations and Programs. Edited by
J ames B. Scott, J r., William T. Gill (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/papers/steelhead/). (not
seen; cited in NMFS and USFWS [2008])

WDFW (Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife) and WWTIT (Western Washington Treaty
Indian Tribes). 1994. 1992 Washington State salmon and steelhead stock inventory
(SASSI). Olympia, Washington. J une 1994.

WSCC (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.

9 List of Preparers

J effrey C. Laufle, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District (Fisheries Biologist,
Environmental Resources Section)

J ames J acobson, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District (Wildlife Biologist,

Elizabeth Ellis, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District (Archeological Technician,

Norman Skjelbreia, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District (Civil Engineer, Civil Design
Section)

68

APPENDIX A

Coordination Under Sec. 106 of National Historic Preservation Act

69

70

71

72

73

74

APPENDIX B

Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination
75

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION

Oso Slide Emergency Response, 2006

The rehabilitation actions are activities undertaken by a Federal agency; the following constitutes
a federal consistency determination with the enforceable provisions of the Washington Coastal
Zone Management Program.

1. Introduction. The proposed Federal action applicable to this consistency determination is the
emergency response to a landslide on the North Fork Stillaguamish River, Snohomish County,
Washington, as described in the Environmental Assessment. This determination of consistency
with the Washington Coastal Zone Management Act is based on review of applicable sections of
the State of Washington Shoreline Management Program and policies and standards of the
Snohomish County Shoreline Program (Unified Development Code).

The Corps of Engineers consistency determination is indicated in bold italics.

2. State Of Washington Shoreline Management Program. Primary responsibility for
implementation of the State of Washington Shoreline Management Act of 1971 has been
assigned to local governments. The Snohomish County program is regulated through Title 30 of
the Snohomish County Code.

Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-27-040, Developments exempt from substantial
development permit requirement, states:
(2) The following developments shall not require substantial development permits:
(d) Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. An
"emergency" is an unanticipated and imminent threat to public health, safety, or the environment
which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with this
chapter. Emergency construction does not include development of new permanent protective
structures where none previously existed. Where new protective structures are deemed by the
administrator to be the appropriate means to address the emergency situation, upon abatement of
the emergency situation the new structure shall be removed or any permit which would have
been required, absent an emergency, pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, these regulations, or the
local master program, obtained. All emergency construction shall be consistent with the policies
of chapter 90.58 RCW and the local master program. As a general matter, flooding or other
seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur but that are not imminent are not an
emergency;
Consistent: The federal action constituted emergency construction necessary to protect
property from imminent risk of flooding. Snohomish County will obtain all necessary permits
for permanent retention of emergency and follow-on features, including mitigation features.

3. Description of Snohomish County Plan. The following outlines pertinent sections of the
Snohomish County program.

Under Snohomish County Code, Title 30 (Unified Development Code), Sec. 30.44.110
76

30.44.110 Development exempted from the shoreline substantial development permit
requirement.
The following types of development shall not be considered shoreline substantial developments
for purposes of this chapter and shall not be required to obtain a shoreline substantial
development permit:
(4) Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements;
Consistent: The federal action constituted emergency construction necessary to protect
property from imminent risk of flooding.

Based on the above evaluation, it is determined that the proposed rehabilitation activities comply
with the policies, general conditions, and activities as specified in the Snohomish County Unified
Development Code. The proposed action is considered to be consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the State of Washington Shoreline Management Program and policies and
standards of the Snohomish County Unified Development Code.

77

APPENDIX C

Endangered Species Act Coordination
78

79

80

81

82

83

APPENDIX D

Clean Water Act Sec. 404 Analysis
84

Clean Water Act Section 404 Analysis
Oso Slide
North Fork Stillaguamish River
Snohomish County, Washington

Clean Water Act
Rivers and Harbors Act

November 2008
1. Introduction
The purpose of this document is to record the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
compliance evaluation of the Oso landslide emergency response pursuant to the Clean Water Act
(CWA), the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA), and the General Regulatory Policies of USACE.
Specifically, Section 404 of the CWA requires an evaluation of impacts for work involving
discharge of fill material into the waters of the U.S., and evaluation guidance can be found in the
CWA 404(b)(1) Guidelines [40 CFR 230.12(a)]. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act [33
USC 403] prohibits modification to or creation of an obstruction within a navigable water of the
U.S. unless recommended by the Secretary of the Army and authorized by the Chief of
Engineers. The General Regulatory Policies of the Corps of Engineers [33 CFR 320.4(a)]
provide measures for evaluating permit applications for activities undertaken in navigable
waters.

