HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_Cedar River Trestle Bridge RepairPLANNING DIVISION
CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION
FROM SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
PROJECT NUMBER:
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT MANAGER:Angelea Weihs, Assoicate Planner
LUA19-000247, SME
Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs
October 04, 2019
APPLICANT:Alan Wyatt
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
PROJECT LOCATION:To the southwest of Maple Valley Hwy and Monroe Ave SE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The City of Renton Parks Department is requesting approval of a Shoreline Exemption
for proposed maintenance repairs of an existing pedestrian bridge over the Cedar River
in located on parcel numbers 1623059023 and 1623059078. The pedestrian bridge
comprises a steel trestle superstructure, substructures (piers and abutments on the
east and west banks), a concrete deck, pedestrian guardrails, and various timber
trestle elements. Work will be located within the Cedar River Regulated Shoreline
Jurisdiction (Shoreline High Intensity; Cedar River Reach C).
A Biological Evaluation, prepared by WSP USA (Exhibit 1, dated May 2019), was
submitted with the project application. The timber elements of the bridge and approach
trestle were the subject of 2017 and 2018 inspections conducted by WSP (formerly
BergerABAM), which found degradation in two of the timber piles supporting the north
abutment and in some of the timbers in the pad supporting the steel truss bridge. The
report states that timber facing for the abutment has deteriorated and subsequent loss
of material weakened the abutment. The proposed repairs will rebuild the abutment
within its current footprint by repairing timber piles, repairing/replacing timber facing,
and replacing lost material behind the facing. The report concludes that repairs will be
made to existing serviceable facilities and conducted within the existing footprint of the
facilities, with minimal environmental impacts.
SEC-TWN-R: SW16 - 23 - 5
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(King County Assessor)FORMER BURLINGTON NORTHERN RR 100-FT WIDE RIGHT
OF WAY IN SE QTR SW QTR STR 16-23-05 EAST OF PARCEL
3 CITY OF RENTON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO LUA
13-000410 RECORDING NO 20140326900013 AND IN SW QTR
SE QTR STR 16-23-05
WATER BODY/REACH:
EXEMPTION JUSTIFICATION: An exemption from a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit is hereby
Approved on the proposed project in accordance with RMC 4.9.190C 'Exemption from Permit System' and for the
following reasons:
Maintenance and Repair: Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by
Page 1 of 2
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Certificate of Exemption from Shoreline Substantial Development
Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs LUA19-000247, SME
accident, fire or elements.
The proposed development is:
Consistent with the policies of the Shoreline Management Act.
Consistent with the guidelines of the Department of Ecology where no Master Program has been finally approved or
adopted by the Department.
Consistent with the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program.
SIGNATURE & DATE OF DECISION:
DateJennifer Henning
RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party of record may request that the decision be
reopened by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily
discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of
the reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be
no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within
the 14 day appeal time frame.
APPEALS: The administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing together with the required
fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 on or before 5:00 pm, on
October 18, 2019 (RCW 43.21.C075(3); WAC 197-11-680). RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner
and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's office, Renton
City Hall, 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510.
EXPIRATION: Two (2) years from the date of decision (date signed)
Attachments:Biological Evaluation
Alan Wyatt - Applicantcc:
Page 2 of 2
Biological Evaluation
City of Renton
Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs
Submitted to:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle District
Seattle, Washington
On Behalf of Applicant:
City of Renton, Parks Division
Renton, Washington
May 2019
Submitted by
WSP USA
33301 Ninth Avenue South, Suite 300
Federal Way, Washington
A19.0010.00
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page ii of iii
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
CITY OF RENTON
CEDAR RIVER TRESTLE BRIDGE REPAIRS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 PURPOSE OF BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION......................................................................1
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION AREA .......................................................................1
2.1 Proposed Action .................................................................................................1
2.2 Duration of Activities..........................................................................................3
2.3 Minimization Measures and Best Management Practices.............................3
2.4 Action Area .........................................................................................................4
3.0 STATUS OF SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT .............................................................6
4.0 BIOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................................6
4.1 Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)................................................7
4.2 Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)....................................................................8
4.3 Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)...................................................................8
4.4 Critical Habitat Designation for Each ESU/DPS..............................................9
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE.......................................................................................11
5.1 General Setting ................................................................................................11
5.2 Terrestrial and Riparian Habitat .....................................................................12
5.3 Aquatic Habitat ................................................................................................12
6.0 MATRIX OF PATHWAYS AND INDICATORS ANALYSIS...............................................12
6.1 Water Quality....................................................................................................13
6.2 Habitat Access .................................................................................................14
6.3 Habitat Elements .............................................................................................14
6.4 Channel Conditions and Dynamics.................................................................16
6.5 Flow/Hydrology................................................................................................16
6.6 Watershed Conditions .....................................................................................17
6.7 Pathways and Indicators Specific to Bull Trout Only ....................................18
7.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ............................................................................................18
7.1 Direct Effects....................................................................................................18
7.2 Indirect Effects.................................................................................................19
7.3 Effects from Interdependent and Interrelated Actions.................................20
7.4 Effects Determinations for Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat
...........................................................................................................................20
8.0 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................22
9.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...............................................................25
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page iii of iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Proposed Repairs, Locations within the Project Area, and Repair Methods.........2
Table 2. Species Listed under the ESA Addressed in this BE ................................................6
Table 3. Species Listed but Not Addressed in this BE............................................................6
Table 4. Salmon Critical Habitat Designation and Description...........................................10
Table 5. Overview of Environmental Baseline Conditions at Action Area and Watershed
Scales.......................................................................................................................................13
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Figures (Sheets 1 to 7)
Appendix B – Species Lists
Appendix C – Essential Fish Habitat
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 1 of 25
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
CITY OF RENTON
CEDAR RIVER TRAIL TRESTLE BRIDGE REPAIRS
1.0 PURPOSE OF BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
The City of Renton (City) Parks Department proposes maintenance repairs of an
existing pedestrian bridge over the Cedar River in Renton, Washington (Sheets 1-7).
The pedestrian bridge compriss a steel trestle superstructure, substructures (piers and
abutments on the east and west banks), a concrete deck, pedestrian guardrails, and
various timber trestle elements (Sheet 2). Condition assessments performed in 2017
and 2018 indicate the need for maintenance repairs at the bridge and abutment.
The proposed actions will involve work below the ordinary high water mark
(OHWM) of the Cedar River channel, which will require a Section 404 permit
(Nationwide Permit No. 3) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This
represents a federal nexus requiring the USACE to evaluate the potential for effects to
species or critical habitats listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). The USACE will serve as the lead agency in this consultation.
The purpose of this biological evaluation (BE) is to evaluate the potential effects of
the proposed activities on ESA-listed species for purposes of consultation with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration [NOAA] Fisheries), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
under Section 7 of the ESA.
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION AREA
2.1 PROPOSED ACTION
The purpose of the project is to conduct needed maintenance, repair, and replacement
of portions of the pedestrian bridge over the Cedar River in Renton, Washington
(Sheets 2 to 6).
