HomeMy WebLinkAbout12. VegWildDR SegA 2015-04-14
Lake to Sound—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
Prepared for
April 2015
Prepared by
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
Prepared for
King County
Parks Division
201 South Jackson, Seventh Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Prepared by
Parametrix
719 2nd Avenue, Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98104
T. 206.394.3700 F. 1.855.542.6353
www.parametrix.com
CITATION
Parametrix. 2015. Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report. Prepared by
Parametrix, Seattle, Washington. April 2015.
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1‐1
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 1‐1
1.2 PROJECT FEATURES ....................................................................................................................... 1‐1
1.3 PROJECT AREA AND SETTING ........................................................................................................ 1‐5
1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................................................................................... 1‐6
2. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 2‐1
2.1 METHODS OF ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 2‐1
2.2 STUDIES AND COORDINATION ...................................................................................................... 2‐1
2.2.1 Review of Existing Information ........................................................................................ 2‐1
2.2.2 Field Investigation ............................................................................................................ 2‐2
2.2.3 Regulations ....................................................................................................................... 2‐5
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT........................................................................................................... 3‐1
3.1 STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................................. 3‐1
3.2 LAND COVER TYPES IN THE STUDY AREA ...................................................................................... 3‐1
3.2.1 Riparian‐Wetland ............................................................................................................. 3‐2
3.2.2 Herbaceous Wetland ........................................................................................................ 3‐5
3.2.3 Urban ................................................................................................................................ 3‐5
3.2.4 Open Water ...................................................................................................................... 3‐5
3.3 WILDLIFE SPECIES IN THE STUDY AREA ......................................................................................... 3‐6
3.4 SPECIAL‐STATUS SPECIES IN THE STUDY AREA ............................................................................. 3‐6
3.4.1 Bald Eagle ......................................................................................................................... 3‐8
3.4.2 Great Blue Heron ............................................................................................................. 3‐9
3.4.3 Western Toad ................................................................................................................. 3‐12
3.4.4 Peregrine Falcon ............................................................................................................ 3‐12
3.4.5 Pileated Woodpecker ..................................................................................................... 3‐12
3.4.6 Townsend’s Big‐eared Bat .............................................................................................. 3‐12
4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................................. 4‐1
4.1 CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS .............................................................................................................. 4‐1
4.1.1 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................ 4‐1
4.1.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 4‐3
4.1.3 Special‐status Species ...................................................................................................... 4‐3
4.2 OPERATIONAL EFFECTS ............................................................................................................... 4‐10
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
ii April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084
5. MITIGATION ............................................................................................................................... 5‐1
5.1 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES .............................................................................. 5‐1
5.2 RESTORATION OF TEMPORARY EFFECTS ...................................................................................... 5‐2
5.3 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION ...................................................................................................... 5‐2
6. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 6‐1
LIST OF FIGURES
1‐1 Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................... 1‐3
2‐1 Mapped Sensitive Areas and Habitat ......................................................................................... 2‐3
3‐1 Vegetation and Wildlife Study Area Base Map .......................................................................... 3‐3
4‐1 Year‐round and Seasonal Buffers for the Black River Heron Nesting Colony ............................ 4‐7
LIST OF TABLES
3‐1 Land Cover in the Wildlife and Vegetation Study Area for the Lake to Sound Trail—
Segment A Construction Project ............................................................................................... 3‐2
3‐2 Special‐status Species Documented or Expected to Occur in the Study Area ........................... 3‐8
APPENDICES
A Bird Species Likely to Occur in the Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A Study Area
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 iii
ACRONYMS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe
ESA Endangered Species Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GIS geographic information system
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHP Natural Heritage Program
PHS Priority Habitats and Species
RMC Renton Municipal Code
TMC Tukwila Municipal Code
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources
WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 1‐1
1. INTRODUCTION
This discipline report is intended to provide information in support of the Washington State Department
of Transportation (WSDOT) Environmental Classification Summary form for the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) Documented Categorical Exclusion process, assist project planning, and facilitate
permitting. This report describes vegetation and wildlife resources in the area of a proposed 1.2‐mile
non motorized trail, evaluates potential impacts to critical areas from the proposed project, and
presents mitigation for these impacts.
1.1 Project Overview
King County, together with the Cities of Renton and Tukwila, WSDOT, and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), is proposing to develop a 1.2‐mile‐long segment of what will ultimately be the
16‐mile Lake to Sound Trail. The 1.2‐mile‐long segment is referred to as Segment A of the Lake to Sound
Trail. Segment A extends from Naches Avenue SW, runs parallel to the railroad tracks north of the Black
River Riparian Forest, across a proposed non‐motorized pedestrian bridge northeast of Monster Road,
and under two railroad bridges to the Green River Trail at the north end of the Starfire Sports Complex
in Fort Dent Park (Figure 1‐1).
Segment A, as well as the longer Lake to Sound Trail, is part of a Regional Trail System that provides non‐
motorized, alternative transportation and a recreational corridor for multiple trail users, including
bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and others. A goal of the Lake to Sound Trail is to provide non‐motorized
transportation facilities to economically disadvantaged communities in southwest King County that have
been historically underserved by such facilities.
Once complete, Segment A would become part of a larger planned system that would serve
employment and residential centers in South King County and connect to regional trails in Seattle and
the greater Regional Trail System network. Segment A would provide a much‐needed trail connection
between the regional growth centers of Renton and Tukwila and safe passage under the heavy rail lines.
In addition to the Green River Trail, Segment A would connect to the Interurban Trail to the south, and
in the future to the Cedar River Trail.
1.2 Project Features
Segment A is typically approximately 12 feet of asphalt pavement bounded by two 2‐foot‐wide
shoulders and 1‐foot‐wide clear zones, in accordance with American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) guidelines. The project includes:
Constructing a 12‐foot‐wide asphalt pavement trail with soft‐surface (gravel) shoulders
Performing minor grading to construct the trail (approximately 1,410 cubic yards of cut and
2,980 cubic yards of fill, disturbing an area of approximately 0.7 acre outside the proposed trail
footprint)
Performing ground improvements, which would disturb an area of approximately 0.17 acre in
addition to other disturbances from the trail
Constructing a new non‐motorized pedestrian bridge, including abutments, over the Black River
northeast of Monster Road (the existing Monster Road bridge cannot be improved to safely
accommodate the envisioned trail)
Installing a pedestrian‐actuated signal crossing of Monster Road south of the bridge
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) RailwaySW 7th StMonster
R
d
S
W
68
t
h
Oakesd
a
l
e
A
v
e
S
W
Mau
le
A
v
e
SNaches Ave SWS 143rd St 80th Ave SI
n
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
A
v
e
S
S 144th St
Beacon Coa
l
M
i
n
e
B
N
S
F
S 143rd St
Martin Luther King Way S
Duwamish
River
G
re
e
n
RiverTrailGre
en
River CITY OFRENTONCITY OFTUKWILA
UNINC.KING COUNTY
Black RiverPump StationBlackRiver
EndProject
BeginProject
ProposedRetaining Wall
Proposed Culvert
ConcreteRecyclingPlant
Proposed Rest Area
Proposed Rest Area
Black RiverRiparian Forest
Fort Dent Parkand StarfireSports Complex
Waterworks Gardens
FosterGolf Links
0 600300Feet
Figure 1-1Vicinity Map
Project Area
LakeWashington
90
5
405
5
99
509
599
518
S E A T T L E
R E N T O N
B E L L E V U E
S E A T A C
T U K W I L A
Legend:
ProposedTrail Alignment
Existing Trail
City Boundary
Railroad
Parks and WDFWPriority Habitat AreasPath: U:\PSO\Projects\Clients\1521-KingCo\554-1521-084 L2ST\99Svcs\GIS\MapDocs\March2015\Vic-8x11fig_Apr2015.mxdParametrix Sources: King County, City of Renton, WDFW 2014, WSDOT.
Lake to Sound Trail --- Segment A
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 1‐5
Constructing an undercrossing feature beneath two railroad bridges to protect trail users from
potential falling debris
Installing one box culvert for terrestrial habitat enhancement
Building retaining walls near the south approach to Monster Road, north of the proposed
pedestrian bridge over the Black River, and on either side of the box culvert
Constructing two approximately 10‐foot by 20‐foot pull‐out rest areas (one at the northern
perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest and one east of Monster Road and northwest of the
Black River pump station)
Installing split‐rail fencing and plantings to discourage incursions into sensitive areas and to
improve visual screening for sensitive wildlife
Measures that would be implemented to avoid or minimize the potential for adverse effects on
vegetation and wildlife resources are identified in Section 5.1 of this report.
1.3 Project Area and Setting
The Segment A project area is a linear corridor mostly within an existing trail corridor (see Figure 1‐1).
Segment A is located in Section 13, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. Two parallel
railroad tracks (Burlington Northern Santa Fe [BNSF] and Union Pacific) cross the western quarter of the
proposed trail corridor on elevated bridges heading north‐south. Another set of BNSF railroad tracks are
located north of the eastern three‐quarters of the proposed trail corridor with an east‐west bearing.
These tracks tie into the north‐south tracks north of the project area. East of the railroad bridges, the
proposed trail alignment is within the City of Renton; west of the railroad bridges, the proposed trail
alignment is within the City of Tukwila. The project area is described from east to west below.
The east terminus is located at a cul‐de‐sac on Naches Avenue SW near an office park. The eastern
three‐quarters of the proposed trail alignment from Naches Avenue SW to the proposed pedestrian
bridge northeast of Monster Road (approximately 4,100 linear feet) follows an existing gravel
maintenance road south of the BNSF east‐west railroad tracks and north of the Black River, along the
northern perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest (see Section 3.3 of this report for a more detailed
description of the Black River Riparian Forest and the wildlife communities it supports). The gravel
maintenance road is currently used for walking and pet exercise. The existing road surface in most of
this portion consists of compacted gravel and ranges from 10 to 12 feet wide. Areas immediately outside
the edge of the existing gravel surface generally consist of grasses, low‐growing annual plants,
blackberry thickets, and native riparian trees. Uses outside this portion of the project area include a
concrete recycling plant and an area zoned for light industrial uses just north of the railroad tracks.
The proposed trail alignment crosses over the Black River using a new non‐motorized pedestrian bridge
northeast of Monster Road Bridge, then crosses Monster Road south of the river. For the western
quarter of the proposed trail alignment, west of Monster Road, the alignment lies south of the Black
River. For the first 150 feet west of Monster Road, the alignment is on existing paved surfaces, and then
it follows a dirt footpath that joins an existing dirt road beneath the railroad bridges for 650 feet. The
westernmost 600 feet of the proposed trail alignment is on maintained lawns associated with Fort Dent
Park. West of the railroad bridges, the area south of the proposed trail alignment is dominated by Fort
Dent Park and the Starfire Sports Complex. The confluence of the Black and Green Rivers is located just
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
1‐6 April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084
north of the west end of the Segment A project area. Commercial businesses are north of the Black River
and south of the trail corridor.
1.4 Project Purpose and Need
The purpose of the Segment A project is to design and construct an alternative non motorized
transportation corridor and multi‐use recreational trail between Naches Avenue SW in Renton and the
Green River Trail in Tukwila. Segment A would provide non‐motorized access to recreation and
employment centers and would complete a link in the Regional Trail System network. The trail is
intended to safely accommodate a variety of groups such as bicyclists, pedestrians, runners, wheelchair
users, and skaters. Trail design standards would safely accommodate different ages and skill levels
within those groups.