The main body of this document summarizes the information presented in Attachment A and
includes relevant information from the Environmental Assessment for the project that was
collected pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 [42 USC 4321 et
seq.]. Attachment A provides the specific USACE analysis of compliance with the CWA
404(b)(1) and the General Regulatory Policy requirements.

2. Project Background
off of Highway 530 (T 32N, R 7E, NW part of Section 12) in Snohomish County, Washington.
The approximate size of the initial slide was 200 yards in width by 200 yards in length. It
completely blocked the existing channel of the North Fork Stillaguamish. The blocked portion is
a rather steep bend, resulting in the river cutting inside the curve. Inside the bend of the river is a
small private community of 10 homes. It was necessary to take immediate action to protect the
residences from flooding, if a rainstorm was to raise river flows.

Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District (USACE), which USACE provided under PL 84-99
emergency authority. Before authorizing or beginning construction, the Corps conferred with
the Stillaguamish Tribe, the Washington Dept. of Ecology, and the Washington Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife, as well as the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). On J anuary 27, 2006, the Corps and local sponsors began
to stabilize the bank and to train the river in a new channel.
85

3. Project Need
On the North Fork Stillaguamish River) near the town of Oso, a major landslide occurred on
J anuary 25, 2006, and blocked the river channel, creating an imminent danger of flooding for a
community of 10 homes, called Steelhead Haven, adjacent to the location of the slide.
Emergency response measures were undertaken by Snohomish County, Washington, and
assistance of the USACE to respond to this danger. There is no specified level of protection (i.e.,
for any given flood frequency); the work was done without formal planning in order to address
an immediate need. Snohomish County chooses to retain features put in place as part of the
emergency response in order to retain bank protection and flood protection for the 10 residences
at Steelhead Haven. The County also proposes mitigation to address impacts of that action.
These activities must be addressed under Sec. 404 of the Clean Water Act (see discussion of
preferred alternative and of mitigation measures, below).

4. Project Purpose The purpose of the project is to provide reduce and prevent flood damage
along the North Fork Stillaguamish River for the 10 residences of the Steelhead Haven
community at Oso, Washington.

5. Proposed Action and Alternatives
Two alternatives are evaluated: the emergency action, and the no-action alternative.

No Action
This alternative would involve removal of emergency measures. The river might or might not
remove the blockage on its own; the channel might shift; flooding might or might not occur in
adjacent developed areas.

Emergency Action: Retain Bank Stabilization Using Rock and Large Woody Debris
(Preferred Alternative)
This action would involve retention of emergency measures with follow-up action to further
stabilize the site, which are described as follows: Work done although not in the previously
existing channel, was below the ordinary high water mark at the upstream and downstream ends
where the old channel was intersected. After the slide pushed the river into pastures on the left
(south) bank, trees were mechanically uprooted along the upper 150 feet of a new channel
alignment, and the new channel was notched incrementally from downstream to upstream. The
upstream end of the new channel was opened to allow the river to enter it. A 450-ft stretch was
stabilized with large rocks, on an incline of about 1.5V on 1H. J ust downstream, along a 250-ft
stretch, two groins of large woody debris were placed perpendicularly into the bank, in trenches
about five feet wide by four feet deep, and cabled down using extendable-fluke Manta Ray
anchors and large rock. Sandbags were placed between the woody groins, and willow shoots
planted between the layers of bags. The rootwads were placed outward into the river channel. A
log jam was placed in crisscross fashion on the inside of the upstream end of the new channel to
help keep the river from cutting into the corner. It was placed on a rock foundation about 2.5
feet below the event water level, 30 feet long by five feet wide. A log revetment at the
downstream end was anchored with manta ray anchors. The slope behind it consists of fill with
smaller trees and woody debris, and some willows were planted in the top of the bank.