The timber elements of the bridge and approach trestle were the subject of 2017 and
2018 inspections conducted by WSP (formerly BergerABAM), which found
degradation in two of the timber piles supporting the north abutment and in some of
the timbers in the pad supporting the steel truss bridge. Timber facing for the
abutment has deteriorated and subsequent loss of material weakened the abutment.
The proposed repairs will rebuild the abutment within its current footprint by
repairing timber piles, repairing/replacing timber facing, and replacing lost material
behind the facing.
Repairs will be made to existing serviceable facilities and conducted within the
existing footprint of the facilities with minimal environmental impacts.
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 2 of 25
2.1.1 Maintenance and Repair Activities
Table 1 summarizes the proposed maintenance and repair activities.
Table 1. Proposed Repairs, Locations within the Project Area, and Repair Methods
Repair Item Location Item Size Repair Method
Piles West Bridge
Pier
12-inch Replace with 12-inch steel pipe pile.
Timber Facing West Bridge
Pier
4-inch by 12-
inch
Replace in-kind with 4-inch by 12-inch timber
boards secured with new lag bolts.
Riprap West Bridge
Pier
>6-inch Riprap stones greater than six inches thick will be
hand placed in an approximate 50 square foot
section at the base of the west bridge timber piles.
Organic Loose
Debris Removal
Trestle -Loose organic debris will be removed by hand
within the bottom of the bridge trestle.
2.1.1.1 Pile Repairs
Two 12-inch timber piles at the west bridge pier will be replaced with12-inch steel
pipe piles. Existing timber piles will be cut off just below mudline and hoisted out by
a boom crane. Piles will be installed by setting the new steel pile on the existing pile
stub, preloading the new steel pile, and welding the pile extension into place. Pile
replacement will not result in any additional fill as the existing soil will be placed
back into the excavation.
2.1.1.2 Timber Facing Repairs
Failing timber facing above and below the OHWM will be removed, replaced in kind,
and secured with lag bolts. Timber facing in good condition will be removed and
reinstalled with lag bolts. The facing will be secured to the new steel piles with
U-bolts. A total of approximately 10 timber boards will be installed (Sheets 5 and 6).
2.1.1.3 Riprap Placement
Riprap will be confined to the footprint of the pier and will be contained by the piles
and timber facing. The placement of additional riprap will not expand the footprint of
shoreline armoring. Light, loose pieces of riprap will be placed in an approximate 4-
foot linear section at the base of the west bridge timber piles (Sheets 5 and 6). Riprap
placement will be per 2018 WSDOT standards ([9-13.1(4)] Hand Placed Riprap).
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 3 of 25
Hand-placed riprap will be nearly rectangular in shape and 60 percent of the hand-
placed riprap will have a volume of no less than 1 cubic foot. All riprap stones will be
greater than 6 inches thick.
2.1.1.4 Organic Loose Debris Removal
Loose organic debris will be removed by hand within the bottom of the bridge trestle.
The work will be fully contained, and the contractor will not allow debris to enter the
river below.
2.2 DURATION OF ACTIVITIES
The proposed action will be conducted during the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife (WDFW) and USACE-approved in-water work window for waters of
the Cedar River each year between 16 July and 31 December. Construction is
expected to start in July 2019.
2.3 MINIMIZATION MEASURES AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The project has adopted impact minimization measures and best management
practices (BMPs) to reduce, eliminate, or minimize the effects of the project to listed
species or habitat and are described below.
2.3.1 Minimization Measures
The proposed action includes the following measures to avoid and minimize the
potential for adverse environmental effects. General impact avoidance and
minimization measures include those listed below.
Over-water work will be conducted only during the approved in-water work
window for salmon and bull trout in the Cedar River (16 July to 31 December).
Project construction will be completed in compliance with Washington State
Water Quality Standards (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173-201A),
including
Petroleum products, fresh cement, lime, concrete, chemicals, or other toxic or
deleterious materials will not be allowed to enter surface waters.
There will be no discharge of oil, fuels, or chemicals to surface waters or onto
land where there is a potential for reentry into surface waters.
Fuel hoses, oil drums, oil or fuel transfer valves, fittings, etc., will be checked
regularly for leaks, and materials will be maintained and stored properly to
prevent spills.
A spill prevention, control, and countermeasures (SPCC) plan will be prepared by
the contractor and used during all demolition and construction operations. A copy
of the plan with any updates will be maintained at the work site.
The SPCC plan will outline BMPs, responsive actions in the event of a spill or
release, and notification and reporting procedures. The plan will also outline
management elements, such as personnel responsibilities, project site security,
site inspections, and training.
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 4 of 25
The SPCC plan will outline the measures to prevent the release or spread of
hazardous materials found on site or encountered during construction but not
identified in contract documents, including any hazardous materials that are
stored, used, or generated on site during construction activities. These items
include, but are not limited to, gasoline, diesel fuel, oils, and chemicals.
Applicable spill response equipment and material designated in the SPCC plan
will be maintained at the job site.
2.3.2 General Best Management Practices
Typical construction BMPs for working in, over, and near water will be applied,
including activities, such as the following.
Checking equipment for leaks and other problems that could result in the
discharge of petroleum-based products or other material into the water.
Corrective actions will be taken in the event of any discharge of oil, fuel, or
chemicals into the water, including
Containment and cleanup efforts will begin immediately upon discovery of
the spill and be completed in an expeditious manner in accordance with all
local, state, and federal regulations. Spill response will take precedence over
normal work. Cleanup will include proper disposal of any spilled material and
used cleanup material.
The cause of the spill will be ascertained and appropriate actions taken to
prevent further incidents or environmental damage.
Spills will be reported to the Washington State Department of Ecology’s
(Ecology) Northwest Regional Spill Response Office at 425/649-7000.
Excess or waste materials will not be disposed of or abandoned waterward of the
OHWM or allowed to enter waters of the state. Waste materials will be disposed
of in an appropriate manner consistent with applicable local, state, and federal
regulations.
Demolition and construction materials will not be stored where upland runoff can
cause materials to enter surface waters.
Oil-absorbent materials will be present on site for use in the event of a spill or if
any oil product is observed in the water.
2.4 ACTION AREA
This section describes the action area for the proposed activities. The action area is
the defined geographic area that could be affected by the direct and indirect effects of
the proposed project. The action area (Sheet 7) has been established based on the
following.
The project footprint, which will be limited to the physical locations of the
maintenance activities.
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 5 of 25
The extent of temporarily elevated terrestrial noise levels associated with
construction activities.
The extent of temporary effects to water quality during construction.
2.4.1 Project Footprint
The action area includes the overall footprint of the proposed action, which includes
the structures to be repaired or replaced at the bridge. The placement of riprap to
repair the previous protection on the west pier is confined to the footprint of existing
riprap at the base of the west bridge pier. There will be no increase in the overall
amount of bank armoring as a result of this project. The action area also includes the
locations of equipment and material staging. Equipment and materials will be staged
in developed upland portions of the site.
2.4.2 Terrestrial Noise
The project has the potential to generate low levels of terrestrial noise associated with
conducting the proposed maintenance and repair activities. The standard construction
equipment that will be required includes a crane, generators, vacuum, and the hand
and power tools used to conduct the repairs. Because most of the work will be
conducted overwater and in the dry, the project is not expected to measurably elevate
underwater noise.