Completion of Segment A would provide the following benefits:
Serve local and regional non‐motorized transportation needs and provide access to the trail for
local communities.
Help satisfy the regional need for recreational trails and provide safe recreational opportunities
to a wide variety of trail users.
Provide a critical link in the Regional Trail System.
Provide economic and health benefits to communities along the trail.
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 2‐1
2. METHODOLOGY
This study is based on a review of existing information and field investigations. The goal of these efforts
is to document existing information, to reflect current site conditions, and to collect new information to
assess potential impacts.
2.1 Methods of Analysis
To establish the basis for the analysis of effects on vegetation and wildlife, the ecosystems analysts
delineated and classified land cover types on a 2009 aerial photograph and visited a sample of these
areas during field reconnaissance surveys. The analysts identified land cover types in the vegetation and
wildlife study area (see Section 3.1 for a discussion of how the study area was defined), based on the
structural categories defined in Wildlife‐Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington (Johnson and
O’Neil 2001). These land cover types are described in Section 3.2, Vegetation Types in the Study Area.
Within 100 feet of the project footprint, wetland identification was based on field delineations
conducted in support of the Critical Area Study (Parametrix 2015a). In areas where no field delineations
were conducted, wetland identification was based on available geographic information system (GIS)
data, supplemented by aerial photograph interpretation.
To support the analysis of effects on wildlife, the ecosystems analysts identified wildlife species that are
associated with the land cover types in the study area, and with specific habitat elements within each
cover type. Analysts also assessed locations of known ecologically sensitive areas and important wildlife
occurrences that may be sensitive to disturbance from noise or human presence. This information was
supplemented with data gathered during field reconnaissance visits.
The analysts evaluated the potential effects of the proposed action on vegetation and wildlife using a
variety of methods and resources, including the following:
GIS analysis to determine the acreage, type, and location of affected cover types
Review of existing literature on the effects of trail construction, use, and maintenance on
vegetation and wildlife
Review of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) management
recommendations for priority habitats and species
Biologists reviewed information provided by project engineers and identified aspects of the project that
could alter habitat conditions or disturb wildlife in the project vicinity.
2.2 Studies and Coordination
The ecosystems analysts used a combination of existing information and field surveys to gain an
understanding of vegetation and wildlife resources that may be affected by the development of
Segment A. These information sources, as well as the regulations that drive the need for this analysis,
are identified below.
2.2.1 Review of Existing Information
To identify and classify existing vegetation types, and to estimate wildlife occurrence in the project study
area, the analysts reviewed the following sources:
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
2‐2 April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) online Information, Planning, and Conservation System
(USFWS 2015a)
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
database (WDNR 2014)
WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database (WDFW 2015)
Aerial photographs (2009)
Peer‐reviewed and unpublished literature
Interviews with staff at federal, state, local agencies, and local interest groups
Information collected during a field reconnaissance of the study area
The analysts reviewed the USFWS list of threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species to
determine which species with ESA status have the potential to occur in the study area. Analysts
reviewed NHP data for known locations of rare plant species or rare plant communities within the study
area, and PHS data for known locations of wildlife species that are a management concern for WDFW, as
well as habitats with unique or significant value. Figure 2‐1 displays the location of the proposed trail
alignment relative to mapped sensitive areas and habitat. Note that the locations of sensitive areas and
habitat depicted in Figure 2 1 are approximate and subject to change. For example, great blue heron
nests may be concentrated in the area identified as the heron colony in the figure but they may not be
limited to that area.
2.2.2 Field Investigation
Biologists conducted a limited field reconnaissance to verify habitat mapping and to observe wildlife
species in the vicinity of the proposed trail alignment. A wildlife biologist conducted a site visit on March
29, 2011. Biologists conducting site visits for the wetlands and stream discipline reports also collected
data about wildlife use of the area between November 2010 and February 2011. In accordance with
WDFW’s management recommendations for the great blue heron (Azerrad 2012), biologists also
searched the Black River Riparian Forest for evidence of heron nests, including satellite nests (i.e., nests
in outlying areas away from the greatest concentration of nests). In a single‐day visit during the non‐
breeding season (January 10, 2013), biologists used global positioning system equipment to map the
locations of all trees with heron nests, as well as trees with canopies overlapping a nest tree, confirming
nest locations with aerial imagery.
No formal surveys were conducted for any other wildlife species. If the project site falls within the
known or expected range of a particular species, and if habitat for that species is present within the
study area, then the species is assumed to be present.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) RailwaySW 7th StMonster
R
d
S
W
68
t
h
Oakesd
a
l
e
A
v
e
S
W
Mau
le
A
v
e
SNaches Ave SWS 143rd St 80th Ave SI
n
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
A
v
e
S
S 144th St
Beacon Coa
l
M
i
n
e
B
N
S
F
S 143rd St
Martin Luther King Way S
Duwamish
River
G
re
e
n
RiverTrailGre
en
River CITY OFRENTONCITY OFTUKWILA
UNINC.KING COUNTY
B la c k R iv e r
ConcreteRecyclingPlant
Black RiverRiparian Forest
Fort Dent Parkand StarfireSports Complex
Waterworks Gardens
FosterGolf Links
0 600300Feet
Figure 2-1Mapped SensitiveAreas and Habitat
Project Area
LakeWashington
90
5
405
5
99
509
599
518
S E A T T L E
R E N T O N
B E L L E V U E
S E A T A C
T U K W I L A
Legend:
ProposedTrail Alignment
Existing Trail
City Boundary
Railroad
Vegetation andWildlife Study Area
Black RiverRiparian ForestBlack River Heron Colony(approximate location)
Black RiverWetlandsBlack RiverRiparian WetlandPath: U:\PSO\Projects\Clients\1521-KingCo\554-1521-084 L2ST\99Svcs\GIS\MapDocs\March2015\Fig2-1-SA-Apr2015.mxdParametrix Sources: King County, City of Renton, WDFW 2014, WSDOT.
Lake to Sound Trail Segment A
Priority Habitats and Species (WDFW 2014)
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 2‐5
2.2.3 Regulations
The following federal regulations or statutes apply to the protection of vegetation and wildlife in the
study area:
Endangered Species Act
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404
State and local regulations that apply to these resources include the Shoreline Management Act, Growth
Management Act, and sensitive/critical area ordinances for the Cities of Renton and Tukwila. The
general goal of these regulations is to protect water quality, shorelines, aquatic habitat, wetlands,
riparian areas, and associated terrestrial habitats, as well as the species that depend on these areas.
The City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) outlines requirements for the protection of wildlife and
wildlife habitat in section 4‐3‐050, Critical Areas Regulations, subsection K, Habitat Conservation. Critical
habitats include Category 1 wetlands (see the Critical Area Study [Parametrix 2015a] for a definition), as
well as habitats associated with the documented presence of species proposed for listing or listed by the
federal government or WDFW as endangered, threatened, or candidate species. State sensitive,
monitor, and priority species also receive consideration under the Critical Areas Regulations. In addition,
the entire area of the Black River Riparian Forest is managed under the City of Renton’s Shoreline
Master Program, which requires shoreline areas to be managed for no net loss of ecological functions
(e.g., fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, water temperature maintenance) or process (e.g.,
water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery,
transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen
removal; stream channel formation/maintenance). The City of Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC), Chapter
18.54.030, sets forth rules and regulations to control the clearing of trees and understory vegetation
within sensitive areas and shoreline zones in the City of Tukwila. The portion of Segment A that passes
through Fort Dent Park is in the City of Tukwila; areas within 200 feet of the Green River are in the
shoreline zone. Conservation of fish and wildlife is regulated through TMC 18.44, Shoreline Overlay
District, as well as the regulations related to wetlands and watercourses in TMC Chapter 18.45.
In addition to the regulatory and statutory requirements identified above, WDFW has developed
management recommendations for priority species and habitats. The purpose of these
recommendations is to assist landowners, managers, and others in conducting land use activities in a
manner that incorporates the needs of fish and wildlife (WDFW 2008). Pertinent to the analyses in this
document are WDFW’s management recommendations for the great blue heron (Azerrad 2012). Several
individuals and organizations have expressed particular concern about the potential effects of trail
construction and use on this species. Information from these management recommendations is
incorporated into the discussions of affected environment and environmental consequences for great
blue herons below.
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 3‐1
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This section describes the vegetation and wildlife resources in the vicinity of the Lake to Sound Trail—
Segment A project. The following subsections describe the project setting, define the study area within
which effects are analyzed, identify plant communities and habitat types in the study area, and identify
wildlife species (including special‐status species) that are known or have the potential to occur in the
study area.
3.1 Study Area
Analysts defined the study area for vegetation and wildlife as the project alignment (i.e., the area in
which clearing, grading, and the operation of construction machinery would disturb existing habitat)
plus all areas within 300 feet. This is the area in which project construction could affect vegetation cover
and habitat quality for wildlife species that may occur in the area. Such effects could include direct
modifications to habitat or indirect effects through modification of habitat in adjoining areas. In addition
to evaluating habitat conditions within this study area, biologists assessed the potential for project‐
related noise and human activity to disturb sensitive wildlife species up to 1,300 feet from the proposed
trail alignment. This distance was based on published guidelines for avoiding disturbance to sensitive
species that may occur in the project vicinity (USFWS 2007; Azerrad 2012).
Segment A is within the western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) forest zone, which extends from Puget
Sound into the foothills of the Cascade Mountains (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). Principal forest species
in this zone are western hemlock, Douglas‐fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and western redcedar (Thuja
plicata). Hardwoods, including bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), red alder (Alnus rubra), and black
cottonwood (Populus balsamifera var. trichocarpa), are less common and found primarily on disturbed
sites and riparian habitats. Most native habitat in the Puget Lowlands has been subject to a variety of
human disturbances over the past 150 to 200 years, including timber harvest, conversion to agriculture,
road construction, and urban development. This has resulted in significant alteration of the original
vegetation; much of the region is now dominated by urban and residential land uses.
In contrast to regional trends, much of the vegetation and wildlife study area consists of a large stand of
riparian hardwood forest that has not been permanently converted to other uses. The area south of the
BNSF railroad corridor is dominated by large trees and dense thickets of shrubby wetland. The portion
north of the railroad corridor, however, consists of an active concrete recycling plant and areas that
have been cleared for light industrial development, and supports essentially no vegetation. The western
end of the study area extends into Fort Dent Park in Tukwila. The remaining vegetation in this area
consists of maintained lawns and horticultural plantings with scattered trees.
3.2 Land Cover Types in the Study Area
Based on the structural categories defined by Johnson and O’Neil (2001), four land cover types occur in
the study area: riparian‐wetland, herbaceous wetland, urban, and open water (Figure 3‐1).
Approximately 55 percent of the study area, including almost the entire area north of the trail
alignment, consists of urban land cover (Table 3‐1). Riparian‐wetland areas, which predominate south of
the alignment, are the second most common cover type. Open water and herbaceous wetlands
represent comparatively small proportions of the area. Note that the riparian‐wetland and herbaceous
wetland land cover types are not synonymous with delineated wetlands, which are regulated under the
Clean Water Act and local critical areas ordinances. Wetlands are discussed in the Lake to Sound Trail—
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
3‐2 April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084
Segment A Critical Area Study (Parametrix 2015a). The following subsections describe these cover types,
including their structural characteristics, typical plant species, wildlife habitat functions, and conditions
in the study area.