86





6. Potentially Adverse Effects (Individually or Cumulatively) on the Aquatic Environment

a. Effects on Physical, Chemical, or Biological Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem
The emergency action established a channel through the toe of the landslide, through tree
removal and channel cutting to the point where the river could work through. Riprap was
placed, along with anchored large woody debris. The new channel turned at about 90
degrees at the upstream end of the project, until a new high-water event in November 2006
caused the channel to migrate rightward toward a log revetment placed by the Stillaguamish
Tribe at the toe of the slide. Main effects were:
Short-term sediment loading (though possibly less than with no action)
Short-term impact on fish habitat and therefore fish production, including loss of shade,
cover, and insect and organic input; also short-term sedimentation.
Short term loss of riparian habitat for birds and mammals, including a feeding and migration
corridor
Likely adverse effects to species listed under the Endangered Species Act, including Puget
Sound Chinook, Puget Sound steelhead, and Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout.

b. Effects on Recreational, Aesthetic, Historical, and Economic Values
To the extent there is a negative impact on recreational fish production, then angling might
be impacted. Esthetics would suffer to some extent in the short term with creation of bank
armoring, but over the long term would be mitigated by planting of native vegetation.
Economic value is maintained through protection of local residences and infrastructure.
In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470), historic properties
have been investigated, and consultation has been initiated with the Washington State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The proposed work will not affect any known historic
properties, nor will the off-site mitigation work (see 7.c. below).

87

c. Findings
There will be no significant adverse impacts to aquatic ecosystem functions and values.

7. All Appropriate and Practicable Measures To Minimize Potential Harm to the Aquatic
Ecosystem

a. Impact Avoidance Measures
The proposed project action was selected because of the emergency nature of the
circumstances; however, it will have the least negative impact on the environment, because
prolonged sedimentation from erosion of the slide toe was minimized.

b. Impact Minimization Measures
USACE took steps to minimize adverse impacts as follows:

A channel was created in the toe of the slide as soon as possible, preventing long-term
channel cutting by the river with ongoing sedimentation.
Large woody debris was incorporated into the project at the time of the emergency
action.
A Corps biologist provided coordination with resource agencies and tribes to ensure
minimal impact during the emergency action.

c. Compensatory Mitigation Measures
Steelhead Lane and removing riprap at an upriver site, Chatham Acres. The mitigation at
Steelhead Haven would soften the rock banks and help directly restore riparian function in
terms of shade, cover and insect deposition along the length of the affected bank, especially if the
channel migrates back toward the south bank where the work was done. In addition, the
Chatham Acres mitigation would restore formerly degraded habitat by removing rock walls that
were detracting from riparian function, which is in direct relation to the type of impact created by
the emergency bank stabilization.

At both locations, best management practices would be used during construction to ensure that
spill prevention and management procedures are in place, including a Surface Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Dust and noise suppression would be employed as necessary.

The Reasonable and Prudent Measures, and Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Measures,
contained in a J une 30, 2008 Biological Opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Service and
US Fish and Wildlife Service do not require any further mitigation or restoration actions beyond
those already proposed, other than a monitoring plan to ensure survival of the planted vegetation
and to ensure that the Biological Opinion meets its objectives of limiting take of listed species of
fish.

88

Steelhead Haven
Since the new channel was created in early 2006, the channel has migrated northward toward the
cribwall and deposited a gravel bar between the emergency bank protection structures and the

The county will re-grade the bank at a 3-to-1 slope using materials from the gravel bar. The bank
currently is 8 to 10 feet above the gravel bar. Grading would be done from the gravel bar by
pushing material up to the bank using a bulldozer or similar piece of machinery. Snohomish
County will build a soil lift on the upper two feet of bank to provide a planting area. The front
edge of the planting area would be formed using logs anchored into the bank. Besides forming a
solid front edge to retain soils, the logs would protect the planting area during high water events.
The planting area will be approximately 10 to 15 feet wide and extend from the wood structure at
the upper end of the project area down to the wood structure at the lower end of the project,
approximately 600 feet. The plant community will comprise native woody vegetation typical of
disturbed areas and suited to growing in well-drained soils and full sun (conceptual plant list: red
alder, Douglas fir, snowberry and thimbleberry). The planting area will be covered with three to
four inches of wood chip mulch to assist plant establishment by providing erosion control,
protection against weed establishment, and moisture retention. The area will be monitored and
maintained for 10 years to ensure establishment of native species and control of invasive species.
The area is already being treated for control of J apanese knotweed as part of a larger control
effort within the basin.