The levels of terrestrial noise that will be generated will be minimal and are not
expected to be elevated significantly above the ambient noise levels at the site. For
purposes of a conservative estimate, the action area includes an area extending
approximately 200 feet from the boundaries of the site, which accounts for operation
of machinery and hand tools. However, no measurable or significant effects related to
terrestrial noise is anticipated.
2.4.3 Water Quality
As with any construction project, the proposed maintenance activities have the
potential to result in temporary effects to water quality within the action area during
construction. Temporary water quality-related effects could result from construction
debris accidentally entering the water and/or accidental spills from construction
equipment. Maintenance activities could potentially result in the temporary local
elevation of turbidity levels in the Cedar River from the implementation of the
proposed minimization measures and BMPs, including a debris-collection plan, will
reduce the potential for any measurable effects to a level that is insignificant.
An approximate 300-foot point of compliance downstream from the proposed project
activities represents a conservative estimate of the potential zone of influence from
temporary reductions in water quality associated with the project activities, as
designated in WAC 173-201A-200. No measurable or significant effects are
anticipated as a result of the proposed maintenance.
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 6 of 25
3.0 STATUS OF SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT
This section discusses the ESA-listed species and critical habitat known to occur, or
with the potential to occur, within the action area (see Appendices B and C for the
species list and essential fish habitat summary).
Information for this BE regarding listed species was obtained from the USFWS
website (USFWS 2019) and the NMFS website (NMFS 2019) on 14 April 2019.
Additional information came from the WDFW Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
(WDFW 2019a) and SalmonScape databases (WDFW 2019b).
Table 2. Species Listed under the ESA Addressed in this BE
Species Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name ESU or DPS*
ESA
Listing
Status
Critical
Habitat
Critical
Habitat in
Action Area
Chinook
Salmon
(Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
Puget Sound
ESU
Threatened Designated Yes
Steelhead (Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
Puget Sound
DPS
Threatened Designated Yes
Bull Trout (Salvelinus
confluentus)
Coastal Puget
Sound DPS
Threatened Designated No
*ESU =Evolutionarily Significant Unit; DPS=Distinct Population Segment
According to the USFWS and NMFS species lists, although the species listed in
Table 4, and/or their designated critical habitat, do occur, or may occur, within King
County, they are not addressed in this BE for the reasons that are discussed below.
Table 3. Species Listed but Not Addressed in this BE
Species Name
Common Name Scientific Name ESA Listing Status
Streaked horned lark Eremophila alpestris strigata Threatened
Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened
Gray wolf Canis lupus Proposed Endangered
North American wolverine Gulo gulo luscus Proposed Endangered
Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened
While information from USFWS (USFWS 2019) identified the potential for streaked
horned lark, yellow-billed cuckoo, gray wolf, and North American wolverine to occur
within the County, WDFW PHS data does not indicate any known occurrence of
these species within the action area. In addition, the action area does not provide any
suitable habitat for these species. Based on the lack of suitable habitat for the species
listed in Table 4, it is determined that the proposed project will have no effect on
them, and they are not addressed further in this BE.
4.0 BIOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS
This section describes the biological requirements of the listed species that have the
potential to occur within the action area. These descriptions include run timing,
biological requirements, and factors affecting recovery.
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 7 of 25
4.1 CHINOOK SALMON (ONCORHYNCHUS TSHAWYTSCHA)
The Puget Sound ESU of Chinook salmon includes all naturally spawned populations
of Chinook salmon from rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound (70 FR52630).
Puget Sound ESU Chinook salmon are listed as threatened by NMFS under the ESA.
Critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon was designated in 2005 and consists
of river and marine nearshore habitat within the Puget Sound basin. Critical habitat
for Puget Sound Chinook salmon is present within the action area.
4.1.1 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Compared to the other Pacific salmon, Chinook salmon have the most complex life
history with a large variety of patterns. The length of freshwater and saltwater
residency varies greatly (Myers et al. 1998). Channel size and morphology, substrate
size and quality, water quality, and cover type and abundance may influence
distribution and abundance of Chinook salmon (Lower Columbia Fish Recovery
Board [LCFRB] 2004). After three to five years in the ocean, Puget Sound stocks
return to the local rivers and tributaries to spawn in the spring and fall. Spawning
occurs in the main stems of larger tributaries in coarse gravel and cobble (Myers et al.
1998).
Most juvenile summer/fall Chinook salmon in the river systems discharging to the
Puget Sound migrate to the marine environment as smolts during their first year,
although their early life history patterns vary. Some migrate downstream almost
immediately after emerging from the gravel. Others migrate downstream and enter
side channels where they may rear for several weeks before migrating to marine
waters. A third life-history strategy involves a more extended rearing time (up to
two years) in the river before migrating to saltwater.
4.1.2 Status
Chinook salmon populations are significantly reduced from historic levels. The Puget
Sound ESU has shown a precipitous drop since 1973, and the stock status is currently
identified as critical (Smith 2003). Habitat degradation associated with stream
blockages, channelization, contamination, forest practices, and urbanization are listed
as the primary causes of decline in the Puget Sound ESU Chinook salmon population.
4.1.3 Presence in Action Area
Puget Sound ESU Chinook salmon adults may potentially migrate through the action
area almost year-round but primarily during the spring and fall. Any adult Puget
Sound ESU Chinook salmon found in the Cedar River may be stopping temporarily
to feed but likely would not be using the project site for rearing.
The portion of the Cedar River that is within the action area does not provide any
suitable spawning or rearing habitat for Chinook salmon (King County 1993). If they
are present, migrating adults are expected to be moving quickly through the action
area.
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 8 of 25
Puget Sound ESU Chinook salmon juveniles could be foraging within the action area
but would not be expected to use the exposed, non-vegetated areas in the vicinity of
the project extensively.
4.2 STEELHEAD (ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS)
Puget Sound DPS steelhead are listed as threatened by NOAA Fisheries under the
ESA (11 May 2007; 72 FR 26722). The action area within the Cedar River adjacent
to the project area represents a migration corridor for this DPS. Critical habitat was
proposed for Puget Sound DPS steelhead on 25 March 2016 and includes estuarine
and riverine habitat. Critical habitat for Puget Sound DPS steelhead is present within
the action area.
4.2.1 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Steelhead is a more widely distributed anadromous fish than salmonids. Spawning
occurs throughout the winter and spring seasons. Summer-run fish populations are
smaller than winter-run fish as they use a smaller portion of stream for spawning.
Wild fish mature for up to two years in freshwater habitat and migrate quickly to the
open ocean, bypassing the use of shallow, nearshore habitat (Behnke 1992). Adult
steelhead trout will spend up to three years in the open ocean before returning to their
rearing grounds (NOAA 2016).
Steelhead use a variety of habitats throughout the freshwater portion of their life
history. As with all salmonid species, water temperatures and intra-gravel flow are
also important for spawning and incubation. After fry emerge from the gravels, they
seek complex habitat of boulders, rootwads, and woody material along the stream
margins. As juveniles get older and larger, they move downstream to rear in larger
tributaries and main stem rivers. Undercut banks, large woody debris (LWD), and
boulders are all used by larger juveniles.
