The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUA-06-013_Report 01CITY OF RENTON PLANNING / BUILDING / PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM Date: July 19, 2006 To: City Clerk's Office From: Stacy Tucker Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to faCilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. , .... -.,','\<---' ...... "' ..... ",.~" ... _ ..... "-, .... ""'-.. ,.._,""' ___ ""_,; •. ""''''.-O'_.-"_~',':,"""_,,, .. _; ____ • ____ """M»_--..~~_"""'_;.·,. __ ->."" ... "':.i_"_'_'_.,.''''-. ... _,~, Project Name: Houser Way Bridge Repainting 2006 " LUA (file) Number: LUA-06-013, SME ,--~--~------------------~-------------------------------; Cross-References: I AKA's: 1-----------------------------------------------------------------------I Project Manager: Keri Weaver l. Acceptance Date: March 2, 2006 ,i---~----------------------~------------------------------------------, Applicant: ; Owner: City of Renton City of Renton · Contact: John Fritzler, City of Renton -Transportation , PID Number: ERC Decision Date: i ERC Appeal Date: .; Administrative Approval: I Appeal Period Ends: I Public Hearing Date: i Date Appealed to HEX: , ; By Whom: \ HEX Decision: } Date Appealed to Council: i By Whom: I Council Decision: ! Mylar Recording Number: • None March 20, 2006 Date: Date: i Project Description: The City of Renton proposes a Shoreline Permit Exemption for repainting of I f the Houser Way Bridge over the Cedar River, located just south of the City Library. Approximately' , 4,000 sq ft of the bridge deck would be repainted. The action would be conSidered normal ; maintenance of an existing structure. · Location: Houser Way R-O-W : Comments: Permit Expires March 20, 2008 • ~." .. ~_ .... _"' .. ~ .,. ""',...-__ '" .. "'_,"""'_-.,..,~,~,~,' •. _, ... ~_" .... , ... '_",""'",_""~{,,">_»~.,~ ... ,' ... ,""".<.;' ..... ,~_.,_, ... '~.1."'::;,.-_, ... __ ",~,' .'., .... ',,'" ,,_~ •• , ..... _"""","" ,_. -, '·'i."""" """"~~'" ,,>.,' ,,-. CITY OF RENTON CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUIREMENT March 20, 2006 EXEMPTION FILE NO.: LUA06-013, SME PROJECT NAME: Houser Way Bridge Repainting APPLICANT: City of Renton Dept. of Transportation OWNER: City of Renton PROPOSAL: The applicant is seeking a Shoreline Exemption to repaint the Houser Way Bridge over the Cedar River, located just south of the City Library located at 100 Mill Ave. S. Approximately 4.000 sq ft of the bridge deck will be repainted. The action would be considered normal maintenance of an existing structure. A Shoreline Exemption Permit is required since work would be conducted within 200 ft of a designated shoreline. No land disturbance will be involved. Estimated cost of the project IS $200,000. The proposed work will be done in September 2006. PROJECT LOCATION: Houser Way Bridge (Cedar River) SEC-TWN-R: 17 -23-5E WATER BODY/WETLAND: Cedar River An exemption from a Shoreline Management SUbstantial Development Permit is hereby granted on the proposed project described on the attached form for the following reason(s): 06-013 sllOrelinc cxcmpt;ol1.I)OC\ X Normal maintenance of repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements. 1. "Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. 2. "Normal repair" means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original condition, including but not limited to its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction, except where repair causes substantial adverse effects to the shoreline resource or environment. 3. Replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development including, but not limited to, its size, shape, configuration, location and external appearance and the replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or environment. The proposed development is consistent or inconsistent with (check one): CONSISTENT INCONSISTENT x _x_ EXPIRATION DATE: March 20, 2008 Attachments: Site plan Vicinity Map cc: Applicant File Department of Ecology Attorney General 06-013 s]',orclllll' l:XCmptloll.DOC\ Policies of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 The guidelines of the Department of Ecology where no Master Program has been finally approved or adapted by the Department. The Master Program. i ,\ I-({/ ({~zll/ Neii'Watts, Director Development Services Division o I 20 40 ~I~~~I I : 240 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RE~","ON FEB 1 0 2006 RECEIVED tv -+:-o V DEVELOPMENT PLANNING 0 CITY OF RENTON FEB 102006 RECEIVED tv o o -+:-o o City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public WO,S ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: p k\()~ \i \e,,""' COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 16,2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-013, SME DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 2, 2006 APPLICANT: City of Renton, Trans[lortation PROJECT MANAGER: Keri Weaver PROJECT TITLE: Houser Way Bridge Repainting 2006 PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian RECEIVED SITE AREA: 4,000 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A MAR /I ~ ?OnC LOCATION: Houser Way Bridge (over Cedar River) WORK ORDER NO: 77547 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton proposes a Shoreline Permit Exemption for repaintin~V~t~'~V~o~~';,'r"'Wa~ Bridge over the Cedar River, located just south of the City Library. Approximately 4,000 sq It of the bridge deck would be repainted. The action would be considered normal maintenance of an existing structure. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of tile Probable Probable More Element of the Environment Minor Major Information Environment Impacts Impacts Necessary Ear/Ii Housing Air Aesthetics Water Li htiGlare Plan!s Recreation Land/Shoreline Use utilities Animals Transoorlation EnVironmental Health Public SelVices Energy! Historic/Cultural Natural Resources PreseIVation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS ,-/77Cfl~/~ //i;g,Itb'CQ~uL{' 12h~ Probable Probable More Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary We have reviewed this application with particular attention to Ihose areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date City of Ren,un Department of Planning / Building / Public V.~. ,S ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: lli.vk s; COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 16, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-013, SME DATE CIRCULATED: MARCH 2, 2006 APPLICANT: City of Renton, Transportation PROJECT MANAGER: Keri Weaver PROJECT TITLE: Houser Way BridQe RepaintinQ 2006 PLAN REVIEW: Jan lilian SITE AREA: 4,000 square feet BUILDING AREA (Qross): N/A LOCATION: Houser Way Bridae (over Cedar River) WORK ORDER NO: 77547 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The City of Renton proposes a Shoreline Permit Exemption for repainting of the Houser Way Bridge over the Cedar River, located just south of the City Library. Approximately 4,000 sq It of the bridge deck would be repainted. The action would be considered normal maintenance of an existing structure. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth HousinfJ M Aesthetics Water LiahVGlare Plams Recreation LanU/Shore/me Use Utilities Animals Trans ortation Envirol1mental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feel , B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS "jIlt 1-( a c ( / LJ) (L 1) V) ct ( Is C. CODE-RELA TED COMMENTS 01.( jL-O ,,t17yJa.(./:J /c:! We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where adgjtional information is neecfed to properly assess this proposal. / , '. ,'j '/ r~ / : /It hk,·cL/k 2<.t1c?lL .... 2 l /()¢' Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date I \ CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM Date: March 2, 2006 To: Jason Fritzler, Transportation From: Keri Weaver, Development Services Subject: Houser Way Bridge Repainting 2006 LUA06-013, SME The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. You will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at 430-7382 if you have any questions. Acceptance Memo 06-013 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING/BUILDING/ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM February 7, 2006 Laureen Nicolay, Development Services ~ason Fritzler, Transportation Design x7243 Shoreline Exemption Permit -Houser Way Bridge Attached are copies of the needed documents required by the Shoreline Exemption guidelines. I have also attached a Biological Assessment Report completed for the Logan Avenue Bridge work in 2003. This report has detailed information on the species in the area. If you have any additional questions or concerns please give me a call. Attachment H:\Division.s\rRANSPOR.T A T\DESIGN,ENG\JASON\Projects\Houser Way Bridge Repaint\Shoreiine Exemption Memo.doc City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION NAME:L I, ,/ 2~ foh PRrT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: / I!'T 4Jc v ,--/~, J~ Z, .. /....." ADDRESS: Ih tNci 0 .. ./ /D.rr-s .. " CITY: 2, Jr, ZIP: 'ltJt1s S ("I ... ~ PR~T/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: / 'IeI'5'y' Wc..y cB,., cJ ~ ( ({; Je..-22x,-\ TELEPHONE NUM;'~ .L(ZS-30-72~3 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): APPLICANT (if other than owner) - NAME: ..----:' EXISTING LAND USE(S)B J " '.f l- COMPANY (if applicable): / PROPOSED LAND USE(S): - ADDRESS: / EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: CoiC CITY: / ZIP: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (ff applicable): -TE~ONE NUMBER EXISTING ZONING: CD/CA //2c CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): - NAME: h hlzjv '" v.50V/ SITE AREA (in square feet): ?/ IJt10 SF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE COM~ (if apPlicable; /2. .. j", /" " DEDICATED: - SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: ADDRESS: /; ~"c~ -;;;:'Sft-)..!r'1? - PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET CITY~tn ~ ZIP: 1jor;) ACRE (if applicable): - NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): ~ TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: ~Z s---43()-72~3 NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): - Q weblpw/devserv/formsJplanninglmasterapp_doc 07/29/05 PROJECTINFORMATrl~O~N~(~(co~n~t~in~u~e~d)L-____________ -. NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): - SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): _ SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): - SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON·RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (n applicable): - SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON·RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (n applicable): - NET FLOOR AREA OF NON· RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): - NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BYTHE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): . - PROJECT VALUE: .$ 2ro~0=:? IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (n applicable): o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE o AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO o FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. o GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. o HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ~ SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES ""I.,Mli sq. ft. o WETLANDS sq. ft. . LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet w.ith the follow.lng Information included) SITUATE IN THE QUARTER OF SECTION \ l, TOWNSHIP ~ RANGE 5"~ IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. 3. 2. 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Name/s) L::"lT ,f IZ ... l c .. (),J ... £fe;'~e that I am (please check one) l5. the current owner 01 the property inVolved in this appIicatioo or __ the authortzad rep<esentatM> to act /O(a COrporatioo (please attach proal 01 authoriZation) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein cootained and the infonnatioo herewith are In .. respects true and oorrect to !he best 01 my knowledge and belief. ~~ I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that--:c:-:-;---.--;--;::-::cc:c:=~ signed this instrument and acknowledged H to be his!OOrMe~ free and 1iOIuntary act for the _.{.~~;:::::;;~::::::~~ ~::;:;.:::::::========-_---uses and _00 mentioned in the Instrument (Signatur. of OwnarfRepresentative) . Notary Public In and for the State of Washington (Signature of Owner/Representative) Notary (Prinl) ___________ _ My appointment expires: ________ _ Q:weblpw/devserv/fonnslplannillg/masterapp.doc 2 07129105 City of Renton Houser Way Bridge Repaint Shoreline Exemption General Project Narrative The Houser Way Bridge has been identified by the inspection team as needing a new coat of paint on the structure. The existing structure is showing early signs of corrosion on the steel members. To stop the oxidation process, these members need to be cleaned and repainted. All of the required work will be done from either the bridge deck or from suspended scaffolding set up by the contractor. No alterations to the embankment or streambed will be conducted on this project. The proposed staging area for the construction equipment has not been determined at this time. Construction should commence in September and be 2-3 weeks in duration. Specific Project Narrative Project name, size, and location of site: The purposed project is the Houser Way Bridge Repaint. The bridge deck is approximately 4,000 SF in size and is located over the Cedar River just south ofthe City of Renton Library (Sec 17, T 23, R 5 E, WM). Brief Description of Proposed Work: The Houser Way Bridge has been identified by the inspection team as needing a new coat of paint on the structure. The existing structure is showing early signs of corrosion on the steel members. To stop the oxidation process, these members need to be cleaned and repainted. Basis for the Exemption Request: "Normal maintenance or repair of existing structure or developments" Other Permits Requiredfor Proposed Project: HPA Permit, Noise Variance (Possibly) Current and proposed use of the site: The Houser Way Bridge serves as an East I West thoroughfare over the Cedar River. It is one of the most important Cedar River crossings in the City. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Monument Card s (on e per monument) 1 FE D 10 2006 RECEIVED Thi s requirement may be w aived by: 1. Property Se rvi ces Section 2. Public Wor ks Plan Rev iew Sec ti on 3. Building Secti on PROJE CT NA M E: I-LJ U tdv (3, ci 2~/v),; D ATE:~ /7 /()(, 4 . Deve lopme nt Plan n ing Sec ti on O :\W Eo\Pvv\OFVSERv\Forms\Planninn\w:l ivPf'l(l, 07129 /2005 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Appl icant Statement 2 AND 3 Inve nt ory 01 Lease Agreement , Dralt 2 AM) 3 Ma p of Existing Site Conditions 2 AND 3 Ma p of Vi ew Area 2 AND 3 Photos imul ati ons 2 AND 3 This requ iremen t may be wa ived by: 1 . P ro pert y Services Sect io n PR OJEC T NA ME: 2 . Pu blic W orks Plan Review Sect ion 3. Bui lding Section DATE: 4. Developme nt Planni ng Sectio n Q :\W E A \Pw\DFVSER\I\Ff'\fmc;\PI:lnninn\w~iv "'r vi " Special site features (i.e. wetlands, water bodies, steep slopes): The Cedar River is the most prominent features in the area. Statement addressing soil type and drainage conditions: N/A Total estimated construction cost and estimated fair market value of the proposed project: $200,000.00 Estimated quantities and type of materials involved if any fill or excavation is proposed: NI A Number, type, and size of any trees to be removed: N/A Distance from closest area of work to the ordinary high water mark of the proposed project site: All of the work done to the bridge will be over the Cedar River. Nature of the existing shoreline: Most of the shoreline along the Cedar River (within the project limits) consists of sands and gravels with a variety of low growing vegetation. The rivcrhed consists of cobbles, gravels, and sands with little streambed vegetation. Sand provides protection for the bridge abutments beneath the Houser Way Bridge. The approximate location of and number of residential units, existing and potential, that will have an obstructed view in the event the proposed project exceeds a height of 35-feet above the average grade level: N/A 2 .....- N N 0 ..,. 0 V 0 0 ..,. 