Chatham Acres
groins. The bank was armored in 2000 to protect homes from high flows. The Chatham Acres
development was purchased by Snohomish County several years ago as part of a Flood
Emergency Prevention grant. All of the homes have been removed, and the site is being restored
by Snohomish Countys Surface Water Management Native Plant Program. The site is on the
inside of the meander bend, mostly forested, and has a large side channel complex that cuts
across the site.

Snohomish County will remove three of the four rock groins, 200 feet of large randomly spaced
rock, and hundred-foot sections of rock between groins 1 and 2 and between groins 3 and 4.
Combined, over 450 lineal feet of rock will be removed. In order to access these areas, an
placed and is mostly vegetated with Himalayan blackberry. Rock removal would be done from
the banks, and minimal in-water work is anticipated. All disturbed areas will be planted with
Program.

d. Findings
USACE has determined that all appropriate and practicable measures have been taken to
minimize potential harm to the environment.
89

8. Other Factors in the Public Interest

a. Fish and Wildlife
USACE has coordinated construction activities with local Native American Tribes and state
and Federal resource agencies (including formal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife
Service, and NOAA Fisheries, under the Endangered Species Act) to ensure that only
minimal impacts to fish and wildlife resources occurred. Project features include large
woody debris, and mitigation will include riparian habitat restoration at the site and upstream
at another location.

b. Water Quality. It is the assessment of the USACE that this project is consistent with state
water quality standards. However, Snohomish County will be required to obtain a Clean
Water Act Sec. 401 Water Quality Certification from the Washington Dept. of Ecology for
emergency features that will remain permanent, as well as for any follow-on work.

c. Historical and Cultural Resources
See 6.b. above.

d. Environmental Benefits.
This project will help preserve existing wetland habitat, and will enhance the shoreline for
fish habitat by the incorporation of large woody debris into the riprap structure.

9. Conclusions. USACE finds that this project is within the publics interest and complies with
the substantive elements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors
Act.
90

Attachment A

Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) Evaluation [40 CFR 230]
Permit Application Evaluation [33 CFR 320.4]

404(b)(1) Evaluation [40 CFR 230]

Potential Impacts on Physical and Chemical Characteristics [Subpart C]:

1. Substrate [230.20]
The existing condition consisted of complete blockage of the river channel by the landslide,
with new channel cutting occurring across the landslide toe. The likely net effect of the slide
was to reduce average grain size in the channel. Transport of fine sediments as well as
embedded rock and gravel from the slide toe into the river channel would have been a
prolonged effect of taking no emergency action. Continued transport of fine sediments
would have the effect of silting in and smothering salmon redds in the river downstream.
Some sedimentation of the downstream substrate may have occurred from the emergency
action, but overall the effect of the construction was likely neutral to positive compared to
not taking the emergency action, in that prolonged and detrimental sedimentation from
channel cutting in the toe of the slide may have been averted. I have determined that the
impacts to substrates are not contrary to the public interest.
2. Suspended particulates/turbidity [230.21]
Some suspension of solids was unavoidable during the emergency action, but was no greater,
and likely less, than what would have occurred had the river done its own channel-cutting
through the toe of the landslide. I have determined that the impacts to suspended particulate
and turbidity levels are not contrary to the public interest.
3. Water [230.22]
The emergency measures would not have added any nutrients or other constituents to the
water that could affect its clarity, color, odor, or aesthetic value, or that could reduce the
suitability of the North Fork Stillaguamish River for aquatic organisms or recreation.
4. Current patterns and water circulation [230.23]
The landslide temporarily disrupted hydraulic (cross-section, flow) characteristics of the
channel; thus, current patterns were altered during the emergency work. Instead of sheet
flow and subsequent channel cutting by the river in the toe of the landslide, the emergency
action created a channel very soon after the slide occurred, and allowed the river to stabilize.
5. Normal water fluctuations [230.24].
No long-term changes to normal water fluctuations occurred as a result of the work,
especially given the establishment of a new channel.
6. Salinity gradients [230.25]
Not applicable, since the North Fork Stillaguamish River is freshwater.

