HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc'1 ,,
\ ' .,
Stream Report
Riverview Park Bridge Replacement
Renton, Washington
Prepared for
PND Engineers, Inc. and
City of Renton
March 28, 2014
12132-29
-.. /\f'R i
CITY .N
HIJRTCROWSER
This page is intentionally left blank
for double-sided printing.
• •
• • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
.. ..
HJ.\RTCROWSER
Stream Report
Riverview Park Bridge Replacement
Renton, Washington
Prepared for
PND Engineers, Inc. and City of Renton
March 28, 2014
12132-29
Prepared by
Hart Crowser, Inc.
Diane Hennessey
Senior Project Biologist
Jim Starkes
Associate Fisheries Biologist
Jon Houghton, PhD
Senior Principal
Fisheries/Marine Biologist
This page is intentionally left blank
for double-sided printing.
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 PROJECT LOCATION
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.11 Existing Conditions
3.2 Proposed Pedestrian Bridge
3.3 Impact Avoidance, Minimization Measures, and Conservation Measures
3.3.1 Conservation Measures
3.3.2 Best Management Practices
3.4 Project Schedule
4.0 EXISTING STREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS
4.1 Fish and Wildlife Use
4.1.1 Fish Use
4.1.2 Wildlife Use
4.2 lnstream Habitat and Ecological Functions
4.3 Riparian Conditions and Ecological Functions
5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
5.1 Potential Impacts to Fish and Stream Habitats
5.1.1 Construction Disturbances
5.1.2 Water Quality
5.1.3 Habitat and Biota
5.2 Net Effects of Action
6.0 REFERENCES
Hart Crowser
12132-29 March 28, 2014
2
2
2
3
3
4
5
,-
_)
6
6
8
8
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
12
Pag~ i
CONTENTS (CONT.)
SITE MAPS
Existing Conditions
2 Existing Elevation and Section
3 Vegetation Map/Tree Table
4 Vegetation Map West
5 Vegetation Map East
TABLE
Effects of Project Activities on Habitats Used by ESA-Listed Species in the Project and Action
Areas
FIGURES
Cedar River Salmonid Life History Stages
2 Juvenile Salmon Outmigratory Timing in the Cedar River
SHEETS
1 Vicinity Map
2 Existing Conditions and Demolition Plan
3 Existing Elevation and Section
4 Proposed Plan and Elevation
5 Abutment Details
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS
Page ii Hart Crowser
12132-29 March 28, 2014
STREAM REPORT
RIVERVIEW PARK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
RENTON, WASHINGTON
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This stream report has been prepared to aid the City of Renton (City) in
assessing the potential effects of a proµosed pedestrian bridge replacement
project on stream and riparian habitat. The City of Renton Municipal Code
(RMC) Section 4-8-120 specifies that a stream study must be completed for
development actions such as the pedestrian bridge replacement across the river.
This report contains a stream assessment narrative in accordance to RMC 4-8-
120D19c describing site conditions, ecological functions, and a project effects
analysis. Site Maµs I through 5 meet the criteria set forth in RMC 4-8-1201) 19a.
These maps show the project area, ordinary high water mark, topography of the
site, drainage p;iltcrns, vcgelativc cover, and structures.
A biological evaluation (flE) has also been µrepared for this project to comply
with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA; Hart Crowser 2014). The llE
addressed potential effects lo two species listed as threatened or endangered
under the ESA:
• Puget Sound Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha); and
• Puget Sound steelhead trout ( 0. mykiss).
The BE provides more information about these species and the potential impacts
of the proposed project on these species and their habitat. The 13[ concluded
that the project: may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, Puget Sound
Chinook salmon or l'uget Sound steclhead trout, or their designated critical
habitat.
2.0 PROJECT LOCATION
Hart Crowser
The proposed Riverview Park Bridge Replacement project is located along
I lighway 169 in Renton, Washington at approximately River Mile 2.7
(Section 16, Township 23N, and Range 5E; Sheet 1). The "project area" for this
site consists of the immediate bridge footprint (Sheet 1 ). The "study area" for
this site consists of the bridge repl;icernent project area and a 100-foot radius
around the project area.
The proposed project consists of the replacement of an existing pedestrian
bridge over the Cedar River within Riverview Park, a public park owned by the
Page I
12132-29 March 28, 2014
City of Renton. The bridge µrovides access from a parking area to the park and
the state owned Cedar River Trail. The existing bridge was built in the early
1960s and has been repeatedly damaged by floating debris during high water
events requiring emergency repairs each time. Log jams have historically formed
beneath the bridge during these events causing dangerous situations. In order
to eliminate future damage and dangerous situations, the bridge will be replaced
with a clear span structure so there will be nothing in the waterway for debris to
hit or get trapped on. The clear span will also offer habitat improvements by
removal of creosote-treated piles in the stream channel and freeing up river
bottom and waterway for fish migration.
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Existing Conditions
The existing 1 35-feet-long by 1 2-feet-wide bridge has a concrete deck and is
supported on three pile bents (Sheets 1 and 2). The north and south bents each
consist of five 12-inch-diameter timber creosote piles. The mid-span bent
consists of four 12-inch-diameter timber creosote piles and one 12-inch-diameter
steel pile (Sheet 3). Utilities including sewer and water are hung beneath it to
serve the park facilities. The bridge provides access to the trail and some toilet
facilities on the south side of the river.
3.2 Proposed Pedestrian Bridge
Pag~ 2
The existing solid concrete deck bridge and 1 5 piles will be removed and a new
clear span aluminum bridge (135 feet by 10 feet) with a grated deck will be
installed in the same location (Sheet 4). The existing 3-pile deflector wall on the
south bank will be removed. The north 3-pile deflector wall will remain (Sheet
3). The sidewalk will be cul where it connects to the bridge at the top of the
bank slope. The new bridge will be supported on foundations constructed at the
top of the bank (Sheet 4). Each abutment will consist of two 12-inch diameter
steel piles driven at the top of the slope. The sidewalk will be replaced in the
same location (Sheet 5). It is anticipated that removal of existing trees adjacent
to existing bridge will not occur. Native vegetation will be planted on all sides
immediately adjacent to the new bridge.
Bridge Demolition: The bridge will be cut into sections and removed by land
based cranes situated near the top of both bank slopes and accessed frorn the
parking lot on the north side and the trail on the south side.
Hart Crowser
12132-29 March 28, 2014
Pile Removal: The s,1111c cranes will be used to pull the bridge piles using a
vibratory driver. In the c,vcnt the1t ,rny piles break or cannot be extracted, they
will be cut as close to the substrate surface as possible. The deflector wall on
the south bank will be removed by hand digging down ,rnd cutting the timber
piles at slightly below existing substrates.
Abutment Installation: An excavator will be used to remove the existing
sidewalk and excavate the area for the foundation at the top of bank. Piles will
be driven using the land-based cranes accessing the site from the parking lot and
the trail. Concrc,te will be poured on site.
Bridge Installation: The bridge will be installed using the land based cranes. It
will arrive on site in one piece and be lifted into place.
3.3 Impact Avoidance, Minimization Measures, and Conservation Measures
Hart Crowser
For shorelines regulated under RMC 4-11-090, the proposed project rnust
demonstrate that it meets the criteria of no net loss of ecological functions as
described in RMC 4-3-0901J2:
"No Net Loss Required: Shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a
manner th;:1t prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of
ecological functions and processes in all development and use. Permitted uses
are designed and conducted to minimize, in so far as practical, any resultant
damage to the ecology and environment. Shoreline ecological functions that
shall be protected include, but are not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat, food
chain support, and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline processes that
shall be protected include, but are not limited to, water flow; erosion and
accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery,
tr.:msport1 and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input;
nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel formation/maintenance."
In order to adhere to RMC 4-3-090D2, the proposed pedestrian bridge
replacement project has been designed with several conservation measures and
best management practices to µreserve and improve existing ecological
functions within the riparian zone and stream channel over existing conditions as
follows.
3.3.1 Conservation Measures
• Potential adverse effects of this project on salmon will be avoided or
minimized through the adherence of agency-approved work windows when
Page .l
12132-29 March 28. 2014
Page 4
few outrnigrating juvenile salmon and adult spawning salmon arc µresent in
the action area (July 1 -J\ugust 11 ).
• The proposed new bridge replacement will be constructed within the same
overwater footprint as the old bridge. No increase in overwater coverage
will occur.
• No construction activities or machinery will occur in the water or the riparian
zone. All staging will occur in either the existing parking lot or the
developed park on either side of the river.
• All creosote treated piles below ordinary high water will be removed and
properly disposed of at an approved upland disposal facility. Replacement
steel piles will be driven in entirely upland areas.
• Staging, construction activities, or replacement of the bridge will not require
the removal of any adult trees adjacent to the existing bridge. Any shrub
vegetation that is removed as part of construction activities will be replaced
with appropriate native riparian vegetation.
• New bridge decking will be grated to allow for light penetration to the water
and stream banks below.
3.3.2 Best Management Practices
• If debris or spilled material accidentally enters the waterway, immediate
actions will be taken to remove the material. All debris or spilled material
will be properly disposed of at an approved off-site disposal facility.
• Methods for containing debris during overwater demolition work may
include use of tarps or shrouds. Other methods may be identified by the
City or contractor.
• Project construction will be completed in compliance with Washington State
Water Quality Standards WAC 173-201/\
• The contractor will check equipment for leaks and other problems that could
result in discharge of petroleum-based products, hydraulic fluid, or other
material to the Cedar River.
• The contractor will have a spill containment kit, including oil-absorbent
materials, on site to be used in the event of a spill or if any oil product is
Hart Crowser
12132-29 March 28, 2014
observed in the water.
• Piles will be removed using vibratory extraction to the greatest extent
possible. l'iles which cannot be extracted will be broken/cut ofi at the
mudline.
• Piles will be removed slowly so as to minimize sediment disturbance and
turbidity in the waler column.
• Prior to extraction the operator will "wake up" the pile to break the bond
with the sediment and break the friction between the pile and substrate to
minimize sediment disturbance.
• Piles will not be broken off intentionally by twisting, bending or other
deformation in order to minimize creosote release during extraction.
• Upon removal from substrate each pile will be moved expeditiously from the
water into an upland area. Piles will not be shaken, hosed-off, stripped or
scraped off, left hanging to drip or any other action intended to clean or
remove adhering material from the pile.
3.4 Project Schedule
Demolition of the existing bridge is proposed for the summer of 2014.
Construction of the replacement bridge will occur during the summer of 2015.
This schedule will adhere to agency-approved work windows for in-water work
(July 1 -August 31 ).
4.0 EXISTING STREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS
Hart Crowser
The Cedar River is within the Water Resource Inventory Arca (WRIA) 8, Cedar-
Samrnarnish Ilasin. The river is 45 miles long and originates in the Cascades
Range near Abiel Park. The river drains into Lake Washington that discharges
through the f lirarn Chittenden locks into Puget Sound. The upper Cedar River
contains a pristine and protected watershed that provides drinking waler for the
City of Seattle.
Beginning in 1912, drainage patterns of the Cedar River and Lake Washington
were extensively altered. One of the most significant changes made in 1912
was diversion of the Cedar River into Lake Washington from its original course
into the Black River and the IJuwarnish (Celedonia et al. 2008). There have
been many historical alterations to the rnainstcm Cedar River due to railroad
Page 5
12132-29 March 28, 2014
construction and operations, water withdrawal, flow regulation, and flood
control. i)ue to water withdrawals and flood control structures, the river has
been constricted from 250 feet in width to 110 feet in width (City of Seattle
2000). l)espite these alterations and the presense of the Landsburg l)iversion
Dam that is located 19 miles upstream of the project area, the Cedar River has a
rairHlriven hydrograph.
4. 1 Fish and Wildlife Use
Page 6
4.1.1 Fish Use
The Cedar River is a known salmonid-bcaring stream with sockeye, Chinook, and
coho salmon, as well as steelhead trout. Of particular concern are Chinook
salmon and steelhead trout, both of which are listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act. The project area also lies within the designated critical
habitat for Chinook salmon and proposed critical habitat for steelhead trout.
Cedar River Chinook primarily use mainstem habitats for spawning although
small numbers of Chinook redds have been found in tributary streams well
upstream of the project area. Spawn timing is generally between mid-September
and mid-November (Figure 1 ). Spawning tends to be concentrated between RM
5 and RM 20, though spawning does occur in the vicinity of !he project area
(RM 2.7). Within RM 2 and RM 3, between O and 20 redds have been observed
annually between 1999 and 2012. fourteen Chinook redds were observed
within this reach in 2012 and relatively more spawning has occurred in this
reach since 2006. During most years the percentage of redds between l{M 2
and RM 3 arc 1.5 percent or less of the total, except for years 2008 and 2013,
during which they were 3.3 and 3.2 percent of the total, respectively (Burton ct
al. 2013).
Juvenile Chinook outmigrate in two distinct patterns with smaller fish
outmigrating between late January and late April, while the larger fish (parr)
outmigrate between May and mid-July (Kiyohara and Zimmerman 2012;
Figure 2).
No studies have been identified documenting the migration, residence time, or
behavior of juvenile steelhead trout in the Cedar River. Juvenile salmon
outmigrant studies have captured small numbers of juvenile stcclhcad, but too
few to develop migration estimates. These fish were larger, with lengths ranging
from 158 to 242 rnm, averaging 186 mm (Kiyohara and Zimmerman 2012).
Adults have been documented to spawn in the mainstem Cedar River between
mid-December and early June. Outmigration occurs during the spring and early
summer (Figure 1 ). Very few data on the distribution of spawning sleelhead
Hart Crowser
12132-29 March 28, 2014
Hart Crowser
were idrntified, but the Washington IJcpartrncnl of Fish and Wildlife (WIJIW)
has reportrd that 110 stcclheacl rec/els have been observed below RM 5.2, well
upstrc,1rn of the project area (WDFW unpublishc,d dc1tc1).
The most abundant salmonid present within the Cedar l~ivcr are sock'-'Y'-'
salmon; estimates of 4.5 million wild juvenile sockeye and 1 2.4 million hatchery
sockeye outrnigrate from the basin annually (Kiyohara and Zimrnennan 2012}.
Annual escapements of adult fish range from less than 50,000 to more than
500,000 in the Cedar River. Adults enter the river from late August through
December with spawning occurring through mid-January (figure 1 ). Emerging
fry rapidly migrate downstream to Lake Washington at night from late January
through May, with the peak outmigratory period occurring in March and April.
Sockeyc salmon were introduced into the Lake Washington watershed in 1935
from the flaker River and the first documented adult returns were in 1940. Runs
gradually increased and in ·1970 an escapement goal of 350,000 spawners was
adopted. Despite supplementation efforts and harvest restrictions, sockeye
returns have fluctuated significantly, likely due to freshwater and occ,rn survival
constraints, and because of an increased frequency of damaging winter floods
(WlJf'W 2002}.
Sockcye spawn throughout the stream basin, including areas within the project
area. Approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the project area, an off-channel
spawning and rearing habitat for sockeye and Chinook salmon was constructed
in 2009. The new spawning and rearing channel occupies approximately 10,000
square feet and serves as a functional replacement for a groundwater channel
that was destroyed as a result of the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake (USACE 2009).
Coho salmon are also found in the Cedar River, spawning throughout the
mainstem and tributaries, including the vicinity of the project area. Coho spawn
from late October through early March (rigure 1) and outrnigrate from late April
through June. Juvenile coho overwinter in streams before outmigrating as age
1 + fish, so some year class can be found in the river year-round (Figure 2).
fhere are at least 19 resident species of fish present in the Cedar River (USACE
2009). Resident species of fish in the river indurle rainbow ! 0. mykiss) and
cutthroat trout ( 0. cla1ki1), mountain whitefish ( Prosopium williamso111), northern
pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregoncnsis), peamouth chub (Mylochct!us
caurinus), lhreespine stickleback ! Casterosteus aculeatus), largescale sucker
( Catostomus macrocheilus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), brook
lamprey (Lampetra richardsonit), Pacific lamprey (Entosphcnus tridentatus), and
several species of sculpin (Cottidac; USACE 2009}.
Page 7
12132-29 March 28. 2014
4.1.2 Wildlife Use
The action area is located entirely within a cultiv;itccl park setting in suburban
areas of the City of Renton, so wildlife species are generally limited to those that
are adapted to human-developed environments. Riparian vegetation, though
dense, is relatively narrow(< SO feet). Species would include black-tailed deer,
muskrat, coyote, raccoon, eastern gray squirrel, opossum, beaver, cottontail
rabbits, striped skunk, Norway rats, and other small rodents. Red tailed hawk,
bald eagle and osprey also use the taller cottonwoods for perching and foraging.
Mergansers, mallard ducks and other waterfowl are also present (USACE 2009).
4.2 lnstream Habitat and Ecological Functions
Page 8
Within the project area, the Cedar River channel is approximately 100 feet wide
and meanders through a relatively natural, single channel, with vegetated and
relatively steep stream banks stabilized by armor (Photographs 1 and 2). The
existing pedestrian bridge is stabilized with riprap on both banks (Starkes,
personal observations, rebruary 7, 2014; Photograph 3). The river channel
through most of the lower reach is confined and stabilized by levees and
revetments, which has resulted in a loss of connectivity of the river with its
floodplain (Kerwin 2001 ).
River channel substrates arc composed primarily of cobble and gravel between
about 0.5 and 4 inches in diameter. Maximum water depths within the project
area at ordinary high water are approximately 4 feet. The project reach is
entirely run habitat with a small exposed gravel bar on the right bank. Several
pieces of large woody debris are situated along the gravel bar (Starkes, personal
observations, f'ebruary 7, 2014; Photograph 4). A habitat concern on the lower
river below RM 20 is the possible disruption of the natural downstream flow of
gravel, cobble, and boulders by the Landsburg Diversion Dam at RM 21.7. This
possible disruption could cause an altered array of substrate particle sizes and
may effect spawning habitats for salmonids (Kerwin 2001 ). However, rcdd data
indicate that sufficient gravels are present for spawning adult salmon in the
general vicinity of the site (Burton et al. 2013).
Important ecological functions within the stream channel of the project area
include spawning grounds for Chinook, coho, and sockeye salmon. Despite the
revetments and lack of connectivity with the floodplain in the area, suitable
quantity and size of spawning gravels are present in this reach of the stream.
The run habitats within the project area will also provide production of aquatic
insects and other invertebrates which serve as prey species for juvenile salmon
and other fish. The gravel bar and large woody debris likely provides edge and
refuge habitats for juvenile fish, particularly during periods of high water.
Hart Crowser
12132-29 March 28, 2014
4.3 Riparian Conditions and Ecological Functions
Hart Crowser
Within the project area, the banks on both sides of the river are steep, but highly
vegetated. There is evidence of historic armoring on both banks. Trees present
within the riparian zone in the vicinity of the pedestrian bridge include black
cottonwood (Popufus bafsamilera), red ,,Ider (A/nus rubra), and big leaf maple
(Acer macmphyflum) that range in size from 10 to JO inches diameter at breast
height (dbh). Other sµccies growing within the project area include willows and
smaller red alder. Sword fern (Pofystidwm munitum) were prevalent on the left
bank. There were also several invasive species present including English ivy
( Hedera helix), Japanese knotweed ( Faflopia japonica), holly I !lex sp.), and
I limalayan blackberry (Rubus arme111;1cus). lJense patches of Japanese
knotwccd covered much of the left bank immediately upstream of the existing
pedestrian bridge. Site Maps 3, 4, and 5 present the locations of larger trees
within the action area.
Other prevalent plant species that are likely µresent in the immediate vicinity of
the project area include snowberry (Symphoricarpos a/bus), salrnonberry (Rubus
spectabifis), buttercup (Ranuncufus repens), nettle ( Urtica dioica), vine maple
(Acer circinatum), and Indian plum ( Oemferia cerasiformis; USACE 2009).
Despite the dense vegetation along the river bank, the riparian buffer in the
project area is narrow (less than .50 feet) because of the presence of a parking
area on the right bank and park-like setting composed primarily of lawn on the
left bank (Starkes, personal observations, February 7, 2014; Photographs 5 and
6). One area occupying approximately .50 square feet, located immediately
downstream of the pedestrian bridge has very little vegetation (Photograph 7).
The steep bank at this location appears to be eroding and sloughing.
R.iparian plant communities support numerous ecological functions including
bank stabilization through root strength, sc•dirncnt deposition on floodplains
during periods of overbank flow, interstitial flow through the sediments, and
large wood supply, which has a substantial influence on channel complexity and
instrcam habitat features. Ecologically intacl riparian areas naturally retain and
recycle nutrients, modify local microdimates and act to moderate water
ternµcraturcs, and sustain broadly based food webs that help suµport a diverse
assemblage of fish and wildlife. Within the action area, dense shrub and tree
growth µrovide shade, insect production, and leaf litter for nutrient inputs, but
the steep slopes may prevent the growth of mature deciduous trees. Most trees
observed are young lo moderate aged, generally with a dbh of less than 10
inches.
Page 9
12132-29 March 28, 2014
5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
5. 1 Potential Impacts to Fish and Stream Habitats
Page 10
5.1.1 Construction Disturbances
Noise and construction disturbances from the proposed bridge replacement arc
expected to be minor, but may result in the temporary avoidance of the project
area by fish. Potential affects will be minimized by implementing all inwater
work during agency-approved work windows (July 1 -August 31 ), which is
outside of the outrnigratory periods for most juvenile salmon and the spawning
periods for adults. rhe great majority of juvenile salmon and sleelhead
outrnigratc between February and June, with a few larger fish migrating in July.