0 0 • DEVELOPMEr-rT PLANNING "lTV OF REr-rTON FEB 1 0 2006 RECEIVED o 20 40 EI ~tllwml~~~~j 1 : 240 • • DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ~ITY OF RENTON FEB 1 0 2006 RECEIVED , . . \ BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT City of Renton Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Prepared for: City of Renton Transportation Systems Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, W A 98055 Prepared by: Parametrix, Inc. POBox 460 Sumner, Washington (253) 863-5128 www.parametrix.com November 2002 Project No. 214 -J 779 -017 DEVELOPMENT P CITY OF RENT~~NING FEB 102006 RECflVED \ TABLE OF CONTENTS BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................... 0 CITY OF RENTON ...................................................................................................................................... 0 LOGAN AVENUE SEISMIC RETROFIT ................................................................................................. 0 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT •••••.•.•...••••••••.•••••••.•.•.•.•..•..••••.•••••••••••••••••••••.•.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••..•.•.•.•.•.•••••• 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ••••••••••••••..•.•.•.••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•.•.••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•..•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•...•...• .4 1.0 2.0 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.3.1 3.0 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2.1 4.0 INTRODUCTION •••••••••.•••.•••.•....•.•.•.•••••••.•••.••••.•.......•••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•.•.••••••••••••••••••••.•.•.•.•............ 6 PROPOSED ACTION ..................................................................................................................... 8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... 8 PROJECT AREA ................. '" ........................................................................................................... 8 PROJECT VICINITY .......................................................................................................................... 8 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................... 11 HYDROLOGIC AND FISH RESOURCES •.•••••.•.•..•.•.•.•.••••••••••••••••••••.........••••••••.•.••••.•.•.•.•.•.•.•• 13 LAKE WASHINGTON BASIN ........................................................................................................ 13 GENERAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 13 CEDAR RIVER FISHERIES .............................................................................................................. 14 FISH SPECIES EV ALUATIONS ................................................................................................. 15 4.1.1 PUGETSOUND CHINOOK .............................................................................................................. 15 4.1.1.1 ESA andStockStatus ...................................................................................................... 15 4.2.1 PUGET SOUNDi STRAIT OF GEORGIA COHO .................................................................................. 15 4.2.1.1 ESA and Stock Status ....................................................................................................... 15 4.3.1 COASTAL-PUGET SOUND BULL TROUT ....................................................................................... 16 4.3.1.1 ESA and Stock Status ......................................................................................................... 16 4.3.1.2 CRITICAL HABITAT .................................................................................................................. 16 5.0 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 6.0 WILDLIFE SPECIES EV ALUATIONS ...................................................................................... 17 ESA STATUS AND DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................. 17 PERTINENT LIFE HISTORY ............................................................................................................ 17 OCCURRENCES OF BALD EAGLES IN THE PROJECT AREA ............................................................. 18 CRITICAL HABITAT ....................................................................................................................... 18 EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS FOR LISTED SPECIES .•.....•••••••••••••••••••••••........•.••••••••.•.••• 19 6.2.1 EFFECTS ANALYSIS FOR CHINOOK SALMON ................................................................................. 21 6.2.1.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ON CH[NOOK SALMON................................... . ................... 21 6.2.1.2 Cumulative Effects on Chinook Sa/mon..... . ......... 21 6.2.1.3 Inter-related and Inter-dependent Effects on Chinook Salmon ...... . .................. 21 6.2.1.4 DETERMINATION............................................................ ......................... . ................. 21 6.2.2 EFFECTS ANALYSIS FOR COHO SALMON .................................................................................... 21 6.2.2.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ON COHO SALMON .............................................................. 21 City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page I November 2002 214-1779-017 • , 6,2.2,2 Cumulative Effects on Coho Salmon ...... ,., .... ,.,.,"', .. ,"""""""""""""", .. ,,','""" .. ",.,.21 6.2.2.3 Inter-related and Inter-dependent Effects on Coho Salmon .................... .. ......... 22 6.2.3 EFFECTS ANALYSIS FOR BULL TROUT .......................................................................................... 22 6.3.1 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ON BALD EAGLES ...................................................................... 22 6.3.2 CUMULA TNE EFFECTS ON BALD EAGLES .................................................................................... 23 6.3.3 INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT EFFECTS ON BALD EAGLES ............................................. 23 6.3.4 DETERMINATION .......................................................................................................................... 23 7.0 CONSERVATION MEASURES AND CONCLUSION ............................................................. 24 8.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 26 FIGURES FIGURE 1 -VICINITY MAP .............................................................................................................................. 5 FIGURE 2 -PROJECT AREA ............................................................................................................................ 10 TABLES COMMON NAME SCIENTIFJC NAME .................................................................................................................. .4 ESUIDEMElDPS ............................................................................................................................................. .4 FEDERAL STATLS' ........................................................................................................... , .............................. .4 STATE STATLS t ...................................... ,., .................................... , ................................................................. 4 LIFE STAGES CONSIDERED ......................................................... , ................................. , ................................... 4 IMPACTS ANALYSIS DETERMINA TION .............................................................................................................. 4 TABLE 2, SUMMARY OF SPAWNING AND MIGRATION TIMING FOR THREATENED OR ENDANGERED FISH ..... 14 COMMON NAME SCIENrIFJC NAME ........................................... ,., ..................................................... , ............. 14 ESUIDEMElDPS ............................................................................................ , ................................. , ............. 14 SPAWN TIMING IN THE CEDAR RIVER ............................................................................................................ 14 JUVENILE OUT MIGRATION TIMING ................................................................................................................. 14 FEDERAL STATUS ........................................................................................................................................... 14 A ESSENTIALFISHHABITAT B PERTINENT LIFE mSTORY: CHINOOK, COHO, AND BULL TROUT C. AGENCY RESPONSE LETTERS D PROJECT AREA PHOTOS E CONSTRUCTION PLANS City of RenlOn -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 2 November 2002 2 I4·1779.()I 7 COE BA BE BMP City DNR DPS Ecology EFH EPA ESA ESU FHWA FWS LAG LCR NOAA NMFS NPS NWI PHS SaSI SCS WSDOT WDFW WNHP WRIA USGS ACCRo:\nlS & TER\IS (U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers Biological Assessment Biological Evaluation Best Management Practice City of Renton (Washington) Department of Natural Resources Distinct Population Segment (Washington) Department of Ecology Essential Fish Habitat (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Act Evolutionarily Significant Unit (U.S.) Federal Highway Administration (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service Local Agency Guidelines Lower Columbia River National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (also known as NOAA fisheries) (U.S.) National Park Service National Wetlands Inventory (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species Program (WDFW) Salmonid Stock Inventory database Soil Conservation Service Washington State Department of Transportation Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife Washington Natural Heritage Program Watershed Resource Inventory Area U.S. Geologic Survey City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 3 November 2002 214·1779·017 ------------------------------ EXEClITI\'E SDI:\IARY The Logan Avenue Bridge Seismic Retrofit project will add lateral (transversal) and longitudinal restrainers to the bridge, as well as replace worn and fallen deck joints to protect the new restrainers. The project will replace expansion joints on the structure and a sealant will be applied to the top deck, sidewalk and railings on the bridge. Construction work occurring water- ward of Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) shall only be conducted during the allowed in- water work window (July IS to August 31) for this portion of the Cedar River as determined by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). In addition all practicable measures will be used to keep all materials (sealant, tailings from drilling, etc) from entering the water. All construction activities, including applying the sealant, require a debris catch or other methods so materials do not enter the water. The Logan Avenue Bridge is a principal arterial route within the City of Renton, King County Washington (T23N; R5E; S 17). It is in Water Resource Inventory Area 8 (WRIA 8); Lake Washington! Cedar Riverl Sammamish Drainage Area. Four species that have been or are being considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act might occur in the project area (See Table 1.). It was determined that Bald Eagles do not nest in the vicinity of the proposed project. Also, because the timing of the construction will occur within the allowed window for in-water work, Bald Eagles will not be present in the project area during construction activities. Finally, following the in-water work guidelines and because no materials will' enter the water, the construction activities proposed will not effect the listed and candidate fish species. This supports the fmding that the proposed work should have No Effect on listed or candidate species. Table 1. Summary of Findings for Threatened or Endangered Species Common name ESUlDeme/DPS Federal State Life Stages Impacts Analysis Scientific name Status Status t Considered Detennlnatlon Chinook salmon Puget Sound -Fall T C All freshwater phases Not Likely to Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Adversely Affect Coho salmon Puget Sound! Strait of Georgia C All freshwater phases Not Likely to -Adversely Affect Oncorhynchus kisutch Bull trout Coastall Puget Sound T C All Not Likely to Saivelinus confluentus Adversely Affect Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Not Applicable T T Nesting and wintering No Effect • Federal ESA Status: T = threatened, E = endangered, C = cand!date for listing, P = proposed for listing, SC = Species of Concem t State of Washington Status: T = threatened, E = endangered. C = candidate for listing City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 4 November 2002 214-1779-017 Figure 1 -Vicinity Map WASHINGTON lOCA nON MAF NaT TO S:AlE Source: Logan Avenue Bridge Seismic Retrofit, CES, 8101 City of Renton --Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment 50f34 November 2002 214·1779-017 1.0 I~TROI}{'CTIO:\ The City of Renton with funding from Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Local Programs proposes seismic retrofitting of the Logan A venue Bridge. Since federal funding is being used, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize listed species or their habitat. Since listed species are known to occur in the project vicinity, the lead agency or its designee must complete a Biological Assessment (BA) describing how the project would affect the species. This BA was prepared to address potential impacts to listed species as required under Section 7 ofthe ESA. The City of Renton (City) contracted Parametrix, Inc. (parametrix) to prepare this BA to document potential effects on fish and wildlife resources and associated protection measures for this project. The City maintains a file with requested information on federally listed species that might occur in the project vicinity. Information was received from the FWS (September 4,2002), Washington Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (WDFW) (August 19,2002), and Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (August 13, 2002). In addition a site visit was conducted on October 15 th, 2002. The FWS identified bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and bull trout (Salvelinus conjluentus) as possibly occurring in the project vicinity (Appendix A). It was determined that there are no bald eagle nests within one mile of the site after reviewing the information provided by the FWS and conversations with City staff. Information on federally listed species under the jurisdiction of NOAA FISHERIES was obtained from their website at http://www.nwr.noaa.govllsalmon/salmesalindex.htm. The website identified one threatened species, the Puget Sound population of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and one candidate species, the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia population of coho salmon (0. kisutch), as potentially occurring in the project vicinity. Information from the DNR plant database and the WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database confirmed that no other listed wildlife or plant species occur in the project vicinity (Appendix A). This BA was prepared to address both direct and indirect effects on these species and their habitats by the proposed seismic retrofit of Logan Avenue Bridge. The effect determinations are based upon life history analysis, habitat requirements, literature review, agency consultation, PHS data from the WDFW, and field reconnaissance conducted by Parametrix staff scientists. 1.1 SETTING The project is in King County, the City of Renton, WRIA 8, where Logan Avenue crosses the Cedar River 1.5 miles upstream from its confluence with Lake Washington at T23N; R5E; S17. The project area is in a highly urbanized area just upstream of the Renton Municipal Airport. When Parametrix visited the site on October 15 th , 2002 there were approximately 75 sockeye salmon (0. nerka) in the river in the immediate vicinity of the Logan Avenue Bridge. The streambed consisted primarily of large gravel! cobblestone, and had minimal instream vegetation. The riparian vegetation consisted primarily of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) and Alders (Alnus sp.) (diameters of3 to 4 inches). 