Table 3‐1. Land Cover in the Wildlife and Vegetation Study Area for the
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A Construction Project
Land Cover Type Acres in the Study Area a
Riparian‐Wetland 33
Herbaceous Wetland 1
Urban 49
Open Water 5
Total 88
a The study area consists of all areas within 300 feet of the project alignment.
3.2.1 Riparian‐Wetland
This habitat type typically consists of a mosaic of forest and tall shrublands. Trees are evergreen conifers
or deciduous broadleaf or a mixture of both, with understories composed of shrubs, forbs, and/or
grasses. Water is sometimes present on the surface for a portion of the year. Small stream channels and
small backwater channels on larger streams are included in this habitat. Wetlands classified according
the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) as palustrine forested and palustrine scrub‐shrub
are included in this habitat type. For this analysis, this habitat type also includes unmaintained grassy
areas at the periphery of the Black River Riparian Forest, as well as the vegetated banks of the Black
River and the Green River.
Typical tree species in the riparian‐wetland portion of the study area include red alder, black
cottonwood, Pacific willow (Salix lucida), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), and western redcedar. Grand fir
(Abies grandis) and bigleaf maple are also present within and adjacent to some wetland areas. Common
shrub species include salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and red‐osier dogwood (Cornus sericea) in
wetland areas, and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), and
snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) in adjacent uplands.
Beavers (Castor canadensis) play an important role in the riparian‐wetland habitat type by constructing
dams that change the hydrology of the stream system. The presence of Himalayan blackberry, reed
canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), and other exotic species within the riparian‐wetland portions of the
study area indicate the site has been impacted by human disturbance.
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) RailwaySW 7th StMonste
r
R
d
S
W68
th
Oakesd
a
l
e
A
v
e
S
W
Mau
l
e
A
v
e
SNaches Ave SW80thAve SBeacon Coa
l
M
i
n
e
B
N
S
F
Duwamish
River
CITY OFRENTONCITY OFTUKWILA
UNINC.KING COUNTY
B la c k R iv er
GreenRiverMarti
n
L
u
t
h
e
r
King
W
a
y
Black RiverRiparian Forest
Fort Dent Park
Waterworks Gardens
0 500250Feet
Figure 3-1Vegetation and WildlifeStudy Area Base Map
Project Area
LakeWashington
90
5
405
5
99
509
599
518
S E A T T L E
R E N T O N
B E L L E V U E
S E A T A C
T U K W I L A
Lake to Sound Trail Segment A
Legend:
ProposedTrail Alignment
City Boundary
Vegetation andWildlife Study AreaPath: U:\PSO\Projects\Clients\1521-KingCo\554-1521-084 L2ST\99Svcs\GIS\MapDocs\March2015\Fig3-1-VegWildlife-Apr2015.mxdParametrix Sources: King County, City of Renton, Parametrix, WSDOT, Aerials Express 2009.
Land Cover Type
Riparian-Wetland
Herbaceous Wetland
Urban
Open Water
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 3‐5
3.2.2 Herbaceous Wetland
In western Washington, herbaceous wetlands commonly co‐occur with riparian‐wetlands along stream
corridors. Seasonally to semi‐permanently flooded wetlands are found where standing fresh water is
present through part of the growing season and the soils stay saturated throughout the season. The
herbaceous wetland habitat is generally a mix of emergent herbaceous plants with a grass‐like life form
(graminoids). These meadow‐like areas often occur with deep‐ or shallow‐water habitats with floating or
rooting aquatic forbs.
Species identified in herbaceous wetlands in the study area include reed canarygrass and narrow‐leaf
cattail (Typha angustifolia).
3.2.3 Urban
Urban development occupies much of the lowland area of western Washington. Most original habitat
has been dramatically altered in urban environments and is replaced by buildings, impermeable
surfaces, bridges, dams, and plantings of non‐native species. Some human‐made structures provide
habitats similar to those of cavities, caves, fissures, cliffs, and ledges. Urban areas typically have high
levels of human disturbance. Ground cover in the most intensively developed areas, if not synthetic or
impervious, is typically exotic grasses or annuals, most of which are rarely allowed to go to seed.
Vegetation in residential areas typically consists of manicured lawns, trimmed hedges, and pruned trees.
Snags, woody debris, and other natural structures are essentially nonexistent (Johnson and O’Neil 2001).
Urban cover types in the vegetation and wildlife study area include the concrete recycling plant and
neighboring areas that have been cleared for light industrial development. Most of the northern portion
of the study area consists of urban land cover. Other areas mapped as urban cover include roadways,
disturbed openings, most of the existing trail corridor, buildings and parking lots, and maintained areas
within Fort Dent Park. Riparian vegetation in the urban portions of the study area is sparse, with only a
few scattered deciduous trees. Shrub vegetation is dominant, including a large amount of Himalayan
blackberry. The vegetation is not adequate to provide for the functions of a properly functioning riparian
zone (i.e., stream shading, large woody debris recruitment, leaf litter input, etc.). Levels of noise and
human activity in urban areas are typically higher than in less developed settings. During site visits
conducted for this report, noise from heavy machinery in the concrete recycling business was audible
along the portions of the trail corridor that are mapped as urban land cover.
Some portions of Fort Dent Park that are mapped as urban land cover currently support trees ranging
from saplings to mature specimens. These include a row of 16 Douglas‐fir trees north of the sports
fields, ranging in size from 12 to 20 inches in diameter at breast height. Several smaller deciduous trees
occur in the vicinity of the proposed trail alignment in this area.
3.2.4 Open Water
Throughout the Puget Sound region, ponds and lakes are often found in the same areas as herbaceous
wetlands, while rivers and streams typically adjoin riparian‐wetland areas. Many ponds and marshes
have been created or are maintained by the activity of beavers. Human‐made reservoirs created by
dams impound water that creates lake‐like habitat. Most of the streams entering Puget Sound originate
in glacier fields high in the mountains. Water from melting snowpacks and glaciers provides flow during
the spring and summer. Open water habitat in the study area includes the lagoon above the Black River
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
3‐6 April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084
pump station, and short stretches of the Black River, Green River, and Duwamish River. Open water
habitat provides foraging areas for bald eagles, osprey, and great blue herons, and breeding habitat for
several species of amphibians, such as northwestern salamanders, long‐toed salamanders, and Pacific
chorus frogs.
3.3 Wildlife Species in the Study Area
Much of the land in the southern half of the study area is natural open space, primarily forested riparian
and wetland habitat. This is the Black River Riparian Forest, which supports a diverse wildlife
community, including bald eagles and a colony of great blue herons that has actively nested here every
year since 1986 and has been one of the largest such colonies in the Puget Sound region (Stenberg
2007). Data from the WDFW PHS program indicate that the Black River Riparian Forest is also used by
many waterfowl species, including bufflehead, mallard, gadwall, wigeon, scaup, and green‐winged teal
(WDFW 2015). Other bird species commonly found in riparian and wetland habitats in the Puget
Lowlands include osprey, red‐tailed hawk, and a variety of songbirds (Appendix A). Mammals present
may include coyotes, raccoons, beavers, mice, voles, and moles. Reptiles and amphibians that use these
habitats include garter snakes, Pacific chorus frogs, and long‐toed salamanders.
Based on breeding bird survey reports (Opperman et al. 2006), 52 bird species are known or expected to
nest in the nine‐square‐mile survey block that contains the project area; an additional 20 species are
known or expected to nest in adjacent survey blocks (Appendix A). Based on Christmas Bird Count data
rom the Audubon Society (2011), common winter visitors to the area include northern pintails, western
grebes, and glaucous‐winged gulls.
Rivers and streams are used as travel corridors by many wildlife species, including semi‐aquatic species
such as muskrat, mink, otter, frogs, stream salamanders, turtles, and snakes (Jackson 2003). Despite the
widespread urbanization of the Green River corridor, riparian areas along the river may serve as a
connective corridor between Puget Sound and undeveloped areas in the Cascade Mountains. No
corridors that have been identified as part of the wildlife habitat network in the King County
Comprehensive Plan are present within or adjacent to the study area, however.
3.4 Special‐status Species in the Study Area
Special‐status species include (1) species listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, (2) species
that are candidates or proposed for listing under the ESA, (3) species listed by WDFW as endangered,
threatened, candidate, or sensitive, and (4) other species for which critical habitat areas are designated
by the City of Renton or for which fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are designated by the City
of Tukwila.
As defined in the RMC, critical habitats are Category 1 wetlands and habitat associated with the
documented presence of species proposed or listed by the federal government or the State of
Washington as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitor, or priority. Areas designated as
fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas by the City of Tukwila are mapped by the City; they include
areas with which endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, as well as
habitats and species of local importance.
Information from the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Natural Heritage database
indicates that no threatened or endangered plants are known to occur within 5 miles of the study area
(WDNR 2014). The only ESA‐listed plant with the potential to occur in King County is golden paintbrush
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 3‐7
(Castilleja levisecta), which is known from historical observations in the region. Suitable habitat for
golden paintbrush (open grasslands in glacial outwash prairies) is not present in the study area.
There are no known occurrences of special ‐status plant species within 5 miles of the study area (WDNR
2014). There are no extant occurrences of ESA‐listed plant species in King County (USFWS 2015a).
In addition to being protected through various regulatory mechanisms, many plants and lichens have
traditionally been used by a wide variety of cultures in western Washington. Traditional uses include
food, medicine, fibers, textiles, building materials, and spiritual uses. Botanical specialists reviewed a list
of 84 species of trees, shrubs, herbs, ferns, and lichens identified by WSDOT as ethnobotanical resources
in western Washington (WSDOT 2010) and determined that many of these species are present in the
study area.
The USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System identified seven ESA‐listed wildlife species
as potentially occurring in areas that might be affected by the proposed project. None of these species is
expected to occur in the study area, however, for the following reasons:
Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), and gray wolf (Canis lupus)
are identified as potentially occurring in King County. However, the study area is in a lowland
setting with relatively high levels of human activity and no nearby roadless areas and thus does
not provide suitable habitat for any of these species. No observations of any of these species
have been documented within 5 miles of the study area (WDFW 2015).
Oregon spotted frogs (Rana pretiosa) occur in Washington State at large wetland complexes in
Klickitat, Skamania, Thurston, Skagit, and Whatcom counties. Oregon spotted frogs depend on
relatively large areas with perennial bodies of fresh water and associated wetlands. No
observations of this species have been documented within 10 miles of the study area (WDFW
2015). The nearest location where critical habitat has been proposed for the Oregon spotted
frog is more than 40 miles from the study area (USFWS 2015b).
Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) require old‐growth forest for nesting and
marine habitat for foraging. No breeding or foraging habitat is present in the study area and no
observations have been documented within 5 miles (WDFW 2015). The nearest location where
critical habitat has been designated for the marbled murrelet is more than 25 miles from the
study area.
Yellow‐billed cuckoos (Coccyzus americanus) require large blocks of riparian forest habitat for
breeding and foraging. No such habitat is present in or near the study area. Currently, the
species no longer breeds in western Canada and the northwestern continental United States
(Washington, Oregon, and Montana) (79 FR 59992, October 3, 2014). No observations of this
species have been documented within 10 miles of the study area (WDFW 2015). No critical
habitat for the yellow‐billed cuckoo has been proposed in Washington State.