91

Potential Impacts on Biological Characteristics of the Aquatic Ecosystem [Subpart D]:

1. Threatened and endangered species [230.30]
USACE has prepared Biological Assessments for this project that involved close
coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service to ensure that compliance with the Endangered Species Act is achieved, due to a
determination that the emergency action may have adversely affected Coastal/Puget Sound
bull trout and Puget Sound Chinook, and their critical habitat, and may have adversely
affected Puget Sound steelhead. Some impacts to threatened species Puget Sound Chinook
salmon, Puget Sound steelhead, Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout) and their critical habitat
(Chinook and bull trout) occurred, but are being mitigated onsite and offsite, through native
riparian vegetation plantings, removal of rock groins upstream, and incorporation of large
woody debris in the emergency construction. The Reasonable and Prudent Measures, and
Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Measures contained in a J une 30, 2008 Biological
Opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service do not
require any further mitigation or restoration actions beyond those already proposed, other
than a monitoring plan to ensure survival of the planted vegetation and to ensure that the
Biological Opinion meets its objectives of limiting take of listed species of fish. Thus,
approval of the project would not be contrary to the public interest.
2. Fish, crustaceans, mollusks and other aquatic organisms in the food web [230.31]
The emergency work affected fish and other organisms by altering riparian habitat and
creating a new channel. Some short-term sedimentation likely resulted from new channel
creation, but was probably less than what would have resulted from allowing the river to cut
its own channel in the toe of the landslide. The riparian habitat loss is being mitigated
through native riparian vegetation plantings, removal of rock groins upstream, and
incorporation of large woody debris in the emergency construction.
3. Other wildlife [230.32]
Birds and other wildlife were likely displaced by the landslide, and would have been
disturbed by construction. They would have been affected by loss of riparian habitat, but that
habitat is being replaced onsite through the Countys mitigation action.

Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites [Subpart E]:

1. Sanctuaries and refuges [230.40]
Not applicable.
2. Wetlands [230.41]
Some local wetland values may have been impacted by the slide and the emergency action.
Restoration of the river channel, followed by the fall 2006 migration of the channel toward
the toe of the slide, would help address such impacts. Also, removal of rock groins at the
Chatham Acres site upstream may help allow reestablishment of wetland areas there.
3. Mud flats [230.42]
Not applicable.
4. Vegetated shallows [230.43]
Not applicable.
5. Coral reefs [230.44]
Not applicable.
92

6. Riffle and pool complexes [230.45]
The emergency action created a riffle at the upstream end, with a glide along the length of the
new channel, and another riffle at its tailout. The channel then migrated rightward, creating a
glide along the log revetment at the toe of the landslide. Channel reestablishment is expected
to allow riffle and pool complexes to form naturally as geomorphological processes take
place.

Potential Effects on Human Use Characteristics [Subpart F]:

1. Municipal and private water supplies [230.50]
The emergency action protected local utilities, including piped water supply. There is no
water supply reservoir that is affected by the action.
2. Recreational and commercial fisheries [230.51]
With the intended mitigation measures, the project work will have little or no effect on any
recreational fisheries. There are no known commercial fisheries at or near the project area.
3. Water-related recreation [230.53]
Fish production may have been negatively impacted, with consequences for anglers.
Creation of a new channel, and its subsequent migration, would be of benefit to riverboaters.
4. Aesthetics [230.53]
During and after construction there was some minor disturbance from heavy equipment noise
and exhaust. After construction the shoreline looked different because of the riprap bank
stabilization structure and large woody debris. Establishment of riparian vegetation,
especially following mitigation actions, would compensate for the initial look of bare rock.
Removal of rock groins upriver at Chatham Acres also should improve esthetics, although
they have been overgrown to some extent anyway.
5. Parks, national and historic monuments, national seashores, wilderness areas, research
sites and similar preserves [230.54]
Not applicable.