1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND Logan Avenue bridge is a tbree-span concrete girder bridge built in 1973. The spans are 32 feet, 130 feet and 32 feet, with two in-span hinges in the center span. A row of 15 girders supports a 6-inch cast-in-place slab for a total roadway width of 86'. The bridge carries 7 lanes of heavy City of Renton -logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 6 November 2002 214-1779-017 arterial traffic and has barrier separated sidewalks on each side. There is a recreational trail along the river passing underneath the north side of the bridge. 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED The proposed project is a seismic retrofit ofa bridge built in 1973. The retrofit includes replacing worn and failing deck joints, adding lateral and longitudinal restraints improving safety and structural support in the event of seismic activity. City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 7 November 2002 214-1779-017 2.0 PROPOSED ACTIo:\' 2.1 LOCATION The project is in King County, in the City of Renton, where Logan Avenue crosses the Cedar River, 1.5 miles upstream from its confluence with Lake Washington at T23N; R5E; S 17. It is in WRIA 8 -Lake Washington! Cedar River/ Sammamish Drainage Area. 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT, PROJECT AREA AND PROJECT VICINITY 2.2.1 Project Description The seismic retrofit consists of adding longitudinal and transversal restraints to the bridge and replacement of the expansion joints. In addition, a silicone sealant will be applied to areas on the bridge deck, sidewalk, and railing, this type of sealant is applied with a nozzle to directly apply the sealant without spillage. The construction work will be done during the allowed in-water work window (July 15 through August 31), and construction methods will include measures to preclude materials (slurry, sealant, dust and debris) from entering the water. There are no long- term affects anticipated since bridge size and capacity remains the same. 2.2.2 Project Area The project area is within the City of Renton in a highly urbanized area just upstream (east) of the Renton Municipal Airport. The action area will be concentrated on the bridge itself, see Figure 2. The bridge is 100 feet in width (seven lanes of traffic and barrier separated sidewalks on both sides) and 194 feet in length (two 32' spans and one 130' span). Joint replacement will require working from underneath the bridge. At the northwest corner of the bridge is a parking area, which provides a paved access to the recreational trail along the Cedar River, the trail goes underneath the north side of the bridge. Any machinery that must be brought in for work on the underside of the bridge can be accessed through the trail parking lot on the immediate northwest side of the bridge. When the site visit was conducted on October 15 th , 2002 there were approximately 75 sockeye salmon (0. nerka) in the river in the immediate vicinity of the Logan Avenue Bridge exhibiting spawning behavior. The streambed consisted primarily of large gravel! cobblestone, and had minimal instream vegetation. The riparian vegetation consisted primarily of Himalayan blackberry and Alders (diameters of 3 to 4 inches). Significant background noise was observed during the site visit, caused by heavy traffic on Logan Avenue and surrounding streets and frequent air traffic from the Renton Municipal Airport. 2.2.3 Project Vicinity North of the bridge is a parking area, Renton Memorial Stadium and adjacent to the Stadium is the Renton Boeing plant. East of the bridge is the Renton Senior center and Library along the north side of the river with commercial and industrial uses to the east and south. The Cedar River trail runs along the north bank of the river passing underneath Logan Avenue Bridge. Once east of the bridge the east sidewalk along the bridge connects trails on both sides of City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biologkal Assessment Page 8 November 2002 214-1779-017 the river. Both trails are paved and well maintained. Although there is a sidewalk along the west side ofthe bridge, the trail along the river only continues west on the north river bank. City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 9 November 2002 214-1779-017 Figure 2 -Project Area SEC. . T. N., R. . W.M. CITY OF RE;"'TON , ," 11-I~-I~'- -~ -: _ ~ ~//=""'='~";:;"1;7_='=/=1 _:;:::,~ =1=1-::;::=-:::::;; r-~ - --:, 1 ~-I---;;, / 1 -I 1 1 ~."-, ur.A. 1 1 ELEVAf/ON Source: Logan Avenue Bridge Seismic Retrofit, CES, 8/01 City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment 10 of 34 GENERAL NorES- , "<L .... l'tt>«~-.u .... ~""H '.e.......-s"'f"'~~''' ... I>V __ ~1II' r~""""'.........".,.,-'"""''''"'''''''''''''''',OoWCii" __ ",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,""'~""IU>:IlXIf ._~7lJ':fOI ....... ,~~ .. ~",,~ ,.,.. _0 on<J'C.'\1'&6 __ " 0<IP<ln OItfaWfH _ .... "., .. ___ 1>fD&r_ ~ " .. __ .. tte-..-m_""""""",,, (:OoOT,o;u;r(lW=--, __ """,,,-~ __ ·"H&~ .. rt<lI'O.CImD<'O 'NllXATr1<IIu. """"'_; •. /OJ. .rnc~.,.... .......• r"""' ..... ........,. ",m aH-...:;ro .... ' .. A ........ _ • ..,...."..,..f1fl""""" .. ~ .. =n'l'fl ~~ __ ..,..,._"'...,.,~<fU!I.~ RETROFIT fTEMS: 0-...... --~ ® __ AU-_~ @.....,...-_ .... -.-.. 0 ......... ____ .... ..... LEGEND ~m><'l:'''''~'''''''''''R'''''' ~T""~O<_""...-..w .. ~,.<I.fJ'''''_ ... ''''' .......... lf November 2002 214-1779-017 2.3 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 2.3.1 General Construction Activities The Logan Avenue Bridge seismic retrofit project will add lateral and longitudinal restraints to the bridge, replace worn and fallen deck joints to protect the new restraints. In addition a silicone sealant will be applied to the deck joints, sidewalk joints and railing joints of the bridge (see expansion joint detail sheet, appendix C). No in-water work will be done for this project. Some construction activities will be above the water and will be water-ward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Because work is water-ward ofOHWM, all work will be done during the allowed in-water work window (July 15 to August 31) as determined by the Washington State Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW). This is a time of very low flows and even if the scaffolding or platform devices suspended from the bridge are at a level that is within the OHWM, the work will be out of the water. Tarps, or other devices as deemed appropriate (wood platforms, diaper, scaffold) shall be suspended from the bridge and above the water (no in-water structures are allowed) to prevent deleterious materials from entering the river. The devices installed shall contain falling debris including slurry, concrete chips, spilled or splattered compounds, new paint or new cement, resin, tools, etc, resulting from the project. The devices shall be installed with NO disturbance to the water, riverbed, or riverbank. Installation and removal of the protective devices and construction shall be done during the in-water work window only (July 15 to August 31). All protective devices shall be removed in a manner that precludes materials from entering the water. The anticipated construction equipment includes a concrete drill, concrete saws, jack hammer for upper bridge deck, a truck mounted lift to provide equipment to the work area underneath the bridge, and the devices (drilling/coring equipment) required for the work underneath the bridge. A truck-mounted lift could be used on top of the bridge deck for lowering the heavy drilling equipment to the work area underneath the bridge. This would require closing one lane of traffic on the bridge. • All construction will be done during the allowed in-water work window as required by WDFW (July 15 to August 31). • There will be no increase in impervious surface and the proposed project does not increase capacity, use or the size of the bridge. • While the exact construction methods are unknown the contractor shall comply with the following: Work Access Access to the work area will be in a manner that does NOT disturb the water, the streambed or the riverbank. No grubbing or clearing on either riverbank is allowed. There is a trail underneath the bridge on the north side, access to the bridge for work underneath the bridge can occur from here, provided all of the aforementioned conditions are met. The staging area (if needed) for this work will be the trail parking area on the northwest side of the bridge. Waste Containment System City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 11 November 2002 214-1779-017 The contractor will submit the containment system plan with working drawings to the Engineer for approval in accordance with the WSDOT Standard Specification Manual Section 6-01.9 showing the method of waste containment, collection, and disposal work. This plan will show the sequence of removal and replacement work, type of equipment to be used, and details of the methods and equipment used for containment, collection and disposal of all debris. The plan shall show all stages of the construction. The Contractor shall not begin operations until receiving the Engineer's approval of the plan. The containment system shall not cause any damage to the existing structure The Contractor shall enclose all portions of the bridge where materials could enter the waterway. The containment system installation and removal shall not disturb the water, the riverbed, or the riverbank. The containment system shall not endanger the health or safety of the workers. Access to the containment system shaH be designed to prevent any confined materials from escaping. To prevent the weight of the confined materials from causing failure to the containment system, all confined materials shall be collected and secured in sealed containers at the end of each shift daily, at a minimum. No confined materials shall escape during the transfer from the containment systems to the sealable containers. All confined materials within the containment system shaH be removed and secured in sealable containers prior to relocation or removal of the containment system. 2.4 WORK TIMING In order to avoid impacts on listed migrating and rearing fish species the work proposed will take place during the allowed in-water work window between July 15 th and August 31" (WDFW 1999). Conservation measures (i.e. debris catch for overwater work, sealant shaH not enter water) shall be in place to avoid incidental effects. AH construction activities, including applying the sealant, require a debris catch and other methods so that materials do not enter the water. City of Renton -Logan Avenue Se1smiC Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 12 November 2002 214-1779-017 3.0 HYDROLOGIC A:\D FISH RESOl'RCES 3.1 HYDROLOGIC RESOURCES 3.1.1 Lake Washington Basin The project area bridges the Cedar River approximately 1.5 miles from its confluence with Lake Washington. Of the 470 streams feeding Lake Washington, the Cedar River is the largest (by volume) input of water. ''The Cedar River originates in relatively high mountain country of the Cascade Range near Stampede Pass. It flows generally west-northwest for nearly 50 miles to its confluence with the southern end of Lake Washington at Renton ... The lower 3 miles of stream move through an intensively industrialized area." The Cedar River has a drainage area of 188 square miles and a length of 58 miles. The mouth location is Sec7, T23N, R5E (Williams 1975). Land use in the lower Cedar River (including the project area) is a combination of industrial, commercial, and residential use transitioning into agricultural and forestry as one moves upstream outside of urban growth boundaries. In the upper Cedar River the predominant land use is transitioning from commercial forestry to preservation of forests inside the City of Seattle municipal watershed. The City of Seattle began to divert water out of the upper Cedar River in 1901 and access for anadromous fish has been denied since that time. In 1995 the City of Seattle, who owns 99.4% of the upper watershed, placed a moratorium on timber harvest and in its place initiated an emphasis on protection and restoration oflands in the watershed (Kerwin 2001). The lower Cedar River tributaries are low to moderate gradient streams and exist in urbanized settings with the adverse habitat impacts that accompany this setting. The downstream reaches generally have high levels of impervious surfaces, altered hydrologic regimes, loss of floodplain connectivity, poor riparian conditions and water quality problems. As one moves upstream, habitat conditions improve, but in many instances do not meet many of the criteria necessary for properly functioning habitats important for salmonid survival. (Kerwin, 2001). Limiting habitat factors for fish on the Cedar River include: numerous known and unknown blockages; bank hardening features (e.g.: levees) that have caused scouring; reduced side channel and off-channel habitats; limited pool habitat with very few deep pools; limited instream complexity and refugia habitat; and scarce large woody debris. In addition the hydrologic connectivity to the floodplain has been degraded due to streambank hardening; a reduction in forest cover and increasing impervious surfaces; and rechanneling of specific stream reaches that limits lateral stream migration to facilitate roads and protect property. The riparian buffers typically are inadequate and often fragmented; and some streams have high levels of impervious surfaces (Kerwin, 2001). Critical habitat issues identified for the Cedar River Basin include: changes in flow regime, sedimentation, streambed instability, estuarine loss and blockage or passage problems associated with dams or other structures [on the Cedar River passage problems occur in the upper reaches 1 (Kerwin 2001). 3.1.2 General Biological Resources The project area is within a highly urbanized reach of the Cedar River. Riparian vegetation in the project area includes patches that primarily consist of invasive species; including Himalayan blackberry, morning glory! hedge bindweed (Calystegia sepium) and English ivy (Hedera helix). Other sections contained Alders, horsetail ferns (Equisetum arvense) and occasionally reed canarygrass (Phalar;s arundinacea). During the site visit on October 15 th there were approximately 75 sockeye salmon in the project area exhibiting spawning behavior. Additional City of Renton -wgan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 13 November 2002 214-1779-017 fauna sited included Gulls (Larus sp.) and Common Mergansers (Mergus merganser). Fish carcasses were also found on and around a gravel island underneath and downstream of the bridge. Four of the carcasses were sockeye and one was possibly a chinook in a later state of decay. Additional mammals and avian species may forage in this area as well (i.e. raccoons). 3.2 FISH RESOURCES Recently documented salmonid species present include chinook, coho, sockeye, steelhead, rainbow and coastal cutthroat trout. In the upper watershed, native char (Bull trout) have been documented (Kerwin 2001). Sockeye and steelhead are considered depressed but are not federally listed ESUs. Cedar River chinook stocks have 'unknown' status but are listed as part of the Puget Sound chinook ESU as 'threatened.' Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho salmon are a 'candidate' species; locally the Cedar River stock of this ESU is considered healthy. Coastall Puget sound Bull Trout are federally classified as Threatened. 