Streaked horned larks (Eremophila alpestris strigata) are known to occur in Washington State
only in portions of southern Puget Sound, along the Washington coast, and at lower Columbia
River islands (78 FR 61452, October 3, 2013). Breeding habitat for streaked horned larks in
Washington consists of grasslands and sparsely vegetated areas at airports, sandy islands, and
coastal spits. The subspecies is largely absent from the Puget Trough during the nonbreeding
season; individuals observed in this area outside of the breeding season have been seen using
habitats similar to those used for breeding. No such habitat is present in the study area, and the
study area is not within the known range of the subspecies. The nearest location where critical
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
3‐8 April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084
habitat has been designated for the streaked horned lark is more than 90 miles from the study
area.
Based on the above, the proposed project has no potential to affect Canada lynx, grizzly bears, gray
wolves, Oregon spotted frogs, marbled murrelets, yellow‐billed cuckoos, or streaked horned larks. These
species will not be addressed further in this analysis.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, administered by USFWS, makes it unlawful to take, import, export,
possess, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird, with the exception of the taking of game birds
during established hunting seasons. The law also applies to feathers, eggs, nests, and products made
from migratory birds. Nearly all bird species that may occur in the study area are protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. All habitats in the study area support migratory birds of some type at some
time in their life cycle, therefore all habitats identified above would be considered habitat for migratory
birds.
Table 3‐2 lists special‐status wildlife species that have been observed or that may occur in the study
area. Documented species include those for which occurrences have been recorded in the WDFW PHS
database or that have been observed during field reconnaissance visits. Analysts determined the
potential for other special‐status species to occur in the study area based on the species’ ranges, as well
as the presence in the study area of habitat commonly used by the species. Species that could
potentially be affected by construction or use of the trail are discussed below.
Table 3‐2. Special‐status Species Documented or Expected to Occur in the Study Area
Species Status Occurrence in Study Area
Bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
State sensitive Documented
Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) State monitor Documented
Western toad (Bufo boreas) State candidate Not documented; may occur
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) State sensitive Not documented; may occur
Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) State candidate Documented
Townsend's big‐eared bat
(Corynorhinus townsendii)
State candidate Not documented; may occur
3.4.1 Bald Eagle
Bald eagles receive protection under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668‐
668d), which prohibits take (defined to include pursuing, shooting, poisoning, wounding, killing,
capturing, trapping, collecting, molesting, or disturbing bald or golden eagles), possession, and
commerce of these species. Proposals for commercial or residential development within 660 feet of bald
eagle nests, roost sites, or foraging areas may be required to comply with federal guidelines for bald
eagle management.
Bald eagles use large trees for nesting, roosting, and perching. In Washington, nearly all bald eagle nests
are within 1 mile of a lake, river, or marine shoreline (Stinson et al. 2001). Bald eagles typically forage
over open water and use riparian trees (often cottonwood) for perching.
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 3‐9
During the breeding season, bald eagles are sensitive to a variety of human activities. However, not all
bald eagle pairs react to human activities in the same way. Some pairs nest successfully just dozens of
yards from human activity, while others abandon nest sites in response to activities much farther away.
In general, the bald eagle breeding season in Washington State extends from January 1 through August
31 (Watson and Rodrick 2004). Eagles are most sensitive to disturbance between early February and
early May, when they are establishing territories, incubating eggs, and tending newly hatched chicks.
Another period of heightened sensitivity occurs in early July, when the young may be frightened off the
nest before they are able to fly (USFWS 2007).
PHS data show one bald eagle nest site within 1,000 feet of the project area (WDFW 2015). The branch
that supported this nest blew down and eagles did not nest at that location in 2010. In 2011, biologists
and other visitors to the Black River Riparian Forest observed no evidence of eagles nesting in the area.
Another nest, on the hillslope above the concrete recycling property, is considered by WDFW to belong
to the same nesting territory. This surmise is supported by monitoring data from 2005 through 2008,
showing that when one of the two nests was active, the other was unoccupied. Such a pattern of activity
is consistent with a pair of birds using alternating sites in a single nesting territory. The nest site above
the concrete recycling property is approximately 1,300 feet away from the proposed trail alignment.
Before 2010, eagles from the Black River nesting territory were observed preying on great blue herons in
the Black River nesting colony. During the March 2011 site visit, an adult bald eagle was observed flying
low over the site of the heron colony. The Green River likely also provides foraging habitat for bald
eagles in the area.
3.4.2 Great Blue Heron
Great blue herons are associated with wetlands, seashores, rivers, swamps, marshes, and ditches (Quinn
and Milner 2004). The availability of nesting, foraging, and pre‐nesting areas close to one another is a
key factor in determining the suitability of habitat for great blue herons (Gebauer and Moul 2001).
Nesting typically occurs in colonies of a few pairs to many hundreds of birds; occasionally, great blue
herons nest as isolated pairs (Butler 1997). Ideal nesting habitat typically consists of mature forest
(Gebauer and Moul 2001), although herons nest occasionally on the ground, in shrubs, on cliffs, or on
human‐made structures (Azerrad 2012). During the breeding season, herons forage primarily in the
shallow margins of waterbodies within approximately 2 miles of a nesting colony (Butler 1997). Pre‐
nesting congregation areas have been documented near many nesting colonies. Great blue herons
gather at these sites at or before the beginning of the breeding season (Azerrad 2012).
Although not a state‐listed or ESA‐listed species in Washington, the great blue heron is a species of
special concern in British Columbia due to declining productivity (COSEWIC 2008). Great blue herons are
highly vulnerable to predation, human disturbance, and competition for nesting habitat (COSEWIC 2008;
Azerrad 2012). The study area falls within the range of the Pacific subspecies (Ardea herodias fannini),
which is found in coastal areas and along large rivers from Prince William Sound to Puget Sound
(Azerrad 2012).
Nesting colony locations are dynamic, especially in areas of high disturbance. Some colonies are used for
many years but most—especially those with fewer than 25 nests—are relocated every few years
(Gebauer and Moul 2001). Great blue herons may abandon or relocate their colonies in response to
predation, declines in food availability, or increased human disturbance (Quinn and Milner 2004;
COSEWIC 2008). Kenyon (2005) found that great blue herons may respond to repeated bald eagle
attacks on nesting colonies by redistributing into smaller, more widely scattered colonies. Colony
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
3‐10 April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084
abandonment has also resulted from activities such as nearby land development and repeated human
intrusions into nesting areas (Azerrad 2012).
Even in cases where flushing or other obvious responses do not occur, human disturbance may result in
reduced nesting productivity (Vennesland and Butler 2004). Human disturbance has been identified as
one of the major factors (along with predation by eagles and habitat declines from land development)
limiting the persistence of heron populations in British Columbia (COSEWIC 2008). Human disturbance
may also increase the susceptibility of heron colonies to eagle predation. Reduction of forest cover may
allow easier access to nest sites. In addition, if adults are flushed from their nests, eggs and nestlings are
vulnerable to predation (COSEWIC 2008).
Heron colonies vary in their sensitivity to human activities. In some instances, a single event involving
human disturbance has led an entire colony to terminate a nesting attempt (Azerrad 2012). In contrast,
herons nesting in public parks in Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia, appear to tolerate the
frequent presence of pedestrians and vehicles directly below their nests (COSEWIC 2008). More
sensitive colonies may respond to disturbances at a great distance. Azerrad (2012) reports that the
presence of people as far as 820 feet from some heron colonies may cause birds to flush. Herons may
tolerate everyday human activities, but birds often suspend nesting when they perceive the activity to
be a threat (Vennesland 2000; City of Vancouver Parks and Recreation 2006). Vennesland (2000) found
that herons habituate to non‐threatening human disturbance, but that they are more sensitive to
disturbance at certain times of year. Great blue herons are less tolerant of disturbance during the pre‐
courtship and courtship periods (typically mid‐February through mid‐April in Washington), then become
less likely to flush or abandon nests once eggs have been laid (Azerrad 2012). If dense vegetation
obscures human activity, herons may be less likely to react to human disturbance (Gebauer and Moul
2001). Notably, the pre‐courtship and courtship periods typically occur before deciduous trees fully leaf
out in this region, increasing the vulnerability of herons to visual and auditory disturbance during these
periods.
WDFW’s management recommendations for great blue herons specify buffers to protect colonies by
keeping potentially harmful activities away from nesting colonies (Azerrad 2012). In suburban and rural
areas1, WDFW recommends a year‐round buffer of 656 feet (200 meters) around nesting colonies.
Grading, construction, and vegetation clearing are discouraged within this buffer (Azerrad 2012).
WDFW’s management recommendations also advise that trails should be directed away from the buffer
area or be closed off to access in the breeding season (Azerrad 2012). In situations where it is not
feasible to implement such restrictions, WDFW offers the following recommendations:
Site the project as far as possible from nests.
Provide visual screening between nests and project disturbances.
Carry out the project during the non‐breeding season.
Mitigate for the project’s infringement into the buffer area (Azerrad 2012).
WDFW’s management recommendations for great blue herons also specify seasonal buffers to protect
nesting birds. Within an area that extends 656 feet beyond the outer edge of the year‐round buffer,
WDFW recommends that unusually loud activities (i.e., activities generating noise levels exceeding 92
1 The proportion of built environment within 0.25 mile of the colony is approximately 25 percent, meaning the
colony is in a suburban/rural setting as defined by Azerrad (2012).
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 3‐11
decibels at the outer boundary of the nesting colony) should not be allowed from February to
September (Azerrad 2012).
The remaining habitat elements specified in WDFW’s management recommendations are pre‐nesting
congregation areas, alternative nest sites, and foraging habitat. WDFW recommends minimal
disturbance of any areas where herons congregate before the nesting season. To protect alternative
nest sites, WDFW recommends retaining several forested nesting stands of at least 10 acres within
approximately 0.6 mile (1 kilometer) of an active colony. Potentially suitable alternative nest sites
include former heron colony sites (provided the site was not abandoned in response to long‐term
changes in habitat conditions) and other stands with a forest structure and tree species composition
similar to the active nesting stand (Azerrad 2012).
To protect foraging habitat, WDFW recommends establishing adequate riparian buffers along all bodies
of water within 1.9 miles (3 kilometers) of a nesting colony. WDFW also recommends minimizing the
following activities where herons feed:
Removal of aquatic vegetation
Use of watercraft within 590 feet of shallow waters
Logging mature forest close to nearshore foraging habitat
Removing perch trees adjacent to foraging areas
Draining, filling, or dredging wetlands or marshes
Building close to riparian shorelines
For many years, the Black River Riparian Forest supported one of the largest breeding colonies of great
blue herons in Washington State, with more than 100 nests distributed throughout much of the forested
area (Stenberg 2007). For much of that time, the greatest density of nests was near the eastern edge of
the lagoon above the Black River pump station, near the confluence with Springbrook Creek (Hamilton
2013 personal communication). Since 2003, nearly all nesting activity has taken place in a stand of
cottonwood trees approximately 500 feet to the northwest of that site. The approximate location of this
stand is depicted in Figure 2‐1. For this analysis, the actual location of the nesting stand was determined
in accordance with WDFW’s management recommendations for great blue herons (see Subsection
2.2.2, Field Investigation). The locations of nest trees or overlapping trees farthest from the center of
the colony were used to determine the perimeter of the colony. It should be noted that the locations of
the nests observed during the field investigations do not define the full extent of the area in which
nesting occurred in the past, nor where future nesting attempts could occur.