Spawning for all four species occurs from September through early June (Figures
1 and 2)
No in-water pile driving will occur, and existing creosote-treated piles will be
removed with a vibratory pile driver, thus minimizing the disturbance to any
juvenile fish in the area_ Juvenile Chinook and coho salmon that remain in the
river during this period are larger and more able to avoid construction areas.
Because of spawn timing and adherence to the work window, it is highly unlikely
that spawning adults will be exposed to vibratory driving and pile removal.
Removal of these in-water piles will also eliminate a potential long-term source of
contamination to the river in the project area.
5.1.2 Water Quality
Vibratory pile removal may result in temporary and localized increases in
turbidity that may result in avoidance of the immediate area by juvenile and
adult salmonids. Turbidity is not expected to be high given the cobble/gravel
substrates at the location of existing piles. Given the larger substrate and grain
size and lower organic content of sediments, increased levels of turbidity are
likely to be very temporary. In addition, all work will be conducted during
agency-approved work windows when the great majority juvenile salmonids
have outmigrated out of the project area and adult salmonids have either
completed or not yet started to spawn.
Juvenile salmon have been shown to avoid areas of unacceptably high turbidities
(Servizi 1988), although they may seek out areas of moderate turbidity (10 lo
80 ncphelornctric turbidity units [NTU I), presumably as cover against predation
(Cyrus and 13laber 1987a, 1987b). feeding efficiency of juveniles is impaired by
turbidities in excess of 70 NTU, well below sublcthal stress levels (13isson and
Bilby 1982). Reduced preference by adult salmon homing to spawning areas
Hart Crowser
12132-29 March 28, 2014
has been clcmonstrated where turbidities exceed :rn NTlJ (20 rnilligr;ims per liter
[mg/I.[ suspended seuirnents). llowever, Chinook salmon exposed lo (,SO mg/I.
of suspended volcanic ash were still able to find their nat,11 waler (Whitman et al.
·1982). l,ased 011 these dalil, it is unlikely that any short-term (measured in
minutes) and loc;1lized elevated turbidities generated by pile removal operations
would directly affect salrnonids or other fish species th<>l may be present.
5.1.3 Habitat and Biota
Short-c1nd long-term effects of pile removal to stream habitats and biota arc
expected to be minimal or positive. Removal of 14 treated wood piles and one
steel pile will increase the amount of stream ch,11111el h,1bitat that can be used for
aquatic insect and other invcrlcbratc colonizalion, salmon spawning, ancJ rearing
juveniles by approximately t 1.8 square feet. Removal of the existing deflection
wall and nearbank piles will likely improve edge habitats for juvenile fish.
Removal of mid-channel piles will likely improve potential spawning habitat and
remove potential impediments to migration.
The proposed new pedestrian bridge will also have grated decking which will
improve light penetration to the stream channel and reduce sharply contrasting
shadows, thus improving primary productivity and reducing impediments to
migration in the stream reach. /Ill staging areas for c,quipment, machinery, and
bridge components will either be in the parking lot or cultivated areas of
Riverview Park. After demolition of the existing bridge, the new bridge will be
lifted into place. It is not anticipated that any mature trees will require removal
to place the new bridge, and any areas of shrub removal will be revegetated,
thus only minimal effects on the existing riparian zone will occur.
5.2 Net Effects of Action
Hart Crowser
The design of the proposed Riverview Park Pedestrian Bridge meets the criteria
of RMC 4-3-090 of the Shoreline Master l'rogram that no net loss of ecological
functions will occur. Because of design considerations, conservation measures,
and best management practices, the net effect of the bridge replacement project
in the project and action areas will be to maintain or improve the overall habitat
quality for listed species relative to current conditions (Table 1 ).
In-water work will be limited to the removal of existing creosote-treated piles,
which will improve habitats by removing a potential contaminant source and
removing impediments to both existing edge and mid-channel habitats. The new
bridge will span the entire reach of the river without using any piles within the
stream channel or the steep banks. Adverse effects will be limited to short-term
avoidance during pile removal operations. Conducting the work during
Page 11
12132-29 March 28. 2014
approved work windows will minimize this exposure lo oulmigrating juvenile
salmon and to sµawning adult salmon.
6.0 REFERENCES
Page 12
Bisson, P.A. and R.E. Bilby, 1982. Avoidance of Suspended Sediment by Juvenile
Coho Salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 4:371-374.
Burton, K.O., A. Bosworth, and H. Berge. 2013. Cedar River Chinook Salmon
Redd and Carcass Surveys: Annual Report, Return Year 2012. Seattle Public
Utilities, Seattle, Washington.
Celedonia, M.T., R.A. Tabor, S. Sanders, D.W. Lantz, and I. Grettenberger, 2008.
Movement and Habitat Use of Juvenile Chinook Salmon and Two Predatory
Fishes in Lake Washington and Lake Washington Ship Canal: 2004-05 Acoustic
Tracking Studies. US Fish & Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish &
Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington.
City of Seattle 2000. Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Pian for the
Issuance of a Permit to Allow Incidental Take of Threatened and Endangered
Species. Seattle, Washington.
Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber, 1987a. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile
Marine Fishes in Estuaries. Part 1: Field Studies at Lake St. Lucia on the
Southeastern Coast of Africa. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology, 109:53-70.
Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber, 1987b. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile
Marine fishes in Estuaries. Part 2: Laboratory Studies, Comparisons with Field
Data and Conclusions. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology,
109:71-91.
Hart Crowser, Inc. (Hart Crowser), 2014. Biological Evaluation, Riverview Park
Bridge Replacement. Renton, Washington. March 2014.
Kerwin, J. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the
Cedar-Sammamish Ilasin (WRIA 8). Washington Conservation Commission,
Olympia, Washington.
Kiyohara, K. and M. Zimmerman. 2012. Evaluation of Juvenile Salmon
Production in 2011 from the Cedar River and Bear Creek. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
Hart Crowser
12132-29 March 28, 2014
Scrvizi, J.A., 1988. Sublcthal Effects of l)rcdged Sedilllcnts on Juvenile Salmon.
CA Silllenstad, editor. Ufecls of Dredging on Anaclrornous Pacific Coast
Fishes. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
US Army Corps of f:ngineers (USACE). 2009. Cedar River Side Channel
l\eplacernent Project. f-=inal Environmental Asscssmrncnt. King County,
Washington. Seattle District, LJS Army Corps of Engineers.
Washington Deµartment of hsh and Wildlife (WlJf'W), 2002. Lake Washington
Sockcyc. httµ:www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/sockcyc/background.htrn.
Whitlllan, R.P., T.P. Quinn, and LI.. Brannon, 1982. Influence of Suspended
Volcanic Ash on I loming 8chavior of Adult Chinook Salmon. rransactions of
the American Fisheries Society, 111 :63-69.
Hart Crowser Page -r 3
12132·29 March 28, 2014
This page is intentionally left blank
for double-sided printing.
SITE MAPS
Hart Crowser
12132·29 March 28. 2014
This page is intentionally left blank
for double-sided printing.
b
I
I
I
l' \--~-
-I
__ J
\
\
l
/
-----------------,-,-,-::"'] ~
----------i
\
(I
I
I
I
l
0: w a:
~
z
0 ;:
()
w cn
_J
<(
() a:
~
/;
I
I. i 5 ' ;: a z
0
()
" z ;:
en t;jlf-----,
~ ', .::::
,_-~
: '-I
,l I
-'
\ --;
C E!I "
This page is intentionally left tiiank for double-sided printing.
SOUTH BANK
~ PURPOSE: BRIDGE
~ MAINTENANCE
~
J DATUM: NAVD B8
DEFLECTION WALL
TO BE REMOVEO
135· -0"
DEFLECTION WALL
TO REMAIN~
OHW ELEV. +46.5'
·-·-·"'·-~--ii-------------~,
EXISTING ELEVATION
NOT TO SCALE
TIMBER
POST, TYP.
TIMBER
BULLRAIL, TYP.
8" CONCRETE
OECK
SECTION A-A
NOT TO SCALE
WIS STEEL
BEAM, TYP.
TIMBER
cw
12·o1 STEEL
PILE
12"91 TIMBER CREOSOTE
PILE, TYP.
APPROXIMATE
GROUND
NORTH BANK
RIVERVIEW PARK
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
PROPOSED: REPLACE EXISTING
BRIDGE IN SITU
EXISTING ELEVATION
AND SECTION
IN: CEDAR RIVER
~ ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: ~ 1. CITY OF RENTON
AT: RENTON, WA, KING CO.
SEC.16, TWP.23N, RG.SE
APPLICATION BY:
8 2. S fAff Of-WA DO r .~
o•
CITY OF RrnTON PARKS, PLANNING,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
1055 S. GRADY WAY
RENTON, WA 98057
Cl rY Of-REN TON
SHEET 3 of 5 DATE: MAR. 2014 ~·i
~~ ~------------~-------------~-------------..... Site Map 2 -Existing Elevation and Section
This page is intentionally left blank
for double-sided printing.
z
0
f-
l!) z r
Cl)
i
z
0
f-z w er
;,:::
~
?;
>-Cl)
-< w
"' 0
w
l!) z
<( er
I
f-er
0 z
"' N .:.\-!~ . .9:. ·~;
I
Cl) z
S'.
0 /
I-~;
"' z
0
>" u w
if)
LL
0
:,! '
S'.
Cl)
w
I
f-
LL
0
:,!
w
if)
w
I
f-
z
I
f-
~
-4-.· ,:,.\ /1!'\ \-·1 \:11-i
. l·-·•-··
,3A~ns N9IS30 I'--~·-"'~--' ----'----------------
-'
s
. '
.. a,
'
: • "
>H'·ll ,,...an,,, ·u,
,,j .•
i
~t~-1~
~ J l ,.
~~H;f;H
~~!'!~:"."!H~~~
~r~.t-,~
e
i
i
I
HHf H
" " 0: ~ -~ "' " ~~~1r tt:1
Utt~. ~C.
,·~:::.,: ~.;; ~ :\o-.;:~ ._ ~ .;,:~ ,:;e:;c;;-)
~~i;;.;::::s~;~~~;;;:;:
~
.
~
f:
ru
:0 rn
f-
ill
ill
f' ~
~ rn
" g
E
ill rn
'!:
' ~
~ rn
" " u5
I ,
I
II
I
I
I
I
" • s l:
! ' ~ i ! i I ,
~ g ~
I 11 : I
: I ' I .. I
: ! I
: 11 : I
i I '
!
!
i
!
I
' !!! I !lo
0:
IJJ
>
0:
0:
<
0
IJJ
(J
f--z
:,cW
":;;
>-<( ~ ~ a. :3 z,::o. ~~w ~ >" ~ a:: UJ
a. w" :2: 0
"ir m
I
-w ~
rr ' • ~ " ' . C i .....I D
~ :sqi ~
~ w it ~ ~
z I
v :I rr a. • " ' " z • . w " In iii z
'.l " a.
t .!. ~ ! t1 I!
l 1
l I I ! I ' l i i , l l I i I ' ~ !
II > -_:;m 0 'o
/
i !: I ! ; • ,
~ I •
'
I ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' I
~
i ! ! ' • ' 0,~ I
I ~ .
11 m I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'Y'. '', I ',,,
fl:
'(
Q
tu
0
" ro w
~
' ro
" N r : _j 0 f-! ffi z ~
"w ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ "':;; ~ ID
>-~ ~ 2 > w I ~0.-,: u ~ ~ ~ _J 2 0 ~ ro i w a. ~ " --w ~
J >"' ~ .. ~ o::w z ~ t c7i ~ w" ~ 2: 0 z
"'o1 'l
~ en
~ ~ ~ 1 !H '
'
_,,_ ... ~DOD ·····--... -=------· ........... , --~.,,__..
This page is intentionally left blank for double-sideci printing.
TABLE
Hart Crowser
12132-29 March 28, 2014
This page is intentionally left blank
for double-sided printing.
Table 1 -Effects of Project Activities on Habitats Used by ESA-Listed
Species in the Project and Action Areas
Effects of Action
Project Habitat Indicator lmprove 1 Maintain 2 Degrade' Activities
Construction Noise X
Disturbances -·---------------
Entrainment X
Stranding X
--------
Water Quality Turbidity X
Disturbance Chemical contamination/nutrients X
-------------.
Temperature X
Dissolved oxygen X
----
Sediment Sedimentation sources/rates X
Disturbance Sediment quality X X
Habitat Fish access/refugia X X
Disturbance Depth X
-----
Substrate X X
Slope X
----
Shoreline X X
Riparian conditions X
-··-·
Flow and hydrology/current patterns/ X
saltwater-freshwater mixing patterns
. -·---
Overwater structures X
-----
Disturbance X
-·---
Biota Prey: epibenthic and pelagic zooplankton X X
Disturbance Infauna X
-
Prey: forage fish X
Aquatic/wetland vegetation X
Nonindigenous species X -------~-
Ecological diversity X
·-·--W \CUEN I S.WP\00132\D29\R1verv1ew Bndge Stream Assessment\032814\Table\Table 1_rev.doc
Notes:
Action will contribute to long-term improvement, over existing conditions, of the habitat indicator.
Action will maintain existing conditions.
Action will contribute to long-term degradation, over existing conditions, of the habitat indica
This page is intentionally left blank
for double-sided printing.
FIGURES
Hart Crowser
12132-29 March 28, 2014
This page is intentionally left blank
for double-sided printing.
Month
Species Freshwater Life Phase J F M A M J J A s 0 N D
Upstream migration I
Sockeye Spawning D I
lntragravel develop. I
Juvenile rearing/Outmigration I
Summer/ Upstream migration I
Fall Spawning I I I --Chinook lntragravel develop.
~ I j
Juvenile rearing/Outmigration I
Steel head Upstream migration I
Trout Spawning I C:
lntragravel develop. I C
Juvenile rearing . .
Juv. outmigration I
Coho Salmon Upstream migration
~
Spawning . I I
lntragravel develop. j I I
Juvenile rearing '
Juv. outmigration I
Source: WDFWSASSI D Agency-Approved Work Window
Riverview Bridge Replacement
Renton, Washington
Cedar River Salmonid
Life History Stages
12132-29 3/14 -I
Figure -H4RTCROWSER 1
Chinook
-,,,,,,
i. " ,,, ,,,
111,,,,
'""''
~ '" ,,,
Sockeye
=i•,,.,,,,J''"'
~1,,1,.,,1•1.,1,1• -·-. ,,,,,
J•, 1,.,;•1•111•
···11,
"
l.<J{IO•
;:::
,,,1,,1 ::
'"""
I"""
I ,.'0(1_0'J" ,,_(MIii
-\\d,I ,,.,.,1/,.,,,,,.
Coho
'·"""''''
" <II lit 0 I 'I
~ ""''
\ '""
I'''"'
<,,.,
''
,,,,.,,, 1,,,1'
[t,,\,,!lc•d
Ua1h_.
' '
Source: Kiyohara and Zimmerman 2012
H.i,,I>,·" -,,-""!I,,,,,
······JI .. ·,
"
I"""
'"""
__'._.,,,,,
"~ : ! "'' "'
' •. 1,,,
IJ,,,
<· l"-
'-"1!0
;_,,., ..
i f ~<IH
! """
~ ....
Riverview Bridge Replacement
Renton, Washington
Juvenile Salmon Outmigratory Timing in the
Cedar River
12132-29 3/14
Figure
2
SHEETS
Hart Crowser
12132-29 March 28, 2014
This page is intentionally left blank
for double-sided printing.
CANAOA FLOOD ELE VATION: +54.5 fl, NAVO 88 u. s. A.
OHW: APPROX. H6.5 ft -
LAT: 47"28' .37. 90"N
LONG: 122'10'46.64"W
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION: t-5 4.5 fl
PAClflC
OCEAN
• PURPOSE: BRIDGE
I MAINTE NAN CE
.
·? ~
~ DATUM: NAVO 8 8
VIC INITY MAP
"'ICM.[
PROJECT LOCATION
RIVERVI EW PARK
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
VIC INITY AND SITE MAP
i ADJACE NT PROPERTY OWNERS:
:"! 1. Cl rY OF RENTON CI TY OF RENTON PARK S , PLANNING ,
5 7-s rArF: OF WA Do r AND NATU RA L R ESOURCES
f:: 10 55 S. GRA DY WAY
PROPOSED: R [PI _ACF. E XI S TIN G
BRI D GE IN SI TU
IN: CEDAR RIVE R
AT: RENTON, WA, K IN G CO .
SEC.16, T WP.23N, RC .SE
APPLICATION BY :
Cl TY OF REN TO N
St RENrON, WA 9805 7 ~~---~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ............ s_H_E_E_T~1~o-f~5~D-A_T_E_:_M_A_R_._2_0_1_4 ......
I
I
/~ I •
. ,
I>
.• '/
'/ . '/
I
I
'/
135'± X 12'±
BRIDGE
EXI STING 12"~
TIMBER PILE, TYP.
0 o"
~. '/ ""-EXISTING 12"~
STEEL PILE
I
•• I ""~
APPROXI MATE
TOE OF BANK , TYi'.
APPROXI MATE
TOP Of BANK,
I ••
I 1 v~c
~D
'""o .~o~,
~ ··~~~ ., ~
I
5 ,.: .,
s
TIMBER APPROACH
WALL TYP.
: Jy'-i EXISTING CONDITIONS
"1 I?
DEMOUTION NOTES:
1. DEMOLISH (1) 12"~ STE EL PILE
2. DEMOLISH (14) 12·~ TI MBER CREOSOTE PI LES
I ~FT. gt-----------------------------------------------~ 1 ~ PURPOSE: BRIDGE RIVERVIEW PARK
I MA IN TE NANC E BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ~ n.
-i EXISTING CONDITIONS ~
'" DATUM: NAVO 88 AND DEMOLITION PLAN
~ ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS : ~ 1. CI TY OF REN TO N CIT Y OF RE NTO N P AR KS , PLAN NING,
5 2 . STATE OF WA DOT AND NA TURAL RESOURCES
PROPOSED : REP LAC E EXISTING
BRIDG E IN SITU
IN: CED AR RI VER
AT: RENTO N , WA, KING CO.
SEC .16, TWP.23N , RG.5 E
APPLICATION BY:
CI TY OF RENTON
... N 1055 S. GRADY WAY {i RENTON, WA 98057 SHEET 2 of 5 DATE : MAR. 2014 ~d.._ _____________ _._ ______________ __..__ _____________ __,
• V
N
0
I
~
§ .,,
< Q.
~ ~
I
S0U1H BANK
IJ5'-0"
EXISTING ELEVATION
NOT TO SC ALE
TIMBER
POST, TYP.
TI MBER
BULLR AI L, TYP.
8-CONCRETE
DECK
SE CTION A-A
NOT TO SC ALE
W18 SfE EL
BEAM, TYP .
TIMBER
CAP
12"\l STffl
PILE
DEFLECTION WALL
TO REMAIN~
OHW ELEV. H6.5'
12" \l TIMIJrn CREOSO IE
PILE. TYP
APPROX lf..lA TE
GROUND
NORll-1 BANK
gt-------------------------------------------~ a. ;:_ ~ P URPOSE: BR IDG E
! MAINTENANCE
t
Q.
• ? ~ ~ D ATUM: NAVD 88
RIVERVI EW PARK
B RIDG E REP LAC EM ENT
EXI STING EL EVAT ION
AND S ECTION
;:3 ADJACE N T PROP ERTY OWN ER S : ~ 1. CITY OF R EN roN Cl rY OF REN r o N PJ\Rl<S, PI _J\NNING,
~ 2. STATE OF WA DOT A N D NATURAL RESOURCES
PROPOS ED : REPLACE E XI S TIN G
ORIDG F. IN SI TU
IN : CEDA R RIVER
AT: F<F.N roN, WA, KING CO .
Sl::C.16, r w P.2..5 N , R C.SE
APPLICATION BY :
CIT Y OF R ENTON fl 1055 S. GRADY WA Y
e"! R ENTON, WA 98057 S H EE T 3 of 5 DATE : MAR . 2014 ~a .__ _____________ ..._ _____________ ___.. _____________ ____.
b lf) Cl
<D "' "'
EXISTING SIDE
SLOPE, T'l'P.
us·-o·
CEDAR RIVER
PROPOSED ELEVATION
0 5 10 20 30 FT.
~
NEW ALUMINUM ARCHED TRUSS r PEDESTRI AN BRIDGE
OHW ELEV. + 46.5'
12",t, STEEL PILE, TYP .
w
\!
~ ~r ~ :R t:i
PARKING
~
10·-o· NEW ALUM INUM ARCHED TRUSS
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
12··,1, STEEL PILE,
T'l'P. (BELOW)
I
I
1 ll1ll ill11l1111
1
""
GR A TEO
DECKING
1 I I /
CEDAR RIVER
~ ~ PROPOSED PLAN
EXISTING
DEFLECTION I
WALL
0 5 10 20 30 FT.
!t--------------.----~------------,.--------------t 1
4 PURPOSE: BRIDGE RIVERVIEW PARK
! MAI N TE NANCE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ~ a.
·I PROPOSED PLAN
~ DATUM: N AVO 88 AND ELEVATION
~ ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: ~ 1. CI TY OF RENTO N CITY OF RENTON P ARK S, PLANNI NG,
8 2. STA TE OF WA DOT ANO N ATURA L RESOURCES
~(.: 1055 S. GRADY WAY
PROPOSED: REPLACE EX I STING
BR I DGE IN SITU
IN: CEDA R RIVER
AT: RENTON, WA, KING CO .