4.2.2 Status
Factors contributing to the decline of Puget Sound DPS steelhead include blocked
access to historical habitat, habitat degradation, channelization, contamination, forest
practices, and urbanization. The primary limiting factors for this DPS are degradation
and fragmentation of freshwater habitat. Most populations of this DPS are declining
annually by between 3 to 10 percent with a moderate to high extinction risk within
100 years (NMFS 2011).
4.2.3 Presence in Action Area
The Cedar River drains to lower Lake Washington, which connects to Puget Sound.
The Cedar River contains a Puget Sound ESU/DPU winter-run steelhead stock. Wild
winter-run fish run from February through April while hatchery fish run from mid-
November through mid-February.
4.3 BULL TROUT (SALVELINUS CONFLUENTUS)
The Puget Sound DPS bull trout are listed as threatened by the USFWS under the
ESA. Nearshore marine areas are identified as critical habitat for bull trout in addition
to various rivers and creeks. (70 FR 56212-56311). The Puget Sound DPS includes
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 9 of 25
all natural spawning populations of bull trout in the Puget Sound basin, including in
the streams that flow into Puget Sound. The Puget Sound DPS bull trout is a federal
threatened species. Bull trout are piscivorous and are the only native char.
4.3.1 Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Compared to other salmonids, bull trout are thought to have more specific habitat
requirements and are most often associated with undisturbed habitat with diverse
cover and structure. Spawning and rearing are thought to be primarily restricted to
relatively pristine cold streams, often within headwater reaches (Rieman and
McIntyre 1993). Adults can reside in lakes, reservoirs, and coastal areas or they can
migrate to saltwater (63 FR 31647). Juveniles are typically associated with shallow
backwater or side-channel areas, while older individuals are often found in deeper
pools sheltered by large organic debris, vegetation, or undercut banks (63 FR 31467).
Water temperature is also a critical factor for bull trout, and areas where water
temperature exceeds 59°F (15°C) are thought to limit distribution (Rieman and
McIntyre 1993).
4.3.2 Status
Key factors in the decline of bull trout populations include harvest by anglers,
impacts to watershed biological integrity, and the isolation and fragmentation of
populations. Changes in sediment delivery (particularly to spawning areas),
degradation and scouring, shading (high water temperature), water quality, and low
hydrologic cycles adversely affect bull trout. Therefore, impacted watersheds are
negatively associated with current populations. Additionally, bull trout appear to be
affected negatively by non-native trout species through competition and
hybridization.
4.3.3 Presence in Action Area
Within the Cedar River Municipal Watershed, bull trout are found in portions of
several tributaries to Chester Morse Lake, which includes the Cedar River. Critical
habitat for bull trout is designated throughout Lake Washington north of the action
area.
4.4 CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR EACH ESU/DPS
This section describes the critical habitat designations and/or proposals for each ESA-
listed species that could potentially occur within the action area.
4.4.1 Salmon and Steelhead
Critical habitat has been designated within the action area for the ESU/DPS of ESA-
listed salmon that may occur within the action area. Table 5 summarizes critical
habitat designations and descriptions for Chinook and steelhead.
The proposed action occurs within critical habitat for Puget Sound DPS steelhead.
Critical habitat was proposed for Puget Sound DPS steelhead in January 2013 and
includes several freshwater rivers (Cedar River) and tributaries that empty into Lake
Washington.
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 10 of 25
Table 4. Salmon Critical Habitat Designation and Description
Species and
ESU/DPS
Date of Critical
Habitat Proposal Description of Critical Habitat
Chinook Salmon
Puget Sound ESU 16 February 2000 River subbasins: Nooksack, Upper Skagit, Sauk, Lower
Skagit, Stillaguamish, Skykomish, Snoqualmie, Snohomish,
Duwamish, Puyallup, Nisqually, Skokomish, and
Dungeness/Elwha
Lake Washington, Hood Canal, Nearshore Marine Areas of
the Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and the
Strait of Juan de Fuca (to the west edge of the Elwha River
Delta)
Steelhead
Puget Sound DPS 14 January 2013 Fresh water and estuarine habitat in Puget Sound, including
the Snohomish River and tributaries
4.4.1.1 Primary Constituent Elements
This section consists of a discussion of the primary constituent elements (PCEs) that
have been identified for ESA-listed salmon and steelhead and the potential for their
presence within the action area.
1. Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and
substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development.
Action area: The action area includes the freshwater habitats of the Cedar River
basin. This PCE is present within the action area.
2. Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to
form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth
and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and
natural cover, such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log
jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side
channels, and undercut banks.
Action area: The action area includes the freshwater habitat of the Cedar River. This
PCE is present within the action area.
3. Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and
quality conditions and natural cover, such as submerged and overhanging
large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and
undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival.
Action area: The action area includes the freshwater habitat of the Cedar River. This
PCE is present within the action area.
4. Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity and
salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions
between fresh- and saltwater; natural cover, such as submerged and
overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 11 of 25
side channels, and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates
and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
Action area: The action area includes the freshwater habitat of the Cedar River.
Estuarine habitat is not present within the action area and, therefore, this PCE is not
present within the action area.
5. Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity
conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting
growth and maturation; and natural cover, such as submerged and
overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and
side channels.
Action area: The action area includes the freshwater habitat of the Cedar River and
nearshore marine waters are not present within the action area. This PCE is not
present within the action area.
6. Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including
aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
Action area: There are no offshore marine areas within the action area. This PCE is
not present within the action area.
4.4.2 Bull Trout
Critical habitat has been designated for bull trout but does not occur within the action
area.
4.4.3 Marbled Murrelet
Critical habitat has been designated for marbled murrelet (76 FR 65324) but none
occur within the action area.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
This section outlines the presence and condition of aquatic and terrestrial habitat
features within the action area as they pertain to the species addressed in this BE. The
following sections summarize the baseline habitat conditions at both the action area
and watershed scales, and then analyze the likely effects that the proposed action
would have on the baseline conditions at both scales.
5.1 GENERAL SETTING
The proposed activities will occur on an existing pedestrian bridge over the Cedar
River in Renton, Washington (Sheets 1 and 2). The project site is within Water
Resource Inventory Area 8, Cedar-Sammamish watershed, and is located within
Hydraulic Unit Code 17110012.
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) owns the property
that is used as a pedestrian and bicycle trail as part of the Cedar River trail system,
which originates in the Renton area (Sheets 1 and 3) and runs south adjacent to WA
169 where it terminates near Landsburg Park. Adjacent parcels are developed with
single-family residences. The City owns the parcels to the north, and these parcels are
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 12 of 25
used as a parking area for site access to the Cedar River trail. The City also owns the
vacant parcels to the west and southwest of the project parcel.
The shoreline of the Cedar River has been altered from its natural condition. Portions
of the shoreline are artificially hardened with riprap. Pile-supported structures like
bridges are common along the shoreline.