In some years, herons have been observed in great numbers early in the breeding season, perched in
trees along the north side of the pump station lagoon (Hamilton 2013 personal communication). Forest
stands between the pump station and the current nesting area are likely a pre‐nesting congregation
area for the colony. Potential foraging habitat is available within 1.9 miles of the nesting colony along
the Black, Green, Duwamish, and Lower Cedar Rivers, at various wetland mitigation sites in Renton and
Tukwila, and at ponds in Waterworks Garden Park, Longacres Business Park, Fort Dent Park, Foster Golf
Course, and near Southcenter Mall.
Nesting activity at the Black River nesting colony was greatly reduced during the 2010 breeding season,
likely due to predatory pressure from bald eagles (Anderson 2011 personal communication). Several
active nests, perhaps as many as six, were observed in the colony stand in 2011 and 2012, and herons
continue to forage in the area. It is possible that herons will resume nesting at this site in densities
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
3‐12 April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084
similar to those observed in the past. Chatwin et al. (2009) described one colony, active for more than
20 years, that was abandoned in 1996 and that remained inactive until herons returned in 2002. Local
observers are continuing to monitor the Black River colony site. In January and early February 2015, as
many as 25 herons were observed in and around the colony site. By early March, however, fewer than
five herons were seen and none exhibited behavior indicative of nesting, leading observers to speculate
that the Black River Riparian Forest may not support a large nesting colony in 2015. Nevertheless, the
presence of relatively large numbers of herons early in the breeding season indicates the potential for
continued nesting activity at the colony site.
3.4.3 Western Toad
This species uses wetland habitats while in the tadpole stage and for breeding as an adult. Adult toads
regularly use forested upland habitat. Western toads may occur in both wetland habitat and riparian
forest habitat in the study area.
3.4.4 Peregrine Falcon
Peregrine falcons typically nest in cliffs that are at least 150 feet in height, although they will also use
buildings and bridges (Hays and Milner 2004). No peregrine falcon nest sites have been documented in
the study area and no suitable nesting cliffs occur within 1 mile of the project area. Falcons typically
hunt in open habitats such as wetlands and croplands; hunting territories may extend up to 15 miles
from a nest site (Hays and Milner 2004). Although no peregrine falcons have been reported in the area,
open habitats in the study area may provide suitable foraging habitat for nesting or overwintering birds.
The nearest known aerie is approximately 8 miles away from the project area.
3.4.5 Pileated Woodpecker
Pileated woodpeckers inhabit mature and old‐growth forests, and second‐growth forests with large
snags and fallen trees. Foraging habitat includes forests containing large trees and snags, and dead and
dying wood (Lewis and Azerrad 2003). In residential and developing areas, pileated woodpeckers may
occupy remnant forest patches and forage on large and small‐diameter coniferous and hardwood trees
and snags (Lewis and Azerrad 2003). Trees or snags that provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat
are absent from the project footprint but occur within forested portions of the study area. Biologists
delineating wetlands observed a pileated woodpecker in the project study area in 2011.
3.4.6 Townsend’s Big‐eared Bat
The Townsend’s big‐eared bat is associated with forest habitat, but is a species of concern primarily
because its nursery colonies are sensitive to disturbance (Johnson and Cassidy 1997). Nursery colonies
of this species are commonly located in caves, lava tubes, or abandoned buildings; bridge abutments
have occasionally been used by individual male bats as day roosts (Woodruff and Ferguson 2005).
Within the study area, the Black River pump station, the Monster Road Bridge, and the railroad bridges
may provide suitable sites for day roosts. This and other bat species may forage for insects along forest
edges and over wetlands in the study area.
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 4‐1
4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The following subsections describe the potential effects of trail construction and use on vegetation and
wildlife in the study area. The analysis of effects on vegetation focuses on temporary or permanent
changes in the vegetative cover in the study area. The analysis of effects on wildlife focuses primarily on
the potential for trail construction or use to disturb wildlife species, and secondarily on the potential for
changes in vegetative cover to affect habitat suitability.
4.1 Construction Effects
This section describes the extent and type of temporary and permanent effects on vegetation and
wildlife resources that could occur as a result of construction activities associated with the proposed
project.
4.1.1 Vegetation
Under the proposed action, clearing and grading for trail construction would permanently convert
existing land cover within the area of the project footprint to a developed condition. Nearly all clearing
would occur along the existing maintenance road, most of which consists of hardened surfaces or non‐
native plants. The predominant cover type within the project footprint is urban, consisting primarily of
the gravel surface of the existing road. Approximately 1.8 acres urban land cover would be affected by
trail construction. Where the trail route falls within areas classified as riparian‐wetland habitat, the
project footprint is largely free of trees and shrubs that are the characteristic features of that habitat
type. Clearing for trail construction would affect approximately 0.9 acre of this land cover type and is
not expected to reduce species diversity or result in a substantial reduction in plant cover in the 88‐acre
study area. Some low‐growing plants would be replaced with hard surfaces, however, and the overhead
canopy would be reduced in some places.
Within Fort Dent Park, approximately 20 trees with trunks larger than 4 inches in diameter at breast
height would be cleared for trail construction. Several others may be affected by disturbance of
understory vegetation within the areas shaded by the trees’ canopies, or through root compaction by
construction activities. Because these trees are located within the shoreline zone for the Green River,
trail construction would be subject to the requirements of a Tree Clearing Permit per TMC 18.54.070.
This permit would identify all affected trees, along with the measures that would be implemented to
protect them. All understory vegetation within the root zone of protected trees would either be
retained or removed by methods that do not damage the tree, then replaced with suitable vegetation,
per TMC 18.54.130(1). Any tree larger than 4 inches diameter that is removed within the City of Tukwila
would be replaced with one or more new trees, based on the replacement ratios in TMC 18.54.130(3).
The City of Renton has determined that all trees within 10 feet of the paved edge of the trail should be
removed, as should all cottonwood trees within 20 feet of the paved edge of the trail, for the protection
of public safety and the trail surface. In total, approximately 129 trees would be removed within the City
of Renton, most of which (117) would be cottonwoods. Only one coniferous tree (a 6‐inch‐diameter
Douglas‐fir within the clearing area for the proposed pedestrian bridge) would be removed. The other
trees removed for trail construction would be red alders (7 trees), willows (2 trees), bigleaf maple (1
tree), and native cherry (1 tree). Approximately 49 of the trees proposed for removal are between 6
inches and 10 inches in diameter. Twenty‐seven trees are smaller than 6 inches, 37 trees are between
10 and 16 inches, and 16 trees (all cottonwoods) are larger than 16 inches in diameter.
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
4‐2 April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084
Most of the trees proposed for removal in the City of Renton are within the regulatory buffers of
streams and/or wetlands. As discussed in the Critical Area Study (Parametrix 2015a) and summarized
below, compensatory mitigation for the loss of trees in these areas would focus on enhancing ecological
functions, ultimately providing equal or greater functions than would be affected by the project. In
addition, where the proposed trail alignment runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, all cleared
trees larger than 6 inches in diameter, whether they are inside or outside of a regulatory buffer, would
be replaced by new trees at a ratio of 1:1 or greater. Planting for visual screening between the trail and
the great blue heron nesting colony (see Section 5.3, Compensatory Mitigation) could result in the
planting of more trees than would be needed to meet this commitment.
Construction activities would not result in any direct effects on (i.e., fill within) wetlands or streams.
Effects on the regulatory buffers around wetlands and streams would occur where the proposed trail
alignment encroaches into currently vegetated areas adjacent to these features. Trail construction
would permanently affect approximately 0.49 acre of wetland buffer and 0.60 acre of stream buffer
(Parametrix 2015a, b). Approximately 0.13 acre of this area is both wetland buffer and stream buffer;
therefore, the total buffer area affected would be 0.95 acre. Note that these impacts were calculated
through a different process than the GIS analysis that was used for the assessment of impacts on
vegetation for this report and therefore differ from the values presented in Table 4 1. The potentially
affected wetland buffer areas are generally low‐functioning and are composed primarily of grasses and
forbs along the existing maintenance road edge (Parametrix 2015a). The potentially affected stream
buffer areas also generally provide minimal riparian function and are dominated by invasive species such
as Himalayan blackberry, although some native cottonwood trees would also be removed (Parametrix
2015b).
King County has developed a plan that identifies compensatory mitigation for all permanent project‐
related effects on wetland buffers and stream buffers. The mitigation plan, which is described in the
Critical Area Study (Parametrix 2015a) and summarized in Section 5.3 of this document, focuses on
enhancing ecological functions in an area where existing buffer conditions are degraded, ultimately
providing equal or greater functions than would be affected by the project. For these reasons, trail
construction is not expected to result in any net loss of any ecological functions (e.g., fish and wildlife
habitat, food chain support, water temperature maintenance) or processes (e.g., water flow; erosion
and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and
storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; stream
channel formation/maintenance) in the Black River Riparian Forest.
Temporary effects on vegetation would also occur outside of the project footprint. These effects would
be the result of construction equipment moving over vegetated areas, primarily areas of grass or
herbaceous vegetation. Temporary effects would likely be limited to an area within 2 feet of the project
footprint. All temporarily affected areas would be restored to pre‐construction conditions and would be
re‐planted or seeded with native species. Vegetation in temporarily affected areas would likely return to
a state resembling pre‐construction conditions within a few growing seasons after the completion of
construction. Temporary impacts would affect approximately 0.22 acre of vegetation in wetland and
stream buffers (Parametrix 2015a, b) and are not expected to have any substantial effects on habitat
quality in these areas.
As noted above, WDNR (2014) has recorded no occurrences of special‐status plant species in the study
area and biologists observed none during field surveys conducted for this project. If any undetected
populations of any special‐status species are present in the project footprint, they would be
permanently lost during vegetation clearing.
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 4‐3
4.1.2 Wildlife
As noted earlier, the primary way in which trail construction could affect wildlife is through noise and
human activity, which may disturb sensitive species and temporarily alter habitat use. Sources of noise
associated with trail construction would include dump trucks, backhoes, graders, pavers, and other
machinery. The degree of disturbance would depend on the noise level, the timing and duration of
construction activities, and the sensitivity of individual animals. Construction work would be expected to
begin in the late spring of 2016 and would likely be complete within 1 year. Measures to be
implemented to avoid or minimize disturbance to sensitive wildlife species are specified in Section 5.1
(Avoidance and Minimization Measures).
Animals that are sensitive to disturbance would likely avoid the area while construction is underway.
Such effects would be temporary and localized and would not likely influence the long‐term viability of
local populations of most species. Potential effects on two species of particular concern, bald eagle and
great blue heron, are discussed further in Section 4.1.3, below.
Under the proposed action, clearing for trail construction would permanently convert vegetated areas
within the area of the project footprint to a developed condition. As discussed for Vegetation, above,
clearing is not expected to reduce species diversity or result in a substantial reduction in habitat
availability in the study area. Widening of the existing maintenance road may reduce the amount of
cover available for small mammals immediately adjacent to the trail, but suitable cover is abundant
throughout the study area. Similarly, the study area provides ample alternative nesting habitat for bird
species that might nest in shrubs and small trees that are cleared for trail widening.
Based on the assessments presented in the discipline reports for wetlands (Parametrix 2015a) and
streams (Parametrix 2015b), effects on wetland and stream buffers are not expected result in decreased
habitat quality for amphibians and other species that depend on wetlands for breeding, feeding, resting,
and other needs. Habitat replacement would occur through wetland buffer and stream buffer
mitigation, and additional habitat enhancement would be achieved through the planting of native trees
and shrubs as visual screening between the trail and the great blue heron nesting colony (see Section
5.3, Compensatory Mitigation). Additional wetlands are likely present throughout the study area
(particularly in the Black River Riparian Forest), but were not delineated because they are outside of the
wetland delineation study area. No temporary or permanent impacts are anticipated to occur to any
wetlands. With no loss of wetland habitat in the project area, local populations of wetland‐dependent
wildlife species are not expected to be affected.