SEC.16 , TWP.23N, RC .SE
APPLICATION BY:
Cl TY OF RE N TO N
$j RENTON, WA 98057 SHEET 4 of 5 DATE: MAR. 2 014 ~~'---------------'---------------.....1.----------------"
C
ALUMI NUM
HANDRAIL, TYP \
CONCRETE
BACKWA LL \
TOP OF
EXISTING SLOPE
fOP OF DECK
ELEV. +62 . 95'
ALUMINUM DECK ALUMINUM
BEAM, TYP. GR A flN G
C
BA
"
CON CREfE
l'.1NGWA LL fYP .
CONCRETE
CAP
GROU ND
12"0 STEEL
PILE. TYP .
. . .... :
UTI U fY LI NE S
AS REQ UlllED
-$-
~ J ••• : •
\__A LUMINUM
FLOOR BEAM .
. '
' I
I 9·_4• ,, ____________ _
~ PILE
'.'
ABUTMENT ELEVATION, TYP .
' ' ..
: '-
~ CONCRE II
8" I 12'-0" BACK WALL 8" -H ~~~-H -
.--'---~----,---,--....,,-. ---,-,---...I----,------'--:i. 12"0 SfEEL PILE
.-• • • '· • • ; · • • BELOW, TYP. a ---_-------
ABUTMENT PLAN
CONCRETE
'MNGWALL , TYP .
CONCR EfE
CAP
I I
ON CR[IE 8 ..
CK WA LL ~-,,-l EL. +62.95
ETE "
.. •· I
' o ' I "". . -...
"'
~ ';
'o
I
"' ,
'--
-·-
l CONCR
j' ALL ~::~GW 3 -----~--,~-]
I·
•.
. '
:
I
'""
--" APPROX.
~EL. +-58.95
""'"" ~CONCR
CAP IETE""'
""'""v NG __/.""' "' EXI STI
NO ' GROU
""'
:::,.._ ~ 1n SfE
PILE
EL
3·-0· -I
SECTION 8-8
! !1-------------------------------,,-----------------1
~ PURPOSE : BR IDGE RIVERVIEW PARK PROPOSED: RE PLA CE EXI S fl NG
BRI DG E IN SI ru i M AIN TE NAN CE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Q a.
i ABUTMENT ~
"' DATUM: NAVO 88 DETAILS
0 :i ADJAC ENT PROPERTY O WNERS :
~ 1. CITY OF RE N TON :;.-
8 2 . ST A TE OF WA DOT .. ~ ~; .,. .
Cl 1Y OF F~c:N l"O N P ARK S, P LANN ING,
AN D NATURAL RE SOURCES
1055 S. GR ADY WAY
RENTON , WA 9 8 05/
IN : CEDAR RIVER
AT : RE N TON, WA , KING CO.
SEC .16, TWP.23N, RC.SE
APPLICATION BY:
Cl TY OF RE N TO N
SHEET 5 of 5 DATE: MA R . 7-0 11 ~£ ,__ ____________________________ .....,ji...._ _____________ ___.
Thi s pa ge i s intentio nall y le ft b la nk
for doub le-sid ed pr intin g.
Ha rt Crowser
12132-29 March 28, 20 14
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS
Thi s pa ge i s in te n t ionally le ft b lank
for double-s id ed printi ng.
Ha rt C rowser, In c.
12 1 32 -29
Pho t og ra ph 1 -Ceda r River wi thin th e project ar ea downstrea m of th e existing pedestri an
bridge.
Pho tograp h 2 -Steep, v egetated ba nks w it h ban k r evetm ent s s howin g adj ace nt t o th e
pedestri a n bridge.
Hart Crowser , In c.
12132-29
P hot og rap h 3 -Ex isti ng pedestria n bridge s howin g c reosote-trea ted pil e be nts a nd a rm ored
banks.
P ho tog rap h 4 -Grave l ba r and la rge wood y deb ris downstream of the pedestri an brid ge.
Ha rt C rowser , Inc.
12132-29
Photog rap h 5 -Pa rking area imm ed iate ly above th e ripar ia n zo ne adj acent to th e pedestri a n
b rid ge (r ig ht bank).
Photogra ph 6 -R iverv iew Park ad j acent t o the pedestri an brid ge (left ba nk).
Hart C rowse r , In c .
12132-29
Photograph 7 -Unvegetate d area show in g sign s of eros io n downstrea m of th e pedestrian
bridge.
-: !i \ \
PREPARED FOR:
Michael C. Hartley, P.E.
Senior Vice President
RECEIVED
.APR 1 l 201.4
CITY OF RENTON
PLAf\JN!NG, DiVISiOi\
! ,·
.. ·--'\ r ,·_
City of Renton
Parks Planning & Natural Resources
1055 S. Grady Way, 6•h Floor
Attention: Todd Black, ASLA
Capital Projects Coordinator
PREPARED BY:
ENGINEERS, INC.
PND Engineers™, Inc.
1736 Fourth .Avenue S, Suite A
Seattle, Washington 98134
206.624.1387
www.pndengineers.com
April 2014
n ;,_ ,·!'", ;,_ ",' l 1.\1"k !)r·d_,~· ·~1.·11!.1_\"i ill\('(
Geotechnical Investigation Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope ..... .
1.2 Project Description .... .
T\BLL OF CO!\TEl\T:-;
2.0 REGIONAL SETJ'ING AND SITE CONDITIONS ......................... ..
2.1 Setting and Climate .................................................... .
2.2 Regional Geology ...................................................... ..
2.3 Regional Seismicity .................................................... ..
2.4 Existing Site Conditions ............................................ ..
2.5 Survey Data .......................................... ..
2.6 Geologic Critical Areas .......................... ..
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION ....... ..
3.1 Drilling and Sampling Procedures.
3.1.1 Soil Sampling .......................... .
3.2 Subsurface Conditions .................. .
3.2.1 North Abutment.
3.2.2 South Abutment.
3.3 Laboratory Testing .......... .
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ .
April 2014
Renton, Washington
...... 1
. .. l
.. ..... 1
..2
. .. 2
. .. 2
. ..................... 2
. .. 3
. ..................... 3
.. ............... 3
.. ..... .4
.. ...... 4
.4
.4
.4
......... 5
. ................... 5
.. .............. 6
4.1 Site Preparation and Earthwork ........................ . . ............................................................................................ 6
4.1.1 Subgrade Preparation
4.1.2 Structural Fill .................................................. ..
4.1.3 Excavation, Trenching and Shoring ........ .
4.2 Bridge Foundation Considerations
4.2.1 Pile Foundation Design .....
4.2.2 AASHTO Design Parameters
4.3 Slope Stability ...
4.4 Earthquake Design ............ .
4.4.1 Seismic Hazards .......... ..
4.4.2 Seismic Design Parameters ................ .
4.5 Guideline Pavement Recommendations
5.0
6.0
4.5.1 Subgrade Preparation ...
4.5.2 Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement (I-IMA) Sections
4.5.3 Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Sections ...
CLOSURE .......
REFERENCES ........ ..
!'ND No. l340S7.01
................................................................ 6
. .................... 6
. .......... 7
........... 7
7
........... 8
. ....... 9
..10
.. ....................... 10
.. ...... 10
........... 11
. .. 11
.... 11
... 11
. ... 12
............. 13
,',('
Geotechnical Investigation Report
A -Figures
B -Borehole Logs
C -Laboratory Testing
D -Field Photographs
\P!'l",lJI(
E -Important Information about your Geotechnical Engineering Report
!'ND No. 134057.01
April 2014
Renton, Washington
l~1'.cnic. F.:rk B;·id_:r,· l{cpl.u.,.·;; 11:1
Geotechnical Investigation Report
l.0 INIHO[HCIIO's;
1.1 Purpose and Scope
April 2014
Renton, Washington
This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation performed for the City of Renton for the Riverview
Park Bridge Replacement project. The purpose of this study is tu complete subsurface explorations at the project site
and to provide geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations for the design and construction of the
proposed improvements. PND's geotechnical engineering services have been completed in general accordance with
the Scope of\Vork included in the Professional Services Agreement for Engineering Service made on December 27,
2013, between PND Engineers, Inc. and the City of Renton.
The services summarized in this report include:
• Background research of available geotechnical and geologic data for the project vicinity;
• Coordinating and completing an exploration program to characterize the subsurface conditions at the site;
• Completing laboratory testing on selected soil samples obtained from the explorations;
• Completing analyses in support of and developing geotechnical engineering design recommendations for the
planned improvements; and
• Preparation of this draft report. A final report will be issued pending receipt and the incorporation of review
comments from the project team.
1.2 Project Description
PND's understanding of the project is based on information provided by the City of Renton, survey drawings of the
site, and the results of our field investigations. The project includes replacing the existing multi-span timber
pedestrian bridge with a new aluminum clear-span bridge at the same location. Demolition of the existing bridge
includes removal of the fifteen support piles and concrete abutments. The river deflection walls and their associated
piles may remain in place to reduce construction related disturbance to the riverbank slopes and to offer continued
bank protection beneath the new bridge abutments.
As currently envisioned, the new pedestrian bridge will be 10 feet wide and 135 feet long with a grated. The current
plan includes pile supported abutments consisting of two subgrade 12-inch diameter steel piles with a concrete pile
caps, backwalls, and wingv.ralls.
Existing utilities will be hung from the new bridge and reconnected. A restoration plan is included as part of the
project to reestablish vegetation disturbed during construction and to remove invasive species.
The elevation datum used for this project is NJ\ VD 88.
PND No. 134057.01 Page I of 13
Geotechnical Investigation Report
2.1 Setting and Climate
April 2014
Renton, Washington
The project site spans the Cedar River, southeast of Seattle in the southeastern part of the Puget Sound lo\vland.
Renton, like much of the Pacific Northwest, is influenced by a maritime climate \vith mild winters, cool summers, and
year-round rainfall. The wet weather season in the Puget Sound region generally begins in October and continues
through May. Average summer Quly) and winter Qanuary) temperatures for Renton are 42" and 67° Fahrenheit,
respectively; the mean annual precipitation is 39 inches (\'X!RCC, 2014).
2.2 Regional Geology
The landforrns and near-surface deposits that cover much of the Puget Sound region record a relatively brief, recent
period in the geologic history and arc largely the result of at least seven Quaternary Period glaciations. During these
glaciations, ice sheets on the order of 3,000-feet-thick covered the region \Vith the tnost recent glacial retreat occurring
some 14,000 years ago.
A review of the available geologic information for the project vicinity included the "Geologic .lV!ap of King County,
Washington"' by Ilooth et al. (2007) and various other sources (Booth et al., 2002; Mullineaux, 1970; Yount et al 1983).
Mapped surficial deposits in the immediate site vicinity include alluvial deposits of moderately sorted gravel, sand, and
sandy silt which would be associated with present day and historical channels and floodplains of the Cedar River.
2.3 Regional Seismicity
\Xrashington State has an estimated 2 percent of the annual United States earthquakes, with the Puget Sound region
being the most tectonically active area within the state, containing numerous active faults. Seismicity in the ret,rion is
attributed to three seismic zones, namely:
• Cascadia Subduction Zone intcrplate source zone -the result of the North American Plate overriding the
subductingjuan de Fuca Plate. The interplate source zone is considered capable of producing a
"megathrnst" earthquake. The recurrence interval of an interplate earthquake event is thought to be on the
order of 500 years.
• Cascadia Subduction Zone Benioff source zone -the result of deep differential motion within the Cascadia
fault. Damaging Benioff earthquakes are thought to have a recurrence interval on the order of 30 years. The
2001 Nisyually Earthquake, centered south of the Seattle area, was the most recent significant Benioff
earthquake event in the ret,rion, rq,ristering 6.8 on the Richter scale. Other recent Benioff events inclut.le the
1965 magnitude 6.5 Seattle and 1949 magnitude 7.1 Olympia earthquakes.
• Shallow crustal source zone -the result of compression of the Siena Nevada block of the North American
Plate. At least four magnitude 7 or greater earthquakes are thought to have occurred in the region within the
past 1,100 years.
'I'hnc are at least three "active" shallow crustal fault complexes with known or suspected Quaternary displacements
within 30 miles of the project site, with the closest being located approximately 3 miles north of the site: The project
site is located approximately 3 miles south the Seattle Fault Zone, approximately 27 miles south of the Southern
\"vl1idbey Island Fault Zone and approximately 24 miles north-northeast of the Tacoma rault Zone. The nearest fault
to the project site, the Seattle Fault Zone, is an east-west trending fault complex of at least three splays crossing Puget
Sound from \X/hidbey Island to the Issaquah Ilighlands. The 2-to 4-milc wide complex passes north of Vashon
Island and just south of downtown Seattle.
PND No. 134057.01 Page 2 of 13
Geotechnical Investigation Report
2.4 Existing Site Conditions
April 2014
Renton, Washington
The project site is located approxinutely 200 feet south-southwest of the intersection of the Maple Valley 1-Iiglwny
and SE S1h Street in Renton, \X'ashington, just south of the Riverview Park parking area. The project bridge spans the
Cedar River to connect Riverview Park to the Cedar River Trail. The site location and surrounding features are
shown on the figures in Appendi.x A.
The existing bridge foundation is constructed on timber piles. The superstructure consists of timber pile caps and
steel beams. The deck is concrete with timber bullrails and timber and wire mesh hand rails. Photos depicting the
existing bridge foundation and superstructure are included in Appendix D. The riverbank slopes adjacent to the two
bridge abutments are approxirnately 15 to 20 feet in height and are inclined at about 1 Y2H:t V Ornrizontal to vertical).
The slopes arc locally steeper in some areas and some evidence of erosion was noted on the slopes during visits to the
site. The slope crests arc at about elevation 60± feet and the OH\V mark is about elevation 46.5 feet.
2.5 Survey Data
A topographic survey of the project site was performed by APS Survey and Mapping, LLC in January 2014 under a
contract with PND. This information has been used for the analysis of the existing conditions and proposed
development at the site.
2.6 Geologic Critical Areas
Geologic hazard areas designated by Renton Critical Areas Ordinance No. 5137 regulates land development within
and adjacent to areas defined by the ordinance as critical or sensitive areas. Geologic hazard regulations apply to areas
defined by the ordinance as erosion, seismic, landslide, steep slope, and coal mine hazards. Based on the city of
Renton Sensitive Areas Maps and site observations, the project area is classified as being within the following geologic
ha:zard areas:
• Regulated Slopes: Both riverbank slopes have areas mapped as Sensitive (25 to 40 percent) or Protected (40
to 90 percent) slopes (COR 2014). The City's mapping is consistent with the topography survey for the site
which shows the slopes generally inclined at 1 '/,11:lV or approximately 37 percent grade.
• Landslide: The area south of the bridge including shoreline is mapped as moderate landslide hazard area
(COR 2014).
• Seismic: The project area is within a mapped seismic hazard area (COR 2014); however, based on the
ordinance (COR 2004) the site is classified as "Low Seismic Hazard" because it's underlain by dense soils.
• The site does meet geologic hazard designations pursuant to the City of Renton regulations for coal mine or
erosion ha:zard.
PND No. 134057.01 Page 3 of 13
Geotechnical Investigation Report
April 2014
Renton, Washington
Hctween the dates of January 2 and 7, 2014, four boreholes, <lcsignatc<l B-1, B-1a, B-1 b, and B-2, were completed to
depths ranging between 27 and 62 1/i: feet below the existing ground surface to characterize the subsurface conditions
at the site. The borehole drilling and sampling was completed nsing equipment owned and operated by I Iolocene
Drilling, Inc. un<ler subcontract to PND. Site Plans depicting the approximate locations of the boreholes are included
in Appendix A. Photographs of the fiel<l investigation arc included in .Appendix D.
3.1 Drilling and Sampling Procedures
The boreholes were advanced using a truck-mounted Brainard Killman BK-81 drill rig. Drilling was completed using
rotary wash or hol]o,.v-stem auger (9 inch 0.0., 4 1/4 inch LO.) drilling techniques.
Drilling was continuously monitored by a PND Field Engineer who examined and classified the soils encountered,
obtained representative samples, and prepared a detailed log of each borehole. Each soil sample was visually classified
in the fielJ using a system based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM International visual
classifications method per ASTM D 2488.
3.1.1 Soil Sampling
Disturbed soil samples "vere collected at frequent intervals from the boreholes using a standard 1.4-inch LD. split-
spoon sampler. The sampler was driven into the undisturbed soil in advance of the borehole with a 140-lb automatic
hammer allowed to frcc-fall 30 inches. Uncorrected «field" blow counts are recorded on the borehole logs for each 6
inches of penetration required to advance the split spoon a maximum depth of 18 inches for each sampling interval.
Standard penetration tests (SPT) "N-Values" are based on a 140-lb hammer, 1.4-inch I.D. split spoon sampler driven
with a 30-inch drop of the hammer. It should be noted that no attempt has been made to adjust the blow counts for
overburden thickness. Corrections for drill rod length, type of hammer, efficiency and other variables are not shown
on the borehole logs (Appendix B). These factors should be considered in the design, as appropriate. Accordingly,
the contractor should be a\vare that values shown on the logs are uncorrected "field" blo\v counts.
3.2 Subsurface Conditions
The following provides a brief summary of the subsurface condit.ions observed at the boreholes completed for this
geotechnical investigation. Detailed logs of the boreholes arc included in .Appendix I3 which presents pertinent
information such as; sample locations, sampling methods, blow counts, and material descriptions. A legend
describing the symbols and conventions used on the borehole logs precede the borehole logs in .Appendix 13.
3.2.1 North Abutment
'l'hree boreholes were attempted in the vicinity of the of the north bridge abutment. Boreholes B-1 and B-la were
,!rilled to about 27 feet below the ground surface and were terminated due to difficult drilling conditions which
proved problematic for mud rotary wash techniques in B-1 and caused the drill tooling to tilt excessively in B-1a.
Borehole B-1 b encountered auger refusal at about 49 feet 011 '"vhat was interpreted to be a boulder.
The surface section encountered in the north abutment boreholes consisted of about 6 to 7 inches of Portland cement
concrete. Medium dense sand with variable gravel and \\mod debris was encountered in the upper 10 feet directly
below the concrete. Underlying the surficial layer of medium dense sand with variable gravel and wood debris, dense
to very dense gravel with sand \.Vas encountered to the full depth of the borehole. The deepest borehole, B-1 b, met
auger refusal at about elevation 14.8 feet. Groundwater was observed at the time of drilling at about 23 feet below the
ground surface or at about elevation 41 feet. Cobble-size material and possibly boulders were encountered at various
depths in the boreholes.
PND No. 134057.01 Page 4 of13
r;-, ··k :1;;d _ _:,· l{t·pL,,.·,--!l, ;·e1
Gcotcchnical Investigation Report
3.2.2 South Abutment
April 2014
Renton, Washington
Borehole B-2 was completed in the vicinity of the south abutment. The surfacing consisted of 6 inches of Portland
cement concrete. Underlying the concrete, sand and gravel was encountered to about 37 feet below the ground
surface, progressively becoming denser, from medium dense to very dense, with depth. Layers of very stiff to hard
silt and clay were encountered below 37 to the maximum depth drilled, 62 1/2 feet or about elevation 1 foot.
Groundwater was observed at the time of drilling at about 20 feet below the ground surface or at about elevation 43
feet. Cobble-size material and possibly boulders were encountered at various depths in the borehole.
3.3 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples collected from the boreholes to evaluate pertinent
physical characteristics of the soils encountered at the site. The laborato1y program included tests for the
determination of moisture content, plasticity characteristics (Atterberg limits), and grain-size distribution (sieve
analysis). Laboratory testing was performed at IIWA GeoSciences, Inc. materials laboratory in Bothell, \X/ashington.
The tests were completed in general accordance with the test methods of ASTM International. A description of the
laboratory testing procedures and results arc included in Appendix C.
PND No. 134057.01 Page 5 of13
Geotechnical Investigation Report
,! i
April 2014
Renton, Washington
The following sections provide geotechnical recommendations for the successful design, construction, and long-term
performance of the project.
4.1 Site Preparation and Earthwork
Site preparation and earthwork is expected to include; demolition of the existing bridge supersttucnue and
substructure (including extraction of piles), bridge piers, abutments, fences, railings, and demolition of existing paved
concrete walkways. New construction will include excavation for approach sidewalks and new pile caps; construction
of new pile-supported aluminum bridge, new railing and fence, and revegetating the riverbank slopes . .Assuming
permits may be obtained in sufficient time to bid and award work two sets of bid documents will be issued with
demolition of the existing bridge occurring in 2014 and construction of the new bridge and infrastructure in 2015.
\'X:'ood debris, cobble-size material, and possibly boulders were encountered at various depths in the boreholes.
Accordingly, the contractor should be prepared to deal with debris, cobbles, and boulders during earthwork and
foundation construction.
It is advisable to complete earthwork activities during periods of dry weather (typically between June and September
in the Puget Sound region) with earthwork occurring earlier or later being weather dependent provided erosion and
sediment control best management practices (BMPs) arc in place. The on-site soils generally contain a low percentage
of fines (silt and/ or clay) and arc not expected to be marginally moisture-sensitive. Dry \Veather constn1etion will help
reduce constrnction costs by reducing site disturbance which could increase the need to excavate and replace
unsuitable subgrade soils and increase the potential for contractor delays.
Site preparation, excavation and backfill placement should be observed, evaluated, and tested by a qualified
geotechnical engineer to confirm that these activities have been completed in a manner consistent with the
recommendations presented in this report and that the subsurface conditions are as anticipated.