5.2 TERRESTRIAL AND RIPARIAN HABITAT
Terrestrial habitat, defined as areas landward of the top of bank, within the action area
consist largely of native and non-native vegetation near the top of the bank, including
red alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), bigleaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum), English ivy (Hedera helix), and sparse patches of sword fern
(Polystichum munitum). Beyond the top of the bank are developed areas, including a
parking lot, residential areas, and a highway (State Route 169 [SR 169]).
Riparian habitat is defined as the zone above ordinary high water (OHW). Riparian
habitat along the Cedar River generally consists of deciduous trees that provide
overwater shading for cooler water temperatures. The overhanging vegetation
contributes organic matter input to the river system providing a forage base for
benthic invertebrates and, consequently, a greater source of food for predatory fish.
The Cedar River riparian habitat also provides foraging, roosting, and breeding
habitat for migratory birds.
5.3 AQUATIC HABITAT
The project is located at the pedestrian bridge traversing the Cedar River that flows
north and drains to Lake Washington. The Cedar River provides aquatic habitat for a
variety of species of fish and wildlife. The river provides cool, clear water and
substrate for fish rearing, spawning, migration, and foraging. The Cedar River is an
unblocked passage for fish migrating to Lake Washington. Waterfowl also use the
low-elevation coniferous forest on the banks of the river for foraging.
6.0 MATRIX OF PATHWAYS AND INDICATORS ANALYSIS
An evaluation of the baseline watershed habitat conditions within the action area was
conducted according to the guidance outlined in Making Endangered Species Act
Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale
(NMFS 1996). The evaluation assessed several baseline indicators of habitat quality
and determined whether the proposed action would restore, maintain, or degrade
existing baseline conditions at the watershed and action area level. Table 8 shows the
results of this analysis.
In general, the environmental baseline conditions within the action area are degraded.
As indicated in Table 8, most of the indicators of environmental condition are not
properly functioning, or are functioning at risk, at both the watershed and action area
scales. There is little functioning estuarine or intertidal habitat within the action area
because of the extent of historic development.
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 13 of 25
Table 5. Overview of Environmental Baseline Conditions at Action Area and Watershed Scales
Diagnostic/Pathway Indicators
Baseline
Environmental
Conditions
Effects of Project Activities
Water Quality
Temperature PF Maintain
Sediment/Turbidity PF Maintain
Chemical Contamination/Nutrients PF Maintain
Habitat Access
Physical Barriers PF Maintain
Habitat Elements
Substrate PF Maintain
Large Woody Debris PF Maintain
Pool Frequency PF Maintain
Pool Quality PF Maintain
Off-Channel Habitat NPF Maintain
Refugia NPF Maintain
Channel Conditions/Dynamics
Width/Depth Ratio PF Maintain
Shoreline Condition NPF Maintain
Floodplain Connectivity NPF Maintain
Flow/Hydrology
Change in Peak/Base Flows NPF Maintain
Increase in Drainage Network NPF Maintain
Watershed Conditions
Road Density and Location NPF Maintain
Disturbance History NPF Maintain
Riparian Reserves PF Maintain
Notes: NPF-Not Properly Functioning; PF=Properly Functioning; NA-Not Applicable
Source: Information in this table has been derived from Current and Future Conditions Summary Report Cedar River (King County
Surface Water Management) 1993.
6.1 WATER QUALITY
6.1.1 Water Temperature
Average temperatures within the lower Cedar River are generally below 15°C.
Shallower water temperatures may exceed this level but is not expected to exceed
state water quality thresholds. Within the action area and watershed, baseline
conditions for water temperature are determined to be properly functioning.
The proposed action will maintain this indicator at both the action area and
watershed scales.
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 14 of 25
6.1.2 Sediment/Turbidity
Sediments within the portion of the Cedar River within the action area are
predominantly fine-grained. The average level of turbidity in the Cedar River is low,
based on routine monitoring performed between 2009 and 2019 (King County 2019).
Within the action area and watershed scales, baseline conditions for sediment and
turbidity are determined to be properly functioning.
The proposed action will maintain this indicator at both the action area and
watershed scales.
6.1.3 Chemical Contamination/Nutrients
Water quality is not a limiting factor in the Cedar River. The 2012 Environmental
Protection Agency 303d list does not identify any contaminants as present within the
action area. Within the action area and watershed, baseline conditions for chemical
and nutrient contamination are determined to be properly functioning.
The proposed action will maintain this indicator at both the action area and
watershed scales. The project will have no measurable long-term effects on chemical
contamination or nutrient loading within the Cedar River, and BMPs will be
sufficient to ensure that the project does not result in any contaminant releases.
6.2 HABITAT ACCESS
6.2.1 Physical Barriers
There are no barriers to fish migration within the action area. For this reason, within
the action area, baseline conditions for physical barriers are determined to be
properly functioning.
The proposed action will maintain this indicator at both the action area and
watershed scales. The proposed activities will not pose a significant barrier to fish
passage at any range of flow at either the action area scale or the watershed scale.
6.3 HABITAT ELEMENTS
6.3.1 Substrate
Sedimentation in the river has altered the substrate within the portion of the action
area. According to the Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Summary Report
(King County 1993), removal of forest cover accompanying continuing urbanization
has resulted in increases in sedimentation and erosion. Within the action area,
therefore, as well as at the watershed scale, baseline conditions for substrate are
determined to be properly functioning.
The proposed action will maintain this indicator at both the action area and
watershed scales in the long term.
6.3.2 Large Woody Debris
Most of the lower main stem of the Cedar River contains low volumes of LWD.
LWD has historically been removed from the Cedar River, which has altered the river
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 15 of 25
by increasing the energy of floodwater and degrading pools (King County 1993). Any
LWD input to the action area comes from the riparian vegetation along river. Within
the action area, therefore, baseline conditions for LWD are determined to be properly
functioning.
The proposed action will maintain this indicator at the action area scale and
maintain it at the watershed scale in the long term. The proposed action will not
result in any impacts to riparian vegetation or habitat and will not affect the
opportunity for future recruitment.
6.3.3 Pool Frequency
Within the Renton reach of the Cedar River, there are very few documented pools, if
any. The frequency of pool habitat within the waters of the action area is low due to
armored banks and low volumes of LWD. River flows are also controlled and
diverted by levees, decreasing the opportunity for pools to form (King County 1993).
Within the action area, therefore, baseline conditions for pool frequency are
determined to be properly functioning.
The proposed action will maintain this indicator at both the action area and
watershed scales.
6.3.4 Pool Quality
There is very little to no pool habitat within the action area on the Cedar River.
Within the action area, therefore, baseline conditions for pool quality are determined
to be properly functioning.
The proposed action will maintain this indicator at both the action area and
watershed scales.
6.3.5 Off-Channel Habitat
There is a limited amount of off-channel habitat within the action area. Off-channel
habitats have largely been eliminated over time on this main stem stretch of the Cedar
River. Wetlands, ponds, and side channels, important ecological habitats for the
development of young salmonids, are reduced from historic conditions (King County
1993). Baseline conditions for off-channel habitat are not properly functioning
within the action area.