3.2.1 Cedar River Fisheries Lake Washington basin salmonids contain three stocks of chinook salmon; of which the Cedar River stock is identified as native and wild and of unknown status. Of the two coho salmon stocks, the Cedar River stock is of mixed origin, wild production and is considered healthy. Sockeye salmon have three stocks in the basin with the Cedar River stock of non-native origin, wild production and considered depressed. There is only one stock of steelhead in Lake Washington, which is native, wild and depressed (WDF et al. 1993). No hatcheries exist on the Cedar River or its tributaries. Table 2. Summary of Spawning and Migration timing for Threatened or Endangered Fish Common name ESUIDemeIDPS Spawn timing In the JuvenlleoUi Federal Status Scientific name Cedar River migration timing Chinook salmon September to mid-January-mid July Oncorhynchus Puget Sound T tshawvtscha December 0NDFW. Nov. 2002) Cohosaimon Puget Soundl Strait Late October to Early Mid-March-Mid-June C Oncorhynchus of Georgia March 0NDFW. Nov. 2002) kisutch Bull trout Late October to Early Salve/inus Coastal Puget Sound November Spring'" T confluentus " Federal ESA Status: T = threatened, E = endangered, C = candidate for listing, P = proposed for listing, SC = Species of Concern • Although anadromous populations of Bull trout exist in the Puget Sound, it is unknown if or what portion of the Cedar River Bull trout population pursues anadromous life histories. Other anadromous Bull trout in the Puget Sound migrate in the spring of their second or third year. City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 14 November 2002 214·1779-017 4.0 FISH SPECIES EVAIXATIO:-;S 4.1 CHINOOK SALMON 4.1.1 Puget Sound Chinook 4.1.1.1 ESA and Stock Status NOAA Fisheries recently completed an ESA status review of chinook salmon populations from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California and defined 15 ESUs (each considered a species under the ESA). Naturally spawned spring, summer/fall, and fall chinook salmon runs from the Puget Sound ESU were considered likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future (Myers et al. 1998). The abundance of chinook salmon in the Puget Sound ESU has declined substantially from historic levels, and there is concern over the effects of hatchery supplementation on genetic fitness of stocks, as well as severely degraded spawning and rearing habitats throughout the area (Myers et al. 1998). In addition, harvest exploitation rates in excess of 90 percent were estimated to occur on some Puget Sound chinook salmon stocks. In May 1999, NOAA Fisheries issued a ruling listing the Puget Sound ESU as threatened (NMFS 1999a). Primary factors contributing to declines in chinook salmon in the Puget Sound ESU include: habitat blockages, hatchery introgression, urbanization, logging, hydropower development, harvest, and flood control and flood effects (NMFS 1998). Cedar River Chinook are one of three Lake Washington stocks. They are considered a native stock with wild production. Cedar River Chinook are classified as SummerlFall run. Limiting habitat factors for fish on the Cedar River include: numerous known and unknown blockages; bank hardening features (e.g.: levees) that have caused scouring; reduced side channel and off· channel habitats; limited pool habitat with very few deep pools; limited instream complexity and refugia habitat; and scarce large woody debris. In addition the hydrologic connectivity to the floodplain has been degraded due to streambank hardening; a reduction in forest cover and increasing impervious surfaces; and rechanneling of specific stream reaches that limits lateral stream migration to facilitate roads and protect property. The riparian buffers typically are inadequate and often fragmented; and some streams have high levels of impervious surfaces (Kerwin 2001). Critical habitat issues identified for the Cedar River Basin include: changes in flow regime, sedimentation, streambed instability, estuarine loss and blockage or passage problems associated with dams or other structures [on the Cedar River passage problems occur in the upper reaches 1 (Kerwin 2001). 4.2 COHO SALMON 4.2.1 Puget Sound! Strait of Georgia Coho 4.2.1.1 ESA and Stock Status A status review of coho salmon was recently completed by NOAA Fisheries in response to petitions seeking to list several Pacific Northwest populations as threatened or endangered (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Based on genetic, life history, biogeographic, geologic, and environmental information, six ESUs were defined for coho salmon in Washington, Oregon, and California. Despite recent stable trends of population abundance near historic levels for some stocks, the status of the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU was determined to warrant further consideration for listing due to concerns over current genetic, environmental, and habitat City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 15 November 2002 214·1779·017 conditions (NMFS 1995). Risk factors identified as potentially deleterious to Puget Sound coho salmon stocks included high harvest rates, extensive habitat degradation, unfavorable ocean conditions, and declines in adult size (Weitkamp et al. 1995). The genetic fitness ofPuget Sound coho salmon stocks has been altered by widespread and intensive artificial propagation that includes inter-basin transfers of broodstock, and by natural spawning between wild and hatchery fish. Hatchery supplementation has been particularly extensive (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU coho salmon are currently classified as a Candidate for listing as noted on NOAA Fisheries' website (htto;llwww.nwr.noaa.gov/lsalmon/salmesa/index.htm). Coho salmon caught in in-river fisheries in Puget Sound decreased in weight by about 50% between 1972 and 1993; from average weights of approximately 4 kg to about 2 kg. Whether the size of naturally spawning coho salmon in Puget Sound is also declining is not known (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Cedar River stock information is scarce. WDF (1993) reported that escapement for the Cedar River was unknown. There have been limited releases of hatchery-origin coho into this system, however, the magnitude of genetic impact is unknown. The stock is considered mixed origin with wild production. The Cedar River stock is considered healthy overall. 4.3 BULL TROUT 4.3.1 Coastal-Puget Sound Bull Trout 4.3.1.1 ESA and Stock Status FWS (1998a) recently completed a determination of the status of bull trout, identifying five DPSs in the coterminous U.S. The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout DPS is composed of 34 sub- populations (FWS 1998b; FWS I 999a). The FWS listed bull trout in the Coastal-Puget Sound DPS as threatened under the ESA on November I, 1999 (FWS I 999a). Four life history forms are generally recognized for bull trout, which include resident (non- migratory), adfluvial (lake dwelling), fluvial (migratory stream and river dwelling), and anadromous (saltwater migratory). The Coastal-Puget Sound population segment of bull trout, is unique because it is thought to contain the only anadromous forms of bull trout within the coterminous U.S. (FWS 1998a). The status of the migratory (fluvial, adfluvial, and anadromous) forms are of greatest concern throughout most of their range. The majority of the remaining populations in some areas may be largely composed of resident bull trout (Leary et al. 1991; Williams and Mullan 1992). Bull trout have a wide, but very patchy distribution across their range, even in pnstme environments (Rieman and McIntyre 1993), and have been extirpated from many of the large rivers within their historic range and exist primarily in isolated headwater populations. The decline of bull trout has been attributed to habitat degradation, blockage of migratory corridors by dams, poor water quality, the introduction of non-native species, and the effects of past fisheries management practices (FWS 1998a). Bull trout are believed to have been historically well distributed throughout the central Puget Sound region (Goetz 1994). 4.3.1.2 Critical Habitat There is no critical habitat designated for bull trout. City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 16 November 2002 214-1779-017 5.0 WILDLIFE SPECIES EVALllATIO:'\S 5.1 BALD EAGLES 5.1.1 ESA Status and Distribution Bald eagles were first protected by the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 and later listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In 1978 the eagle was reclassified as threatened in five states, including Washington. Once numbering between 250,000 and 500,000 in the continental U.S., human development and the use of the pesticide DDT reduced the population to a low of about 400 pairs by the early 1960s. With the banning of DDT in 1972, and a number of subsequent recovery efforts, the continental U.S. population of bald eagles has since made a dramatic recovery, and by 1998 breeding pairs numbered approximately 6,000. Because of this recovery, FWS has proposed that the bald eagle be delisted (FWS 1999b). Recovery has been dramatic in Washington State, where there are now over 600 nesting pairs. Washington State also supports the largest wintering popUlation of bald eagles in the continental U.S. (Eagles nesting in Washington commonly winter in British Columbia and Southeast Alaska where winter runs of salmon occur.) A few thousand birds can be found throughout the state where waterfowl and fish congregate. 5.1.2 Pertinent Life History Nesting, foraging, and perching habitat for bald eagles is typically associated with water features such as rivers, lakes, and coast shorelines where eagles prey upon fish, waterfowl, and seabirds (Stalmaster 1980, 1983, 1987). During breeding season, eagles establish and maintain territorial boundaries, and breeding birds will rarely be found in high numbers. Breeding eagles show strong fidelity to a particular nesting territory, and will prevent other eagles from entering it (Grubb 1980). Territories frequently contain two or more nests, but will be used exclusively by one breeding pair, thereby reducing competition for local food resources. Suitable nesting habitat for bald eagles is typically in mature forests that contain large, dominant trees for nesting, and is in close proximity to aquatic foraging habitat (Anthony and Isaacs 1989). Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) appears to be the most common tree species used for nesting in forests of western Oregon and Washington. Lack of suitable nesting habitat has been shown to be a limiting factor for population growth in some raptors (Newton 1979). Unoccupied nests may indicate suitable physical habitat attributes are available, but human activity precludes their successful use (Anthony and Isaacs 1989). Nesting activities occur from January 1 through August 15. Bald eagles may spend nights together in communal roosts, more commonly in winter and extreme weather. Many roosts are traditional sites that are used repeatedly and are typically located in areas where the eagles have protection from the weather, and away from human activity (Hansen et al. 1980). Construction projects can affect bald eagles by creating disturbance, andlor by degrading their habitat (Bottorff et al. 1987; Anthony and Isaacs 1989). Disturbance can affect nesting eagles by frightening them from their nest, which may affect success and can even result in desertion (Stalmaster 1987). Anthony and Isaacs (1989) found that nests that are secluded from human disturbance tend to be more productive than those closer to human activities. Some studies suggest that eagles become habituated to human presence, but this apparently depends upon the level, proximity, and duration of the disturbance (Fraser et al. 1985; Mathisen 1968; Stalmaster City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 17 November 2002 214-1779.017 and Newman 1979). Foraging eagles can be affected by disturbance that may displace foraging birds to less preferred areas (Stalmaster and Newman 1979; Stalmaster 1980). Habitat degradation can be a consequence of construction projects that involve the removal of nesting, perching, roosting, or foraging habitat. Since eagle nesting and foraging habitat is almost always associated with shorelines, construction and development frequently result in the loss of nesting, perching, and foraging opportunities (Stalmaster 1987). While eagle productivity has been positively correlated to the proximity of nest to water (Anthony and Isaacs 1989), nests in developed areas tend to be further from shorelines (Fraser et al. 1985). 5.1.3 Occurrences of Bald Eagles in the Project Area Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service (Attachment I - Letter dated August 28th , 2002) identified two bald eagle nesting territories in the vicinity (of the City of Renton PlanninglBuilding/Public works Projects) at T24N R5E S30 and S31. The project site is within T23N R5E S 17 which is at least 2 miles to the south of the sections were the nesting territories are located. Wintering bald eagles may occur in the vicinity -wintering activities occur from October 31 through March 31. Work on the proposed project will not occur in that timeframe. 5.1.4 Critical Habitat Critical habitat has not been designated for bald eagles. City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page lR November 2002 214-1779'{)17 • 6.0 EFFECTS DETElnll~ATIO:\S FOR USTED SPECIES 6.1 MATRIX OF PATHWAYS AND INDICATORS The matrix of pathways and indicators provides a framework for evaluating a proposed project's potential areas of impact on natural systems for listed salmonids (See Table 6. Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Action(s) on Relevant Indicators) Table 3. Checklist for Documenting Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Action(s) on Relevant Indicators PATHWAYS: INDICATORS ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE EFFECTS OF TIlE ACTION(S) Pmperiy' I Functioning At Riskl Water Quali!):: Temperature X Sediment X Chern. ContamJNut. X Habitat Access: Physical Barriers X Habitat Elements: Substrate X large Woody Debris Pool Frequency X Pool Quality X Off-channel Habitat Refugia X Channel Condition and Dynamics: Width/Depth Ratio X Streambank Condition Floodplain Connectivity X F1owlHJ::drolol:J::: Peak/Base Flows X Drainage Network Increase X Watershed Conditions: % Totallmperv. Surface Disturbance History Riparian Reserves Watershed Name: Lake Washington Basin (WRIA 8) City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Not Properlyl Functioning Restore2 MaintainJ Degrade4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X LocatIOn: Township 23N, Range 5E, Section 17 Page 19 November 2002 214-1779-017 • lncse three categories of functIOn ("properly functioning", "at risk", and "not properly functioning") are defined for each indicator in the "Matrix of Pathways and [ndicators" (Table 1 on p.lO) of NMFS, August 1996 (Making ESA Detenninations of Effeet for Individual or Grouped Actions at the Watershed Scale). 2 For the purposes of this checklist, ''restore'' means to change the function of an "at risk" indicator to "properly functioning" (i.e., it does not apply to "properly functioning" indicators). 3 For the purposes of this checklist, "maintain" means that the function of an indicator does not change (i.e., it applies to all indicators regardless of functional level). 4 For the purposes of this checklist. "degrade" means to change the function of an indicator fOT the worse (i.e., it applies to all indicators regardless of functional level). ]n some cases, a "not properly functioning" indicator may be further worsened, and this should be noted. CIty of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Dialogical Assessment Page 20 November 2002 214-1779--017 6.2 EFFECTS DETERMINATION FOR ACTION AREA SALMONIDS 6.2.1 Effects Analysis for Chinook Salmon 6.2.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects on Chinook Salmon The proposed project would have no direct effects on chinook salmon. Work shall be done within the WDFW guidelines for work-timing. No work will be done in-water. All construction activities, including applying the sealant, require a debris catch or other methods so materials do not enter the water. In addition, there will be no increase in impervious surface. No indirect effects to chinook salmon are anticipated. Following the WDFW guidelines for work timing will avoid any spawning activities that takes place in the project vicinity. Additionally, by implementing the conservation measures as described in Section 7, the potential for degrading water quality will be substantially reduced. 6.2.1.2 Cumulative Effects on Chinook Salmon No increase in use or size of the bridge will occur because of the proposed project, therefore, no cumulative effects on chinook salmon are expected from the proposed project. 6.2.1.3 Inter-related and Inter-dependent Effects on Chinook Salmon No inter-related Or interdependent effects on chinook salmon are expected from the proposed project. 6.2.1.4 Determination All work will be done out-of-water and will be confined to the appropriate work window when no salmon will be migrating or spawning. Further, means shall be in place to prevent any debris from entering the river and there will be no increase in impervious surface. As a result this evaluation concludes the Logan Ave Seismic retrofit project may affect [is] not likely to adversely affect chinook salmon. 