Vegetation clearing during spring and summer may damage or destroy the nests of migratory birds in
the project area. In accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, King County would consult with
USFWS to identify ways of minimizing harm to migratory birds. The primary means of reducing or
eliminating take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is to conduct vegetation clearing and construction
activities outside the breeding season, which is typically considered to extend from March 15 through
August 31.
4.1.3 Special‐status Species
Bald Eagle
No trees suitable for bald eagle nesting, roosting, or perching would be removed by trail construction.
Therefore, the project would not be expected to affect the availability of suitable habitat for bald eagles
in the study area.
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
4‐4 April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084
The nearest bald eagle nest location is more than 1,000 feet from the proposed trail alignment.
According to guidelines developed by the USFWS (2007), clearing, construction, and landscaping
activities more than 660 feet away from an active nest are unlikely to cause disturbance to nesting bald
eagles. Because the nearest nest is beyond this distance, trail construction would not be expected to
result in any disturbance of nesting bald eagles.
Construction noise and activity have the potential to disturb bald eagles that are foraging in the Black
River Riparian Forest or other suitable habitat in adjoining areas. Any eagles that flush from foraging
areas in response to construction activity would likely find ample opportunities to feed in nearby areas
that are not within the territories defended by other nesting pairs. Such areas are readily available along
the shorelines of the Green River, Cedar River, and Lake Washington.
Great Blue Heron
No vegetation clearing would take place in forested stands within or immediately adjacent to the Black
River nesting colony; therefore, trail construction would have no direct effects on nesting habitat
availability or suitability for great blue herons.
WDFW’s management recommendations for great blue herons state that grading, construction, and
vegetation clearing should not occur within a nesting colony or its year‐round buffer. As shown in Figure
4‐1, approximately 430 linear feet of the proposed trail alignment falls within the year‐round buffer for
the Black River nesting colony (i.e., a 656‐foot radius from the outermost nests observed during field
investigations; it should be borne in mind that future nesting attempts could occur in locations closer to
the proposed trail alignment). At its nearest point, the trail would be approximately 600 feet from the
nesting area.
Although trail clearing and construction would constitute a modification of the landscape within the
year‐round buffer for the nesting colony, most of the trail alignment is at the edge of existing disturbed
areas associated with the railroad corridor and the concrete recycling plant (Figure 4‐1). Vegetation
disturbance associated with trail construction would, therefore, occur at the far edge of the year‐round
buffer, and would not constitute an incursion into previously undisturbed habitat. In addition, existing
vegetation provides visual screening along portions of the alignment, further reducing the potential for
trail construction activities to disturb nesting herons. Even during winter, when branches are bare, no
nests are visible from the trail alignment. It is possible, however, that the effects of grading and
construction could be visible to nesting herons—as they fly in and out of the nesting colony, for
example.
Nearly all portions of the proposed trail alignment that are within 656 feet of the colony site consist of
the cleared and hardened surface of the existing maintenance road. However, as noted in Section 4.1.1,
Vegetation, the City of Renton has determined that all trees within 10 feet of the paved edge of the trail
should be removed, as should all cottonwood trees within 20 feet of the paved edge of the trail, for the
protection of public safety and the trail surface. Approximately nine of the trees proposed for removal
are within 656 feet of the colony site (all are more than 600 feet from the colony site). All of the trees
proposed for removal are cottonwoods. Four are between 6 and 10 inches in diameter, 3 are between
10 and 16 inches in diameter, and 2 are between 16 and 20 inches in diameter. Changes in vegetation
cover at the edge of the existing disturbed area are not expected to reduce the likelihood that herons
will use the Black River site for breeding or cause herons to abandon active nests. The trail alignment
consists of a narrow strip of already disturbed vegetation at the far edge of the forest stand, and
additional clearing would not represent a substantial change in the character of the site. See Section 5.3,
Compensatory Mitigation, for a discussion of the proposed planting of native trees and shrubs as visual
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 4‐5
screening between the trail and the great blue heron nesting colony (see Section 5.3, Compensatory
Mitigation)
In contrast to most of the trail alignment, which is at the edge of existing disturbed areas north of the
Black River Riparian Forest, the easternmost 500 feet of the alignment passes through an area with
forest cover on both sides (Figure 4‐1). Construction activities in this area could be perceived by herons
as a new source of disturbance, distinct from ongoing activities in the railroad corridor and the concrete
recycling plant. This portion of the alignment is separated from the colony site by approximately 1,300
feet of dense vegetation, however. The visual screening provided by the distance and vegetation would
be expected to minimize the potential for visual disturbance of nesting herons, even early in the
breeding season, before leaf‐out is complete.
Noise from construction machinery may be audible within the colony site. Sudden, loud noises may
frighten birds off nests, rendering eggs and young more vulnerable to predation. Such disruptions may
diminish reproductive success during the season in which they occur, and could contribute to
abandonment of nests or even of the colony. Also, the additional noise sources could exacerbate stress
levels for a nesting colony that has been subject to noise and other disturbance from ongoing activities
at the concrete recycling plant and light industrial development nearby.
The risk of disturbance to nesting herons can be reduced by the implementation of timing restrictions
for construction activities that would be visible or audible from the nesting stand. As noted above,
existing vegetation provides visual screening to varying degrees along the entire alignment. To address
noise disturbance, WDFW’s management recommendations for great blue herons advise that unusually
loud activities should not be allowed within 1,312 feet (i.e., the 656‐foot year‐round buffer plus a 656‐
foot seasonal buffer) of an active colony from February to September. Approximately 3,500 feet of the
proposed trail alignment, from its eastern terminus to a point north of the Black River pump station,
falls within the seasonal buffer for the Black River nesting colony (Figure 4‐1).
Machinery and equipment to be used for trail construction would include trucks, backhoes,
compressors, and pumps. The average maximum noise levels associated with these types of equipment
do not exceed 83 decibels (WSDOT 2013). Noise from trail construction would not, therefore, exceed
the 92‐decibel threshold that defines unusually loud activities according to WDFW’s management
recommendations. Nevertheless, to minimize the potential for disturbance to breeding herons, activity
restrictions would be implemented for trail construction between January 15 and August 31. These
restrictions would apply to activities that are likely to cause disturbance to nesting herons, such as major
earthwork and the use of heavy equipment and backup alarms. Construction activities that employ the
use of hand tools would be allowed during the breeding season. Trail construction would not involve any
blasting, pile driving, or other activities that generate high‐intensity noise.
Portions of the trail alignment north of the Black River pump station are approximately 250 to 500 feet
from stands that have been used as pre‐nesting congregation areas. Trail construction early in the
breeding season could disturb birds using these areas, potentially disrupting breeding activities. WDFW
recommends minimal disturbance of any area where herons congregate prior to nesting (Azerrad 2012).
The portions of the trail alignment that are near the pre‐nesting congregation area are also within the
1,312‐foot seasonal buffer around the nesting area. Implementation of activity restrictions within the
seasonal buffer between January 15 and August 31 would, therefore, also reduce or eliminate the
potential for disturbance of herons using the pre‐nesting congregation area.
0 500250Feet
Figure 4-1Year-round and Seasonal Buffers for the Black River Heron Nesting ColonyLake to Sound Trail Segment APath: U:\PSO\Projects\Clients\1521-KingCo\554-1521-084 L2ST\99Svcs\GIS\MapDocs\March2015\HeronBuffers_Apr2015.mxdParametrix
1,312-foot seasonal buffer around nests identified during field review:
WDFW management recommendationsdiscourage unusually loud activities from February to September.
Proposed trail alignment
656-foot year-round buffer around nests identified during field review:
WDFW management recommendationsdiscourage grading, construction, andvegetation clearing in this area.
Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 4‐9
The location of the proposed pedestrian bridge is more than 1,312 feet away from the Black River
colony (Figure 4 1). Noise from heavy equipment used to stabilize soils and improve load‐bearing
capacity for the bridge may be audible in areas that have been identified as pre‐nesting congregation
areas for the colony, however. Under the terms of the hydraulic project approval issued by WDFW,
construction work near the ordinary high water mark of the river would be restricted to late summer.
This work window would not overlap with the pre‐nesting period (January through March, typically)
when great blue herons using pre‐nesting congregation areas are most sensitive to disturbance (Azerrad
202). Based on the timing of work and the distance from known nesting areas, therefore, bridge
construction work would not be likely to disturb nesting great blue herons.
Construction noise and activity also may disturb great blue herons that are foraging along the Black
River or the Green River near the proposed trail alignment. Implementation of activity restrictions
between January 15 and August 31 would reduce the potential for construction activity to disturb
foraging herons during the breeding season. Any herons that flush from foraging areas in response to
construction activity would likely find opportunities to feed in nearby areas, such as the Duwamish
River, Cedar River, Springbrook Creek, and numerous isolated ponds and patches of wetland habitat. As
discussed in Subsection 4.1.1 above, trail construction is not expected to result in any direct effects on
wetlands or net loss of ecological functions or processes of riparian habitat. In addition, trail
construction would not entail any removal of aquatic vegetation, use of watercraft, logging of mature
forest, or removal of perch trees. As a result, trail construction would not be expected to affect foraging
habitat suitability.
Western Toad
Trail construction in wetland buffers could affect the quality of breeding habitat for western toads by
modifications to wetland hydrology or water quality. The affected wetlands, however, may be too small
to offer sufficient breeding habitat. Western toads are more likely to breed in larger ponds in the study
area (Jones et al. 2005), none of which would be affected by trail construction. Wetland buffer
mitigation may result in habitat improvements, although not necessarily within the study area (see the
Critical Area Study [Parametrix 2015a]).
Peregrine Falcon
No peregrine falcon nests have been documented within 5 miles of the project area, and no potentially
suitable nesting sites occur within 1 mile, so it is extremely unlikely that construction noise would
disturb any nesting falcons. If any falcons are foraging in the area while construction activities are
underway, their feeding activities could be disrupted by increased levels of noise and human activity.
Such effects would be temporary and localized, and additional foraging habitat is available nearby.
Pileated Woodpecker
No large trees or snags that provide potential nesting or foraging sites for pileated woodpeckers would
be removed for trail construction. If any birds are present while construction activities are underway,
their breeding or feeding activities could be disrupted by increased levels of noise and human activity.
Such effects would be temporary and localized, however, and would not be expected to result in any
long‐term effects.
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
4‐10 April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084
Townsend’s Big‐eared Bat
Project activities would not be likely to disturb any nursery colonies of Townsend’s big‐eared bats
because no caves or abandoned buildings occur in the study area, and the structures in the area are
unlikely to provide suitable roosting sites.
4.2 Operational Effects
As described above in the discussion of effects during construction, nearly all areas that would be
permanently affected by trail development currently consist of hardened surfaces or non‐native plants.
Trail maintenance would consist of occasional trimming of plants that may impede trail use, and would
not be expected to result in any substantial long‐term effects on vegetation communities or the
suitability of wildlife habitat in the study area.