The proposed action will maintain this indicator at the action area scale and at the
watershed scale. The proposed action will not result in any impacts to off-channel
habitat at either the watershed or the action area scale.
6.3.6 Refugia
The shoreline within the action area consists of hardened and armored shoreline.
Riparian habitat along the Cedar River generally consists of deciduous trees but is
limited. Vegetation at the top of the bank generally consists of native and non-native
plants, including red alder (Alnus rubra), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa),
bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), English ivy (Hedera helix), and sparse patches
of sword fern (Polystichum munitum). There are no side channels present within the
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 16 of 25
action area. Baseline conditions for refugia within the action area and watershed
scales are not properly functioning.
The proposed action will maintain this indicator at both the action area and
watershed scales. The proposed action will not result in any impacts to the quality or
quantity of refugia at either the watershed or action area scale.
6.4 CHANNEL CONDITIONS AND DYNAMICS
6.4.1 Width/Depth Ratio
The average width of the Cedar River is 111 feet (Gendaszek et al., 2012). The width
has decreased over time due to reduced flood flows from upstream dams, which
resulted in a change from the historic braided river pattern with multiple channels to a
single-thread pattern. The channel depth fluctuates based on the frequency of flooding
events, dredging, and the decreasing channel width over time (King County 1993).
This indicator is determined to be properly functioning at the action area and
watershed scales.
The proposed action will maintain this indicator at both the action area and
watershed scales in the long term.
6.4.2 Streambank Condition
Most of the shoreline of the Cedar River in the action area has been armored and
developed (King County 1993). The indicator for streambank condition within the
action area is not properly functioning.
The proposed action will maintain this indicator at both the action area and
watershed scales in the long term. The proposed action will not result in any
significant impacts to streambank condition at either the action area or the watershed
scale.
6.4.3 Floodplain Connectivity
There is little natural floodplain habitat within the action area. Historic development
and shoreline armoring have led to a condition where most of the terrestrial portion of
the action area is completely removed from any floodplain. Conditions are similar
throughout the watershed (King County 1993). Therefore, within the action area and
at the watershed scale, floodplain connectivity is determined to be not properly
functioning.
The proposed action will maintain this indicator at both the action area and
watershed scales in the long term. The proposed action will not result in any impacts
to floodplain connectivity within the action area or at the watershed scale.
6.5 FLOW/HYDROLOGY
6.5.1 Change in Peak/Base Flows
Development has altered the river landscape through the addition of impervious
surfaces in the action area, which has resulted in changes in flow rates and more
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 17 of 25
frequent flooding events (King County 1993). Therefore, within the action area and at
the watershed scale, change in peak/base flows are determined to be not properly
functioning.
The proposed action will maintain this indicator at both the action area and
watershed scales in the long term. The proposed action will not result in any impacts
to peak/base flows within the action area or at the watershed scale.
6.5.2 Increase in Drainage Network
Stormwater and surface water runoff is high due to development of the surrounding
area, which has led to increased inputs to the Cedar River. There are no wetlands or
lakes within the action area that store water flows from the river (King County 1993).
Therefore, within the action area and at the watershed scale, an increase in drainage
network is determined to be not properly functioning.
The proposed action will maintain this indicator at both the action area and
watershed scales in the long term. The proposed action will not result in any impacts
to the drainage network within the action area or at the watershed scale.
6.6 WATERSHED CONDITIONS
6.6.1 Road Density and Location
In general, road density surrounding the action area is high because of urban
development. Therefore, the indicator for road density and location at both the action
area and watershed is not properly functioning.
The proposed action will maintain this indicator at both the action area and
watershed in the long term.
6.6.2 Disturbance History
Disturbance levels within the action area are above the threshold for proper
functioning because of urban development. The shoreline has been historically altered
and armored throughout the action area. The indicator for disturbance history within
the action area is not properly functioning.
The proposed action will maintain this indicator at both the action area and
watershed scales in the long term. The proposed action will not result in any
significant amount of disturbance at either the action area or the watershed scale.
6.6.3 Riparian Reserves
In general, riparian vegetation adjacent to the action area is composed of deciduous
trees. Riparian habitat in the action area is somewhat limited due to development but
still maintains processes to keep the aquatic ecosystem functioning properly. This
indicator is determined to be properly functioning at the action area and watershed
scales.
The proposed action will maintain this indicator at both the action area and
watershed scales in the long term.
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 18 of 25
6.7 PATHWAYS AND INDICATORS SPECIFIC TO BULL TROUT ONLY
The USFWS provides a matrix of pathways and indicators specific to bull trout. The
proposed action will not affect these indicators significantly; therefore, they are not
addressed in detail here. The specific indicators are as follows.
Subpopulation size
Growth and survival
Life history diversity and isolation
Persistence and genetic integrity
Integration of species and habitat conditions
The proposed action will maintain all of these indicators at both the action area and
watershed scales in the long term. It is possible that bull trout migrating through the
Cedar River may be present when in-water work is being conducted, but bull trout are
likely not present within the action area for significant periods. There is little or no
suitable bull trout rearing or foraging habitat within the action area, and they are more
likely to occur further north in Lake Washington. The proposed action will have no
measurable effect on any of the indicators of proper functioning condition for bull
trout habitat.
7.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
7.1 DIRECT EFFECTS
Direct effects are the direct or immediate impacts of the proposed action to federally
listed species and their habitat. This section addresses potential direct effects that
listed species and critical habitats could experience because of the proposed action
and the likely response to each potential direct effect.
7.1.1 Water Quality
In- and over-water work activities associated with pile repairs and riprap placement
have the potential for direct water-quality impacts. Construction debris can enter the
waterway during construction activities. There is also slight potential for leaks and
spills of fuel, hydraulic fluids, lubricants, and other chemicals from equipment and
storage containers associated with the project. Discharge of vehicle and equipment
wash water, etc., could also add pollutants that could enter the water.
The contractor will be required to provide and implement impact minimization
measures and BMPs, including the preparation of an SPCC plan (see Section 2.3).
Additional BMPs have been included to avoid any potential impacts from hazardous
materials. These BMPs include inspecting construction equipment daily to ensure that
there are no leaks of hydraulic fluids, fuel, lubricants, or other petroleum products and
locating temporary material and equipment staging areas above the OHW of the
action area waterbody and outside environmentally sensitive areas.
The following ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat have the potential to
be exposed to the direct effects of temporarily decreased water quality conditions that
could occur within the action area during project construction.
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 19 of 25
Puget Sound ESU Chinook salmon and designated critical habitat
Puget Sound DPS steelhead and designated critical habitat
Puget Sound DPS bull trout
Marbled murrelet
During the in-water work period, foraging juveniles and migrating adult salmon,
steelhead, and bull trout could be present within the action area. These species, if
present during construction, would likely be feeding and would not be present within
the action area for any significant period.
It is possible that migrating adult and/or rearing juvenile salmon, steelhead, and bull
trout, as well as marbled murrelet could be present within the action area and could be
exposed to temporarily decreased water quality conditions, such as potential debris
contamination. The geographic extent and duration of any potential short-term
decreases in water quality conditions are expected to be limited to within 300 feet
downstream of the work area, and the BMPs implemented for the proposed action
(including the implementation of an SPCC plan) will be sufficient to minimize any
effects.