6.2.2 Effects Analysis for Coho Salmon 6.2.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects on Coho Salmon The proposed project would have no direct effects on coho salmon. Work shall be done within the WDFW guidelines for work timing. No work will be done in-water. All construction activities, including applying the sealant, require a debris catch or other methods so materials do not enter the water. In addition, there will be no increase in impervious surface. No indirect effects to coho salmon are anticipated. Following the WDFW guidelines for work- timing will avoid any spawning activities that takes place in the project vicinity. Additionally, by implementing the conservation measures as described in Section 7, the potential for degrading water quality will be substantially reduced. 6.2.2.2 Cumulative Effects on Coho Salmon No increase in use or size of the bridge will occur because of the proposed project, therefore, no cumulative effects on coho salmon are expected from the proposed project. City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 21 November 2002 214-1779-017 6.2.2.3 Inter-related and Inter-dependent Effects on Coho Salmon No cumulative effects on coho salmon are expected from the proposed project. 6.2.2.4 Determination All work will be done out-of-water and will be confined to the appropriate work window when no salmon will be migrating or spawning. Further, means shall be in place to prevent any debris from entering the river and there will be no increase in impervious surface. As a result this evaluation concludes the Logan Ave Seismic retrofit project may affect [is] not likely to adversely affect coho salmon. 6.2.3 6.2.3.1 Effects Analysis for Bull Trout Direct and Indirect Effects on Bull Trout The proposed project would have no direct effects on bull trout. Work shall be done within the WDFW guidelines for work-timing. No work will be done in-water. All construction activities, including applying the sealant, require a debris catch or other methods so materials do not enter the water. In addition, there will be no increase in impervious surface. No indirect effects to bull trout are anticipated. Following the WDFW guidelines for work timing will avoid any spawning activities that takes place in the project vicinity. Additionally, by implementing the conservation measures as described in Section 7, the potential for degrading water quality will be substantially reduced. 6.2.3.2 Cumulative Effects on Bull Trout No increase in use or size of the bridge will occur because of the proposed project, therefore, no cumulative effects on bull trout are expected from the proposed project. 6.2.3.3 Inter-related and Inter-dependent Effects on Bull Trout No cumulative effects on buH trout are expected from the proposed project. 6.2.3.4 Determination All work will be done out-of-water and will be confined to the appropriate work window when no salmon will be migrating or spawning. Further, means shall be in place to prevent any debris from entering the river and there will be no increase in impervious surface. As a result this evaluation concludes the Logan Ave Seismic retrofit project may affect [is] not likely to adversely affect bull trout. 6.3 EFFECTS ANALYSIS FOR BALD EAGLES 6.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects on Bald Eagles The proposed project would have no direct effects on nesting or wintering bald eagles or their prey base. PHS data do not indicate any winter concentration areas, roost sites, or nest sites within 3.2 km [2.0 miles] of the Project Area. City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 22 November 2002 214-J779-{J17 No indirect effects to bald eagles are anticipated. It is unlikely that bald eagles spend much, if any, time foraging in the project vicinity. Additionally, by implementing the conservation measures as described in Section 7 the potential for degrading water quality will be substantially reduced. 6.3.2 Cumulative Effects on Bald Eagles No state or private action that would measurably add to any unmitigated effects of the project is expected to occur in the vicinity of the Action Area in the foreseeable future. 6.3.3 Interrelated and Interdependent Effects on Bald Eagles No interrelated and interdependent effects on bald eagles are expected from the proposed project. 6.3.4 Determination Bald eagles will not be affected because they do not occur in the proposed project vicinity. Regardless, by implementing the conservation measures as described in Section 7 the potential for degrading water quality that might effect bald eagle food items will be substantially reduced, if not eliminated. Therefore, this evaluation concludes that the project will have no effect on bald eagles. City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 23 November 2002 214-1779-017 • 7.0 CO:"SERV ATIO:\' MEASllRES A:"J) CO:"CU'SIO:\' Conservation measures that will be implemented for the proposed project include the following: All work on the proposed project will be performed out of the water. Provisions to protect the water will be in place for all work water-ward of the OHWM. All practicable measures will be used to keep all materials (sealant, tailings from drilling, etc) from entering the water. All construction activities, including applying the sealant will require a debris catch and other methods so that materials do not enter the water. Tarps, or other devices as deemed appropriate (wood platforms, diaper, scaffold) shall be suspended from the bridge and above the water (no in-water structures are allowed) to prevent deleterious materials from entering the river. The devices installed shall contain falling debris including slurry, concrete chips, spilled or splattered compounds, new paint or new cement, resin, tools, etc, resulting from the project. The devices shall be installed with NO disturbance to the water, riverbed, or riverbank. Installation and removal of the protective devices and construction shall be done during the in-water work window only (July 15 to August 31). All protective devices shall be removed in a manner that precludes materials from entering the water. The anticipated construction equipment includes a concrete drill, concrete saws, jack hammer for upper bridge deck, a truck mounted lift to provide equipment to the work area underneath the bridge, and the devices (drilling/coring equipment) required for the work underneath the bridge. A truck-mounted lift could be used on top of the bridge deck for lowering the heavy drilling equipment to the work area underneath the bridge. This would require closing one lane of traffic on the bridge. • All construction will be done during the allowed in-water work window as required by WDFW (July 15 to August 31). • There will be no increase in impervious surface and the proposed project does not increase capacity, use or the size of the bridge. • While the exact construction methods are unkoown the contractor shall comply with the following: Work Access Access to the work area will be in a manner that does NOT disturb the water, the streambed or the riverbank. No grubbing or clearing on either riverbank is allowed. There is a trail underneath the bridge on the north side, access to the bridge for work underneath the bridge can occur from here, provided all of the aforementioned conditions are met. The staging area (if needed) for this work will be the trail parking area on the northwest side of the bridge. Waste Containment System The contractor will submit the containment system plan with working drawings to the Engineer for approval in accordance with the WSDOT Standard Specification Manual Section 6-01.9 showing the method of waste containment, collection, and disposal work. This plan will show the sequence ofremoval and replacement work, type of equipment to be used, and details of the methods and equipment used for containment, collection and disposal of all debris. The plan shall show all stages of the construction. The Contractor shall not begin operations until receiving the Engineer's approval of the plan. City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 24 November 2002 214-1779-017 The containment system shall not cause any damage to the existing structure The Contractor shall enclose all portions of the bridge where materials could enter the waterway. The containment system installation and removal shall not disturb the water, the riverbed, or the riverbank. The containment system shall not endanger the health or safety of the workers. Access to the containment system shall be designed to prevent any confined materials from escapmg. To prevent the weight of the confined materials from causing failure to the containment system, all confined materials shall be collected and secured in sealed containers at the end of each shift daily, at a minimum. No confined materials shall escape during the transfer from the containment systems to the sealable containers. All confined materials within the containment system shall be removed and secured in sealable containers prior to relocation or removal of the containment system. Considering the information referenced in this report, and project information provided in the construction plans, this project will have NO EFFECT on Bald Eagles and may affect but [is] not likely to adversely affect the listed and candidate fish species in the project area. City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 25 November 2002 2t4~1779-017 8.0 REFERE;'I;CES Anthony, R,G. and F.B. Isaacs. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nest sites in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:148-159. Bisson, P.A., K. Sullivan, J.L. Nielsen. 1988. Channel hydraulics, habitat use, and body fonn of juvenile coho salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout in streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 117: 262-273. Bisson, P.A., R.E. Bilby, M.D. Bryant, C.A. Dolloff, G.B. Grette, R.A. House, M.L. Murphy, K.Y. Koski, and J.R. Sedell. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest. Pages 143-190 in E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy, eds. Streamside management: Forestry and fisheries interactions, proceedings of a symposium. University of Washington Institute of Forest Resources, Contribution 57. Seattle, Washington. Bjornn, T.C. 1991. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Pages 230-235 in J. Stolz and J. Schnell, eds. Trout. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Brown, L.G. 1992. On the zoogeography and life history of Washington's native char. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Rep!. #94-04, Fish. Mgmt. Div. 41 p. Bustard, D.R. and D.W. Narver. 1975. Preferences of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki) relative to simulated alteration of winter habitat. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32: 681-687. Cederholm, c.J., and W. Scarlett. 1982. Seasonal immigrations of juvenile salmonids into four small tributaries of the Clearwater River, Washington, 1977-1981. Pages 98-110 in E.L. Brannon and E.O. Salo, eds. Proceedings of the salmon and trout migratory behavior symposium, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Fraser, J.D., L.D. Frenzel, and J.E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on breeding bald eagles in north-<:entral Minnesota. J. Wild!. Manage. 49:585-592. FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposal to list the Coastal Puget Sound, Jarbridge River, and St. Mary-Belly River population segment of bull trout as threatened species. Proposed rule June 10, 1998. Federal Register 63 (111): 31693-31710. FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998b. Candidate and listing priority assigrunent fonn for the coastal!Puget Sound population segment. February 12, 1998. 89 pp. FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1999a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for bull trout in the cotenninous United States. Final rule November I, 1999. Federal Register 64 (210): 58910-58933. FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1999b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Proposed rule to remove the Bald Eagle in the lower 48 states from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife; Proposed Rule July 6, 1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register 64( 128):36453-36464. City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 26 November 2002 214-1779-D 17 Goetz, F.A. 1994. Distribution and ecology of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Cascade Mountains. Master's Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Grubb, T.G. 1980. An evaluation of bald eagle nesting in western Washington. Washington Bald Eagle Symposium Proceedings, June 14-15, 1980. The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, Washington. Hansen, A.J., M.V. Stalmaster, and J.R. Newman. 1980. Habitat characteristics, function, and destruction of bald eagle communal roosts in western Washington. Washington Bald Eagle Symposium Proceedings, June 14-15, 1980. The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, Washington. Healey, M.e. 1991. Life history of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Pages 311- 393 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, eds. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. Kerwin, J., 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the Cedar - Sammamish Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 8). Washington Conservation Commission. Olympia, WA Kraemer, C. 1994. Some observations on the life history and behavior of the native char, Dolly Varden (Salvelinus rnalrna) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) of the North Puget Sound region. Draft report, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mill Creek, Washington. Leary, R.F., F.W. Allendorf, and S.H. Forbes. 1991. Conservation genetics of bull trout in the Columbia and Klamath River drainages. Wild Trout and Salmon Genetics Laboratory Report 91/2. Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. Mathisen, J.E. 1968. Effects of human disturbance on nesting of Bald Eagles. Journal of Wildlife Management 32: 1-6. Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, GJ. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.e. Mainwright, W.S. Grant, F.K. 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. 443 pp. National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Evans, Memorandum Order, No. 00-2799 (D.D.C. April 30, 2002. . Newton, L 1979. Population ecology of rap tors. Buteo Books, Vermillion, South Dakota. 399 pp. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1995. Endangered and threatened species; proposed threatened status for three contiguous ESUs of coho salmon ranging from Oregon through Central California. Proposed Rule July 25, 1995. Federal Register 60(142): 38011-38030. City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 27 November 2002 214-1779-017 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. Factors contributing to the decline of chinook salmon: an addendum to the 1996 west coast steelhead factors for decline report. Protect Resources Division. Portland, Oregon. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999a. Endangered and threatened species; threatened status for three chinook salmon evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) in Washington and Oregon, and endangered status for one chinook salmon ESU in Washington. Final Rule. March 24, 1999. Federal Register 64(56):14308-14328. found on-line at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/lsalmon/salmesa/chinpug.htm. http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/pubs/tmltm35fchaptersI03regvar.htm#pss http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/pubs/tmltm35/tablesltablel.htm#tb I NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999c. Designated critical habitat: proposed critical habitat for the Oregon coast coho salmon evolutionarily significant unit. Proposed Rule. May 10, 1999. Federal Register 64(89):24998-25007. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000a. Designated critical habitat: critical habitat for 19 evolutionarily significant units of salmon and steelhead in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Final Rule. February 16, 2000. Federal Register 65(32):7764- 7787. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000b. Appendix A: Description and identification of Essential Fish Habitat, adverse impacts and recommended conservation measures for salmon. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Pacific Fishery Management Council. January 1999. Available PFMC website at http://www.pcouncil.org/. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000c. NMFS draft guidance on writing biological assessments indirect effects related to increased road capacity/access. January 31, 2000. Pauley, G. 1991. Anadromous trout. Pages 96-104 in J. Stolz and J. Schnell, eds. Trout. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Peterson, P. 1982. Immigration of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) into riverine ponds. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39: 1308-1310. PFMC (pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon (August 1999). Available at the PFMC webite at: http://www.pcouncil.org/. Rieman, B.E. and G.L. Chandler. 1999. Empirical evaluation of temperature effects on bull trout distribution in the Northwest. Final Report. Contract No. 12957242-01-0 to salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Pages 396-445 in C. Groot and L. Margolis, eds. Pacific salmon life histories. UBC Press, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. General Technical Report. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 38 pp. City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 28 November 2002 214-1779.Q17 Sandercock, F. K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon. Margolis editors. Pacific salmon life histories. Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. Pages 396-445 in e. Groot and L. UBC Press, University of British Stalmaster, M.V. 1980. Management strategies for wintering bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Pages 49-67 in Knight, R.L., G.T. Allen, M.V. Stalmaster, and e.W. Servheen, eds. Proceedings of the Washington bald eagle symposium. The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, Washington. Stalmaster, M.V. 1983. An energetics simulation model for managing wintering bald eagles. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:349-359. Stalmaster, M.Y. 1987. The bald eagle. Universe Books, New York, New York. 227 pp. Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman. 1979. Perch-site preferences of wintering bald eagles in northwest Washington. J. of Wildlife Manage. 43:221-224. WDF (Washington Department of Fisheries), Washington Department of Wildlife, and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes. 1993. 1992 Washington state salmon and steelhead stock inventory (SASSI): summary report. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. 212 pp. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). Telephone conversation with David Seiler, November 13, 2002 and November 19,2002. WDFW. 1998. 1998 Washington State salmonid stock inventory. Appendix: Bull trout and Dolly Varden. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 437 pp. WDFW. 1999 Gold and Fish, Rules and Regulations for Mineral Prospecting and Placer Mining in Washington State. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 57 pp. Weitkamp, L.A., T.e. Mainwright, G.J. Bryant, G.B. Milner, D.J. Teel, R.G. Kope, and R.S. Waples. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA Technical Memo NMFS-NWFSC-24. 285 pp. Williams, K.R. and J.M. Mullan. 1992. Implications of age, growth, distribution, and other vitae for rainbow/steelhead, cutthroat, brook, and bull trout in the Methow River, Washington. Appendix K in Mullan, J.W., K.R: Williams, G. Rhodus, T.W. Hillman, and J.D. Mcintyre, 1992. Production and habitat of salmonids in mid-Columbia River tributary streams. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Monograph I. Williams, R.W., R. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon utilization,Volume I, Puget Sound. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. WSDOT Standard Specifications Manual. 2002. Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction M 41-10. Washington State Department of Transportation. City of Renton Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 29 November 2002 214-1779-017 Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment Page 30 November 2002 214-1779-017 City of Renton -Logan Avenue SeismIC Retrofit Biological Assessment A-Jl APPENDIX A ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT November 2002 214-1779-D17 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT EFFECTS ANALYSIS FOR ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH) 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 NOAA Fisheries on activities that may adversely affect EFH. In addition, the act requires fishery management councils to include descriptions of EFH and potential threats to EFH in all fishery management plans, Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." The Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for Pacific Salmon Fishery, federally managed groundfish and coastal pelagic fisheries. The Cedar River drains to Lake Washington therefore EFH in the project vicinity is the Pacific Salmon Fishery. The EFH designation for Pacific Salmon Fishery includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except above impassible barriers identified by PFMC (1999). Pacific Salmon Fisheries EFH in the project vicinity is the chinook and coho salmon habitat for this portion of the Cedar River (NMFS 2000b). Since there are timing restrictions and other Conservation Measures (see section 7.0) required for the Logan Avenue Bridge seismic retrofit there will be no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse affects to Pacific Salmon Fisheries EFH occurring from the project construction. City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment R- November 2002 214-1779-017 APPENDIXB PERTINENT LIFE HISTORY: CHINOOK, COHO, AND BULL TROUT PERTINENT LIFE HISTORY: CHINOOK, COHO, AND BULL TROUT PERTINENT LIFE mSTORY: CmNOOK In general, adult summer/fall chinook salmon migrate from saltwater into freshwater in August and September (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). Cedar River chinook begin entering freshwater in August and typically spawn from the beginning of September to mid-December; this is the longest spawning season of the Puget Sound stocks. (WDF et al. 1993; Williams et el. 1975). After emergence, juvenile chinook salmon rear in fresh water from a few days to 3 years (Wydoski and Whitney 1979); however, most juvenile chinook salmon in Puget Sound rivers and creeks migrate to the marine environment during their first year (Myers et al. 1998). These chinook salmon are called "ocean type" due to their short freshwater residence and because they make extensive use of the nearshore marine environment for rearing. Ocean type chinook salmon generally migrate downstream in the spring, just months after emerging from the gravel, or during the sununer and autumn after a brief period of rearing in fresh water (Healey 1991; Myers et al. 1998). However the Cedar River stock is listed as 'unknown' in terms of genetic pre- dispossession of age at outrnigration. Juvenile chinook salmon that remain in fresh water after emergence may migrate to the ocean any time of year, though most chinook salmon within a population tend to migrate at similar times and ages (Healey 1991). Migration commonly occurs during the night under the cover of darkness, although some fish may migrate during the day (Healey 1991). Chinook salmon fry tend to migrate along the banks and avoid the high velocity water (thalweg) near the center ofthe channel (Healey 1991). PERTINENT LIFE mSTORY: COHO Coho salmon typically return to spawn at age 3, though sexually mature 2-year-old males are not unusual. These 'Jacks", as they are called, return to fresh water to spawn after only 5 to 7 months in saltwater. The proportion of jacks within a population is highly variable and is influenced by genetic and environmental factors (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Coho salmon usually spend 2 weeks or less on the spawning grounds from the time of their arrival to the time of their death (Sandercock 1991). Cedar River coho typically spawn from mid October through early March (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Coho salmon typically hatch after 6 to 8 weeks and emerge from the gravel 2 to 3 weeks later (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). The length of time required for incubation depends largely on water temperatures, as it does for all salmonic;ls. After emergence coho salmon feed voraciously on terrestrial and aquatic insects, often selecting prey that drifts on the surface or in the water column (Sandercock 1991). Coho salmon generally rear in fresh water from 1 to 2 years then migrate to salt water where they remain for about 18 months prior to returning to fresh water to spawn (Wydoski and Whitney 1979; Sandercock 1991). The most productive rearing areas for coho salmon tend to be the small streams with abundant slack water habitats (Wydoski and Whitney 1979; Sandercock 1991). Rearing juvenile coho salmon tend to prefer pools (Bisson et al. 1988) and woody debris is an important structural element that creates this type of habitat (Bustard and Narver 1975; Bisson et al. 1987). Woody debris also provides areas of cover, and provides food to many aquatic insects that are in tum prey for rearing coho salmon juveniles and other salmonids. City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment 8-1 November 2002 214-1779-017 As winter nears and flows increase coho salmon will commonly seek refuge in ponds and small tributaries where they can avoid being flushed downstream during extreme high flow events (Peterson 1982; Cederholm and Scarlett 1982). Migration occurs mid-March to mid-June (WDFW). Locally, coho salmon habitat has often been reduced in agricultural or urbanized areas. Loss of pools and native riparian vegetation associated with sedimentation and landscaping, respectively, are common problems in urban areas (May 1996). PERTINENT LIFE mSTORY: BULL TROUT The anadromous life-history form of bull trout is not well studied (see FWS I 999a). For many years it was thought that anadromous char in Washington were Dolly Varden, and that freshwater char were bull trout. There is conclusive evidence that anadromous bull trout populate Puget Sound (Kraemer 1994), and anecdotal evidence suggests these native char were once much more abundant (FWS I 999a). In Washington State, bull trout and Dolly Varden, two closely related char species, coexist and are managed as a single species. Separate inventories are not maintained by the WDFW due to the considerable biological similarities in life history and habitat requirements that exist between the two species. Although historic reports of char may have specified either bull trout or Dolly Varden, methodologies for reliably distinguishing between the two have only recently been developed and have not yet been widely applied (WDFW 1998). Bull trout are considered to be optionally anadromous, (i.e., the survival of individuals is not dependent upon whether they can migrate to sea), in contrast to obligate anadromous species like pink (Oncorynchus gorbuscha) and chum salmon (Pauley 1991). Nonetheless, the anadromous life history form is important to the long-term persistence of bull trout and their metapopulation structure. Anadromous fish are generally larger and more fecund than their freshwater counterparts, and migratory forms play an important role in facilitating gene flow among sub- populations. Bull trout are believed to be restricted in their spawning distribution by water temperature. Bull trout spawn in late summer and early fall (Bjornn 1991). Locally, anadromous forms typically spawn in upper tributaries and headwater areas. Puget Sound stocks typically initiate spawning in late October or early November as water temperature falls below 7" to 8' C. Spawning habitat almost invariably consists of very clean gravel, often in areas of ground water upwelling or cold spring inflow (Goetz 1994). Egg incubation temperatures needed for survival have been shown to range from 2' to 4' C (Willamette National Forest 1989; Rieman, and Chandler 1999). Bull trout eggs require approximately 100 to 145 days to hatch, followed by an additional 65 to 90 days of yolk sac absorption during alevin incubation. Thus, in-gravel incubation spans more than 6 months. Hatching occurs in winter or late. spring and fry emergence occurs from early April through May (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Generally, for the first I to 2 years, bull trout juveniles rear near the natal tributary and exhibit a preference for cool water temperatures (Bjornn 1991), although they appear less restricted by temperature than spawners. Newly emerged bull trout fry are often found in shallow, backwater areas of streams that contain woody debris. Later, or in other habitats lacking woody debris for refugia, fry are bottom dwellers, and may occupy interstitial spaces in the streambed (Brown 1992). Resident forms of bull trout spend their entire lives in small streams, while migratory forms live in tributary streams for several years before migrating to larger rivers (fluvial form) or lakes (adfluvial form). Migratory individuals typically move downstream in the summer and often City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment 8·2 November 2002 214-1779-Q17 congregate in large, low-velocity pools to feed (Bjomn 1991). Anadromous bull trout usually remain in freshwater 2 or 3 years before migrating to salt water in the spring (Wydoski and Whitney 1979). Bull trout life histories are plastic (i.e., variable and changeable between generations), and juveniles may develop a life history strategy that differs from their parents. The shift between resident and migratory life forms may depend on environmental conditions. For example, resident forms may increase within a population when survival of migratory forms is low (Rieman and Mcintyre 1993). Char are generally longer-lived than salmon, and bull trout up to 12 years old have been identified in Washington (Brown 1992). City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment 8-3 November 2002 214-1779-017 City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Oiological Assessment APPENDIXC AGENCY RESPONSE LETTERS November 2002 214-1779-017 U;J' ..• ,_ ...... -.... ~.~-.