The existing trail currently receives low levels of use for walking, running, bicycling, pet exercise, and
bird‐watching. These uses would continue on the improved trail, likely at moderate levels; rates of use
would be increased by additional foot and bicycle traffic from persons traveling the length of the Lake to
Sound Trail. Increased use of the trail poses an elevated risk of disturbance to sensitive wildlife species,
particularly bald eagles and great blue herons. In addition, the increased presence of domestic dogs
along the trail could result in negative effects on local wildlife populations through direct predation,
disruption of breeding activity, or introduction of diseases and parasites. Also, some urban‐adapted
species may be attracted into the area by trash left by trail users. Some of these species, such as crows
and jays, may prey on eggs and nestlings of sensitive species, including great blue herons. The following
paragraphs address the potential for these factors to result in adverse effects on sensitive wildlife
species within and near the study area.
Great blue herons that nest in the Black River Riparian Forest colony may be particularly sensitive to
disturbance from trail use and associated activities. The sensitivity of great blue herons to human
disturbance, and the consequences of such disturbance, are discussed in Section 3.4.2. Changes in trail
use patterns (i.e., an increase in the number and frequency of trail users) would increase the potential
for disturbance of nesting, foraging, and resting herons. The potential for disturbance to nesting herons
would be minimized (but not eliminated) by the distance of the trail from the nesting area (the area
most recently used for nesting is more than 600 feet from the trail alignment at its nearest point). In
addition, existing vegetation provides visual screening to varying degrees along the entire alignment.
Even during winter, when branches are bare, no nests are visible from the trail alignment. As noted
above, however, it is possible that trail users could be visible to herons flying into and out of the nesting
colony. The potential for disturbance may be further reduced by planting trees and shrubs along the
south side of the trail where existing trailside vegetation does not fully block views of the trail alignment
from the heron nesting colony (as noted above, no nests are visible from the trail, but herons might be
able to see the trail from the nesting area). As suggested by Gebauer and Moul (2001), additional
vegetation in these areas would provide additional visual screening, reducing the likelihood of herons
being frightened from their nests. Any new plantings would not provide additional screening
immediately, but screening would increase gradually as the mixed plantings of evergreen trees,
deciduous trees, and shrubs (see Section 5.3, Compensatory Mitigation) grow taller and more dense.
The location of most of the trail alignment at the edge of the forest, adjacent to currently developed
areas, reduces the likelihood that nesting birds would perceive trail use as a new disturbance. The
easternmost 500 feet of the alignment, which passes through an area with forest cover on both sides, is
separated from the great blue heron colony site by more than 1,300 feet of dense vegetation. The visual
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 4‐11
and auditory screening provided by the distance and vegetation would essentially eliminate the
potential for use of that portion of the trail to disturb nesting herons.
Because the proposed trail route skirts the edge of the Black River Riparian Forest, persons using the
trail would not likely be perceived by nesting herons as approaching a nest site. Generally, wildlife
exhibit a stronger response to humans that approach them directly and to humans located off
designated trails (MacArthur et al. 1982, Moen et al. 1982, Knight and Cole 1995, Miller et al. 2001).
Burger et al. (2010) found that birds are able to assess relative danger by determining whether a person
is approaching directly, as opposed to approaching tangentially (as would be the case at this location).
Trail users would remain at least 600 feet from identified nest trees, further reducing the potential for
disturbance. For the same reason, it is unlikely that raccoons and other mammalian predators would be
attracted into the nesting area by trash left by trail users. Even if increased use leads to an increase in
trash accumulation along the trail alignment, there is no assurance that such an increase would attract
more mammals to the area, or that any animals would subsequently travel into the nesting area and
prey on herons. Avian predators (e.g., crows and jays), on the other hand, may be more likely than
mammals to be attracted to the trail area, and from there to the nesting colony.
It is possible that increased use of the trail could pose an elevated risk of trail users wandering into the
nesting area and disturbing nesting herons. The potential for trail users to be attracted into the nesting
area is minimized by existing vegetation, which obscures views into the nesting area. Even during
winter, when branches are bare, no nests are visible from the trail alignment. The vast majority of trail
users are expected to be in the area for trail‐based recreation. The presence of dense undergrowth
along many portions of the trail alignment would likely discourage such users from venturing off the trail
toward the colony. Persons interested in observing herons would be more likely to use existing viewing
areas accessible via Oakesdale Avenue SW. Determined explorers may not be discouraged by these
factors, however. If an overall increase in trail use results in an increase in the number of such persons in
the area, the risk of disturbance to nesting herons would similarly increase. The planting of additional
vegetation to reduce the potential for visual disturbance of nesting herons would also help discourage
trail users from straying off the trail. Lastly, the planned installation of fencing and signage on the south
side of the trail adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest would further reduce the potential for
incursions into the nesting area.
Based on recommendations from USFWS (2007), non‐motorized recreational activities more than 330
feet from active nests are unlikely to disturb nesting bald eagles. The entire alignment is more than 330
feet from any current or historical bald eagle nest sites.
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 5‐1
5. MITIGATION
The Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A project would avoid and minimize adverse effects on vegetation
and wildlife by proceeding in accordance with the mitigation sequencing requirements established by
NEPA and other statutes and policies. According to implementation regulations at 40 CFR 1508.20, the
definition of mitigation is as follows:
a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations
during the life of the action.
e. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
5.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures
Consistent with the above sequencing requirements, a high priority was placed on designing the project
to include measures and features that avoid and minimize adverse effects on vegetation and wildlife.
King County would consult with WDFW and/or the City of Renton to determine appropriate measures to
minimize anticipated effects. In accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, WSDOT and/or King
County would consult with USFWS to identify ways of minimizing harm to migratory birds.
The following measures have been incorporated into the trail design in order to avoid and minimize
adverse effects on vegetation and wildlife:
Alignment. The proposed trail follows the perimeter of the Black River Riparian Forest, avoiding
habitat fragmentation and disturbance within the central portion of the natural area.
Use of existing disturbed areas. The proposed trail follows existing paths, maintenance roads
and disturbed areas (see Section 1.3, Project Area and Setting) to minimize disturbance of
adjacent, existing forest, significant trees, wetlands and buffers, stream buffers, and the species
that use these areas.
Strategic widening. In the Black River Riparian Forest, trail widening would occur toward the
perimeter, again to avoid the central portion of the natural area and the associated habitat.
Minimizing earthwork. In Fort Dent Park, where the topography is more variable, the trail
alignment was selected to follow existing topography to the extent possible and to balance cuts
and fills, reducing the need for retaining walls or large cut or fill areas.
Planting of trees. Where the trail runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, native trees
and shrubs will be planted along the south side of the trail to provide additional visual screening
of the trail from the central portion of the natural area to the south (Appendix B). As these
plants grow taller and more dense, they will reduce the potential for trail use to disturb nesting
herons. Plantings will be monitored to ensure establishment and long‐term success.
Fencing. Fencing will be placed on the south side of the trail adjacent to the Black River Riparian
Forest in areas that appear inviting, to discourage people from accessing the central portion of
the natural area. Vegetation planted for visual screening will further discourage incursions.
Other wildlife viewing trails are provided on the south side of the forest. Wayfinding signage at
Naches Avenue SW, Oakesdale Avenue SW, and Monster Road will describe the options.
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
5‐2 April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084
The following measures would be implemented before and during trail construction to avoid or
minimize effects on vegetation and wildlife resources. These strategies would be implemented along
with others designed to avoid or minimize effects on other resources, such as streams, wetlands, and
soils. Those strategies would be expected to provide additional protection to vegetation and wildlife
resources within and adjacent to streams and wetlands.
Limit construction activity to a relatively small area immediately adjacent to the existing cleared
area to minimize vegetation clearing and leave as much vegetation undisturbed as possible.
Prepare and implement a revegetation plan that emphasizes the use of native species as
appropriate.
Where the proposed trail alignment runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest, replace all
cleared trees larger than 6 inches in diameter that occur outside critical area buffers with new
trees at a ratio of 1:1 or greater. Include some larger evergreen trees to offset the temporal loss
of canopy cover. If City of Renton regulatory requirements result in a higher replacement ratio,
the higher ratio will be used. Note that planting for visual screening between the trail and the
great blue heron nesting colony (see Section 5.3, Compensatory Mitigation) could result in the
planting of more trees than would be needed to meet this requirement.
To minimize harm to migratory birds, conduct vegetation clearing and construction activities
outside the breeding season, which is typically considered to extend from March 15 through
August 31.
Prevent disturbance of nesting great blue herons and their young due to trail construction and
other noise‐generating activities by implementing the following measure:
Within 1,312 feet of the Black River heron nesting colony, conduct activities that are likely to
disturb nesting herons outside of sensitive periods (i.e., restrictions would apply between
January 15 and August 31). Restricted activities would include major earthwork and the use
of heavy equipment and backup alarms. Construction activities that employ the use of hand
tools would not be restricted.
If bald eagles construct a new nest within 660 feet of the trail alignment before construction begins,
additional measures, such as timing restrictions on construction activities with the potential to disturb
nesting eagles, may be necessary.
5.2 Restoration of Temporary Effects
All areas temporarily affected by construction would be restored to pre‐construction conditions and re‐
planted or seeded with native species. Note that this is a minimum measure; additional planting for
mitigation may occur in some areas, as described in Section 5.1.
5.3 Compensatory Mitigation
King County has developed a plan for habitat improvement and restoration to mitigate project‐related
effects on wetland buffers and stream buffers. All unavoidable impacts to wetland and stream buffers
would be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program
(RMC 4‐3‐090) and City of Tukwila critical areas regulations (TMC 18.44 and 18.45). Details of the
mitigation plan are provided in the critical area study prepared for this project (Parametrix 2015a) and
summarized in the paragraphs below. The mitigation plan is also provided as Appendix B to this report.
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 5‐3
The mitigation plan focuses on providing compensatory mitigation for riparian buffer and wetland buffer
impacts at equal or greater functions than would be affected by the project. The mitigation sites would
be planted at a ratio of at least 1:1 to offset project impacts.
The proposed mitigation sites are located near the proposed trail alignment but outside of the trail
right‐of‐way, within the Black River Riparian Forest natural area (Appendix B). The first site (Mitigation
Site 1) was selected because (1) it overlaps the buffers of potentially affected wetlands and the Black
River (2) it is dominated by invasive species, and (3) it is large enough to accommodate all of the
project’s wetland buffer mitigation needs at a single location. The second site (Mitigation Site 2) was
selected because it is within the buffer of the Black River and is adjacent to the trail. Currently proposed
Mitigation Site 1 is being used as a natural area and is part of the Black River Riparian Forest. Mitigation
Site 2 is on the sloped banks of the Black River at the western end of the Black River Riparian Forest.
Mitigation for wetland and stream buffer impacts would consist of planting or underplanting native
trees and shrubs in an area where existing buffer conditions are degraded. This type of mitigation would
offset the project’s impacts on buffer resources by maintaining or enhancing those functions that
support water quality and habitat for fish and wildlife. Proposed enhancements would include removal
of invasive vegetation, tilling of soil, addition of organic soil amendments (where needed) and mulch,
and planting of native vegetation.
To supplement the mitigation planting described above, additional mitigation would be provided for
tree removal where the proposed trail alignment runs adjacent to the Black River Riparian Forest in the
City of Renton. In that area, all trees larger than 6 inches in diameter would be replaced by new trees at
a ratio of 1:1 or greater. Tree planting would occur within or near Mitigation Sites 1 and 2. Planting for
visual screening between the trail and the great blue heron nesting colony (see below) could result in
the planting of more trees than would be needed to meet this commitment.