4.1.1 Subgrade Preparation
The exposed subgrade should be evaluated by a qualified geotechnical engineer after the site grading is complete
(before the placement of strnctural fill) to identify and provide recommendations for improving unsuitable subgrade
conditions. Evaluation methods used by the geotechnical engineer may include proofrolling with heavy rubber tire
construction equipment and/ or hand tool probing. In general, deleterious and organic matter and debris should be
removed from subgrade areas that will support foundation and pavement. Soft, yielding, or otherwise unsuitable
subgradc noted by the geotechnical engineer that cannot be stabilized by additional compaction, should be excavated
and replaced with structural fill. Abandoned below-grade utilities left in-place should be filled with lean concrete.
4.1.2 Structural Fill
For the purpose of this report, structural fill refers to materials used to support foundations, structures, and
pavements. The use of imported materials for structural fill should be planned for this project, especially for
constmction planned during periods of precipitation. The on-site soils may meet the criteria for common borrow;
however, the material within the anticipated excavations may contain organic material and/ or wood debris. On-site
materials meeting the criteria for struchiral and free of deleterious material may be stockpiled and reused at the
direct.ion of the Owner's Representative.
Structural fill should be placed in horizontal loose lifts not exceeding 8 to 10 inches an<l compacted to the specified
density. In-place moisture and density tests should be performed on each lift by a qualified geotechnical engineer lo
document that the required compaction has been achieved before the placement of the subsequent lift. A suitable
number of tests should be determined by the owner's representative.
PND No. 134057.01 Page 6 of13
Geotcchnical Investigation Report
April 2014
Renton, Washington
Structural fill placed to support hardscapcs or pavements should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maxirnum
dry density (MOD) per ASTM D 15S7 within 2 feet of final subgrade; compaction of90 percent MDD is required for
structural fill below 2 feet of final subgrade. Compaction of 95 percent I'vlDD is required for full thickness of
structural fill placed to support structures or foundations.
The follmving material specifications arc recommended for stnictural fill for the project:
• Common Borrow 9-03.14(3) WSDOT Standard Specification for dry weather structural fill placed to raise site
grades, backfill utility trenches, and support stmctures, foundations, and pavements.
• Gravel Borrow 9-03.14(1) WSDOT Standard Specification for wet weather structural fill placed to raise site
grades, backfill utility trenches, and support structures, foundations, and pavements.
• Cmshed Surfacing Base Course 9-03.9(3) WSDOT Standard Specification for crushed surfacing base course
below pavements.
4.1.3 Excavation, Trenching and Shoring
All excavations, temporary cut slopes, shoring, and trenching must comply with the provisions of Title 296 \'X-7.A.C,
Part N, "Excavation, Trenching and Shoring" and the re(]uirements of OSHA. The contractor performing the work
has the primary responsibility for protection of workers and adjacent improvements. This responsibility includes
determining need for shoring and establishing the safe inclination of temporary cut slopes.
Permanent cut or fill slopes should not be inclined steeper that 2H:1V.
4.2 Bridge Foundation Considerations
Based on the results of the subsurface exploration program, competent bearing soils consisting of dense to very dense
sand and gravel or very stiff to hard clay and silt deposits will be encountered at relatively shallow depths below the
existing ground surface. Accordingly, suitable foundation options for the pedestrian bridge include both shallow and
deep foundation support. However, shallow foundations have been dismissed as a suitable foundation alternative for
the site because e.xcessive setback distance and/ or slope grading would be needed to maintain stable slopes in front of
the bridge abutments.
The following sections provide geotechnical deign considerations for pile foundations to support the proposed
pedestrian bridge. These recommendations may be updated to support the final design to include additional
geotechnical recommendations specific to the preferred alternative, once selected.
4.2.1 Pile Foundation Design
T nstallation of piles at the site may be a challenge due to the dense sand and gravel as encountered during the
geotcchnical investigation and <lue to the presence of cobbles and boulders within the site soils.
Drilled shafts are generally appropriate for deep foundations in dense soil conditions such as glacially consolidated
deposits. Both drilled shafts and driven piles are appropriate for deep foundations where difficult drilling conditions
do not preclude advancing the pile to the design tip elevation. Typically, driven piles are appropriate in areas with
loose/soft soil like alluvial deposits as well as in areas with moderately dense soil such as deposits of recessi?nal
ouP.vash.
Driven steel pipe piles may be used to support the pedestrian bridge provided that difficult driving conditions do not
preclude advancing the piles to a specified minimum embedment. As such, it is recommended that a pile drivability
analysis be completed if driven piles are planned.
Depending on the design pile embedment depth, it may not be feasible to drive piles because of the anticipated
difficult driving conditions. Based on our experience, the following methods may be appropriate for dealing with
difficult pile driving conditions anticipated at the site as an alternative to either drilled shafts or driven piles:
PND No. 134057.01 Page 7 of13
Gcotcchnical Investigation Report
April 2014
Renton, Washington
• Csing an inside culling shoe made of steel of a higher grade and higher yield strength than lhe pile for driving
the open-ended steel pipe piles;
• Drilling pilot holes prior to pile instalbtion to provide stress relief; and
• Using sacrificial bits and drilling the piles in place.
Pile capacities for the bridge will be developed using the AAS! ITO LRFD bridge design protocol (A,\SHTO 2012).
The axial capacities of drilled shafts and driven piles in compression will be developed from a combination of skin
friction and end bearing. Cplift capacity will be developed from skin friction alone. The ultimate capacities must be
reduced by the resistance factors that are applicable for Service, Strength, and Extreme Limit States in accordance
with the AASHTO bridge design manual. The AASHTO bridge manual also provides !:,ruidance for the appropriate
vertical group effects.
Settlements of deep foundations arc typically relatively minor where the foundations arc installed in a competent
bearing layer. Post construction settlements of less than 1 inch arc typical and the settlement occurs rapidly, as the
loads are applied.
4.2.2 AASHTO Desig11 Parameters
The following tables, Table 4-1 and Table 4-2, present recommended geotechnical design parameters for design of
pile foundations for the north and south abutments, respectively. These values may also be used to develop earth
pressures for the design abutment pile caps or wing walls if these elements are cast neat line against the excavation. lf
fill soils are used to backfill the abutment elements then the parameters presented in Table 4-3 should be used based
on the material specified.
Table 4-1. North Abutment Geotechnical Parameters
Effeeth-e Drained Undrained
Elevation Unit Friction Shear Strength
Soil Layer Weight Angle
y' +, s.
(feet) (pct) (deg) (kst)
Sand \vith variable gravel and wood debris 63 to 54 120 37 n/a nu:diuJJJ den.re
Gravel with Sand 54 to 41 125 39 n/a dense
Gravel with Sand 41 to 25 52.6 40 n/a dense
Gravel with Sand 25 to 15 52.6 43 n/a ve dense
PND No. 134057.01 Page 8 of13
c,. it n, i,l·· !<,_ r !
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Table 4-2. South Abutment Gcotcchnical Parameters
Elevation
Soil Layer
(feet)
Sand with Gravel (,3 to 55
medium dense
Gravel with Sand 55 to 43 dense
Sand with Gravel 43 to 33 dense to ve · dense
Gravel with Sand 33 to 26
ve dense
Elastic Silt 26tol9 ve, · sti
Fat Clay 19 to 5 hard
Elastic Silt S to t hard
Table 4-3. Geotechnical Parameters for Structural Fill Soils
Total
\;nit
I\1aterial Specification Weight (95% MOD Compaction) y
(pct)
Gravel Borrow 135 WSDOT 9-03.14 1
Common Borrow 125 WSDOT 9-03.14 3
4.3 Slope Stability
Effective
Unit
Weight
'Y'
(pd)
120
125
57.6
62.6
52.6
52.6
115
Drained
Friction
Angle
cj,,
(deg)
36
34
Drained
Friction
Angle
cj,,
(deg)
37
39
40
44
Cohesion
C
(psi)
0
0
April 2014
Renton, Washington
Undrained
Shear Srrengrh
s.
(ksl)
3
5.5
7.5
PND recommends that analyses be performed as part of the final design to confirm adequate pile embedment to
satisfy both global and seismic stability of the bridge foundation elements with respect to the existing riverbank slope
geometry. As such, it is PND's opinion that the proposed bridge replacement will not significantly affect the stability
of the existing riverbank slopes or increase the threat of other geologic hazards, provide<l best management practices
are followed and bridge foundation clements arc designed and constructed as recommended in this report.
PND No. U4057.01 Page 9 ofU
Geotechnical Investigation Report
4.4 Earthquake Design
April 2014
Renton, Washington
As with all sites in the Puget Soun<l Region, there is a risk of earthquake-induced ground shaking and the intensity of
the ground shaking could be severe. The severity of ground shaking is primarily a function of the earthquake
magnitude and proximity to the site. Accordingly, seismic hazards including liquefaction, lateral spreading, and fault
rupture should be incorporated into the design as appropriate.
Structures, designed in accordance with modern seismic codes that have proper foundations and structural detailing,
have performed \veil during recent earthquakes. I Iowever, modern seismic codes arc formulated to provide only life
safety protection during a large earthquake and therefore cosmetic and structural damage are considered acceptable.
If more robust performance during a large earthquake is desirable, it may be prudent: to upgrade the design of the
structure beyond the current seismic code levels.
4.4.1 Seistnic Hazards
The site was evaluated for seismic hazards including liquefaction, lateral spreading, and fault rupture. Our evaluation
indicates that because the riverbank slopes are not saturated and clue to the prevalence of <lense to very dense gravel
within the site soils there is a low potential for liquefaction and, therefore, also have a low risk of liquefaction-induced
ground disturbance including lateral spreading. The nearest mapped fault is located about 3 miles from the site.
Based on the absence of mapped faults that cross the site, it is our opinion that the risk for fault displacement
resulting in ground rupture at the surface is remote.
4.4.2 Seismic Design Parameters
Seismic design criteria for bridges arc outlined in the AASHTO J.RFD Bridge Design Specifications (A1\SHTO
2012). The seismic criteria outlined by the AASH'l'O (2012) arc based on the 2002 USGS National Seismic Hazard
Maps for a probabilistic earthquake having a 7 percent probability of exceedancc within a 75-ycar period (norninal
1,000-year return period). Based on this criterion, PND recommends the parameters for Site Class, Seismic Zone,
Effective Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient, and Spectral Acceleration Coefficients presented in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4. AASHTO Site Specific Design Spectra Parameters
AASHTO Seismic Design Spectra Parameter Recommend Value
(1,000-year EQ)
Site Class C
Seismic Zone for 0.30 < Sn, S: 0.50 3
Effective Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient 0.44 g As= Fpt;,,l'GA = 1.000 X 0.435
Design Spectral Acceleration Coefficient at 0.2 Second Period 0.98 g Sns = FaSs = 1.012 X 0.970
Design Spectral Acceleration Coefficient at 1 .0 Second Period 0.48 g Sn, = F,S, = 1.478 X 0.322
PND No. 134057.01 Page 10 of13
I~ , . ··s, 1, 1-'.,, "·· B, 1.!.:._:1. "'.._-,,,L, ~ ·1,nn
Geotechnical Investigation Report
4.5 Guideline Pavement Recommendations
April 2014
Renton, Washington
The following sections provide t,'uideline recommendations pertaining to new concrete pavement surfaces. The
recommendations for subgrade preparation and various pavement sections should be reviewed in more detail during
design based on actual loading conditions and expected use.
4.5.1 Subgrade Preparation
PND recommends that the subgrade soils in new pavement areas be evaluated as described above in the "Site
Preparation and Earthwork" section of this report. For new pavement areas, PND recommends that the upper 12
inches of the existing site soils be compacted to at least 95 percent of the l\1DD estimated in general accordance with
ASTM D 1557 prior to placing pavement section materials. If the subgrade soils are loose or soft, it may be necessary
to excavate the soils and replace them with structural fill. Based on our understanding of the site soils, we anticipate
that as much as 2 feet of overexcavation and placement of properly compacted strucrural fill soils may be required due
to the presence of undocumented fill at the site. The depth of overexcavation should be determined by the
geotechnical engineer based on acrual soils conditions observed during construction. A layer of suitable woven
geotextile fabric may be placed over soft subgrade areas to limit the thickness of structural fill ret1uired to bridge soft,
yielding areas, as recommended by the geotechnical engineer.
4.5.2 Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement (HMA) Secdons
No surfaces are currently proposed consisting of HMA materials. If during design consideration is given to use of
Hl\1.A the geotechnical engineer should be consulted for recommendations based on load and traffic frequency.
4.5.3 Pordand Cement Concrete (PCC) Sections
PND recommends that PCC pavements consist of at least 6 inches of PCC over 6 inches of cmshed surfacing base
course. A thicker section may be needed based on the actual loading data. The base course should be compacted to
at least 95 percent MOD estimated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557 and the base course thickness is in
addition to the subgrade preparation depths presented above.
PND recommends that PCC pavements incorporate construction joints and/or crack control joints that are spaced
maximum distances of 12 feet apart, center-to~center, in both the longirudinal and transverse directions. Crack
control joints may be created by placing an insert or groove into the fresh concrete surface during finishing, or by
sawcutting the concrete after its initial setup. \Ve recommend that the depth of the crack control joints be
approximately 1/4 the thickness of the concrete, or about 11/2 inches deep for the recommended concrete thickness of
6 inches. \Ve also recommend that the crack control joints be sealed with an appropriate sealant to help reduce water
infiltration into the joints.
PND No. 134057.01 Page 11 of 13
Geotechnical Investigation Report
April 2014
Renton, Washington
This reporl was prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the field of
geotcchnical engineering at the time this report was prepared. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in
this report are based upon information provided to us describing the proposed site grading and construction and
based on the field geotechnical investigation and laboratory testing conducted and used in preparation of this report.
The nan.ire and extent of subsurface variations across the site may not become evident until construction. If during
construction, fill type, debris, soil, rock, bedrock, surface water, or groundwater conditions appear to be different
from those described herein; PND's geotechnical engineer should be advised at once so re-evaluation of the
conditions observed in this report can be considered in conjunction with the design documents and field variations
noted.
PND is not responsible for safety programs, methods, or procedures of operation, or the construction of the design
recommendations provided in this report. \\/here recommen<lations are general or not called out, the
recommendations shall conform to standards of the industry. This report is for use on this project only and is not
intended for reuse without written approval from PND. This report is not to be used in a manner that would
constitute a detriment directly or indirectly to PND.
PND is a member of the American Society of Foundation Engineers (ASFE). Included in Appendix Eis a copy of
the ASFE publication "Important Information about your Geotechnical Engineering Report". The report is included
in this report to help the Owner, Contractor, and others who read this document understand the limitations described
above and the additional limitations contained in this publication and made a part of this report.
PND No. 134057.01 Page 12 of 13
: •:1
Geotechnical Investigation Report
AASHTO. (2012). ",\ASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications." 6'" Edition.
April 2014
Renton, Washington
Booth, D.B., 1-laugcrnd, R.A., and Sacket, J.B. (2002). "Geologic Map of King County, Washington." King County
and \\lashington Division of Geology and Earth Resources.
Booth, D.B., Troost, KA., and Wisher A.I'. (2007). "Geolot,>ic Map of King County, Washington." Pacific Northwest
Center fur Geologic Mapping Studies.
City of Renton (COR). (2014). "Online Mapping Application." Sensitil!e Areas Maps and G/5 Data.
<http://rentonwa.gov/ government/ default.aspx?id=29886> (l'cbruary 24, 2014).
COR (2004). "Critical Areas Ordinance Regulations." Ordian<" No. 5136.
<http://rcntonwa.gov/busincss/dcfault.aspx?id=2764> (Febrnary 24, 2014).
Mullineaux, D.R. (1970). "Geology of the Renton, Auburn, and Black Diamond Quadrangles, King County,
Washington." Geological Survey Professional Paper 672. U.S. Departtnent of the Interior.
Washington State Department of Transportation (\'i-'SDOT). (2014). "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and
Municipal Construction," M 41-10.
Western Regional Climate Center (\'i-'RCC). (2014). "Washington Climate Summaries." NCDC 1981-2010 Monthly
Normals, Kent, Washington.< http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmwa.html> CTanuaty 20, 2014).
Yount, J.C., Minard, J.P., and Dembroff, G.R. (1983). "Geologic Map of Surficial Deposits m the Seattle 30' x 60'
Quadrangle, Washington." Open File Report 93-233, U.S. Geologic Smvey.
PND No. 134057.01 Page 13 of13
Figures
.__
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCAl..f
u. s. A.
I
SITE LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
RIVERVIEW PARK
BRIDGE REPLACMENT
VICINITY MAP AND
SITE LOCATION MAP
DESIGNED B'f: ™<
DRA'lttl BV· "'" CHECKED 8V: a..-
PROJECT NO: 134057.01
OArE: FEBRUARY 201,
SCi\LE: """' FIGURE:
A-1
I E-Jf
1
1 I
/ / I /
I ! I
I
I
I
I
j
p j
/)
~ c
,
f , I
r (i
I I , I . I
I
I
I
I
I /1
l ~
<(
....
t z
~ "'UJ ~@
"':;; z ..
..: UJ :l ' ' a. u ~ ' ;: ::i z
0 UJ a. " -w ~ >oc ' ffiw 0 i ~ ~ 0 w :~ -' z w '-i -' > t? ~
X ~ ~ -a w al w ; "'--' ~ "' a,
Q;-i: 1 u
llJ
.:,.
' Q;-
Q;-
'I"
Q
llJ
c.,
?
f
I
, ,
f
I
I
I I
I
'
;
f
•P"lflO'l~Cl(I Sn:JH3lID l""wa;,o1d•M O .JB >µCd ~,.,., .. ,M -~ L9Jtl:I ,no.:: • "!~o,c,
1'!/6(/l
DI
APPE'\iDIX B
Borehole Logs
A
SOILS CIASSTFTCATION, CONSISTENCY AND SThfBOLS
CU\SSTFTCATTON
Ide01ification and classification of the soil is accomplished in general accordance with the AST\1 version of the Unified Soil Classification
System (llSCS) as prt"Sentcd in ;\STi\'f Standard D2487. The standard is a qualicuivc method of classifying soil into the following major
divisions (1) CO;'trSC grained, (2) fine grained, and (3) highly organic soils. Cbssific:uion is performed on the soils passing the 75 mm (3
inch) sieve anrl if possihle 1hc amoun1 of oversize rm11crial (> 75 mm particles) is noted on the soil logs. This is not always possible for
drilled tesc holes because the oversize particles arc typically too large to be captured in the sampling equipment. Oversize materials
greater than 300 mm (12 inches) arc termed boulders, while materials between 75 mm and 300 mm arc termed cobbles. Coarse grained
soils are rhose having 50°/0 or more of the non-oversize soil retained on the No. 200 sieve (0.075 mm); if a grear.::r percentage of the
coarse grains is retained on the >Jo. 4 (4.76 mm) sieve the coarse grained soil is classified as gravel, otherwise it is classified as sand. Fine
grained soils arc those having more than 50% of the non-oversize material passing the No. 200 sieve; these may be classified as silt ot clay
depending their Attcrberg liguid -and plastic limits or observations of field consistency. Refer to the most recent version of ASTM D2487
for a complete discussion of the classification method.
SOIL CONSISTENCY -CRITERIA
Soil consistency as defined below and determined b)' normal field and laboratory methods applies only m non-frozen material. For these
materials, the influence of such factors as soil structure, i.e. Fissure systems, shinkage cracks, slickcnsides, etc., must be taken into
consideration in making any correlation with the consistency values listed below. In permafrost zones, the consist.ency and s1rengib of
frozen soils may vary significantly anJ unexplainably with ice content, them1al regime and snil type.
Standard Penetration Test (Blows/ft) Relative to Dcnstiy/Consistency
Undrained
Shear Strength
N6n Density Relative
i'\ fiO Consistency psf Density
0 -4 Very Loose 0-15% <2 Very Soft < 250
4 -10 r ,0ose 1S -35% 2 -4 Soft 250 -500
10-30 .Medium 35 -65% 4 -8 Medium 500 -1000
30 -50 Dense 65 -85% 8 -15 Stiff 1000 -2000
> 50 Very Dense > 85% 15 -30 Very Stiff 2000 -4000
> 30 Hard > 4000
Ref: Terzaghi, Peck, and :Mesri Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 3rd Edition, pg 60-63
ASTYI D1586 Standard Test Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils
AST.\l 112487 Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (USCS)
SAMPLER TYPE SYMBOLS
Auger Sample Hs 1.4" Split Spoon w/ Air Hammer Ss 1.4" Split Spoon w/ 140# Hammer
Bs Bulk (grab) Sample Pb Pitcher Barrel St l.4" Split Spoon w/ 47# Hammer
Cs Core Barrel w/ Single Tube SI 2.5 11 Split Spoon w/ 140# Hammer Sx 2.0" Split Spoon w/ 47# Hammer
CJ Core Barrel w / Double Tube Sm 2S1 Split Spoon w / 300# Hammer Sz 1.4 Split Spoun -...v/ .141)# l--Lumner
Ct Core Barrel v.:/ Triple Tube Sh 2.5 11 Split Sption \v/ 340# Hammer Ts Shelby Tube
HI 2.5'' Split Spoon w/ ;\ir Hammer Sp 2.5 11 Split Spoon, Pushed Tm Modified 2.5 O.D. Shelby Tube
~otc: Split Spoon size refers to sampler inside diameter.