7.1.2 Noise
The project has the potential to generate low levels of terrestrial noise associated with
conducting the proposed maintenance and repair activities. The standard construction
equipment that will be required includes a boom crane, generators, vacuums, and the
hand and power tools used to conduct the repairs. Because most of the work will be
conducted overwater and in the dry, the project is not expected to measurably elevate
underwater noise. The work will take place upland, and the use of vessels within the
river is not anticipated.
The levels of terrestrial noise that will be generated will be minimal and are not
expected to be elevated significantly above the ambient noise levels at the site.
Ambient noise levels at the site are approximated at 70 decibels, based on traffic
volume and speed on SR 169 adjacent to the site (WSDOT 2018). No measurable or
significant effects related to terrestrial or underwater noise are anticipated from
project activities.
7.1.3 Direct Habitat Impacts
The proposed maintenance and repair activities will occur within the footprint of the
existing facilities and will not result in any increase in benthic impacts or overwater
coverage within the action area. There will be no expansion of the project footprint,
and previously impacted areas will be repaired. The placement of riprap into the
water behind the timber facing will be the only direct impact on habitat.
7.2 INDIRECT EFFECTS
Indirect effects are defined as those effects that are caused by or result from the
proposed action that are later in time but still reasonably certain to occur. The
proposed action will not result in any increase in capacity or any other indirect effects
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 20 of 25
that could affect ESA-listed species. The effects of the proposed action will be limited
to those direct effects associated with the maintenance and repair activities.
7.3 EFFECTS FROM INTERDEPENDENT AND INTERRELATED ACTIONS
Interdependent actions are defined as those actions having no independent utility
apart from the proposed action (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §402-02).
Interdependent actions are typically “because of” the proposed action. Interrelated
actions are defined as those actions that are part of a larger action and depend on the
larger action for their justification (50 CFR §402-02). Interrelated actions are
typically “associated with” the proposed action. Actions associated with the proposed
action include maintenance repairs to an existing pedestrian bridge and the placement
of riprap at the base of the trestle. These actions will take place within the footprint of
the existing pedestrian bridge and the existing shoreline armoring. The effects of the
proposed action are limited to those direct effects associated with the maintenance
and repair activities. There are no interdependent and interrelated effects associated
with this maintenance activity.
7.4 EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS FOR LISTED SPECIES AND DESIGNATED
CRITICAL HABITAT
Based on the description of the proposed action and the analysis provided in this
document, Table 9 lists the effects determinations for ESA-listed species and species
proposed for listing, while Table 10 shows the effects determinations for designated
critical habitats. A summary description of how these effects determinations were
reached for each species and critical habitat follows the tables.
Table 9. Effects Determinations Summary – Species
Species ESU/DPS Federal Status Effect Determination
Chinook Salmon
Puget Sound ESU Threatened NLTAA
Steelhead
Puget Sound DPS Threatened NLTAA
Bull Trout
Coastal Puget Sound DPS Threatened NLTAA
Marbled Murrelet
CA/WA/OR DPS Threatened NLTAA
Notes: LTAA = Likely to Adversely Affect; NLTAA = Not Likely to Adversely Affect; NE = No Effect; ESU = Evolutionarily
Significant Unit; DPS = Distinct Population Segment;
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 21 of 25
Table 10. Effects Determinations Summary - Critical Habitats
Species ESU/DPS Critical Habitat Status Effect Determination
Chinook Salmon
Puget Sound ESU Designated NLTAA
Steelhead
Puget Sound DPS Designated NLTAA
Bull Trout
Puget Sound DPS Designated but not present in action
area
NLTAA
NLTAA = Not Likely to Adversely Affect; NE = No Effect; NA = Not Applicable; ESU = Evolutionarily Significant Unit; DPS =
Distinct Population Segment;
7.4.1 Species
7.4.1.1 Puget Sound ESU Chinook Salmon, Puget Sound DPS Steelhead, and
Puget Sound DPS Bull Trout
The proposed action “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” Puget Sound
ESU Chinook salmon, Puget Sound DPS steelhead, and Puget Sound bull trout.
This determination is warranted based on the following.
The project will require work below the OHWM within waters of the Cedar
River, which represents migratory habitat for adult and juvenile salmon,
steelhead, and bull trout.
The proposed action will conduct work below the OHWM of the Cedar River
during the in-water work period when salmon, steelhead, and bull trout could
potentially be migrating or foraging in the area.
Salmonid use of the action area is limited to moderate-quality foraging and
migration habitat. No freshwater rearing or spawning habitat occurs within the
action area. Even under normal, non-project conditions, migrating adult and
juvenile salmonids likely move through the action area rapidly.
The project has the potential to result in temporarily impaired water quality within
the action area.
The impact minimization and BMPs (described in Section 2.3), including
work within the in-water work window will be sufficient to reduce the
potential for adverse effects to an insignificant level.
The levels of terrestrial noise that will be generated will be de-minimis, and are
not expected to be elevated significantly above the ambient noise levels at the site.
7.4.2 Critical Habitats
7.4.2.1 Designated Salmon and Steelhead Critical Habitat
Critical habitat has been designated for Puget Sound ESU Chinook salmon and Puget
Sound DPS steelhead and occurs within the action area. The effects determination is
that the proposed project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” these
critical habitats. This determination is warranted based on the following rationale.
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 22 of 25
The proposed action will require work below the OHWM within waters of the
Cedar River, which has been designated critical habitat for the ESU/DPS of
salmon and steelhead listed above.
The waters within the action area provide adequate migratory, water quality, and
food base PCEs of critical habitat for the ESU/DPS of salmon and steelhead.
The project has the potential to result in temporarily impaired water quality within
the action area.
Impacts to water quality associated with the proposed action will be temporary in
nature and will not result in any measurable or significant effects to any PCEs of
critical habitat. The impact minimization and BMPs (described in Section 2.3),
including work within the in-water work window, will be sufficient to ensure that
temporarily impaired water quality conditions do not adversely affect any PCE of
critical habitat for salmon, steelhead, or bull trout.
The proposed action has the potential to result in temporarily elevated underwater
noise levels during construction; however, the levels of terrestrial and underwater
noise that will be generated will be minimal and are not expected to be elevated
significantly above the ambient noise levels at the site. Because most of the work
will be conducted overwater and in the dry, the project is not expected to
measurably elevate underwater noise.
The proposed action will not result in any benthic impacts.
8.0 REFERENCES
Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries
Society Monograph 6. Bethesda, Maryland.
BergerABAM. 2018. 2018 Inspection Report Cedar River Railroad Bridge. Draft
Submittal. Submitted to City of Renton, Renton, Washington. July 2018.
City of Seattle. 2007. Seattle Biological Evaluation. Seattle, WA. 1 May 2007.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment Guidance FTA-VA-90-1003-06. May 2006.
Gendaszek, A.S., C.S. Magirl, and C.R. Czuba. 2012. Geomorphic response to flow
regulation and channel and floodplain alteration in the gravel-bedded Cedar
River, Washington, USA. 258-268.