In addition to the habitat improvements described above, native trees and shrubs would be planted
along approximately 250 feet of the trail to provide additional visual screening between the trail and the
great blue heron nesting colony. These additional plantings would be located west of the nesting colony,
where views toward the colony are not already obscured by existing vegetation. The plantings would
consist of both evergreen and deciduous trees to block views, as well as densely growing shrubs to
discourage pedestrians from venturing off the trail. The plantings would include seedlings along with
some more mature evergreens, to offset some of the temporal loss of canopy cover. Such plantings,
combined with fence installation along the southern edge of the alignment of the trail adjacent to the
Black River Riparian Forest, are expected to reduce the potential for disturbance to wildlife in the
natural area.
The City of Tukwila does not specify required compensatory mitigation ratios for impacts to wetland
buffers or stream buffers. Impacts to wetland buffers and stream buffers are generally replaced at a
ratio of 1:1. The Black River Riparian Forest falls within the jurisdiction of the City of Renton’s Shoreline
Master Program, which specifies a replacement ratio of 1:1 for impacts to wetland buffers. Any trees
with trunks larger than 4 inches in diameter that are removed within sensitive areas or shoreline zones
in the City of Tukwila would be replaced as prescribed by TMC requirements.
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 6‐1
6. REFERENCES
Anderson, C. 2011. Personal communication of February 9, 2011. Wildlife biologist, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Mill Creek, Washington.
Audubon Society. 2011. Database search of Christmas Bird Count data for the Seattle and Kent‐Auburn
survey areas, 2000–2010. Available at: http://birds.audubon.org/historical‐results. Accessed
September 19, 2011.
Azerrad, J.M. 2012. Great Blue Heron. Pages 3‐1 through 3‐18. In E. Larsen, J.M. Azerrad, and N.
Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Species, Volume IV:
Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.
Burger, J., M. Gochfeld, C. Jenkins, and F. Lesser. 2010. Effect of approaching boats on nesting black
skimmers: using response distances to establish protective buffer zones. Journal of Wildlife
Management 74:102‐108.
Butler, R.W. 1997. The great blue heron. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British
Columbia. 184 pp.
Chatwin, T., T. Dunlop, and R. Joy. 2009. Pacific great blue heron population and monitoring: Vancouver
Island and the Gulf Islands 2007 and 2008. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, British Columbia.
Wildlife Working Report No. WR 119. 43 pp.
City of Vancouver Parks and Recreation. 2006. Stanley Park heronry management plan. Vancouver,
British Columbia.
COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2008. COSEWIC assessment and
update status report on the Great Blue Heron fannini subspecies Ardea herodias fannini in Canada.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. Available at:
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/document/default_e.cfm?documentID=1614. Accessed June 7, 2013.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater
habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, OR:
Oregon State University Press.
Gebauer, M.B. and I.E. Moul. 2001. Status of the Great Blue Heron in British Columbia. B.C. Ministry of
Environment, Lands, and Parks, Wildlife Branch. Victoria, British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report
Number 102.
Hamilton, M. 2013. Personal communication of January 15, 2013. Wildlife photographer, Issaquah,
Washington.
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
6‐2 April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084
Hays, D.W. and R. Milner. 2004. Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). In E.M. Larsen, J.M. Azerrad, and N.
Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Species, Volume IV:
Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.
Jackson, S.D. 2003. Ecological considerations in the design of river and stream crossings. In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, edited by C. Leroy Irwin, Paul
Garrett, and K.P. McDermott. Raleigh, NC: Center for Transportation and the Environment, North
Carolina State University. 10 pp.
Johnson, R.E. and K.M. Cassidy. 1997. Mammals of Washington state: location data and modeled
distributions. Washington State GAP Analysis, Volume 3. Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit, Seattle, Washington.
Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O’Neil (managing directors). 2001. Wildlife‐habitat relationships in Oregon and
Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.
Jones, L.L.C., W.P. Leonard, and D.H. Olson, eds. 2005. Amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle
Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. 227 pp.
Kenyon, J.K. 2005. Behaviours influencing the distribution of the Great Blue Herons (Ardea herodias
fannini) in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. MSc Thesis, Simon Fraser University. 97 pp.
Knight, R. L., and D. N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife responses to recreation. Pages 51‐69 in R. L. Knight and K. J.
Gutzwiller, editors. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research.
Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
Lewis, J.C. and J.M. Azerrad. 2003. Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). In E.M. Larsen, J.M.
Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority
Species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.
MacArthur, R. A., V. Geist, and R. H. Johnson. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain sheep
to human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:351‐358.
Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 29:124‐132.
Moen, A. N., S. Whittemore, and B. Buxton. 1982. Effects of disturbance by snowmobiles on heart rate
of captive white‐tailed deer. New York Fish and Game Journal 29: 474‐488.
Opperman, H., K.M. Cassidy, T. Aversa, E.S. Hunn, and B. Senturia. 2006. Sound to Sage: Breeding Bird
Atlas of Island, King, Kitsap, and Kittitas Counties, Washington. Published at:
http://www.soundtosage.org by the Seattle Audubon Society. Version 1.1, September 2006.
Parametrix. 2015a. Lake to Sound Trail – Segment A: Final Critical Area Study. April, 2015. Seattle,
Washington.
Parametrix. 2015b. Lake to Sound Trail – Segment A: Stream Discipline Report. Seattle, Washington.
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084 6‐3
Quinn, T. and R. Milner. 2004. Great Blue Heron. Pages 3‐1 through 3‐7. In E.M. Larsen, J.M. Azerrad,
and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Species,
Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.
Stenberg, K. 2007. The Black River Heron Colony: An Annotated History. Quailcroft Environmental
Services, Sammamish, Washington.
Stinson, D.W., J.W. Watson, and K.R. McAllister. 2001. Washington State status report for the bald eagle.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 92 pp.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. National bald eagle management guidelines. May 2007.
Available at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/guidelines/disturbnestingbaea1.html.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015a. Information, Planning, and Conservation System.
Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed January 16, 2015.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service critical habitat mapper.
Available at: http:// http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/. Accessed February 2, 2015.
Vennesland, R.G. 2000. The effects of disturbance from humans and predators on the breeding decisions
and productivity of the Great Blue Heron in south‐coastal British Columbia. M.Sc. thesis. Simon
Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.
Vennesland, R.G. and R.W. Butler. 2004. Factors influencing Great Blue Heron nesting productivity on
the Pacific coast of Canada from 1998 to 1999. Waterbirds 27: 289‐296.
Watson, J.W. and E.A. Rodrick. 2004. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In E.M. Larsen, J.M. Azerrad,
and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Species,
Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia,
Washington. 177 pp.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2015. PHS on the Web: An interactive map of
WDFW priority habitats and species information for project review. Available online at:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Accessed February 2, 2015.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2014. Salmonscape fish database and mapping
application. Available online at: https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/salmonscape/. Accessed January 16,
2014.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2011. Priority habitats and species maps and data
for the vicinity of Section 13, Township 24 North, Range 1 East. Received on February 16, 2011.
WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2014. Washington Natural Heritage Program GIS
data. Olympia, Washington.
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report
King County
6‐4 April 2015 │ 554‐1521‐084
Woodruff, K. and H. Ferguson. 2005. Townsend’s big‐eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). In J.M.
Azerrad, editor. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Species, Volume V:
Mammals. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.
WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2010. Ethnobotany and cultural resources.
Available at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/CulRes/ethnobotony.htm. Accessed
December 28, 2010.
WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2013. Biological assessment preparation
advanced training manual. Version 02‐2013. Available at:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/Biology/BA/BAguidance.htm. Accessed February 20, 2013.
Appendix A
Bird Species Likely to Occur in the Lake to
Sound Trail—Segment A Study Area
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report A-1 June 2013
King County 554-1251-084 (A/2T300D)
The following bird species are known or expected to breed within or near the project area, based on data
from the Breeding Bird Atlas of Island, King, Kitsap, and Kittitas Counties, Washington (Opperman et al. 2006). Bold
font indicates species that are known or expected to breed in the nine-square-mile survey block that contains
the project area; the other species are known or expected to breed in adjacent survey blocks.
Ducks, Geese, Swans (Family Anatidae)
Wood Duck (Aix sponsa)
Green-winged Teal (Anas carolinensis)
Northern Shoveler (Anas clypeata)
Cinnamon Teal (Anas cyanoptera)
Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors)
Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)
Gadwall (Anas strepera)
Canada Goose (Branta canadensis)
Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus)
Common Merganser (Mergus merganser)
Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis)
Pheasants, Fowl & Allies (Family Phasianidae)
Ring-necked Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus)
New World Quail (Family Odontophoridae)
California Quail (Callipepla californica)
Grebes (Family Podicipedidae)
Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps)
Herons, Bitterns (Family Ardeidae)
Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias)
American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus)
Green Heron (Butorides virescens)
Kites, Hawks, Eagles (Family Accipitridae)
Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii)
Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)
Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
Rails, Crakes, Coots (Family Rallidae)
American Coot (Fulica americana)
Sora (Porzana carolina)
Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola)
Plovers (Family Charadriidae)
Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)
Sandpipers, Snipes (Family Scolopacidae)
Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularius)
Pigeons, Doves (Family Columbidae)
Rock Pigeon (Columba livia)
Band-tailed Pigeon (Patagioenas fasciata)
Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura)
Hummingbirds (Family Trochilidae)
Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus)
Kingfishers (Family Alcedinidae)
Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon)
Woodpeckers (Family Picidae)
Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus)
Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens)
Red-breasted Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber)
Tyrant Flycatchers (Family Tyrannidae)
Pacific-slope Flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis)
Vireos, Greenlets (Family Vireonidae)
Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus)
Hutton's Vireo (Vireo huttoni)
Crows, Jays (Family Corvidae)
American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)
Steller's Jay (Cyanocitta stelleri)
Swallows, Martins (Family Hirundinidae)
Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica)
Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota)
Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor)
Violet-green Swallow (Tachycineta thalassina)
Tits, Chickadees (Family Paridae)
Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus)
Chestnut-backed Chickadee (Poecile rufescens)
Lake to Sound Trail—Segment A
Vegetation and Wildlife Discipline Report A-2 June 2013
King County 554-1251-084 (A/2T300D)
Bushtits (Family Aegithalidae)
Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus)
Nuthatches, Wallcreeper (Family Sittidae)
Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis)
Wrens (Family Troglodytidae)
Marsh Wren (Cistothorus palustris)
Bewick's Wren (Thryomanes bewickii)
Thrushes (Family Turdidae)
Swainson's Thrush (Catharus ustulatus)
American Robin (Turdus migratorius)
Starlings (Family Sturnidae)
European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris)
Waxwings & Allies (Family Bombycillidae)
Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum)
New World Warblers (Family Parulidae)
Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia)
Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas)
Wilson's Warbler (Wilsonia pusilla)
Tanagers & Allies (Family Thraupidae)
Western Tanager (Piranga ludoviciana)
Buntings, New World Sparrows & Allies (Family
Emberizidae)
Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia)
Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis)
Spotted Towhee (Pipilo maculatus)
White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys)
Grosbeaks, Saltators & Allies (Family
Cardinalidae)
Black-headed Grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus)
New World Blackbirds (Family Icteridae)
Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus)
Brewer's Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus)
Bullock's Oriole (Icterus bullockii)
Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater)
Finches (Family Fringillidae)
Pine Siskin (Carduelis pinus)
American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis)
House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus)
Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus)
Old World Sparrows, Snowfinches (Family
Passeridae)
House Sparrow (Passer domesticus)