Designed· PND STANDARD BOREHOLE DI I II I iJjM Dr:i.wn· PNf1
Checked: PND LOG DETAILS
E1'GINEERS, INC. Projec:t No.: l.)40:i7.0l
I o~te: J~n. 2014 BOREHOLE LOGS FIGURE B-1.1
0
-
-
0
pO
o('
)
i'['
)
00
SOIL OF.SCRTPTTON
Soil Name, Color, \foistun:
Condition, Relative Density,
Soil Structure, Mineralogy,
Other Infi,rmaticm
O' -0.30' A.C P,\ VEME:--:T
POORLY-GRADED GRJ\ VEL
W / SILT AND SAND (GP-G1~
Grny, Moist, Dl'.OSc, Subangular
SJ\lv!PLES
-
Ss 30
Penetmtion
Blowspn
6/fnch
(per Foot)*
20-20-25
(45)
Gll.'\.PH
• m .o\r ml:-JT (BPF)' •
20 40 60 80
• ()(lCJ,:.HPl.'.\J.(TSF) •
1 2 3 4
• \,\NESf-JI',\R(TSI) .t..
2 4 6 8
•
COMMENTS
Casing Depth, Drilling Rate,
Fluid Loss, Drilt Premire,
Test~, Instrumentation
Additional Information
Begin drillmg 10/24/01
8:00 a.m.
2' to 3' -Hard, loud drilling
(Cobbles/Boulder encountered)
24..tJ
-
-
-
-2
o('
b -22.4j-
rn [IT] ill]
COl,UMN DESCRIPTIONS
[I] Depth
II] \Vater Level
rn Graphic Log
[I] Soil Description
QJ Samele Number
II] Sample Tyec
[TI Samele Location
[]] Sample Recove!Y
rn Sample Blows
[ill Graphs
[IT] Comments
ill] Elevation
Depth (in feet) below the grollnd surface.
Groundwmcr level recorded while drilling. Depths and times are recorded in comments column.
Graphic depiction of materials encountered.
Description of materials encountered, including USCS soil descriptions.
Sample identification number.
Type of soil sample collected at depth interval depicted; symbols explained on Fig. B-1.1.
Location soil sample taken.
Percentage of sample recovered.
Numher of hlov.'S to advance driven sampler each 6-inch interval using sampler type specified with a 30-inch drop.
Blows per foot given in parentheses.
Graphic log depicting blow counts per foot with a specified split spoon, Pocket Penetration and Vane Shear tests
depicted where taken on fine grained soils.
Comments or observations on drilling/sampling by driller or PND field personnel.
Elevation (in feet) with respect to Mean Lower Low Water 0-,fLL\'X,') or other datum where specified.
GENERAL NOTES
l. Field descriptions may have been modified to reflect laboratory test results.
2, Descriptions on these boring logs apply only at the specific locations at the time the borings were drilled. They are not warranted to be
representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.
3. Split spoon blow counts shown are uncorrected ra\V data. Various hammer sizes and split spoon si2es were used and have not been
corrected to a Standard Penetration Test (SP'I). Blow counts may \'ary substantially between SP'f and these methods.
Dcsigocd: PND STANDARD BOREHOLE DI I 111 oo™ Dr:twn: PND
Checked: PND LOG DETAILS
ENGINEERS, INC. ProjenNn.: ]34():i":.0]
D~te: Jrm. 2014-BOREHOLE LOGS FIGURE B-1.2
Soil Legend
1't'\JOR OTVTSTONS
COARSE
(iR.AfNED
sons
~IORT''l11:\_"\; ;((,;
Rro"fA['.;l".00'.'.
:-.o.:mosirwn
(()_()Cimn,)
FINE
GRAINED
SOIT.S
-:.lORf'.'t1JA-..,.'ill':;,
P ASSI:...G :...0 200
s1r:.vr. (()Jl.,',mm)
CR,-\VFT,
,\NO
(;R..,\VELLY
SOIL<;
~JORf "11/A'\ <(l",,,
OF COARSE
PRACr10\i
RF"J'Al'-.EDOS
'\(l_ 4 Slf.Vf.
SA.:,,JD
AND
SA:'\TDY
SOll..S
\HlRFTTJA"i\11:,,
nrcOARSF
fRA(TJO'-,
T'ASSJ:-.r; :--.0. 4
SIEH' /4.-.i,,.sn)
SILTS
AKO
CLAYS
SILTS
AND
CU..YS
CLEAN
GR},VEL<;
(I [[·r,f<1KN<l [INf'>)
(iR,-\VEL<;
\~'I'rl-[ Fl)JFS
,Sl'l'~fJ \,;"l f.
AMO]INT or fl1'TS,
CLE.AN
SANDS
:1 IT"i"I r DR NO f-1Nr")
SAN OS \'\l[Tl I
FINES
Al'!.'Rf.rl,\"l f .
. '\Wll'NTOJ"l"ll'H-~·
l.lQ11!01111IT
I ~ss r,,L;N ~'
I.IQIIIDI.TMIT
<~BC<l'~J! n/,1N
"
IJI(;J [LY OR(;AN[C S<){I$
.F:TIE
GW
GT'
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
l\!H
CH
OH
PT
TYPIC'\l.
DESCRIPTIONS
Wdl-gr:1,kJ gr.i.,cL,, (,;;r.,d ,01,ci miuur.:s li,tl,
'" "" tLnc,
?0nrh· ,:r"'1cci !l'"'·d,, ~"'cl.,r.J '"'"'"'"·
lmlcm n~ (c,,c,
PM1l1· ~,J ,..,J,.i;,.r,-cc[, ,~1J,. lu1k ~, ""
''""
do,c.-,.u,J,. ,,i,J-d-... -mixrua:,
[nnrpti< ,ii'-' tnJ ,cry fine ,anJs, rnck flour
,i::.·md ... ·c.·finca:,rnismcl:o·n·,iJ,,"i,h
,lc¢,,pl,.,icin·
L,mpni< da1·, nflnw ,n mdium;,W1ic~1·,
gra,·dl, ,t.,, •. ,.,r.d, els,-..""°' c1..,-., k.,, do..,
ln0');">i< .. 1,,., llllcurnu, ru: d,11nn:«m:• fa'L<C ,,,,J,. c,r,o_,.,....,;1,,,d>.<tic ,.;1"'
Inn,p,:i< cLn-s ofhil(h r""cicl<\·, fa, cl.m
O~ic <~)' ~!-a,dium <O hiib pl,..,i,i"··
n,.....,ic,~"'
i\"OTF: Multiple symhols are 11st•.d to indinte horderlioe or du~l .<;oil clas_<;]ficatioos
Stratigraphic Contact
Distinct contact between soil strata or geologic units
Approximate location of soil strata change within a geologic sod unit
Laboratory/ Field Tests List of Abbreviations
%F Percent Fines HA I Iydrometer Analysis pp Pocket Pcnctromcter
AL Atterberg Limits LMA I .imited t\fecbanical Analysis SA Sieve Analysis
CP I~aboratory Compaction Test MC Moisture Content TV Torvanc
co Consolidation Test DD Dry Density TX Triaxial Shear
DP Depth "Peat" Probe oc Organic Contem UC lJnconfined Compression
DS Direcl Shear PM Permeabilitr or Hydraulic Conductivity vs Vane Shear
llc~ignc.d: PNO STANDARD BOREHOLE II I II IIE™ Drawn: PND
Checked: PNO LOG DETAILS
ENGINEERS, INC. Project No.; l.HOS7.0l
Date: J~n. 2llH BOREHOLE LOGS FIGURE B-1.3
SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLES GRAPH COMMENTS
\i' u • RLOWCOUNT • :0 Soil Name, Color, Moisture Penetration 20 40 '° '° Casing Depth, Drilling Rate, ,cl • d c 0
f-,S!O Condition, Relative Density, -Blows per • POCKET PEN (tsfl • Fluid Loss, Drill Pressure, 0 " 0 " -"'.0 .0 ol) ·-g > ·o
"' !j §-E Soil Structur~. Mineralogy, E 0 6/lnch I ' J 4 Tests, lnstrumentation, a-
0. 0. u u->-
Other lnfonnation (per foot) Additional Information "u u 3 ->. 0 >. 0 ~~ " VANE SHEAR (tsf) " llJ~ Cl Ou, z f-..J 0.] 0.4 0.6 0.8 i-o.o P· ~ ~ p Begin Drilling: 112/2014
63.7-
~. A . ;.,_ j C91:l_CRETE, 6 inches
-, • .P.,".·,::_
Ss I 8:50:00 AM -
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP) I 55 16-5015" I -f-brown, moist, vety dense, (5015")
f-subroundcd gravel I Rough drilling to 3Yi feet
(cobbles/gravel)
f-
I
-
.
f-2.5 61.2 --
f-.·. -
·.
r ·.: -
SAND (SP)
f-moist, medium dense, with ,/
-
f-
·. occasional gravel and wood -.· fragements
t-5.0 p~u 58.7-
f-~Cs GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP) -Do D <::_ olive brown, moist, medium dense, 2 Ss 0 7-6-10
f-~oo wood debris intem1ixed ( 16) -
~ o[',° -Do D <::_
r pOQ -
e-----7.5 0 ei:c:_ 56.2-
Do D
~ pOQ -----·--
o['io ..
f-Do D(:
-
f-0 00 8-8-9
MC=l 7%; SA (%F-.J) -
0 G'.c:_ 3 Ss 0 (17) f-Do D
-
r-JO.O --53.7-p~u
f-
0 °''.c:_ GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP) Begin drilling with 6-inch -Do D moist, medium dense to very dense, 4 Ss 0 12-13-12 diameter casing
f-pOQ subrounded gravel (25) -
r ,['io -
b D <::_
-rOQ -
-12.5 o['io 51.2-Do DC
-pOQ -
-0 G'.c;:: -
b D -oo -
-~ C:t ' -bDC
-15.0 ,OQ 48.7-
-o['io -b DC 5 Ss 34 15-19-18
-,oo (37)
\
-
-0 G'.c -
b D
-,OQ
-17.5 ~CY" < 46.2-b DC
-,oo \
-
-o['io
)0 DC
-,oo -
-'°''.c -
Jo D
-20.~ 43.7-
Groundwater not observed while drilling No1thing: 176896 Easting: 1307462
logged Ry: OT
m I II I lj]M Data Entry: CMK RIVERVIEW PARK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Checked: CMK Renton, Washington
El-.Gl:S:EERS, 11'.C. Project No.: 134057.01 BOREHOLE B-1 I FIGURE B-2.1
Date: Feb. 2014
" :!:_
t
" Cl
>---20.0
r
r
r
-
-22.5
-
-
-
-
-25.0
-
-
-
-
-27.5
-
-
-
-
-30.0
-
-
-
-
-32.5
-
-
-
-35.0
-
-
-
-
-37.5
-' 0 g
~ ~-
w g-
SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLES GRAPH COMMENTS
f--------+-----------+---------f---------~
" • ALOW COUNI •
'.c
" f-
" " "
Soil Name, Color, Moisture Penetration 20 40 6,0 8,Q Casing Depth, Drilling Rate, i::
.:::! o Condition, Relative Density, ~ § ~ Blows per • POCKET PEN (tsf) • Fluid Loss, Drill Pressure, .9
-§.. ~ Soil Stnicturc, rv1incralogy, 'a '" ·-§ :; 6/lnch 1 2 3 -l-Tests, lnstiumcntation, ~ ,-..,
" ~l, Othcrlnfonnation Z ~ j ~l (per foot) 4. VANESHEAR(lsf) A Additionallnfonnation ~~
--b.,,,.,...-rl----------------l---l--bJ----I-------J=='~'~='·;c'::::':i·'~=02.8::,;4-----------+-
"o [);-' GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP) 'J?· ' 4
J.?-'o /',. C,: moist, medium dense to very dense, 6 4?_ 20-J4-50/5" 111
c, v c d-·' I Ss (84/11") • ri CJ O suumun c:u grave
o[j')~
:0, 0'-
pCJ Cl
0 [~)°,---
~o D '-
PC) Cl
o(J° ' :o, D c:_
~0------------------
Sand Lens tcc:n-n------
p ();-J, b D (:
,CJ 0
,(Y,,-..
)o D '--( cobbles?) ,oo
or\o
Drilling Equipment:
Truck-mounted Brainard Killman
BK-81
Drilling Method:
Mud Rotmy
7 Ss 0 11-26-68
(94)
----
---~
---
Stop Drilling: 1/2/2014
3:00:00 PM
Resume Drilling: 1/3/2014
7:30:00AM
Tenninated Drilling at 27.0
ft, 1/3/2014 9:30:00 AM
41.2-
-
-
38.7-
-
.
-
36.2-
-
-
-
33.7-
-
-
-
31.2
-
-
-
28.7-
-
-
-
26.2-
-
~
m -40.0-L----1-------------'-.L.L.L-..L-----'--------...l...------------'-:23.7-iri Groundwater not observed while drilling Northing: 176896 Easting: 1307462
1f------=....:..:_-----.-------"'----"------,--RI-V"-E-R-V-IE_W_P_A_R_K_B_RI_D_G_E_R_E_P_L_A_C_E_M_E_N-----1T Logged By: OT
DI 1111 lllw 11ata Entry: CMK
3 Renton, Washington
Checked: CMK
w a
I w
~
E,(;i, El'RS, 11':L Project No.: 134057.01 BOREHOLE B-1 FIGURE B-2,2 gL_ ___________ _JL_ _______ _,_ ______________ ..J... ___________ .J Date: Feb. 2014
~-
SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLES GRAPH COMMENTS
• RLOWC'OUNT • " " :,; Soil Name, Color, Moisture Penetration 20 40 6() RO Casing Depth, Drilling Rate, ~ " i:· C r u-Condition, Relative Density. " C Blows per • PO(:KF.T PEN (ts!) • Fluid Loss, Drill Pressure, .9 ·-0 V 0 " t ~ -" .0 Soil Structure, Mineralogy, .0 u ''§ > 6/lnch l ' ) 4 Tests, Instrumentation, :;;_ a. E E 0 > -" " e » Other lnfonnation ~ a. u u-(per foot) Additional Infonnation u" :>' » 0 ~e .. VANE SHEAR (t~t) .. ~~ Q Ou, r -' 0' o,4 0;6 0.8 -o.o I' .,7" 63.7-
4 ~ ._,, !_ CONCRETE, 7 inches Begin Drilling: I /3/2014 -",.,. ... 11:30:00AM -
-SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP) -
brown, moist, medium dense
--
--
2.5 61.2-
L -
L .. -
'--SAND(SP) -brown, moist, medium dense, fine
' sand
' -
L_ 5.0 58.7-
'--I
4-5-7 ~
-
. I Ss 67 ' I· (12) -
L (wood) -
'--I .
""' J
--· ~ -
1 7.5 o(j:'( GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP)
56.2-bo D brown, moist, dense, subrounded
L bOQ gravel -
L o(j:'( -
lio D
' hOQ -
L o(j:'( -
Do D
.___10.0 bOO 53.7-
' o(j:'( -bo D 2 Ss 0 11-20-17 I L bOQ (37) -
'--o(j:'( -
lio D
' h0Q -
L_ 12.5 oD:c:-51.2-Do D
'--hOQ -
,ei:<::: -bo D
L boo -
L ,ei:<::: -
lio D
I ]5.0 hOQ 48.7-
L oD:c:-26-22-28 -ho D 3 Ss 0 • '--nOQ (50) -
' 0 ei:<::: ho D
L nOQ -
L-J7.5 hD\: 46.2-
o D
' oOO -
,ei:c:--
ho D
'--nOQ -
' 0 D:c:--
ho D
'-20.0 43.7-
Groundwater not observed while drilling Nrnthing: 176895 Easting: 1307464
Logged By: OT
Ill 111 111· Oata Entry: CMK RIVERVIEW PARK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Checked: CMK Renton, Washington
ENl,I N l'.l'.RS, I NC. Project No.: 134057.01 BOREHOLE B-la FIGURE B-3.1 Oate: Feb.2014
SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLES GRAPH COMMENTS
-
'°' " I. • R! OW COUNT • " :c Soil Name, Color, Moisture I Penetration 20 40 60 80 Casing Depth, Drilling Rate, ~ " C c 0
f--a-Condition, Relative Density, " Blows per • POCKET PEN (t~f) • Fluid Loss, Drill Pressure, .g ·-0 " .8 " ~ " ~.o Soil Structure, Mineralogy, .0 " ;;;
> 6/Inch I 2 ! 7 Tests, lnstrumenLaLion, ~-0. $1 C. -2 0 >-,:l::::: Other lnfonnation 0. u u-(per foot) Additional Tnfonnation "" " CJ J;' z >, 0 ~f .. VANE SHEAR (!sf) .. Li]~ C, f--..J o.:: OA 0.6 0,-8 -->-20.0 r.i"~u 43.7-
GRAVEL WITH SAND {GP) ' f-, G\: '· -
bo D brown, moist, dense, suhroundcd 4 Ss -~ 0 14-16-22 I
f-~() 0 gravel ()8) -
,[y j
r Do D (::
p \ -
f-"() 0 -
· 22.5 'Ll'.<::: \ 41.2-bo D
f-----
f-
SAND WITH ORA VEL (SP) -brown, rnoist, very dense
r -
f-\ -
f-25.0 38.7-
f-18-35-40 • -
5 Ss 34 (75) f--
f-
( cobbles/boulders?) Auger string excessively tilted -
f-Tenninated Drilling at: 27.0 -
c-27.5 ft, 1/3/2014 12:30:00 PM 36.2-
f--
Drilling Equipment:
Truck-mounted Brainard Killman -
f-BK-81 -
r
Drilling Method:
Hollow-stem Auger -
-30.0 (41/i-inch LD.; 9-inch O.D.) e---------------33.7-
~ -
~ -
r -
~ -
f-32.5 31.2-
r -
~
~ -
--
-35.0 28.7-
--
~----·--
--
-
-37.5 26.2 -
--
--
-
--
-40.v 23.7-
Groundwater not observed while drilling No1thing: 176895 Easting: 1307464
Logged Ry: OT
I I '" RIVERVIEW PARK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT Iii II IE Data Entry: CMK Renton, Washington
Checked: CMK
E:S:<;J:S:EJ'RS, [:s;c. Pmjcct No.: 134057.01 BOREHOLE B-la I FIGURE Datt:: Feb. 2014 B-3.2
SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLES GRAPH COMMENTS
.. ----
u • Fll.OWC'OUNT • 0 :0 Soil Name, Color, Moisture Penetration 20 4<J 60 80 Ca,;ing Depth, Drilling Rate, '" • 0 c 0
fa u-Condition. Relative Density, ~ 0 u Blows per • POCKET PEN {tsf) • Fluid Loss, Drill Pressure, .g ·-0 % ll ".0 Soil Stmcture, Mineralogy, .0 <:.J ·~ > 61lnch l 2 3 4 Tests, Instrumentation, ·-§"~ E 0
0. u u-,-• Other lnfonnation (per foot) Additional Infonnation "" " " i " 0 ~~ .. VANE ~HF.AR (td) .. -1" Q ""' fa ..., ____ 0,.:2~ 0.6 0.8 "'--0.0 ):'.'-•·<1. "' Begin Drilling: 1/6/2014 3.6-
4 ~ '_'<'·_ I CONCRETE, 7 inches
-",."'" 8,20,00 AM -
. · .
-SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP) -
brown, moist, very dense,
-·. subroundcd gravel · .
-2.5
... 61 1-
--
.
. .
--
.
-.
SAND(SP)
moist, medium dense, with -
-'·. occasional gravel and wood -.·.
fragcmcnts
--5.0 ,va---··--· 58.6-
-,(j" GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP) -'o D <.:_: olive brown, moist, medium dense,
-,oo wocxi debris intennixed
-,(y -
Jo D<.:_:
-,oo -
-7.5 ,['<<.:: 56.1-1o D -,oo __ ,, __ -
-,[y
)o D c:_
-,oo -
-'l'l'.<.:.: -
Jo D
! -10.0 C,;;-; '
53.6
-
GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP) -1 D<.:_: moist, medium dense to very dense,
-,oo subrounded gravel -
-0 G'.<.:.: )o D
-,oo -
-12.5 , G:c:. 51.1-
)o D
-,oo
-,[y -
Jo D c:_
-,oo -
-,G'.c:. -
)o D
-15.0 ,oo 48.6-
-'l'l'.<.:.: -t D
-,oo -
-oG" -
Jo D<.:_:
-,oo -
-17.5 ,G' 46.\
)o D<.:_:
-,OQ -
-'l'l'.<.:.: -t D -,oo -
,Go -
)a D<.:_:
-20.:: --3.6-
Water Levels: '5l-\Vhilc Drilling: 23.0 ft N01thing: 176895 Easting: 1307465
Logged Ry: CDUMH
I I
,w RIVERVIEW PARK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT li1 II Ii] Data Entry: CMK Renton, Washington
Checked: CMK
E:s;(.l'sl'.ERS, INC. Project No.: 134057.01 BOREHOLE 8-lb FIGURE B-4.1
Date: Feb. 2014
SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLES GRAPH ' COMMENTS
I • BLOW COUNf • " I u :0 Soil Name, Color, Moisture Penetration 10 411 611 811 Casing Depth, Drilling Rate, ,H " " c " r o-Condition, Relative Density, ~ .9 " Blows per • POCKET PEN (tsf) • fluid Loss, Drill Pressure, .g ·-0 t C "'.n Soil Stmcmre, Mineralogy, .c " :;;
> 6/lnch I 2 3 4 Tests, lnstrnmentation, "-1l E 0 g. E
" 0 o-> -Other lnfonnation (per foot) Additional Infonnation " " " "'
C >, 0 >, 0 ~f .. VANE SHEAR (tsf) .. 5: ~ Q u U'} z r--' O.:?: 0.4 06 0.8
f--20.0 0" \_J 3.6-
,C:,:(: GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP)
-
)o D moist, medium dense to very dense,
r oO 0 subrounded gravel -
r ,[:,' -
)o DC:..
f-,o 0 -
>-----22.5 ,C:,:c:.. 41 I-
r ¥ )o D
,() 0 -
,[:,' Wet
r
)o DC:..