Evaluation and Testing [Subpart G]:

1. General evaluation of dredged or fill material [230.60]
Bank stabilization material was free from contamination and obtained from a permitted local
quarry.
2. Chemical, biological, and physical evaluation and testing [230.61]
N/A

Actions to Minimize Adverse Effects [Subpart H]:

1. Actions concerning the location of the discharge [230.70]
Since the action was an emergency response, there was no site selection process.
2. Actions concerning the material to be discharged [230.71]
Riprap was necessary to address the emergency.
3. Actions controlling the material after discharge [230.72]
No actions should be required, as the structure is not expected to move after construction.
93

4. Actions affecting the method of dispersion [230.73]
As described above, the structure is expected to remain stable after construction and not
disperse. Sedimentation from cutting of a new channel in the landslide toe would have
dispersed naturally in the river flow. Some solids would have settled out in lower-energy
locations, potentially a short distance downstream, until remobilized by high flows; others
might have been carried further to begin with.
5. Actions related to technology [230.74]
No specific advanced technologies were used to build the stabilization structure, except
possibly the large woody debris and its anchoring structures.
6. Actions affecting plant and animal populations [230.75]
USACE coordinated construction activities with local Native American Tribes and state and
Federal resource agencies to ensure that minimal impacts to fishery and wildlife resources
occurred. Mitigation is being proposed onsite in the form of reestablishment of native
vegetation, and offsite in the form of rock groin removal in a riparian area.
7. Actions affecting human use [230.76]
The emergency action protected human residences onsite, and may have encouraged the
continued existence of such habitation.
8. Other actions [230.77]
Best management practices were used in the emergency action, and will be used in the
mitigation action.

General Policies for Evaluating Permit Applications [33 CFR 320.4]

1. Public Interest Review [320.4(a)]
USACE finds this bank stabilization action to be in compliance with the 404(b)(1) guidelines
and not contrary to public interest.
2. Effects on wetlands [320.4(b)]
See 404(b)(1) evaluation above. No negative impacts to wetlands are expected.
3. Fish and wildlife [320.4(c)]
USACE consulted extensively with state and federal resource agencies, tribes and other
interested members of the public on this action. Negative impacts have been minimized and
are being mitigated.
4. Water quality [320.4(d)]
The emergency measures would not have added any nutrients or other constituents to the
water that could affect its clarity, color, odor, or aesthetic value, or that could reduce the
suitability of the North Fork Stillaguamish River for aquatic organisms or recreation. Neither
should the mitigation measures proposed by Snohomish County have these effects. USACE
certifies that this project will not violate water quality standards as set forth by the Clean
Water Act. The local sponsor (Snohomish County) will apply for a 401 Water Quality
Certification waiver from the Washington Dept. of Ecology.
5. Historic, cultural, scenic, and recreational values [320.4(e)]
No permit application is necessary for these values, but concurrence from the Washington
SHPO is being sought concerning evaluated effects on historic properties.
6. Effects on limits of the Territorial Sea [320.4(f)]
Not applicable.

94

7. Consideration of property ownership [320.4(g)]
Property protected by the emergency action is private, and was accessed with permission of
owners. Snohomish County owns the offsite mitigation site.
8. Activities affecting coastal zones [320.4(h)]
Snohomish County is considered a coastal county under the Coastal Zone Management Act.
A coastal zone consistency determination is being made, for certification by the Washington
Dept. of Ecology.
9. Activities in marine sanctuaries [320.4(i)]
Not applicable.
10. Other federal, state, or local requirements [320.4(j)]
USACE has completed formal consultation under the Endangered Species Act with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service on effects of the action
on threatened species. Snohomish County will apply for a Clean Water Act Section 401
Water Quality Certification from the Washington Dept. of Ecology, as well as a Hydraulic
Project Approval from the Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Concurrence will be
sought from the Washington Dept. of Ecology concerning a Coastal Zone Consistency
Determination. No other certifications are required.
11. Safety of impoundment structures [320.(k)]
Not applicable.
12. Water supply and conservation [320.4(m)]
The action will not affect water supply.
13. Energy conservation and development [320.4(n)]
Not applicable.
14. Navigation [320.4(o)]
Not applicable.
15. Environmental benefits [320.4(p)]
This project has been performed and is being mitigated to ensure environmental values are
maintained. Some benefit may have been derived through prevention of prolonged channel
cutting by the river through the toe of the landslide.
16. Economics [320.4(q)]
Completion of the project will enable the local residents to maintain their homes and
property.
17. Mitigation [320.4(r)].
Steelhead Lane and removing riprap at an upriver site, Chatham Acres. The mitigation at
Steelhead Haven will soften the rock banks and help directly restore riparian function in
terms of shade, cover and insect deposition along the length of the affected bank, especially
if the channel migrates back toward the south bank where the work was done. In addition,
the Chatham Acres mitigation will restore formerly degraded habitat by removing rock walls
that were detracting from riparian function, which is in direct relation to the type of impact
created by the emergency bank stabilization.