------ --- WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Natural Resources August 13, 2002 Connie Brundage City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 SUBJECT: Species Listings Within City of Renton's Jurisdiction DOUG SUTHERLAND Commissioner of Public Lands We've searched the Natural Heritage Information System for information on significant natural features in your project area Currently, we have no records for rare plants or high quality ecosystems in the vicinity of your project. The information provided by the Washington Natural Heritage Program is based solely on existing information in the database. In the absence of field inventories, we cannot state whether or not a given site contains high quality ecosystems or rare species; there may be significant natural features in your study area of which we are not aware. The Wa;;hingtOn Natur:U Heritage Program is responsible for information on the state's rare plants as well as high quality ecosystems. We have begun to add information to our database on selected groups of animals of conservation concern, such as freshwater mussels, butterflies and bats. However, to ensure that you receive information on all animal species of concern, please contact Priority Habitats and Species, Washington Department ofFish and Wlldlife, 600 Capitol Way N, Olympia, WA98501-1091, or by phone (360) 902-2543. If you have internet access, please visit our website for more information. Lists of rare plants and their starus, as well as rare plant fact sheets, are available for download from the site. You will find us listed under Programs & Topics on the W A DNR homepage at www.wagov/dnr. Please call me at (360) 902-1667 if you have any questions, or by E-Mail: sandra.moody@wadnr.gov. Sincerely, S,""yS~" '~~±COO'di_ ~~ Washington Natural Heritage Prograro Asset Managc:ment & Protection Division, PO Box 47014, Olympia WA 98504-7014 1111 WASHINGTON 51 SE I PO BOX 47DOO I OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7000 FAX: (360) 902-1775. TTY: (360) 902-1125 I TEL: (360) 902-1000 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Ac.:ion Employer -RECYCLED PAPER \,1 .' United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 Lacey, Washington 98503 Phone: (360) 753-9440 Fax: (360) 534-9331 Dear Species List Requester: SEP 4 2002 We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) are providing the information you requested to assist your determination of possible impacts of a proposed project to species of Federal concern. Attachment A includes the listed threatened and endangered species, species proposed for listing, candidate species, andlor species of concern that may be within the area of your proposed project. Any Federal agency, currently or in the future, that provides funding, permitting, licensing, or other authorization for this project must assure that its responsibilities under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), are met. Attachment B outlines the responsibilities of Federal agencies for consulting or conferencing with us. Ifboth listed and proposed spe<:ies occur in the vicinity of a project that meets the requirements of a major Federal action (i.e., "major construction activity"); impacts to both listed and proposed species must be considered in a biological assessment (BA) (section 7(c); see Attachment B). Although the Federal agency is not required, under section 7(c), to address impacts to proposed species iflisted species are not known to occur in the project area, it may be in the Federal agency's best interest to address impacts to proposed species. The listing process may be completed within a year, and information gathered on a proposed species could be used to address consultation needs should the species be listed. However, if the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat, a formal conference with us is required by the Act (section 7(a)(4». The results of the SA will determine if conferencing is required. The Federal agency is responsible for making a determination of the effects of the project on listed species andlor critical habitat. For a Federal agency determination that a listed species or critical habitat is likely to be affected (adversely or beneficially) by the project, you should request section 7 consultation through this office. For a "not likely to adversely affect" determination., you should request our concurrence through the informal consultation process. Candidate species and species of concern are those species whose conservation status is of conc= to us, but for which additional information is needed. Candidate species are included as an advance notice to Federal agencies of species that may be proposed and listed in the future. Conservation measures for candidate species and species of concern are voluntary but recommended. Protection provided to these species now may preclude possible listing in the future. 09/17/2002 10:17 FAA 425 430 7376 For other federally listed species that may occur in the vicinity of your project, contact the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) at (360) 753-9530 to request a list of species under their jurisdiction. For wetland permit requirements, contact the Seattle District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Federal permit requirements and the Washington State Department of Ecology for State permit requirements. Thank you for your assistance in protecting listed threatened and endangered species and other !pecies of Federal concern. If you have additional questions, please contact Yvonne Dettlaff (360) 753·9582 . ./.) J Ken S. Berg, Manager V Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Enclosure(s) ATTACHMENT A August 28, 2002 LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, CRITICAL HABITAT, CANDIDATE SPECIES, AND SPECIES OF CONCERN THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGIBUILDINGIPUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS IN KING COUNTY, WASIDNGTON (T23N R4E 81,12-13,24-25,36; T23N RSE 82-5,7-10,15-22,28-32; T24N RSE S28-29,32-33) FWS REF: 1-3-02-SP-1971 LISTED There are two bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nesting territories located in the vicinity of the project at T24N RSE 830 and 831. Nesting activities occur from January I through August 15. Wintering bald eagles may occur in the vicinity of the project. Wintering activities occur from October 31 through March 31. Bull trout (Salvelinus corifluentus) occur in the vicinity of the project. Major concerns that should be addressed in your biological assessment of the project impacts to listed species include: 1. Level ofuse of the project area by listed species; 2. Effect ofllie project on listed species' primary food stocks, prey species, and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project; and 3. hnpacts from project construction (i.e., habitat loss, increased noise levels, increased human activity) that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area PROP08ED None CANDIDATE None CRITICAL HABITAT None SPECIES OF CONCERN -rhe following species of concern have been documented in the county where the project is located. These species or their habitat could be located on or near the project site. Species in bold were specific OCClIIIences located on the database within a I-mile radius of the project site. Beller's ground beetle (Agonum bel/en; California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) Cascades frog (RQIUJ cascadae) Hatch's click beetle (Eanus hatchl; Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys mamwrata marmorata) Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus coopen; Pacific fisher (Manes pennanti pacifica) Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendil; Pacific lamprey (Lam petra tridentata) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) River lamprey (Lampetra ayresz; Valley silverspot (Speyeria zerene bremen) Western toad (Bufo boreas) Aster curtus (white-top aster) FEDERAL AGENCIES' RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER SECTIONS 7(a) AND 7(c) OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED SECTION 7(a) -Consultation/Conference • Requires: 1. Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to carry out programs to conserve endangered and threatened species; 2. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) when a Federal action may affect a listed endangered or threatened species to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The process is initiated by the Federal agency after it has determined ifits action may affect (adversely or beneficially) a listed species; and 3. Conference with the FWS when a Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or an adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. SECTION 7(c) -Biological Assessment for Construction Projects * Requires Federal agencies or their designees to prepare aBiologicai Assessment (SA) for constructionprojects only. The purpose of the BA is to identifY any proposed and/or listed species that Ware likely to be affected by a construction proj ect. The process is initiated by a Federal agency in requesting a list of proposed and listed threatened and endangered species (list attached). The BA should be completed within 180 days after its initiation (or within such a time period as is mutually agreeable). Ifthe'BA is not initiated within 90 days of receipt of the species list, please verify the accuracy of the list with the Service, No irreversible commitment of resources is to be made during the BA process which would result in violation of the requirements under Section 7(a) of the Act. Planning, design, and administrative actions may be taken; however, no construction may begin. To complete the BA, your agency or its designee should (1) conduct anonsite inspection of the area to be affected by the proposal, which may include a detailed survey of the area to determine if the species is present and whether suitable habitat exists for either expanding the existing population or potential reintroduction of the species; (2) review literature and scientific data to determine species distribution, habitat needs, and other biological requirements; (3) interview experts including those within the FWS, National Marine Fisheries Service, state conservation department, universities, and others who may have data not yet published in scientific literature; (4) review and analyze the effects of the proposal on the species in terms of individuals and populations, including consideration of cumulative effects ofthe.proposai on the species and its habitat; (5) analyze alternative actions that may provide conservation measures; and (6) prepare a report documenting the results, including a discussion of study methods used, anyproblerns encountered, and otherrelevantinformation. Upon completion, the report should be forwarded to our Endangered Species Division, 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey. WA 98503-1273. * "Construction project" means any major Federal action which significantly affects the quality of the human environment (requiring an EIS), designed primarily to result in the building or erection of human-made slrUcrures such as dams, buildings, roads, pipelines, channels, and the like. This includes Federal action such as permits, grants, licenses, or other forms of Federal authorization or approval which may result in construction, , Slate of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Mallftg Adchsa: _600 c.ptaIWay N, Olyntpl-. WA.98S0l·1091 ~ (360) 902-2200; TOO (36CI) 9Q2.2J07 Man orac.~: NaQnJ RMowcea BuId'IIg. '111 WasntnglOn SIntet SE. O''''''"'''''':'''''',,:;W::,A.;.. ____ _ RECEIVED i ! AUG 212002 Date: AUG 1 9 21m Dear Habitats and Species Requester: I Transpo~.1ion Syllems Div, Enclosed are the habitats and:spEiciesproducts you requested from the Washington Department of FIsh and Wddrlfe"(WDFW). This package may also contain documentation to help you understand and use these products. ,These prodiictSonly inCIudelilformation that, WDFW maintains in a cOmputer database. They are notanatteniptto provide you with an official agency response as to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife, nor are they designed to provide you with guidance on interpreting this information and detennining how to proceed in consideration' of fish and wildlife. These ~roducts only document the location of important fish and wildlife resources to \he best of our owledge: It is imjJortarlttooote that habitats or species may ooour on the ground'ln areas ' ot currenUy known to WDFW biologists, or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not en conducted. Site-specific surveys are frequently necessary to rule out the presence of riority habitats or species. ' Your project may require further fieid inspection or you may need to, contact ourf.eld biologists or others in WDFW to assist you in interpreting and applying this infonnation. Generally, for assistance on it specific project, you should contact the WDFW Habitat Program Marlagi;jr for your county and ask for \he area habitat biologist for your project area: Referto the Emcfosed ' directory for those contacts. Please note that sections potentially impacted by spotted owl management concerns are displayed on the 1 :24,000 scale standard map products. If specific delalls on spotted owl site centers are required they must be requested separately. These products are designed for users extemal to \he forest practice penniI-process and as such does not reflect aU the information pertinent to forest practice review. The Forest Practice Rules adopted August 22, 1997 by the Forest Practice Board and' administered by the Washington Department of Natural Resources require forest practice applicatiOns to be screened against marbled murrelat detection areas and detection sections. Marbled murrelet detection locations are Included in the standard priority habitats and species products, but the detection areas and detection sections are not included. If your project is affected by Forest Practice Regulations,You should specially request murrelet detection areas. WDFW updates this information as additional data become available. BecauSll fish ard wildlife species are mobile and because habitats and species information changes, project reviews for fish and wildlife should not rest solely on mapped information. Instead, they should also consider new information gathered from current field investigations. Remember, habitats and species information cen only show that a species or habitat type is preiient, they cannot show that a species or habitat type is not present. These produots should not be used for tuture projects. Please obtain updates rather than use outdated information. AUgust 2000 Because of the high voll of requests for irif90nati0n that WDFV eives, we need to charge for these products 10 recover some of our costs. Enclosed is an invoice itemizing the costs for your request and instructions for submitting payment. Please note that sensitive information (e.g., threatened and/or endangered species) may be included in this request. These species ate iJuliierable to disturbances and harassment In order to protect the viability of thesEfspecieswe requesntiat-you not:dissemioate the Information as to thejr~reabouts. 'Ple~se refer t() these species presencefngeneral terms. For example: "A Peregrine Falcon is Iociated wiiflin two miles of the project area". If your request required a sensitive Fish and Wildflfe Information Release Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and you or your organization has one on file, please refer to that document for conditions regarding release of this information. For more intormatlonon WPFW you ~y visit our web. site at www.wa.govlwdfw or visit the Priority Habitats and Species site at WWw.wa.gov/wdfwlhab/phspage.htm. For information on the state's endangered, threatened, andse~sitive plants as well as high quality wetland and terrestrial ecosystems, please contact theWashlngton bepartmentof . Natural FleSourCes, Natural Heritage PrOgram at Po Box 47014, Olympia Washington 98504- ,?014, by phone (360)902-1667 or visit the web site at . www.Wa.govldnrlhtdocslfr/nhpfwanhp.html. 'IYO .. 'U hav.e. any quo . estions or problems with the information you receNedPleasecallm.-·e.a,t (360) ., 02c?R:43,or fax (360) 902-2946., . . . Incerely, . . . . . ,~.~ LQ~.G,'t~~r.qio~"Gls.~i:qgrammer. ' Pri9ri~ ~bltat!l and Species Enclosures August 2000 ~1!:;- ~.: ~~,,,+, <:." q -' L Habitat Conservation Division b r====~~~==~======~==~ NOAA Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Region Species List Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species under National Marine Fisheries Service Jurisdiction that Occur in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho Listed Species COho Salmon (Oncorhync,~us KisUrc,"" • Southern Oregon/Northern California Coases Evolutlonar'lv Signlncant Unit IESlJl(T,~reatened) • Oregon Coast =SU (Threatened) Chinook Salmon (0 uh3V1J'fSCl7aj • Snake River Fal'-'un ESU (Threatened) • Snake River Sonne/Summer-run ESlJ (Threatened) • Puget Sound ESU (Threatened) • Lower Columbia River ESU (Threatened) • Upper Wiilamette River ESU (Threatened) • UDoer COIlJmbia .r~lve .... SpnnG-run ESU (Endangeredl Chum Salmon (0 ke!CIj • Hood Canal Summe'-run ESU (Threatened) • Columbia ,~rver ESU (Threatened) Sockeye Salmon i 0 ne'k2) • Snake River ESU (Endangered) • Ozette Lake ESU [Threatened) , Steelhead (0 fT;ykISs) . • Uoper Cclumbld '"ver ESU (Endangered) • $~~~~ ,~iv~~_~2SI~_ ~SU (Thre?tenec:,1 • Lower Columbia River ESU (Threatened) http://www . nWLnoaa.goy 11 habcon/h abweb/listnwr .h011 9119/02 1 .... 1VlJ:J l .... UIUI" ...... ~ .... ""f, .. v •• , •• -_.----_ .. __ •. _ .. _., -. • Upper Wi/lamette RIVer ESU (Threatened) • Middle Columbia River ESU (Threatened) Sea-run Cutthroat Trout 10 clark; oark.1 • umogua River ESU IEndangered) Proposed for Listing Chinook Salmon • Southern Oregon/Northern California Coastal ESU (Prooosed Threatened) Sea-run Cutthroat Trout • Southwesten washlngtorJ/C:J)Umbia R:ver (:SU (ProposeG Threatenecj Candidates for Listing Coho Salmon • Puaet SGund/StralgiJt of Georgia ESU • Lower Co)umbi'a Piver/Southwest Washlnaton ESU Steelhead • Klamath Mountains Drovlnce 'OSU • Oregon CGast ESU Sea-run Cutthroat Trout • Oregon Coast ESU Office of Habitat Conservation, HQ I NMFS Northwest Region I NMFS I NOAA i DOC Contact.