-
--u GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP) -,C:,:c:.. -
)o D brown, wet, medium dense to very I Ss 17 4-14-14
\ -25.0 oO O dense, trace silt (28) 38.6-
-
,e:,, (sand lenses noted between 25 and
-
)o DC:.. 38 feet)
-oO 0 -
-, D'.c:.. -
)o D
-,o 0 -
-·27.5 ,[:,' 36.1-
Jo DC:..
-,O 0 -
,C:,:c:.. \ -1o D -,O 0 -
-,[:,' MC~l4; SA(%F~2.5) -
Jo D(: 2 Ss 67 4-26-45 • Easier drilling
-30.0 ,oo (71) 33.6-
-oD:c:.. I -1o D
-,oo -
-oC:,o -b D(:
-,oo
l
-
-32.5 oD'.c:.. 31.1-1o D
-,Cl Cl -
-o[',° -b D(:
-oo ---
-
,C:,o -b D(: J Ss 67 17-13-19 I
-35.0 ,,o 0 (32) 28.6-
-,C:,'.c:.. • -
b D -rO 0 ol)o < (cobbles) Rough drilling -
Po D(:
-rCI 0 -
-37.5 o(':," 26.1-
Po D(:
f--~ -·--GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW)
~ . •:<II -.. ' olive brown, wet, very dense, trace
~ ~·· silt .. -
f-·•· MC-8'%; SA (%F=4.5) -. ,<II 4 Ss 67 15-32-19
--40.::: ,rn 23.6-
Water Levels: .7-While Drilling: 23.0 ft Notthing: 176895 Easting: 1307465
Logged By: CDUMH
li1 111 I 1tl" Data Entiy: CMK RIVERVIEW PARK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Checked: CMK Renton, Washington
l'.'s(;J'sEERS, ['sC Project No.: 134057.01 BOREHOLE B-lb FIGURE B-4.2 Date: Feb. 2014
SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLES GRAPH COMMENTS
--------
" • RLOWC'OIJNT • " :0 Soil Name, Color, Moisture Penetration lO 40 "' 80 Casing Depth, Drilling Rate, ~ 0 C <.' C r -~o Condition, Relative Density, t .2 " Blows per • P<X'KET PEN (L~f) • Fluid Loss, Drill Pressure, 0
"' > -..
i ~ -""' Soil Structure, Mineralogy, " ,; 6/lnch I 2 J 4 Tests, Instrumentation, ·-:,-E E 0 > -" Other lnfonnation a. 0 o-(per foot) Additional Infonnation "" " 3' 25 rh' 0 >, 0 d2 C, " VANR SHEAR (t,t) " (iS~ Cl z r -' O.'.! 0.4 0.6 0.8
HO.O ·--i \
23.6-
f--·•· GRAVEL WITH SAND (GW) ...... olive brown, wet, very dense, trace
r ••• silt -
f--·•· -......
-••• \
-
1--42.5 ·•· Slow drilling 21.1-......
r ••• -
f--·•: ... -••• f--••• Ss I 5015" •
-·•· (cobbles/boulders?) 5 100 (5015") • ..... -
f-45.0 ••• 18.6-·•: ... -••• f--••• -
r ·•· -• .....
f--••• -
1-47_5 ·•: ... ••• Very difficult drilling 16.1-
••• -
(boulder) 40-38/3" •Refusal on boulder f--•••• 6 Ss 0 (3813") -
f--Tem1inated Drilling at: 48.8 -ft, 11612014 11:10:00 AM
f---
t-50.0 13.6-
Drilling Equipment:
-Truck-mounted Brainard Killman -
-BK-81 -
Drilling Method: -Hollow-stem Auger -
-(4'14-inch I.D.; 9-inch O.D.) -
-52.5 I I.I -
--
--
--
--
-55.0 8.6-
--
-~-,_ . -·-·---
--
-
-57.5 6.1-
------
--
-
--
-60. 3.6-
Water Levels: ':l-While Drilling: 23.0 ft Northing: 176895 Easting: 1307465
Logged By: COUMH RIVERVIEW PARK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT m 111 1 m'· Data Entry: CMK
Checked: CMK
Renton, Washington
E:,.c;1:,.LERS, l~C. Project No.: 134057.01 BOREHOLE B-lb FIGURE B-4.3
Date: Feb.2014
SOIL DESCRIPTION ' SAMPLES GRAPH COMMENTS
~ I • AlO\VC'OUNT •
::0 Soil Name. Color. Moisture Penetration 20 40 rio M Casing Depth, Orilling Rate, ~ ] ~ Condition, ·Rclati\;C Density, ~ ! .'.2 S I31ows per • POC:KETPl'N (1st) • Fluid l .oss, Drill Pressure, .9
i,
0
-g.~ Soil Stmcture, Mineralogy. 1_ '1> o:i 6 6/Inch c-~'--l--'--f--Tests, Ins1rumentatiun, ~ zs '"" 01 ..-. . C:..{.) (_I,,.-.._ " • " ,_ > t 1er ln1om1at1011 ~. z:-. ~ ;; /_ (per 1oot) 4. VANE SHEAR (isl) .&. Additional Tnfom1ation ~ ~. ~ O~I ,. ~---n1 o.4 n6 ns --
1--0.0,-+,--,-,-,,-_.,.,+-' --------------+--l--l--l---+------Jt:::::±:::::;;::=t:::=!::::=l---,----,---,----,---,----l--,63. 1-
,,_', ~·~:_,~'+-C_O_N_C_R_E_·T_E_·.~6_in_c_h_cs_· _____ Begin Drilling: 1/6/2014
----1:30:00 PM
f-
2.5
f-
'
I---5.0 I -
f-
-
r-7.5
f-
>-JO.O
f-
-12.5
f-
t-15.0
f-
1---17.5
,r
i-
~ ~r
w -
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP)
dark brown, moist, medium dense,
medium to coarse sand
GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP)
brown, moist, dense, subrounded
gravel
SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP)
brown, moist to wet, dense to vc1y
. dense, fine sand
2 Ss 67
3 Ss 67
4 Ss 67
4-6-5
(II)
6-5-7
( [2)
7-16-17
(33)
6-14-17
(31)*
•
Driller notes easy drilling
Hf--------, MC~J; SA (%f'~l.5}
I
----•--------l
I
Rough drilling
*Rock in sampler tip. blow
count likely overstated
Auger string excessively tilted
Stop Drilling: 1/6/2014
r----i--------1 2:00:00 PM to core larger in
concrete surface
Resume Drilling: 1/6/2014
5:54:00 PM
-
60.6
-
-
58.1-
-
-
55.6-
-
-
53.1-
-
-
-
50.6-
-
-
48.1-
-
-
-
-
45.6-
-
-gr ii
ffi-20.0~ v_ ... --~------------~~-i!!>-· --'-------'----''-----'----------.l-43_1-
[ti Water levels: 'SJ_ While Drilling: 20.0 ft N01thing: 176745 Easting: 1307388
~ w
~
~
~ g
w
i5
T
:ii
0
Logged By: CDL/MH
Data Ent1y CMK
Checked: CMK
Project No.: 134057.01
Date: Feb. 2014
RIVERVIEW PARK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Renton, Washington
BOREHOLE B-2 FIGURE B-5.1 m~-------------~~--------~-----------------~------------~
SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLES GRAPH COMMENTS
~ • RLOW COUNT •
~ Soil Name, Color, Moisture C Penetration '----"-'o~-"40~~'""-'"'o~ Ca-;ing Depth, Drilling Rate,
r .'.= a Condition, Relative Density, ~ § '1J Blows per • POCKET PEN (ts1) • Fluid Loss, Drill Pressure, ._§
'E., B -§...;:i Soil Structure, Mineralogy, 2 '1J ·~ Ei 6/lnch 1 2 3 __ -'!-TesL<;, Instrumemacion, ~ ~
C ; ~ 1 Other Information z ~ J ~ g: (per foot)* A VA"IE SHEAR (ts1) ..t. Additional Infonnation d3 ~
-20.01-+-,-_----_. -+--------------+---+-1--f-..,,,-sv·-""""sv•-""""sv---J=='·E:'~O;::;=O::i.6:c;;;:=0.~8=j....---------+-.43, I-
' SAND \\ilTH GRAVEL (SP) 5 Ss 34 (4 0)
t-r -brown, moist to wet, dense to veiy
r 1
· .-: dense, fine sand -
t-22.5
-
-
--25.0
-
-
-
-
-27.5
-
-
-
-
-30.0
-
-
-
-32.5
-
-
-
-35.0
-
-
-
-37.5
...
._-
.
.
.-
.
.
.
•
.
.-.·
.-.
.
.
GRAVEL WITH SAND (GP)
brown, wet, VCl)' dense, subroundcd
gravel
(cobbles/boulders?)
6 Ss
7 Ss
8 Ss
67
67
25
7-12-25
(37)
5-24-34
(58)
18-35-50/4"
(85/10")
---··--· ----~~
l---+-------1 Driller notes easier drilling
I
\
\
Drill rig broke down
Rough/hard drilling f--------'-\_j Stop Drilling: 1/6/2014
3:20:00PM
Resume Drilling: tn/2014
8:40:00AM
1Drill rig broke down
/
Stop Drilling: 1/7/2014
9:50:00AM
I 1:40:00AM f------;---+----l Resume Drilling: 1/7/2014
ELASTIC SILT (ML) Driller notes easier drilling
very dark brown, wet, very stiff,
-
40.6-
-
-
-
38.1 --
-
-
-
35.6
-
-
-
33.1-
-
-
-
30.6-
-
28.1
-
-
-
25.6-
-trace sand .-7 ~-
" ~-
w
~ a
~ ~ --40.0~~~------------~~----L-----'---'-------'----------"-2·3_1-
-
-
w Water Levels: ~ While Drilling: 20.0 ft N011hing: 176745 Easting: 1307388
ffi a <r
~ a
~
w
~
\' w 1-:NGINFl'RS, INC.
Logged By: CDUMH
Data Entry: CMK
Checked: CMK
Project No.: 134057.01
RIVERVIEW PARK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Renton, Washington
BOREHOLE B-2 FIGURE B-5.2
@j: Date: Feb. 2014 00,L... ____________ _JL_ _______ _, ________________ 1... ___________ _J
,
• i
" ~
w
~
0
" ~
t u
0
40.0
42.5
45.0
-47.5
50.0
52.5
55.0
57.5
u :,;
" ~
" B
" "
o-:E:2 :a-s
" >, Oco
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Soil Name, Color, Moisture
Condition, Relative Density,
Soil Structure, Mineralogy,
Other Jnfonnation
ELASTTC SlLT (ML)
very dark brown, wet, very stiff,
trace sand
FATCI.AY(CH)
very dark brown, wet, hard, trace
sand
ELASTIC SILT (MH)
very dark brown, moist, hard, trace
sand
SAMPLES
C ~ C
~ u -~ s 0. u 0 >, 0 z ~""
9 "' Ss .'.,f
'.;'f
JO Ss
11 Ss
Q
" >
0 u-~f
67
100
100
100
Pcnctrntion
Blows per
6/[nch
(per foot)"'
16-19-22
(41)
I 5-22-23
(45)
14-28-36
(64)
GRAPH
• 11LO\VCOUNT • 2,0 4,0 "fl 8p_
• POCKET PEN (tsO • I J 4 ... VA'\!E SJ !EAR (L~l) ...
0.4 0.6 0.8
COMMENTS
Casing Depth, Drilling Rate,
Fluid Loss, Drill Pressure,
Tests, l11st1umc11tation,
Additionfll Jnfonnation
MC....,J2%; Al
Driller notes that drilling
becomes very hard
MC=29%;AL
" .g
"-> ~ u"
;ij~
23.1
20.6
18.1
15.6-
13.1-
10.6
8.1-
5.6
ffi 24-50/5.5" o.o.....Jcu..1...1..11... ___________ -1._1---'-....=.c=='--'-----------11----------'--3.1
~ Water Levels: SI. While Drilling: 20.0 t1 Northing: l 76745 Fasting: 1107188 >1--------=::...:----=..:...----=.:..:.=~=--------------------"'-----.c..,;-=-"'--------------------------l
~ w > oc
§
~
~
m I II Ill
E:>;GJ:-SFl-:RS, 11\C.
<M
UJggcd By: CDUMH
Data Enll)': CMK
Checked: CMK
Project No_: 134057.01
Date: Feb. 2014
RIVER VCEW PARK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Renton, Washington
BOREHOLE B-2 FIGURE 8-5.3 w
~
0 ~'--------------_J'-----------'------------------L--------------'
E.
V
Cl
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Soil Name, Color, Moisture
Condition, Relative Density,
Soil Strncturc, Mineralogy,
Other lnfonnation
SAMPLF,S GRAPH COMMENTS
• HLOW COUNT •
Penetration 20 40 60 80 Casing Depth, Drilling Rate, ~ § t Blows per e POCKl:l PEN (tst) • Fluid Loss, Drill Pressure, 9
.o 0 -~ 5 6/lnch 1 2 J .i Tests, lnstrumc111.a1ion, ·c;1 ..-..
§ o.. 0 0
,,...., (per 'oot)* Additional Tn~onnation ~ d) z ~ j ~ ~ L' 4. VANESHEAR(tsf) .6. Gj ~
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
-60.0--J----'---------------'-T-rT.JIS:L-s
ELASTIC STL T (MH) ..,.,,,u,,+...,u,=Juu.J""",--f'C'~~1::::::=i:::=,l-------+-J I=
-
-
-
-62.5
-
-
-
-65.0
-
-
67.5
-
-
'
L
L-70_0
'
L
L..
'
L_72.5
L..
'
L
'-
I 75.0
L
'-
L
L
l-77.5
o',
~
w
very dark brown, moist, hard, trace
sand
Drilling Equipment:
Truck-mounted Brainard Killman
BK-81
Drilling Method:
Hollow-stem Auger
(4V..-inch l.D.; 9-inch O.D.)
14 Ss
VS=2.70tsf _
100 JO-] 1-28 » MC~24; AL; vs~260 kPa
(59) '---------_, (Geonor)
f--------···--
Tenninated Drilling at 62.5
ft, 1/7/2014 1,00,00 PM
-
0.6-
-
-
-1.9-
-
-
-
-4.4-
-
-
-
-6.9-
-
-
-
-9.4-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-14.4-
-
-
-~L
0
~ mL--so.\)0------'-------'------------------'--J_.J.....L _ __J_ ____ _i ________ ---1 __________ _i __ J6.9-
~
ffi e
~
g
w
6
Water Levels: 'Sl-While Drilling: 20.0 ft Northing: 176745 Easting: 1307388
li1 1111 111·
Logged By:
Data Entiy:
Checked:
CDUMH
CMK
CMK
RIVERVIEW PARK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Renton, Washington
~ BOREHOLE B-2 FIGURE 8-5.4
gL--------------''---------...L-----------------'--------------l
E:-.:Gl'>El'RS, INC. Project No.: 134057.01
Date: Feb. 2014
\PPl:-..;Df\ C
Laboratory Testing
nlm Uua1 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
',,, , ,'.•' ,, .i/ I',, '" I I "• "; •
J anuaiy 20, 2014
HWA Project No. 2012-032-23 Task 700
PND Engineers, Inc.
811 First Avenue, Suite 570
Seattle, Washington 98104
Attention:
Subject:
. Mr. Christopher Kokesh
Materials Laboratory Report
Index Testing
Riverview Park Bridge
PND Project No. 114078.01
Dear Mr. Kokesh;
As requested, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) performed laboratory testing for the subject
project. Herein we present the results of our laboratory analyses, which are summarized on the
attached figures. The laboratory testing program was performed in general accordance with your
instructions and appropriate ASTM Standards as outlined below.
SAMPLE INFORMATION: The subject samples were delivered to our laboratory on January 13,
2014 by PND personnel. The samples were designated with borehole number, sample number
and depth and were in re-sealable plastic bags. Sample descriptions based on visual-manual
methods are as follows:
B-1, S-3
B-lb, S-2
B-lb, S-4
B-2, S-2
B-2, S-9
B-2, S-12
B-2, S-14
Olive brown, poorly graded GRAVEL with sand (GP)
Brown, poorly graded SAND with gravel (SP)
Olive brown, well graded GRAVEL with sand (GW)
Dark brown, poorly graded SAND with gravel (SP)
Very dark brown, elastic SILT (MH)
Very dark brown, fat CLAY (CH)
Very dark brown, elastic SILT (MH)
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS: Selected samples were tested to determine the particle size
distribution in general accordance with ASTM D422, using wet sieve analysis only. The results
are summarized on the attached Particle Size Analysis of Soils reports, Figures 1-2, which11b;\Q 30th Drive SE
provide the classification and moisture content at the time of testing. Suite 110
Bothell, WA 98021.7010
Tel: 425.774.0106
Fax: 425.774.2714
www.hwageo.com
January 20, 2014
HWA Project No.2012-032-23 Task 700
LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS (ATTllRBllllG LIMITS):
Selected samples were tested in general accordance with method ASTM 04318, multi-point
method. The results of the analysis are summarized on the attached Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit,
and Plasticity Index repott, Jligure 3.
CLOSURE: Experience has shown that laboratory test values for soil and other natural materials
vary with each representative sample. As such, HWA has no knowledge as to the extent and
quantity of material the tested sample may represent. HWA also makes no wmmnty as to how
representative either the sample tested or the test results obtained are to actual field conditions.
It is a well established fact that sampling methods present varying degrees of disturbance or
variance that affect sample representativeness.
No copy should be made ·of this report except in its entirety.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide laboratory testing services on this project. Should you
have any questions or comments, or if we may be of fmther service, please call.
Sincerely,
HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
Ashley Crane
Materials Laboratory Supervisor
Particle Size Analysis of Soils
~CZ-~
Steven E. Greene, L.G., L.E.G
Principal Engineering Geologist
AU11:chments:
figures 1-2
Figurt:. 3 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils
PND -Riverview Park Bridge 2 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
GRAVEL SAND
Coarse I Fine Coarse J_ Medium I Fine
US STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
I-
I
(9
3" .
100
90
80
70
314"
1-112" ; 5/8" 3/8" . . .
lj\ \ 1~1,
1 1 1
\ ~ 1
1
,rt '\1 I
I
#4 #10 #2 #40 #60 #100 # • .
'i '
I
1 1 I 1
1 I 1 1 I 1
' ' ,,
I I 1 1 I I
1 I ! ! ! 1 . ' 1 1 1 1 1 I
1 I ! ! ! 1
" w s
>-(])
I
I
1 1 "'
I ! I' "c-I
f
I I I 1 1 I
1 I I ! ! I
0:: w z
lJ..
1-z
w
(.)
0:: w
Cl.
SYMBOi
•
•
"
60 I
1
1
1 50
I
1
" 40
I
I
30
I
I
20
1
I
10
,,
I
I
0
50
SAMPLE
B-1
B-1b
B-1b
-
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1 1
' I 1
I 1
I j
I 1 .
I i
1 I
' 1 I
1 !
S-3
S-2
S-4
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC
HWAGRSZ 2012-032 T700.GPJ 1120114
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
10
DEPTH (fl)
8.5-10.0
29.0 -30.5
39.0 -40.5
'" . I
I\ : 1 1 I 1 1 1
i"-r--1 I 1 I 1 • 1 I 1 I I
1 I 1 I I
: I\ t I 1 1 I
I I I 1
I' 1
""
I'\ I I II
1 1\1 I I 1
I
1 1 I I 1
~'i ' ' " t :\ I I 1 !\ ! I 1
I I I']'. I I 1
I \ 1 "' I\!. I 1
I -I' -1
I 7 ' 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name
(GP) Olive brown, poorly graded GRAVEL with sand
(SP) Brown, poorly graded SAND with gravel
{GW) Olive brown, well graded GRAVEL with sand
Laboratory Testing for PND
Riverview Park Bridge
PND Project No. 114078.01
····-····-··-··-~·--
SILT CLAY
.
I
I
I
I '
I I
0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
%MC LL PL Pl Grave! Sand Fines
''" 0/, %
17
14
8
73.9 23.1 3.0
35.9 61.6 2.5
48.3 47.2 4.5
PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS
OF SOILS
METHOD ASTM D422
PROJECTNO.c 2012-032 T700 FIGURE, 1
GRAVEL SAND
Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3/4"
3"
100
1-1/2" j 5/8"' 3/8" -. '
I--
I
(.9
w
$
>-CI]
er'. w z
u._
1--z w u
er'. w
O,_
SYMBOL
•
'
90 .
BO
70
60
50
40 I
30 I
20
10
D
I Ji I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
II
' I ' I I
1
1
1
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
i I
I I
I
I
'
50
SAMPLE
8-2
j
-
\ 'i i
I I
1 I j
I I
F{
I I
I 1
II I
I I
I I
I I
I 1
I 1
I I
I 1
I I
'i i
I I
I I
I I
II I
IJ I
IJ I
11 I
S-2
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC
HWAGRSZ 2012-032 T7CO.GPJ '1120114
I
I
' I
I
I
1
'
~
I I'
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10
DEPTH (fl)
5.5 -7.0
#4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #1 OD #200 . ' ' ,, i ' I I
1 I I I I I
1 I I I I I
' ' ' ' I i I I I I I
I I I I I I I
1 i 1 I I I 1
I I 1 i ! I I I ' ,,
1 I 1 I I I I
I I I ! ! ! I
II II
1 I I I I I I
I',~ I 1 I I I I
I 1 I I I 1
1 I"-i 1 I I I
1 1 I I I I
I I""-I I I I I I
I I I II I !~ I I I I I
I I I I I I
Ii i i ' " I I I I
I I ! I I ,.