At both locations, best management practices will be used during construction to ensure that
spill prevention and management procedures are in place, including a Surface Water
95

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Dust and noise suppression will be employed as
necessary.

The Reasonable and Prudent Measures, and Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Measures,
contained in a J une 30, 2008 Biological Opinion from the National Marine Fisheries Service
and US Fish and Wildlife Service do not require any further mitigation or restoration actions
beyond those already proposed, other than a monitoring plan to ensure survival of the
planted vegetation and to ensure that the Biological Opinion meets its objectives of limiting
take of listed species of fish.

Steelhead Haven
Since the new channel was created in early 2006, the channel has migrated northward toward
the cribwall and deposited a gravel bar between the emergency bank protection structures
and the thalweg. The gravel bar extends out from the riprap approximately 100 feet to the
water during typical winter flows. The riprap forms the margin of the active channel during
higher flows.

The county will re-grade the bank at a 3-to-1 slope using materials from the gravel bar. The
bank currently is 8 to 10 feet above the gravel bar. Grading will be done from the gravel bar
by pushing material up to the bank using a bulldozer or similar piece of machinery.
Snohomish County will build a soil lift on the upper two feet of bank to provide a planting
area. The front edge of the planting area will be formed using logs anchored into the bank.
Besides forming a solid front edge to retain soils, the logs will protect the planting area
during high water events. The planting area will be approximately 10 to 15 feet wide and
extend from the wood structure at the upper end of the project area down to the wood
structure at the lower end of the project, approximately 600 feet. The plant community will
comprise native woody vegetation typical of disturbed areas and suited to growing in well-
drained soils and full sun (conceptual plant list: red alder, Douglas fir, snowberry and
thimbleberry). The planting area will be covered with three to four inches of wood chip
mulch to assist plant establishment by providing erosion control, protection against weed
establishment, and moisture retention. The area will be monitored and maintained for 10
years to ensure establishment of native species and control of invasive species. The area is
already being treated for control of J apanese knotweed as part of a larger control effort
within the basin.

Chatham Acres
groins. The bank was armored in 2000 to protect homes from high flows. The Chatham
Acres development was purchased by Snohomish County several years ago as part of a
Flood Emergency Prevention grant. All of the homes have been removed, and the site is
being restored by Snohomish Countys Surface Water Management Native Plant Program.
The site is on the inside of the meander bend, mostly forested, and has a large side channel
complex that cuts across the site.

96

Snohomish County will remove three of the four rock groins, 200 feet of large randomly
spaced rock, and hundred-foot sections of rock between groins 1 and 2 and between groins 3
and 4. Combined, over 450 lineal feet of rock will be removed. In order to access these
areas, an overgrown access road will need to be cleared. This road was used in 2000 when
the rock was placed and is mostly vegetated with Himalayan blackberry. Rock removal will
be done from the banks, and minimal in-water work is anticipated. All disturbed areas will
be planted with native woody vegetation. These plantings will not be monitored and
maintained as those at Steelhead Haven, but will be included in the revegetation efforts at the
site by the Native Plant Program.

97

Untitled

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Untitled

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

EMERGENCY FLOOD CONTROL AND BANK PROTECTION

Вам также может понравиться