Hamer, T.E., and S.K. Nelson. 1995. Characteristics of marbled murrelet nest trees
and nest stands. In Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Ralph,
C.J., G.L. Hunt, Jr., M.G. Raphael, J.F. Piatt, technical editors. General
Technical Report. PSW-GTR-152. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research
Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 69-82.
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 23 of 25
King County Department of Public Works. 1993. Cedar River Current and Future
Conditions. Summary Report. Seattle, WA. Surface Water Management
Division. October 1993.
King County. 2019. King County Water Quality Monitoring.
https://green2.kingcounty.gov/streamsdata/watershedinfo.aspx?Locator=0438#s
pecialstudies. Accessed May 6, 2019.
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board (LCFRB). 2004. Lower Columbia Salmon
Recovery and Fish and Wildlife Subbasin Plan, Volume I—Regional Plan.
Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright,
W.S. Grant, F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998.
Status Review of Chinook Salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and
California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-
NWFSC-35, 443pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2019. ESA Salmon Listings, available at
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/salmon_and_stee
lhead_listings/salmon_and_steelhead_listings.html. Accessed March 14, 2019.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2011. 5-Year Review: Summary &
Evaluation of Puget Sound Chinook, Hood Canal Summer Chum, Puget
Sound Steelhead.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Making Endangered Species Act
Determinations of Effect for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed
Scale.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2016. Steelhead Trout
(Onchorynchus mykiss)
http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/steelhead-trout.html. Accessed
June 20, 2017.
Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific
Coast salmon plan, Appendix A: Identification and description of Essential Fish
Habitat, adverse impacts, and recommended conservation measures for salmon.
Portland, OR.
Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). 1998a. The Coastal Pelagic Species
Fishery Management Plan: Amendment 8.
Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). 1998b. Final Environmental
Assessment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan.
Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for the
conservation of bull trout Salvelinus confluentus. USDA Forest Service
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 24 of 25
Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-302, Ogden,
UT.
Smith, Carol J. 2003. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Water Resource
Inventory Areas 3 and 4, The Skagit and Samish Basins. Washington State
Conservation Commission. Lacey, WA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Trust
Resources List, Endangered Species Act Species List.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ Accessed March 14, 2019.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2019a. Priority
Habitats and Species List—PHS on the Web. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/
Accessed March 14, 2019.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2019b. WDFW
SalmonScape database. Accessed online at
http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html. Accessed March 14,
2019.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2018. Biological
Assessment Preparation – Advanced Training Manual Version 02-2018.
February 2018.
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Page 25 of 25
9.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BE biological evaluation
BMP best management practice
BRT Biological Review Team
Cadman Cadman Materials, Inc.
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cy cubic yard
DMMP Dredged Material Management Program
DPS distinct population segment
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESU evolutionarily significant unit
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GB Georgia Basin
HDPE high-density polyethylene
LTAA likely to adversely affect
LWD large woody debris
MHHW mean higher high water
MLLW mean lower low water
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act
NE no effect
NLTAA not likely to adversely affect
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPF not properly functioning
NTU nephelometric turbidity unit
OHWM ordinary high water mark
PCE primary constituent element
PF properly functioning
PHS Priority Habitat and Species
SAP sampling and analysis plan
SPCC spill prevention, control, and countermeasures
SRBSRTC Snohomish River Basin Salmonid Recovery Technical Committee
UHMW ultra-high molecular weight
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
APPENDIX B
SPECIES LIST
APPENDIX C
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Appendix C – Essential Fish Habitat Page 1 of 2
APPENDIX C
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
Public Law 104-297, the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, amended the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to establish new
requirements for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) descriptions in federal fishery management plans
and to require federal agencies to consult with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on
activities that may adversely affect EFH.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires consultation for all federal agency actions that may
adversely affect EFH. The action area is within designated EFH for Pacific salmon.
EFH for Pacific salmon in fresh water includes all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other
currently viable bodies of fresh water and the substrates within those waterbodies accessible to
Pacific salmon. Activities occurring above impassable barriers that are likely to adversely affect
EFH below impassable barriers are subject to the consultation provisions of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires consultation for all federal agency actions that may
adversely affect EFH. EFH consultation with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Fisheries is required by federal agencies undertaking, permitting, or funding activities
that may adversely affect EFH, regardless of its location. Under Section 305(b)(4) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, NOAA Fisheries is required to provide EFH conservation and
enhancement recommendations to federal and state agencies for actions that adversely affect
EFH. Wherever possible, NOAA Fisheries uses existing interagency coordination processes to
fulfill EFH consultations with federal agencies. For the proposed action, this goal is being met by
incorporating EFH consultation into the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation,
as represented by this Biological Evaluation.
Location
As stated above, the proposed activities will occur on an existing pedestrian bridge over the
Cedar River in Renton, Washington. The action area is within Water Resource Inventory Area 8,
Cedar-Sammamish watershed, and is located within Hydraulic Unit Code 17110012 (see Section
2.0 for a complete description of the action area).
Description of Project Activities
Degradation was found in two of the timber piles supporting the north abutment and in some of
the timbers in the pad supporting the steel truss bridge. Timber facing for the abutment has
deteriorated and subsequent loss of material weakened the abutment. The proposed repairs will
rebuild the abutment within its current footprint by repairing timber piles, repairing/replacing
timber facing, and replacing lost material behind the facing.
Biological Evaluation WSP USA, A19.0010.00
City of Renton Cedar River Trail Trestle Bridge Repairs May 2019
Renton, Washington Appendix C – Essential Fish Habitat Page 2 of 2
Repairs will be made to existing serviceable facilities and conducted within the existing footprint
of the facilities with minimal environmental impacts. The proposed action is described in detail
in Section 2.0 of this Biological Evaluation.
Potential Adverse Effects of Project Activities
The proposed action has the potential to affect EFH for Pacific salmon species. Specific elements
of the proposed action that could potentially impact EFH are summarized here (see Section 7.0
for a detailed analysis of the potential effects of the project).
Direct effects of the proposed action will be largely temporary in nature. Temporary impacts to
habitat will be limited to the potential for temporarily impaired water quality conditions and
temporarily elevated noise levels within the action area.
Minimization Measures and Best Management Practices
Conservation/minimization measures and BMPs that will be implemented by the project are
discussed in Section 2.3 in the Biological Evaluation.
All work below the mean higher high water of the Cedar River will be conducted during the in-
water work window for waters of the Cedar River (between 16 July and 31 December), which
avoids the peak run timing for most runs of salmon.
Implementation of these minimization measures and BMPs will be sufficient to ensure that any
impacts to EFH are temporary and insignificant, and do not affect any functional component of
EFH for Pacific salmon species.
Conclusions
In accordance with the EFH requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it has been determined
that the project “will not adversely affect” EFH for Pacific salmon species.
The proposed action has incorporated minimization and avoidance measures, and BMPs intended
to avoid and/or minimize potential effects to habitat. Water quality and noise impacts that may
result during construction will be temporary and will result in no significant effects to any
functional component of EFH for Pacific salmon species.