I I I ' I I I I
I ! I 1-, ! ! ! I
II II
I
I
I ~" I I I
I I ! ....... l I
T
5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM 02487 Group Symbol and Name
(SP) Dark brown, poorly graded SAND with gravel
Laboratory Testing for PND
Riverview Park Bridge
PND Project No. 114078.01
SILT CLAY
I
i
I
I
0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
%MC
3
LL PL Pl Gravel Sand Fines
% % Of.
47.4 51.1 1.5
PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS
OF SOILS
METHOD ASTM D422
PROJECT_NO.. 2012-032 T700 FIGURE: 2
= 0..
~
>< w
0 z
>-I-
u
I-
C/)
<:(
_J
0..
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
SYMBOL
•
• ...
-
CL-ML
SAMPLE
B-2 S-9
B-2 S-12
B-2 S-14
HWAGEOSCIENCESINC
HWAATTB 2012-0321700.GPJ 1120/14
20
DEPTH (ft)
39.5-41.D
54.5 -56.D
61.D -62.5
@ @)
/
V ,
/
V
/
@ @
40 60
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
CLASSIFICATION
(MH) Very dark brown, elastic SILT
(CH) Very dark brown, fat CL.A Y
(MH) Very dark brown, elastic SILT
Laboratory Testing for PND
Riverview Park Bridge
PND Project No. 114078.01
T
V
/
/
80 100
%MC LL PL I Pl % Fines
32 55 31 24
29 72 33 39
24 68 34 34
I
I
LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND
PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS
METHOD ASTM D4318
PROJECT NO.: 2012-032 T700 FIGURE: 3
)I J)
F ield Photograph s
Ri, er. 1cw Park Bridg{· Replan.:ment
Gcotec hnical Im cstig,1tion Report
Borehole B-1: Mud rotary drillin g
Borehole B-lb: Barrel dimond c ore
Borehole B -lb: Drilling, note g rave l drill s p o il s
B o re hole B-la : Hollow-stem auger drilling
Bore hole 8-2: Hollow-stem auger drilling
Bore h ole 8-2 Sample 8: Sand s lo ug ht o n left.
(depth 341/2 to 36 feet)
F ield Photographs
Appe ndix D
Ht\ l n n \\ P r"-Br <lge RcplaccnH.:nt
C,l Oil l hr ( .ti Ir \ l st1g.tt1011 R1.:po1 t
Borehole B -2 Sample 9: (depth 39 1/2 to 41 feet)
Borehole B-2 Sample 12: (depth 54 1/2 to 56 feet)
Ex is ting bridge abutment foundation
Borehole B-2 Sample 11 (depth 59 1/2 to 51 feet)
--Borchoe B-2: Removing auge r s
Errosion on northeas t bank of Cedar River
Field Photographs
Appendix D
Rin·n iew Park Bridge Re p lacement
Gcotcchnical Im e'itigation Report
Existing bridge a pproach and d eck
E x is ting bridge
Exis ting bridge and s ubs truc ture
Exis ting bridge d eck
E x is ting deflector wall
-
Exis ting timber piling
Field Photographs
Appendix D
' .
II 11
\ Pl' I· , D I \. I .
Important Information about your Geotechnical Engineering Report
. ,
Important Information About Your
(-~~eotechnical Engineering Report·· ,
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the spe-
cific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study con-
ducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construc-
tion contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geot-
echnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engi-
neering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one
except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report
without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who pre-
pared it. And no one---not even you-should apply the report for
any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on
A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-spe-
cific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors
include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management pref-
erences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and
configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other
planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads,
parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical
engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates other-
wise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
• not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing
geotechnical engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when
it's changed from a parking garage to an office
building, or from a light industrial plant to a
refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or
weight of the proposed structure,
• composition of the design team, or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer
of project changes-even minor ones-and request an
assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot
accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur
because their reports do not consider developments of which
they were not informed.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that
existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a
geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have
been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events,
such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural
events, such as fioods, earthquakes, or groundwater fiuctua-
tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before apply-
ing the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount
of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are
Professional Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those
points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are
taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data
and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion
about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sub-
surface conditions may differ-sometimes significantly-from
those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engi-
neer who developed your report to provide construction obser-
vation is the most effective method of managing the risks asso-
ciated with unanticipated conditions.
'
•
\
A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included
in your report. Those recommendations are not final. because
geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment
and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recom-
mendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions
revealed during construction. The geotechnicaf engineer who
developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for
the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform
construction observation.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject
To Misinterpretation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower
that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with
appropriate members of the design team after submitting the
report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti·
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications.
Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering
report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer
participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences. and by
providing construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs
based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory
data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a
geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for
inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photo-
graphic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating fogs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Contractors a Complete
Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they
can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface condi·
lions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help
prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotech·
report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the
geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee
may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain
the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid
conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have suffl.
cient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in
a position to give contractors the best information available to
you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial
responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not
recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than
other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has
created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappoint·
ments. claims, and disputes. To help reduce such risks, geot-
echnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory
provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations",
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engi-
neers responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize
their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions
closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should
respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a
geoenvironmental study differ significantly from those used to
perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical
engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmen-
tal findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the
likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regu-
lated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have
led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained
your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical
consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on an
environmental report prepared for someone else.
Rely on Your Geotechnical Engineer for
Additional Assistance
I nical enr)neering report, but preface it with a clearly written let·
ter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report
Membership in ASFE exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide
array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine ben-
efit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with ,I
i , was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
\ --------------~../
A5Fe PROFESSIONAL
FIRMS PRACTICING
IN THE GEOSCIENCES
8811 Colesville Road Suite Gl06 Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: 301-565-2733 Facsimile: 301-589-2017
email: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org
Copyright 1998 by ASFE, Inc_ Unless ASFE grants written permission to do so. duplication of this document by any means whatsoever is expressly prohibited.
Re·use of the wording in this document. in whole or in part, also is expressly pmhibited, and may be done only with the express permission of ASFE or tor purposes
of review or scholarly research.
IIGER06983.5M
I
'
Biological Evaluation
Riverview Park Bridge Replacement
Renton, Washington
Prepared for
PND Engineers, Inc. and
City of Renton
March 26, 2014
12132-29
--
'Lli'f' I \ ';i',j,I
~-• /_ V ''t
: :!TV UF PENTON
IIJJRTOlOWSER
This page is intentionally left blank
for double-sided printing.
• • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
.. ..
HI.IRTCROWSER
Biological Evaluation
Riverview Park Bridge Replacement
Renton, Washington
Prepared for
PND Engineers, Inc. and City of Renton
March 26, 2014
12132-29
Prepared by
Hart Crowser, Inc.
Jim Starkes
Associate Fisheries Biologist
Jon Houghton, PhD
Senior Principal
Fisheries/Marine Biologist
This page is intentionally left blank
for double-sided printing.
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2
2.1 Description of Project and Action Areas 2
2.2 Project Description 2
2.3 Impact Avoidance, Minimization Measures, and Conservation Measures 3
2.4 Project Schedule s
3.0 SPECIES INFORMATION 5
3. 1 Species Information s
3.2 Inventories and Surveys 7
3.3 Critical Habitat 8
3.4 Essential Fish Habitat 9
3.5 Existing Environmental Conditions in the Project Area 1 o
4.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 13
4. 1 Effects Analysis 1 3
4.2 Net Effects of Action 17
4.3 Critical Habitat Analysis 1 7
4.4 Essential Fish Habitat 20
4.5 Interdependent, Interrelated, and Cumulative Effects 20
5.0 TAKE ANALYSIS 20
6.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT 21
7.0 REFERENCES 21
Hart Crowser Page i
12132-29 March 26, 2014
CONTENTS (CONT.)
TABLES
Escapement of Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout in the Cedar River, 1980-2012
2 Total Number of Chinook Salmon Redds in the Cedar River and Between River Miles 2
and 3
3 Estimated Abundance of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Cedar River, 1998-2010
4 Effects of Project Activities on r labitats Used by ESA-Listed Species in the Project and Action
Areas
FIGURES
Temporal Distribution of Cedar River Chinook Redds Below Landsburg Darn, 1999-2012
2 Estimated Number and Migratory Timing of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Cedar River
in 2011
SHEETS
Vicinity and Site Map
2 Existing Conditions and Demolition Plan
3 Existing Elevation and Section
4 Proposed Plan and Elevation
5 Abutment Details
APPENDIX A
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX B
PHOTOGRAPHS
Page ii Hart Crowser
12132-29 March 26, 2014
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
RIVERVIEW PARK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
RENTON, WASHINGTON
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Hart Crowser
This biological evaluation (BE) has been prepared to aid the City of Renton (City)
in assessing the potential effects of a proposed pedestrian bridge replacement
project on fish and wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Section 7 of the ESA requires that any action by
a federal agency is "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
[listed] species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of
such species .... " Issuance of a Section 10/404 permit for bridge replacement on
the Cedar River qualifies as such an action. Under ESA Section 7(c), the lead
federal agency, in this case, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), must
prepare a BE or biological assessment (BA) of the potential influence of the
action on listed species and their critical habitat. Depending on the conclusion,
the USACE may be required to confer formally with NOAA Fisheries or the
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the project.
Because this work will occur on the Cedar River, the proposed project has the
potential to impact two species listed as threatened or endangered under the
ESA, or their critical habitat:
• Puget Sound Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha);
• Puget Sound steel head trout ( 0. mykiss).
In addition, the USFWS has provided a list of the federally listed species that
occur in King County. Additional animal species on this list include the Canada
lynx (Lynx canadensis), gray wolf ( Canis lupus), grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos
horribilis), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), and northern spotted
owl (Strix occidentalis caurina; Appendix A). If these species are present in King
County, they would inhabit areas along the Cascade foothills and mountains
(gray wolf, grizzly bear, and Canada lynx) or large tracts of undisturbed old
growth forest (marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl). None of these
habitats are present in the urban/suburban areas of the Cedar River in Renton,
Washington. The proposed project will have no effect on these species and no
further mention of them will be made in this BE.
Page 1
March 26, 2014 12132-29
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2. 1 Description of Project and Action Areas
The proposed Riverview Park Bridge Replacement project is located along
Highway 169 in Renton, Washington, on the Cedar River at approximately River
Mile (RM) 2.7 (Section 16, Township 23N, and Range SE; Sheet 1). The "action
area," where direct or indirect effects of the operation occur, is defined as a
0.5-mile radius around the project footprint to account for the potential effects
of in-water turbidity and airborne noise. The "project area" for this site consists
of the immediate bridge footprint (Sheets 1 and 2).
2.2 Project Description
Page 2
2.2.1 Overview
The proposed project consists of the replacement of an existing pedestrian
bridge over the Cedar River within Riverview Park, a public park owned by the
City of Renton. The bridge provides access from a parking area to the park and
the state-owned Cedar River Trail. The existing bridge was built in the early
1960s and has been repeatedly damaged by floating debris during high water
events, requiring emergency repairs each time. Log jams have historically
formed beneath the bridge during these events causing dangerous situations. In
order to eliminate future damage and dangerous situations, the bridge will be
replaced with a clear span structure so there will be nothing in the waterway for
debris to hit or get trapped on. The clear span will also offer habitat
improvements by removal of creosote-treated piles in the stream channel and
freeing up river bottom and waterway for fish migration.
2.2.2 Existing Conditions
The existing 135-feet-long by 12-feet-wide bridge has a concrete deck and is
supported on three pile bents (Sheets 1 and 2). The north and south bents each
consist of five 12-inch-diameter timber creosote piles. The mid-span bent
consists of four 12-inch-diameter timber creosote piles and one 12-inch-diameter
steel pile (Sheet 3). Utilities including sewer and water are hung beneath it to
serve the park facilities. The bridge provides access to the trail and some toilet
facilities on the south side of the river.
2.2.3 Proposed Pedestrian Bridge
The existing solid concrete deck bridge and 15 piles will be removed, and a new
clear span aluminum bridge (135 feet by 1 O feet) with a grated deck will be
Hart Crowser
March 26, 2014 12132-29
installed in the same location (Sheet 4). The existing three-pile deflector wall on
the south bank will be removed. The north three pile deflector wall will remain
(Sheet 3 ). The sidewalk will be cut where it connects to the bridge at the top of
the bank slope. The new bridge will be supported on foundations constructed at
the top of the bank (Sheet 4). Each abutment will consist of two 12-inch-
diameter steel piles driven at the top of the slope. The sidewalk will be replaced
in the same location (Sheet 5). It is anticipated that removal of existing trees
adjacent to existing bridge will not occur. Native vegetation will be planted on
all sides immediately adjacent to the new bridge.
Bridge Demolition: The bridge will be cut into sections and removed by land-
based cranes situated near the top of both bank slopes and accessed from the
parking lot on the north side and the trail on the south side.
Pile Removal: The same cranes will be used to pull the bridge piles using a
vibratory driver. In the event that any piles break or cannot be extracted, they
will be cut as close to the substrate surface as possible. The deflector wall on
the south bank will be removed by hand digging down and cutting the timber
piles at slightly below existing substrates.
Abutment Installation: An excavator will be used to remove the existing
sidewalk and excavate the area for the foundation at the top of bank. Piles will
be driven using the land-based cranes accessing the site from the parking lot and
the trail. Concrete will be poured on site.
Bridge Installation: The bridge will be installed using the land-based cranes. It
will arrive on site in one piece and be lifted into place.
2.3 Impact Avoidance, Minimization Measures, and Conservation Measures
Hart Crowser
2.3.1 Conservation Measures
Several conservation measures, including in-water construction periods, have
been built into the design of the proposed pedestrian replacement bridge, as
follows:
• Potential adverse effects of this project on listed salmonids will be avoided or
minimized through the adherence of agency-approved work windows when
few outmigrating juvenile salmon and adult spawning salmon are present in
the action area (July 1 -August 31 ).
Page 3
March 26. 2014 12132-29
Page 4
• No construction activities or machinery will occur in the water or the riparian
zone. All staging will occur in either the existing parking lot or the
developed park on either side of the river.
• All creosote-treated piles below ordinary high water will be removed and
properly disposed of at an approved upland disposal facility. Replacement
steel piles will be driven in entirely upland areas.
• Staging, construction activities, or replacement of the bridge will not require
the removal of any adult trees adjacent to the existing bridge. Any shrub
vegetation that is removed as part of construction activities will be replaced
with appropriate native riparian vegetation.
• New bridge decking will be grated to allow for light penetration to the water
and stream banks below.
2.3.2 Best Management Practices
Best management practices (BMPs) will be employed to reduce the potential for
construction-related impacts on listed species and their habitats. The following
construction-related BMPs will be incorporated into the design of the bridge
construction project.
• If debris or spilled material accidentally enters the waterway, immediate
actions will be taken to remove the material. All debris or spilled material
will be properly disposed of at an approved off-site disposal facility.
• Methods for containing debris during overwater demolition work may
include use of tarps or shrouds. Other methods may be identified by the
City or contractor.
• Project construction will be completed in compliance with Washington State
Water Quality Standards WAC 1 73-201 A.
• The contractor will check equipment for leaks and other problems that could
result in discharge of petroleum-based products, hydraulic fluid, or other
material to the Cedar River.
• The contractor will have a spill containment kit, including oil-absorbent
materials, on site to be used in the event of a spill or if any oil product is
observed in the water.
Hart Crowser
March 26, 2014 12132-29
• Piles will be removed using vibratory extraction to the greatest extent
possible. Piles which cannot be extracted will be broken/cut off at the
rnudline.
• Piles will be removed slowly so as to minimize sediment disturbance and
turbidity in the water column.
• Prior to extraction the operator will "wake up" the pile to break the bond
with the sediment and break the friction between the pile and substrate to
minimize sediment disturbance.
• Piles will not be broken off intentionally by twisting, bending or other
deformation in order to minimize creosote release during extraction.
• Upon removal from substrate each pile will be moved expeditiously from the
water into an upland area. Piles will not be shaken, hosed-off, stripped or
scraped off, left hanging to drip or any other action intended to clean or
remove adhering material from the pile.
2.4 Project Schedule
Demolition of the existing bridge is proposed for the summer of 2014.
Construction of the replacement bridge will occur during the summer of 201 5.
This schedule will adhere to agency-approved work windows for in-water work
(July 1 -August 31 ).
3.0 SPECIES INFORMATION
3. 1 Species Information
Hart Crowser
This BE addresses Chinook salmon and stcelhcad trout which have been listed as
threatened under ESA. This section provides environmental baseline
information, including biological data on salmonids, and information regarding
the presence of all species in the vicinity of the action area.
3.1.1 Chinook Salmon
Like all Pacific salmon, Chinook salmon reproduce in fresh water, but most of
their growth occurs in marine waters. Chinook salmon prefer to spawn and rear
in the mainstem of rivers and larger streams (Williams et al. 1975; Healey 1991 ).
Until 2003, spawning redds were observed from River Mile (RM) 0.7 to the
Landsberg diversion structure at RM 21.7. In 2003, passage facilities were built
Page 5
March 26, 2014 12132-29
Page 6
into the diversion, and since then Chinook have spawned above this reach.
Wild Chinook in the Cedar River basin emerge from redds in January, February,
and March, and have two rearing strategies: (1) rear in stream habitats until May
and then emigrate into lake habitat during May and June as pre-smolts; or
(2) emigrate shortly after emergence and rear in lake habitats as fry for 3 to
5 months (City of Seattle 2000).
Stream escapement data for each Chinook salmon stock in the Cedar River
Basin are summarized in Table 1. According to the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI), Cedar
River Chinook salmon are composed of a single summer/fall stock with a
spawning period between early September and early November. The stock is
considered depressed due to a long-term decline in escapements. A prevalent
decline occurred between the years 1980 through 2000, at which the lowest
number of returning fish was observed (120). After 2000, run sizes have
increased, but mean run size is still below historical levels (Salmonscape GIS
database).
3.1.2 Steelhead Trout
Steelhead is the name commonly applied to the anadromous form of rainbow
trout. The species exhibits perhaps the most complex suite of life-history traits of
any of the Pacific salmon. Steelhead can be anadrornous or freshwater
residents, and in some circumstances yield offspring of the opposite life-history
form. The anadromous form can spend up to seven years in fresh water prior to
smoltification, although two years is most common, and then spend up to four
years in salt water prior to first spawning. Unlike the Pacific salmon species,
steelhead are iteroparous (individuals can spawn more than once).
The winter-run stock of steelhead is found in the Cedar River basin, an ocean-
maturing fish that spawns between mid-December and early-June within the
Cedar River. The stock status of Cedar River steelhead is critical due to
chronically low escapements and a short-term severe decline from 2000 to
2012. Annual run sizes during this period were below 50 fish and from 2007 to
2012 have numbered less then 10 fisl} (Salmonscape GIS database; Table 1 ).
3.1.3 Bull Trout
Bull trout spawn in the fall in upper watershed tributaries containing clean gravel
and cobble substrate and gentle slopes, with cold surface waters of 8° C or
lower. The species requires long incubation periods (four to five months)
compared with other salmon and trout. Fry hatch in late winter or early spring
and remain in the gravel for up to three weeks before emerging. Bull trout
Hart Crowser
March 26. 2014 12132-29
typically adopt one of four major residency strategies: (1) residents, which
remain high in the watershed of their emergence; (2) fluvial, which migrate
downstream and reside in mainstem river habitats; (3) adfluvial, which migrate
and reside in large lake systems within the watershed; and (4) anadromous,
which annually outmigrate to marine waters. Reproducing stocks of bull trout in
the Cedar River basin are adfluvial; however, they only occur in the upper Cedar
River basin in or above Chester Morse Lake. These fish are glacial relicts living
above Cedar Falls, which is located a short distance below Chester Morse Lake,
and is a complete barrier to anadromous fish (over 40 miles upstream of the
project area). Water temperatures in the lower Cedar River and Issaquah Creek
are probably too high to support spawning populations of bull trout
(Salmonscape GIS database).
3.2 Inventories and Surveys
Hart Crowser
3.2.1 Chinook Salmon
In the late 1990s, an adult Chinook salmon monitoring program was developed
to document the abundance, locations, and habitat conditions associated with
Cedar River Chinook salmon spawning (Burton 2000; Burton et al. 2013). Cedar
River Chinook primarily use mainstem habitats for spawning, although small
numbers of Chinook redds have been found in tributary streams well upstream
of the project area. Spawn timing is generally between mid-September and mid-
November (Figure 1 ). Spawning tends to be concentrated between RM 5 and
RM 20, though spawning does occur in the vicinity of the project area (RM 2.7).
Within river miles 2 and 3, between O and 20 redds have been observed
annually between 1999 and 2012. Fourteen Chinook redds were observed
within this reach in 2012 and relatively more spawning has occurred in this
reach since 2006. During most years the percentage of redds between river
miles 2 and 3 are 1.5 percent or less of the total, except for years 2008 and
2013, during which they were 3.3 and 3.2 percent of the total, respectively
{Burton et al. 2013; Table 2).
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife conducts periodic production
estimates of juvenile salmon outmigrating from the Cedar River (Kiyohara and
Zimmerman 2011, 2012; Kiyohara and Volkhardt 2008). Production estimates
of juvenile Chinook salmon indicate that over 187,000 juvenile Chinook
outmigrated from the river into Lake Washington in 2011. Estimates show a
general increase in outmigrants since 1998 (Table 3). In 2011, an estimated
82 percent of these fish were small early outmigrants generally between 35 and
45 millimeters (mm) in length with the remainder larger juveniles between 60
and 95 mm. The smaller fish outrnigrate between late January and late April,
Page 7
March 26, 2014 12132-29
while the larger fish (parr) outmigrate between May and mid-July (Kiyohara and
Zimmerman 2012; Figure 2).