~~ Updated February 2, 2000 Spel;jes List Updated April 1999 http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/lhabconlhabweb/listnwr.htm 9119/02 City of Renton -l.ogan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biolugical Assessment APPENDIXD PROJECT AREA PHOTOS November 2002 214-1779-017 Top picture: Bridge view from upstream Bottom picture: Restrainers and bridge pier Top picture : Bridge view from downstream Bottom picture: Down stream rip arian vegetation Top picture : Sockeye sa lmon in gravel below bridge Bottom picture: View from upstream to so utheast bank • City of Renton -Logan Avenue Seismic Retrofit Biological Assessment APPENDIXE CONSTRUCTION PLANS November 2002 214-1779-017 :> :> u " j " ~ J , , -~ ~--l~ . ! ..... I • to y .: , I~ i I: , .-. w CJ "'~ 0'''- 000 '" wr-I '" ::oW w Z"'I> W 0 > U u <~ Z~ <w CJlI1 o --' I ~ I 5 ::.;; j -~ • U) "'.~ <.'" ¥!Ul 1~ g ~ i~ !CI;I-~ <: .;;j ; L:..I "s, '€ I:;:; ,uJi!~i; g>= .. ~ '" °t~ ~ e-o • o • U JRII~ I! I t!j i£ D~Z ~~ o ~ 'f >--t-~~ '-z ." ~C=.J 2;;.' u~ ':::'0:: ~H r~' c: 11 'g.,. ,eg' !:...13 I; -l /I,lo. Ii !wi~ j7 ~~ '-=Y J~ ~ II (I ~1l i !?§ ~ -';.~~ f" j~" w ~ ~ ~ t;~ ! [I ! P ;. ~ " Ii ~ I i , o ~ c 11111 g o PROJECT "/ LOCATION 1!EJ,-r0N. WASHl.';51'OIJ WASHINGTON WC;', TION MAr NOT TO S~ALE VICINITY MAP "-" ~ 0>- " ~ '" " co a CITY-OF RENTON 5ub_,\~ L-Ce py k, N",G-L~~ \<-/"·./ol Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator COVER LOGAN AVENUE BRIDGE SEISMIC RETROFIT TITLE PLAN AND ELEVATION LONGITUDINAL RESTRAINER. DETAILS LONGITUDINAL RESTRAINER DETAILS TRANSVERSE RESTRAINER DETAILS TRANSVERSE RESTRAINER DETAILS EXPANSION JOINT REPLACEMENT DETAILS SHEET NO. 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,--~AFT L.J' :...:~ "l o CO> N • ..'0 .:~ co N fri N u '" Cl -0 '" ~ 00 '" -0 > "' W "" c ro D-, ru ..-- <D m , c "' a: ..-- w [) 0;- C2G:: rno 0:: Wf-:oW zO:: w >u «-::;0 z~ «w [)tIl o ..J z o ;-« > w ..J W o z « z « -' 0.. .~ ~ -2 ~_;;;; "l -~~ o!5'l s c .. d§ ,.!\ -~ ~ -< ... c ~ f' "' ."'€ • UJcg,,_ l)~;:~.~ ,§ ~ijj' ~ !~ c _ o U .II~ 111~ .... z 00 >-<~ l'-<~ ur::: ~ "C...£ ~~ "5 "@ . ~ ~..f , " • -..., ~. ~ ~ '5 E <:, go;.:, .~ f t: 15 !~~ 1-0 I < Zi Co ., ;, :~ lli~1 ~ ~§ ~1"lojl ' -; ell:": lion 11I11 ~ 11I11 ~ 11111· I; ~ • I I II I" ,-, .-J ""-'-. "'" -,< :-"" ":.( :'."; ,';/: ~ .. r::,: 1 / 1 EX". Jr. i I ~I II ) ( I 1 ( 1 1 SEC. ,T. N., R. ,W.M. CITY OF RENTON I fa NO.1 I IHINGE !INT.fMrH.. · ... ·.(.:.·.·.w ..... ~ ....... y .• ,· .. •• -..... C-;.., •• = ..... ··.· ... ·.·.#':<.·.w.w.w.·.·.· .... "'.· ... .;:,· If; ~ ~ ~ !iJ (j 130'-0- !INT.OWH. r===-z:::::::z.,. :::==-. rl~ NO,:.f HINGE! /.' .f/ ... / ;<I~.J- .•••.•••.•.. 1;1 .. ...... -0.,"'., ..... . ....... "" ...... /L .... ", .......... . . .......... ;! .......... ", .. · ....... 00 ........... ;!. jZ;:Z:;Z:'·7l.; .. F ,I ' 1 . ~ f EXP.Jr. f (j){j) , , I ~(I I 1 ' 1 / LOGN-i J.YE. I -+---..'t.5. , S® I / / I I / 'I ' 'I 1 1 1 ' " ' I I I I 0Yl;.Ij",',' " :r'" -",-" / / I I I I I I &1 1 1 1 1 1 , , 1 , // ( 1/ 1 , I/@ / _I 1:1 I I' II 1/ />1 _1-/ / /1 /,/ 1 I 1 -' , @// I I ----.' 1 , 1 I 1 I 1 1 II / 1 1 II / / ® /, I I / I ;' / / / I I I J I / I / I I / I I I I I I I / /0 / I / 1;\:::::./ I / I I / I / I " 1,;----EXP. JT . 1 ( I I I EXF',Jf.-- &1 1 1 1 I 1/ 1 1/ / 1 ---~7;~::::#==2:~:=~L I :7t' 2 ,/1 ,/ "" II . ~ I I / / M_~_':~':::'"' -.tflL;7/~·?'-:~:"'1:-i.ff.t~)';::::'-;:--___ -.1 /:'ili' ,,' ,:,." , ~0 .,' ....... . ... >- PLAN / .... :.:.:/0 -- EXP.Jr.--- I 1 1 l! III . I '" , I '"I!!!il' II '·"!id!l" I .".~.,. '!!Ul i!!!..l'll"' '"~II. I" to!. t!l! ... ''','' ~ I~ :!!.I ~1"RI"1 i!!J! ,I, • I L!III .!! I "."... ...;.q:;., ., , "I",,,, "r;'" t , , U II -.-~ C~==;:J'----===E I -:;FLDDDCREST233M! ~ ~ ; [ 'V NORWJ. W,A,TEK !'l.0· M 1£ - I I -............ ::::=-" [~~-==-=-------------~ ,-, " c'h REF. EL q,'. 0' ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES: 1 iJ.L w-.rEKiM W~SHIP SI-V'.ll [Sf IN ,A,CCOROANCE WrTH THE REGUIF:.EMEWTS OF THE W,A,5H1NGTON SrJ.TE OEPN:TMENf OF TR!-J.JSPEr.TAT/ON 5TM'DAIt.D SrECIFIC!-.nONS FOr. RO,A,D, f3r.JDGE NJD MUNIQ.F'J.l. CONSTRIJ;TION (ENGUSH) [)A~...D 2002 2. NEW CONSn:.r..x::r1ON HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN ACC01WAACE WITH THE t'v'I5l-fTO 5F'ECIFICATIDNS FOR HiGHWAY 6RI0GE5. SIXTEENTH EDmON OJ. TEV 1996 N-/O INTEKJI-I,5 THROUGH 199.9. ~ THE DIMENSIONS SHCMIN IN THE PLMIS N:£ 5ASED ON ORlGlWoL CON5T1WCTION JrrCORD5. iHESE DIMENSIONS 5HAU f3E M'EA5UREV AND YOOFfED f5Y THE CONTv.crOr. IN THE FEW PRIOR TO fAe-F;IC.'-,TfON. (SEE SPECW r1!.OVISIONSJ 4. ,A,U STRUCTlJRI\J. STEEL t.'iAJ.l [Sf ST1:.VCTUV>.!. CJ.KMN STEEL CONf01:.MING TO ASfM f,. 36. ALl HIGH 5TKENGrH STEEL SHAll 6£ M5HTO M VB, TYFE /1. 5. !Jl OIMENSIONS ME HORlZOI'tTM AND VERTlW UNLESS OTH£RW'.sE 5HOr¥N. 6. ALl. STlWCTuv.r.. STEEL 5i-1ALL BE G!U.YANIZED. 7. G-MYANIZIHG SH.AJ.L BE IN ACCORD,o.,NCE WITH MS}{fO II. " OR M 232 ;,s APPUC~LE.. RETROFIT ITEMS: o 1I\1£>T ML /..DNGriuOIN,4,L f:ESTVJ .... u;s @ /Jo.'STm TRANSYE~f; R.E£>rRN~ @ REMOr'E M'O R£Pb'.cc. EXPANSION JOINTS @ 51DEWlJ;; & M.'5C. RE~ fJ1:. LEGEND ~ IDENlIFIES 5Er:TION, YIE'N O.£:. OIT .... !L r II!:£N O.£:. SHONN ON DKiDGE SHEEr 15 ~ TAKEN OR SHONN ON THE SAME SHEEr "" "" N "" ""' ,;.; ""' ""' (\J • .~ Cl " '" "" '" '" o ~ " ~ '" r en o " 2 1 ) , i~tli '2 w '" Of- 0:: c;: I m 0 -;i ()l ~ 0:: w;::: ~w :J ~ 0 Z z n:: ::J ~ w f-o:: > U (3 I- ,<~ Z Vl Z~ g~ <w ",Vl o -' ~ 0; ~ ::;; ~ _:;8 go..!fi "";'" " e '{' ~..£ ... , ... tn-f ... L.:.J 2' 8 ~ U U1 ::3:.15 g>"js = -)i( "5 .,.., • • c • c U ~llm .!I~ ...; ~ .-" , co C:..z ;] . , 00 C--","0 CZ ~: :-~ C=:rL U~ i;;g ~ ~ ~ ~ E " g'N "g :; • • '" !~~ Ii, ~ ~3 ~ ,I , ~ >C z ~1!1· X g~ ,! 1 )1 ~ ~ ~ " -; 0 II: ,.: i " '! " I! I " l;1: li IIIII ~ IIIII ~ IIIII ~ I I I I! IIIII g 21~ ~ /rJER NO.' 1 !H»I(;< /---t-~/ --------/ /'.,,1 I / ! if EXf> MSION J{)JNr (TYf') / --- -----L;L/~ ----------------~-..... ~ -..(.-..... -....------...-.. --...... --...-.-..-..-",.....--'/' / ~ /---___ 1 _________ _ --= -=-=-=-= __ ;r!r 7..j ,)! 1-y.: =-=-.-~ =-= =--:..=.= -_-_ E1:$OING llTJ!.JrY / I / / /--____ /-I .r------t 7 ._ .,. __ ~ ----------~ "lrE (TYP.) I~ ~_-_-_-=~ ~-_~-l7~-J-__ ~--L-----~------------------ - --- I / I {------r r--------1-------------~ :.= ___ ~-~-/-l:-~-:-£ ________________ _ 2)[ 4 ,I ---------:-1:L.T7_# ___ Y---------~-------- ----"-I -.J -/ri----~ --- ~I~ ",>- '-- '0' '0' (lYE.) (lYE.) DOWN STREAM SIDE / nERNO.: fHINS / / ~\ __ L ______ ~~ ~ ------ ---=----;-A r7 - "~ EXlSnNG CONCR....~-TI: (j{~DEK (iYP.) 12'-0" *' € EXP ANSJON JOWT I ,0'·0" '* 3' / 1 1... / -.l--__________ _ ----~----~-'J::7~-~-L __ L_-_-=-_~~-_:~-_~-_-_~-_-_--3'1 c 5EO 6' i~ \ il ~-_ -Y-n--~ t -4'-6' II -r-----= --I ! .) ! 11 ~~) __ -H '" f ~ t :~WLL!J..LI' I , I ; I \ I I I :: 1-I ====:=L__ _ -=-=-______________ _ C=~==1~~~: / '-=/-:.-~-------~-----------=--7=--~ --------I-I-r'--r ~ ;;. r-----;,"'"---/ / / I I G MIN. f.D. 5CH. «J PVC FIPE EXTENO PIPE 6~ ~E:YOND STEEL CONCrEE O/APHJi:AC7MS, EFOXY PVC riPE TO CONCRffE DIAP'H.. ON ONE 51DE OF THE EXf"ANSION JO/Nr ONLY. i ~ SEE DfT AlL EB ~-~--=--~~-~~,;~---~--~~---,---------- , ~-:- ~~ ""~ 1-: '0' '0' (lYE.) (TY!'.) UP STREAM SIDE PARTIAL PLANS @ PIER NO, 1 PIe! NO.2 S/MiVof: I I i PJE~WALL-~ ~PJEK " " ~ in __ ~U_ CORE OR1l1. 2 1/Z'8 ~i)LE THROIX7H EN;) DWHRAGM SECTION (/i"\1 \::::/ '" THIS DIMENSION I,.{.oIo, Y HAVE TO BE .... OJUSTEO SUGHTL Y FOR. ..... NCHOte. HOLES TO Cl..Et\R EXISiJNG RElNFORCJNG. (Sf£. NOTE J.f3 ON SHEET §) co CO ru C") 0=> -q I'l 0.J '.0 .. ~ :::J D '" :;: CO> '" co ~ 0> :0 -, " , '" " -' , , 2 o 1~11 ~ I~ , ,~; i, I ._ ~ ~ w Of--' () I Vl ~~~< ~ 8 < I-c:' W w .. n---~ 0 ::l w 0 Z ~ :J 0::: W f-Lc >U (3Z <~ Z< Z~ g~ < w Vl () Vl W o '" -' ] 4; ~ ::~ on _,. g'~t::::' !d 13 ~£~ I':;.~ ljl ~~lr~ UW .... ;CN r;Jl:: ."2 § • til". s t~ • • c " o U ~llrm I!I~ ;:..z 00 ~! " ·c ~ "e .~ f-< >-z :-~ uP:: ~ .l< ~ Li.., it" '" ·0 .~ £ :5 E "0, g'N '" '" g g' D:ij !l@ :~ ~I " ~~ o Jill ~,~ '( 1"1. '-j ~. z .i ,I I ]" -; '"": II:! 3: .., l) <r: ...: ! if 5 I II d l , 11111 ~ iii II ~ I1111 ~ , II' is ~ " Illil ~ f:(lSf. "-E.JNF. (If!''.) _ :3!~·X2"XO·?' EX'51 WArm;..Y OED< \:\\ $ SFt'C=R it "V··'".5 STEEL BA< '\ ~._~::~, _________ •• __ • ,-, .' EMIlEOMENf FOR 1 \ I ::;. 51e.~8 RESIN WNDEO :: ::. "",CHaRS !:>j ~--. --:;:: ,e;-- -" II I, " ',' ,I ~ I, :: I, .1 • .I, .' ... ~" I, ,".' " I, :: L .. _ .. _ , 'L~ ~I '~!1'~' -~.. U .~. ~l ~ --='-:--:--~-':':':'---=:-'T.-~-.:.:.:.--mi; ;.1 T t----------------;::]::::::::::-:--: :~ , -----'/1 / . BAA i X Z' X 0'·10" 6" ?' Ii ~P7' X 3/4 TYF. (Z)L5X.3i12 L DETAIL O['P05i.E Bv.o:..:i !. BAR £NDPu..rE DETAiLS SIMIVtR <&Ii <&Ii // //"// /.///// //.// ./7// // /,- --1------------- V //// 17//// // /l // /7 (/1/ i(J , <&Ii <&Ii 5("~!! SECTION (7\\, \3 N"f'LY ErOXY I:.£S!N ro cotffACT SlJR.c,A,!;E JUST eE"01?E INSTN.V.nON fUll i5~ r.G'>"INSr UN!)& 51D5 0;:: EXISTING SUJ3. MCHOR END 1'1}.TE 1~ X 5 VZ' X O'-g- WI 1 314"0 HOLE -----, I __ .,0; I , v-t-FAUX FAD tY.>NOCD ro f'V\1E WIE?OXY Sf"EClf!ED 8Y P"'P WlNUFACTU1i:E1{ FULL LOJ',O NUf WI 3/4", SET 5CKfW AND IVA5H~ .Ld-----J::: 5::.~ N I~ ~ }..NCHQ}{ f"lATc 1 1/4" r 4" x O'-e," WI r 314', HOLE KEEFER FlArE 3/8" x Y X 0'-4 112" GAl' lIT ONE EN::; ,.S INDiCATE::> IN NGJE 2. (NO OAF AT orF"05fTE 5ND) A'-ICW.;/{ EJ.IO r': MeW< < € 1 II.:!' e ~.5. BAR 3" 3" I i ------i-~-~ --I ----I 'O'DRJUEDHO[£5FOR '> \. r. n ,;., \ 518'~ R!:5~N BON~EO ANCHORS i?J ;; ti " • " " (; 6 O.C. d.. SlOt: I.'") ~ ~ l.IJ :: i ,~ , 1 °' ""~I ::;: , :', ~ ; ~ ! '"I ", 'r-;, " .. I :: \ ~\ ·L ;:~j--SPAca:PLAT~ ;:::. r<) ~ \. --;--~J8" X 2" X O-Z' ~:. -' - WELD KEEPER ~_ If. TO ANCHOR. ) V4 V END ff. K.£Ef'ER pu, TE 3/8" X ':;" X 0'-4 1/2H F.S. II <V8'" I I " , I I~ X 314 . I ~L5X3V2 '. I 9" SECTION (?0 \- NOTES HOlES FOR RESIN ROUNDED .... NCHCr:S SHAU BE Lve,'" TED .... NO DRll.l.ED IN ..... CCOORON/CE WITH THE FOLlOWING PRQCEDUR2 A ESTABUSH mo f-lARX. WC .... TION OF WTTOM i/,YEK. OF WNFORCING BAR ON SV,B SOrrIT, OR fOr R!:iNrOKCING ,',r TOP OF SLllfl WHERE Af"PUCI-BLE. ~. RELOC,).,TE TEMf'LI-,TE 5UGHTLY f5 REDUJRED TO .... VOID DAI.-f;O..G/NG EXISf. SV,6 R£INFOK.CING BARS WHEN DRJWNG. C. ORIll,A.li ANCHOR HOLES WITH THE ..... NCHOR TEMrv, TE IN POSITION. 2. IN5T ..... 1l RESTfUI/NER EMR. NJCIiOR ,""!.ATES SO TH ..... T THE 2~ GAP .... LW .... yS OCCURS ON THE S,',ME 51DE OF THE EXPMSION JOINr M EACH rlER. NOrE: NO GAP AT THE OPPOSiTE END G,r: THE R:£STRAINER. BAR:. 3. SOME RESIN BONDED ANCHOR HOLES MAY HfYE 10 BE CORE ORILEO, (THROUGH EXIST. DEa REINFORCiNG) O=-r~DING ON Lif....ATlO."J OF EXIST. OECK R£)NFORCING. APPROVAL flY THE: ENGINEER SHAlL BE ;,caUIREO PRIOR TO CORE O?i!1JNG Tf-IROUGH EXIST. REiNFORCING_ 4. IF EX/SrlNG REINFORCING IS ENCOUNTERED WHILE CORE DKlWNG THROUGH THE END DI!.FHR.AGJ...i.5, THE CO/ffv..CTOR SMll. APPLY RESIN TO THE REINFOR.CJNG. ONCE 1t1E EPOXY hJ.5 SET-UP THE CO}{fRt'oCTOR SW.U JNSTI\Il. THE PVC PIPE 1'.5 5liOWN ON THIS SHEEI . < "" = ru "'0" "'0" "'" a ..,. '" '" Cl D '" '" en '" co ~ co "' n n , -, -, " ~ j .1 ;;;-1, ~ dla W (!) Of- C;::C:: ",0 '" WI- OW Z'" W >U -0:-:::E z'!2 -o:w O<ll o -1 11 (fl -1 :;' I-Ww (flO OC w", >W (flZ Z_ <:-0: ",,,, I-W f-- <Il W '" ~ :: .. '" ll~ gwSiS' .~ ,-" .£ ~ fm i ~ • .s...; ... 1Jn3:~ 0:: -8 o -i-=: -S' i;J g ~ ,!. ~llm 111t!j r=.;z; 00 >-~ E-C:.J uP:: ~ fr~ a~ ~ :~ .~ .';1 : D,,-! , , • i;a .~ E .~ ~ o E ~N "c; '" < ~ £ :! ·u !~@ !i 2 ~! ;§ H • ~ >-' Z ~ ;~i W 'i , :', <., 'I~' '" .. ~ ....; 0 !:I:: ~ !i II I Ii ilill ~ 11111 ~ 11111 6 , , , , , IIII Z D ~ ~ o 6 z @ IPf~NO r I !HINGE --:1-(;; ------------I /"' / ______ ,/~ i ~-=-~-jl:=-~-_-- --------~ ~--~--~~-~ -~ '----___ / T7--;----------~ ---=--- ....r-__ I I 1-:: ------------ ____ ~7 r--A ------------ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ----::-I -EXJ5TlNG IJT1 ___ {_ '-7-__ ---____ -----------I'lPE(fYr.) UTY __ z:L -'.J_ !--~----/ __ _ _ ~/ I / 1--'-L. __ ~---------== --, __ -------L ..l~/--T.rt-----_ __ _ I_i __ - -------I- L r7-I ----::==----------- / I 1__ r--I-------~--;I / 1--/T-r--------- _____ L_-'.I 1 __ -'-_I-~'-D". ------1 ~ I --./_ -.l_L__ (TYP.) 7 _ -~ ----.-e-------~ ------ .--;:---------- I Ii oor. CXFW1SION JOINT iro!' EXPAH510N JOINt' / '--EXISrtNG CONCRITE G/~OER (IT.") DOWN STREAM SIDE frlEK. NO. r I l. HINGE r----~ " uo/A~ff7U/LZ/{4 1//4////1 10RG ... --------rJ~7-'..L~-_---------~ -;t----.f!/ I Y I; ---------------- __ 1111 -/---------------l..LJ-/ --------~ .7--~~-------=-==---/ ; / / ;1/-------r--3-:-'O-;------ £2U~£~ V/// ---~=_=0~~ /I_L _______ J (rYe.) --~i--_-_----=----= -L-~--~-~----/ '// --~ ------- . I J Y ._1 ~ -L wr. EXP'N5ION JOINf {~ TOr EXPMSJOIolJOINT UP STREAM SIDE PARTIAL PLANS @ PIER NO.1 f"/EK NO. 2 SJM/U'IK. (///~ ~.~ ~ I ~ PIER. ,) ) ) f) III / 7' ) / 7 7'~ /~~~ ~~~~ r j').:""~-=-==-='=~::'=== if TRANSvERSE SEE OETAlL THIS 5HEc.-r ~ " V/ l <SrIWN" __ ~~Z£---'-~--------'~U'~ SECTION @ • <=> a ru to cu cr:> c'") r-i ru u "' CO '0 '" '" en " :> "' OJ ~ o " 1 , d ~-~ I' /'" , 'l-~ i , ~ /I " '" -' w '-' 0>-'" "-I <: moW 1- 0:::: 01 lLJ W>-I'" 0 ::J W W z:t:>C::: w ",w >u ZZ -0: ~ -0: <: til"'''' z _ j-W -0: W ~ '-' til '" o w -' '" ~ ;; Jl _~~ u.§!~.;,: _ o~· I -=4>Ej'; -c: <..f'! B~1"l'= g.~J.~ =--§'" ~ ~ o - " JRllfm IJIW "'-z 00 >-'"" _ Z ~r=J Ue::: t ~ ;:; 0- " 0 ~.; ~ :~ £~ :.ii~ ,:c ~a ~ g ~ E '-E rN . ., "" ~ go E:13 Ii !:~ ~!~ "! " '" "' z ll!i :1 i 'j l'!l '1"1 ml" •. , 0 D:: ....: U /f /iIf 11111 ~ 11111 ~ ! 1111 ~ "I" ~ § ~ 11111 g $ G<JND iI'EW & • -FWSH WTTH EXT. 3/8 FACE OF ,.,rE , 6"8 OOU81E EXT/(}, -, \ '\ , Ii/"" ~1'7PE iJ!NJ5, \ \ \ \ ~\ 3/4"s f.OHEsr(E \ \ ~-.. -_...... ANCHOR (TY. I U· \ \..., -:--::...... __ INSfilll P!:1! -----j --++---: --;t-r-.-_. "(,-'/. IM.NUFACTUR.E5 ~ 'L ~L-_' __ ~ '-~ .. = .. ;:::=.=-.:.:"-;;.-.:;.~ IYmTENDIRECTIGN -~~---~~-..... / EXISTING CONC1?ETE \ \ /' ~..... \ ENOOWHGV.M bP' (/ '\ '-V4·NON-5Hr.JN~ (TYf') \. ~ Ef'OXY GP.our 10 ' ).,E5U~: tEMOOTH E'EM./I\G (TYr) r DIA CORE Di?J!.LEV HOLE ~ PLAN CONC~aE O~ ~our ---I -~I----C ._. __ • FlU WI ClASS 4000 t u .:: ~. PUll ~';,-~~ L_D-~~~' ___ 'h' ____ '-: __ _ , , , , 0=====1 '" ~ II '---, ELAVA T/ON .J 6518" ~1I7. I ~, 1- , ~ 1~ SECTIONE]) 3!4h £ J..DHESfYE ANCHOR (fYF') .e:. r x 10" JC 1'-,3" o 318 (h --+2 ~ o 01-----'- dVf I~· I-·~ I'V203V2 '/ ---r __ ~ 1 '0" 1 :: VIEW C9 NOTES: 1'4" r;Rour PliO BE'TWEEN END PLATE ANO F/o,C'2 OF DIAPHRAGM 2. HOLES FOR THE ADHESTVE r.NCHOR5 5H},LL DE co~ DRI!J...E.O WhEN iNE RESTR.NN£R. IS IN POSIT/OI4. --, ~ ~ .' '" '" ru CD ru u-; '" u '" ~ '" '-' " '" '" " D o J l , J .... , ~ I~!I iii I~ ~ WI'" Cl -' e:::. f-<: crlJ..... z!- ~o'oW to:: --, Cl we-=' uJ Z I-zet:oZ W _w > u Vl:::;: «:E Zw «u z ~ 0... <! < w X-l OU1 wO-o w --' r:t: 8 _ "E _= • -t '" -l_ CII :15; ~ .. §",:-"~ t" .5 ~ < ... ~.. = [j]'~.~ !Ei~ ~ 6; ~ -o U JlII~ III~ ""Z 00 '-' >--2; f--f=,l uP:: ~ ... ::; .-Cl~ r~ .~ .!:! , j5",! , . ~< ·r § ;i E o E f~ ~~ C::15 I~ -l!~~ I " -. 0 I, " 1'~ vi "'. z W " ia " . 'I ~ ~ i ... ~ I ! ~~I I : ...: ai ;i I~ I'-;~ ci !ri. / ',Ii ~J :~ .3 " IIIII ~ III [ I ~ iT1lf. 8 ~ • 1111 o 4 f" Q' {j "" 1JO.2! 'gft-.J-1.30'-0· I J:j EXP. Jr. ,I !Lf ! riEl: NO.1 ,1:> ... ,._ .... ' ......... . ·~-/1""-". _,,,,4. -'~ .. _"...A···~;:'::::ZJ /; EXP. Jr. /; / /; -1/;<---- /; LtX;/W .... VE. EXP.Jf. If 8 I / / 8 /--&,.,$. / 7tF=--:::::::d::::=::""=:==:=:=~:·~·~=? ~ .. " :' ,;:' r C/iAMFEK <J 4 PIi!EFORMEJ) EASTOMEXlC JOINT S~L ---- PLAN Tor OF CDNRr;.jE <J 4 <J 4 EXISTING EXPANSION JOINT DETAIL fOr OF CONKCTE • > <J u tx:ND8r~ t3ACr:.EJ!: ROO RAPID CURE SrUCON£! SE}-,LI\/'{f (;RIND V4" X ~ CH/'Mr::.K F!WM CL~ TO CUlW lIriEK PV.CING NOSING. (fYP.) > • ~ > • <i PR}MER liS REQ'O. I'YMMUPf,n;m (TYFJ "--REMOVE EX!STlNG JCrNT SEAL SECTION f'ROfCSEJ POURED sv..v.m JOI",-r DET .... ,~ .... T R:OA!)W,A,Y • ,j <J i'-,?" 86'-fY' IW~OWAY 6'~ \ J fli:= I r ~h L-1 ?' f-..\ 2 .' " BOND fJR.E..A.FJ:R B-'oCKff. ROD \" 1/2"' 5IUCON~ $ It 5EAWff r; \ , , • ! I - ., t ..------ > , ffi , I ,., T I L LIMiTS OF PROPOSED SEALANT JOINT AT SIDWALK & RAIL EU6TOMEKIC CONCRETE NOSING. (GUTTER TO GuTTER) 4 (SIOW,J.,/A IYf'/CAL THOUGHOUT) RIIPID CURE SIUCON£ SEJ"L.A,Ni fY)NO 'R£)o.~R B--.aEX. ROD EXISTING r EXf". JT. FJI..l.EK SECTION USE TEMf'ORARY FORM TOP OF CONR.£TE PRIMER ..-'6 J::E"Q'D. BY MANUF,A,TUREK. (TYf'.) REMOVE EXJ5T1NC; JOINT Sv,r rROPOSED POURE~ Sf}.V.NT JOINT OET AIL 1\] SIOEW .... U; ,J.,NO fU..IL