3.2.2 Steelhead Trout
No studies have been identified documenting the migration, residence time, or
behavior of juvenile steelhead trout in the Cedar River. Juvenile salmon
outmigrant studies have captured small numbers of juvenile steelhead, but too
few to develop migration estimates. These fish were larger, with lengths ranging
from 158 to 242 rnrn, averaging 186 mm (Kiyohara and Zimmerman 201 2).
Adults have been documented to spawn in the mainstem Cedar River between
mid-December and early June. Very few data on the distribution of spawning
steelhead were identified, but WDFW has reported that no steelhead redds have
been observed below RM 5.2 (WDFW unpublished data).
3.2.3 Bull Trout
As reported, reproducing bull trout stocks in the basin are confined to the upper
Cedar River watershed above Cedar Falls, a natural barrier. These fish are an
adfluvial population that resides in Lake Chester Morse. Bull trout in the lower
Cedar River, Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish or their tributaries have been
rare. The Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory for bull trout/Dolly
Varden char (WDFW 2004) reported one char in Lake Washington in 1981, but
none in Lake Sammamish. Two char were reported holding below a culvert in
the headwaters of Issaquah Creek in 1993. It is possible that these three fish
were anadromous and strayed into the basin via the Ballard Locks and were not
part of local spawning populations. Bull trout have been observed in the
adjacent marine areas of Shilshole Bay as well as the Ballard Locks in 2000 and
2001 feeding on juvenile salmonids and forage fish (USFWS 2007).
It is highly unlikely that bull trout are found in the project or action areas of the
site. No further mention of this species will be made in this BE.
3.3 Critical Habitat
Page 8
3.3.1 Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout
On September 2, 2005, NOAA Fisheries released the final rule designating
critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and other populations of
federally protected salmon species in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. On
January 14, 2013, NOAA Fisheries proposed critical habitat for Puget Sound
steelhead trout. All marine, estuarine, and river reaches accessible to Puget
Sound Chinook salmon are designated as critical habitat, and proposed as
Hart Crowser
March 26, 2014 12132-29
critical habitat for steclhcad, save for a number of watersheds, military lands, and
tribal lands that were excluded. Areas of the Cedar River lie within the
designated critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon and proposed
critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead.
The project and action areas lie within designated and proposed critical habitat
of the Lake Washington subbasin (Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 170, pp. 52630-
52858; Vol 78, No. 9 p 2789). These areas provide spawning, rearing, feeding,
and migration habitat for Chinook, steelhead, and other salmonids. As a result
of these biological functions, these areas are considered to be Primary
Constituent Elements (PCEs) essential to the conservation of the species. NOAA
Fisheries identified six PCEs for Chinook salmon and steelhead; those present
within the project and action areas are:
• Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and
substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development.
• Freshwater rearing sites with: (i) water quantity and floodplain connectivity
to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth
and mobility; (ii) water quality and forage supporting juvenile development;
and (iii) natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large
wood, log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and
boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.
• Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation
with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as
subme"rged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and
boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult
mobility and survival.
3.4 Essential Fish Habitat
Hart Crowser
The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act set forth the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) provision to identify
and protect important habitats of federally managed marine and anadromous
fish species. Federal agencies, such as the USACE, which fund, permit, or
undertake activities that may adversely affect EFH, are required to consult with
NOAA Fisheries regarding the potential effects of their actions on ffH, and
respond in writing to NOAA Fisheries' recommendations.
EFH is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,
breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. "Waters" include aquatic areas and
their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by
Page 9
March 26, 2014 12132-29
fish, and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate.
"Substrate" includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters,
and associated biological communities (NMFS 1999).
Two salmonid species-Chinook salmon and coho salmon-have designated EFH
in the Cedar River. Refer to the relevant EFH designations (Casillas et al. 1998;
PFMC 1998a, 1998b, and 1999) for life history stages of these species that may
occur in the project vicinity. Assessment of the impacts to these species' EFH
from the proposed project is based on this information.
3.5 Existing Environmental Conditions in the Project Area
Page 10
This section presents a summary of existing environmental conditions within the
project and action areas and within the Cedar River watershed.
3.5.1 Hydromodifications
Beginning in 1912, drainage patterns of the Cedar River and Lake Washington
were extensively altered. Historically, Lake Washington and its tributaries were
part of the Duwamish River watershed, and the Cedar River did not flow into
Lake Washington but rather flowed into the Black River and eventually into
Puget Sound via the Duwamish. One of the most significant changes made in
1912 was diversion of the Cedar River into Lake Washington, and construction
and rerouting of the lake outlet through the Lake Washington Ship Canal
(Celedonia et al. 2008).
Until 2003, anadromous access to the upper Cedar River was restricted by the
Landsburg Diversion Dam, located approximately 19 miles upstream of the
project area. In 2003, fish passage was provided on the structure which
provided an additional 20 miles of spawning and rearing main stem habitat
extending up to Cedar Falls, a natural barrier. Cedar Falls is located
approximately 2.8 miles downstream of Chester Morse Lake, a 1,769-acre lake
that is used as part of the City of Seattle municipal water supply (Burton et al.
2013).
The lower river in the vicinity of the project area is a moderate-sized stream with
a median flow of 935 cubic feet per second. It has a natural, rain-driven
hydrograph despite the diversion structures and municipal water use within the
upper watershed. However, there have been many historical alterations to the
mainstem Cedar River due to railroad construction and operations, water
withdrawal, flow regulation, and flood control. Water withdrawals arc the
primary cause for the reduction in the average mainstem channel width from
Hart Crowser
March 26. 2014 12132-29
Hart Crowser
250 feet in 1865 to 170 feet by 19.16. Further flood control structures
constricted the average channel width an additional 1.S percent compared to the
1936 condition to 110 feet (City of Seattle 2000).
Within the project area, the stream channel is approximately 1 00 feel wide and
meanders through a relatively natural, single channel, with vegetated and
relatively steep stream banks stabilized by armor (Photographs 1 and 2). The
existing pedestrian bridge is stabilized with riprap on both banks (Starkes,
personal observations, February 7, 2014; Photograph 3). The river channel
through most of the lower reach is confined and stabilized by levees and
revetments, which has resulted in a loss of connectivity of the river with its
floodplain (Kerwin 2001 ).
The lowest reach of the Cedar River between the mouth and RM 1.6 is entirely
artificial, channelized and confined between levees and revetments; this reach
was regularly dredged to prevent flooding up until the mid-l 970s (Kerwin 2001 ).
Approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the project area. an off-channel spawning
and rearing habitat for sockeye and Chinook salmon was constructed in 2009.
The new spawning and rearing channel occupies approximately 10,000 square
feet and serves as a functional replacement for a groundwater channel that was
destroyed as a result of the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake (USACE 2009).
3.5.2 Water and Sediment Quality
In the project vicinity, the State of Washington classifies the Cedar River as core
summer habitat for aquatic life uses, primary contact for recreational uses,
approved for all water supply uses, and miscellaneous other uses. During heavy
rainstorms and floods, there are temporary periods of high turbidity, but
otherwise there are no other water quality issues. The Washington State
Department of Ecology classifies the reach of the Cedar River in the project
vicinity as meeting tested standards for clean waters (USACE 2009).
Downstream of the project area, from the mouth to RM 1.6, the river
occasionally exceeds state water quality criteria for temperature and fecal
coliform (USACE 2009). Primary non-point pollution sources also occur in this
reach originating from developed areas and include petroleum products, metals,
fecal coliform, solids and pesticides/herbicides. The Logan Street outfall in
downtown Renton regularly discharges water with high concentrations of
metals, suspended solids, turbidity, total phosphorus, and fecal coliform that
exceed water quality standards. Sediment contamination with metals,
hydrocarbons, and other organic compounds have also been documented in the
Page 11
March 26, 2014 12132-29
Page 12
lower reach of the Cedar River, particularly within 0.5 miles of the river mouth in
downtown Renton (Kerwin 2001 ).
3.5.3 Habitat and Biota
3.5.3.1 Riparian Vegetation
Within the project area, the banks on both sides of the river are steep, but highly
vegetated. There is evidence of historic armoring of both banks. Trees present
within the riparian zone in the vicinity of the pedestrian bridge include black
cottonwood (Populus ba/samifera), red alder (A/nus rubra), and big leaf maple
(Acer macrophyllum) that range in size from 10 to 30 inches diameter at breast
height (dbh). Other species growing within the project area include willows and
smaller red alder. Sword fern (Polystichum munitum) were also prevalent on the
left bank. There were also several invasive species present including English ivy
(Hedera helix), Japanese knotweed (Fallopiajaponica), holly (!lexsp.), and
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). Dense patches of Japanese
knotweed covered much of the left bank immediately upstream of the existing
pedestrian bridge.
Other prevalent plant species that are likely present in the immediate vicinity of
the project area include snowberry (Symphoricarpos a/bus), salrnonberry (Rubus
spectabilis), buttercup (Ranuncu/us repens), nettle ( Urtica dioica), vine maple
(Acer circinatum), and Indian plum ( Oemleria cerasiformis, USACE 2009).
Despite the dense vegetation along the river bank, the riparian buffer in the
project area is narrow (less than 50 feet) because of the presence of a parking
area on the right bank and park-like setting composed primarily of lawn on the
left bank (Starkes, personal observations, February 7, 2014; Photographs 4
and 5).
3.5.3.2 Aquatic Habitat
In the project area, river channel substrates are composed primarily of cobble
and gravel between about 0.5 and 4 inches in diameter. The project reach is
entirely run habitat with a small exposed gravel bar on the right bank Several
pieces of large woody debris are situated along the gravel bar (Starkes, personal
observations, February 7, 2014; Photograph 6). A habitat concern on the lower
river below RM 20 is the possible disruption of the natural downstream flow of
gravel, cobble, and boulders by the Landsburg Diversion Dam at RM 21.7. This
possible disruption could cause an altered array of substrate particle sizes and
may effect spawning habitats for salmonids (Kerwin 2001 ). However, redd data
Hart Crowser
March 26, 2014 12132-29
indicate that sufficient gravels arc present for spawning adult salmon in the
general vicinity of the site (Burton et al. 2013).
3.5.3.3 Fish
There are at least 22 species of fish present in the Cedar River (USACE 2009).
The most abundant salmonid present are sockeye salmon; estimates of 4.5
million wild juvenile sockeye and 12.4 million hatchery sockeye outmigrate from
the basin annually (Kiyohara and Zimmerman 2012). Annual escapements of
adult fish range from less than 50,000 to more than 500,000 in the Cedar River.
Adults enter the river from late August through December with spawning
occurring through mid-January. Emerging fry rapidly migrate downstream to
Lake Washington at night from late January through May, with the peak
outmigratory period occurring in March and April. Sockeye salmon were
introduced into the Lake Washington watershed in 1935 from the Baker River
and the first documented adult returns were in 1940. Runs gradually increased
and in 1970 an escapement goal of 350,000 spawners was adopted. Despite
supplementation efforts and harvest restrictions, sockeye returns have· fluctuated
significantly, likely due to freshwater and ocean survival constraints, and because
of an increased frequency of damaging winter floods (WDFW 2002).
Resident species of fish in the river include rainbow ( 0. mykiss) and cutthroat
trout ( 0. clarki1), mountain whitefish (Prosopium wil/iamsom), northern
pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), peamouth chub (Mylocheilus
caurinus). threes pine stickleback ( Casterosteus aculeatus), largescale sucker
( Catostomus macrocheilus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), brook
lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni1), Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus), and
several species of sculpin (Cottidae; USACE 2009).
No information was available examining the benthic and epibenthic
communities in the vicinity of the project area. It is expected that assemblages
would resemble those in gravel/cobble stream run environments.
4.0 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
4.1 Effects Analysis
Hart Crowser
The effects of the proposed pedestrian bridge replacement on ESA-listed species
and their habitats are described in this section. The discussion describes how
activities associated with project actions will contribute to improvement,
maintenance, or degradation of habitats used by listed species. Potential
Pago 13
March 26, 2014 12132-29
Page 14
disturbances caused by project activities are presented in Table 4, along with
measurable indicators of habitat health.
Presented below is a discussion of short-term and long-term direct and indirect
effects of project activities as well as the net effects of those activities. Net effect
is considered to be the overall effect on the species and habitat in the long term.
For example, a short-term adverse condition (e.g., fish avoidance during pile
removal) may be necessary to achieve a long-term improvement in habitat
quality; in such a case, the net effect is positive and would contribute toward
improvement in the habitat indicator. Moreover, if short-term adverse
conditions occur when few or no listed species are present, and if those
conditions are no longer present when listed species return to the area, those
conditions do not constitute adverse modification of the indicator of habitat
quality.
4.1.1 Construction Disturbances
4.1. f. f Short-Term Effects
Direct Effects. Noise and construction disturbances from the proposed bridge
replacement are expected to be minor, but may result in the temporary
avoidance of the project area by listed salmonids. Potential affects will be
minimized by implementing all in-water work during agency-approved work
windows (July 1 -August 31 ), which is well outside of the outmigratory periods
for juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead trout and the spawning period for
Chinook salmon. The great majority of juvenile Chinook outmigrate between
February and June, with a few larger fish migrating in July (Figure 2). Most
Chinook spawn from early September through mid-November (Figure 1 ).
Steelhead spawning has not been documented below River Mile 5 in the Cedar
River, well upstream of the project area.
No in-water pile driving will occur, but existing creosote-treated piles will be
removed with a vibratory pile driver, thus minimizing the disturbance to any
juvenile fish in the area. The few juvenile Chinook salmon that remain in the
river during this period are larger and more able to avoid construction areas.
Because of spawn timing, the relatively small number of Chinook that spawn
near the project area (Table 2), and adherence to the work window, it is highly
unlikely that spawning adults will be exposed to vibratory driving and pile
removal. Removal of these in-water piles will also eliminate a potential long-term
source of contamination to the river in the project area.
Indirect Effects. No short-term indirect effects will result from noise and
disturbances generated by pile removal within the project and action areas.
Hart Crowser
March 26, 2014 12132-29
Hart Crowser
4. 1.1.2 Long-Term Effects
No long-term direct or indirect effects will result from noise and disturbances
generated by in-water construction activities within the project and action areas.
4. 1. 1.3 Net Effects
Pile removal and other construction activities will result in minor and temporary
increases in noise in the project area, possibly causing salrnonids to avoid the
project area for the duration of activities. However, all in-water work will be
conducted during approved work windows, and multiple years of data on the
run timing of listed salmonids indicate that very little exposure, if any, will occur
to adult and juvenile fish. The net effect will be to maintain (neither improve nor
degrade) the present condition of this indicator (Table 4).
4.1.2 Water Quality
4. 1.2.1 Short-Term Effects
Direct Effects. Vibratory pile removal may result in temporary and localized
increases in turbidity that may result in avoidance of the immediate area by
juvenile and adult salrnonids. Turbidity is not expected to be high given the
cobble/gravel substrates at the location of existing piles. Given the larger
substrate and grain size and lower organic content of sediments, increased levels
of turbidity are likely to be very temporary. In addition, all work will be
conducted during agency-approved work windows when the great majority
juvenile salmonids have outmigrated out of the project area and adult salrnonids
have either completed or not yet begun spawning.
Juvenile salmon have been shown to avoid areas of unacceptably high turbidities
(Servizi 1988), although they may seek out areas of moderate turbidity (10 to
80 nephelometric turbidity units [NTU]), presumably as cover against predation
(Cyrus and Blaber 1987a, 1987b). Feeding efficiency of juveniles is impaired by
turbidities in excess of 70 NTU, well below sublethal stress levels (Bisson and
Bilby 1982). Reduced preference by adult salmon horning to spawning areas
has been demonstrated where turbidities exceed 30 NTU (20 milligrams per liter
[mg/L) suspended sediments). However, Chinook salmon exposed to 650 mg/L
of suspended volcanic ash were still able to find their natal water (Whitman et al.
1982). Based on these data, it is unlikely that any short-term (measured in
minutes) and localized elevated turbidities generated by pile removal operations
would directly affect salrnonids or other fish species that may be present.
Page 15
March 26, 2014 12132-29
Page 16
Indirect Effects. No short-term indirect effects will result from increased
turbidities generated by pile removal within the project and action areas.
4.1.2.2 Long-Term Effects
Long-term direct effects on water quality are expected to be minor but positive.
Removal of creosote-treated piles will improve water quality by the elimination
of potential contaminant sources.
4.1.2.3 Net Effects
Short-term adverse effects resulting from increased turbidity are likely to be
minor and temporary, ceasing after pile removal operations are completed.
Long-term effects arc expected to positive with the removal of potential
contaminant sources from the stream channel. Therefore, the net effects of the
project will be to maintain or improve water quality in the project and action areas
over the long term (Table 4).
4.1.3 Sediment Quality
4.1.3.1 Short-and Long-Term Effects
As the result of pile removal, short-and long-term direct or indirect effects to
sediment quality are anticipated to be minimal or positive. Removal of creosote-
treated piles will eliminate a potential long-term source of contamination from
the stream channel.
4.1.3.2 Net Effects
The net effect of proposed dredging will be to maintain or improve sediment
quality in the project and action areas (Table 4 ).
4.1.4 Habitat and Biota
4.1.4.1 Short-and Long-Term Effects
Direct and Indirect Effects. As noted, in-water work will take place during
approved work periods when few juvenile salmonids or adult spawning salmon
are expected to be present. Short-and long-term direct and indirect effects of
pile removal are expected to be positive. Removal of 14 treated wood piles
and 1 steel pile will increase the amount of stream channel habitat that can be
used for epibiota colonization, salmon spawning, and rearing juveniles by
approximately 11.8 square feet. Removal of the existing deflection wall and
Hart Crowser
March 26, 2014 12132-29
nearbank piles will improve edge habitats for juvenile fish. Removal of mid-
channel piles will improve potential spawning habitat and remove potential
impediments to migration.
The proposed new pedestrian bridge will also have grated decking, which will
improve light penetration to the stream channel, potentially improving primary
productivity in the stream reach. It is not anticipated that any mature trees will
require removal to place the new bridge, and any areas of shrub removal will be
revegetated; thus, only minimal effects on the existing riparian zone will occur.
4. 1.4.2 Net Effects
Net effects on habitat and biota will be positive, improving rearing and spawning
habitats, as well as the migratory corridor within the stream channel. The
proposed actions will improve habitat and biota quality within the project and
action areas (Table 4 ).
4.2 Net Effects of Action
The net effect of the proposed actions in the project and action areas will be to
maintain or improve the overall habitat quality for listed species relative to
current conditions (Table 4 ).
In-water work will be limited to the removal of existing creosote-treated and
steel piles, which will improve habitats by removing a potential contaminant
source and removing impediments to both existing edge and mid-channel
habitats. Adverse effects will be limited to short-term avoidance during pile
removal operations. Conducting the work during approved work windows will
minimize this exposure to outmigrating juvenile salmon and to spawning adult
salmon.
4.3 Critical Habitat Analysis
Hart Crowser
As reported, critical habitat has been designated for the Puget Sound Chinook
salmon evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) and proposed for the Puget Sound
steelhead trout distinct population segment (DPS). The PCEs for each species
are identical. The following is a specific analysis of the effects of the proposed
project on the critical habitat of these species.
Page 17
March 26, 2014 12132-29
Page 18
4.3.1 Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout
Three PC Es for the critical habitat of Chinook salmon and proposed critical
habitat for steelhead trout are relevant to the project and action areas:
• Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and
substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development.
• Freshwater rearing sites with: (i) water quantity and floodplain connectivity
to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth
and mobility; (ii) water quality and forage supporting juvenile development;
and (iii) natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large
wood, log jams and beaver darns, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and
boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.
• Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction and excessive predation
with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as
submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and
boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult
mobility and survival.
Within the Cedar River project and action areas, physical and biological features
that contribute to PCE functions for Chinook salmon and steelhead include:
• Water quantity and substrates that are sufficient to support adult salmon
spawning;
• Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity to support juvenile rearing and
growth;
• Limited vegetation and large woody debris to provide natural cover; and
• Freshwater migration corridor generally free of obstructions to support
juvenile salmon mobility and outmigration.
The project area has vegetated but relatively steep revetments, and so does not
have any significant side channels, undercut banks, or connectivity to the
historical floodplain.
Hart Crowser
Marcil 26. 2014 12132-29
Hart Crowser
4.3.2 Detailed Analysis
Direct effects on critical habitats or proposed critical habitats are expected to be
temporary and highly localized, limited to the proposed removal of existing piles
within the stream channel. Potential impacts can be summarized as follows:
• Pile removal will increase the area where fish can spawn by approximately
11.8 square feet. Pile removal will have no effect on cobble/gravel quality or
quantity in the project or action areas. There could be avoidance by
spawning adults during the period of pile removal; however, these potential
effects will be minimized by the adherence to approved work windows to
avoid spawning fish. These effects will cease once the piles are removed.
Thus, pile removal will not degrade and possibly could enhance the existing
critical habitat f'CEs for spawning Chinook salmon and steelhead.
• Removal of the deflection wall and near bank piles will improve edge
habitats for rearing juvenile fish by providing more area for epibenthic
colonization and removing unnatural impediments in near bank edge
habitats. The proposed new bridge will also be constructed with grated
decking to allow additional light penetration thus improving primary
productivity over existing conditions. Existing mature trees will not be
removed and any shrub removal will be revegetated. Thus pile removal will
improve the PC Es for rearing juvenile Chinook salmon and steel head.
• Pile removal will remove physical impediments to upstream migration and
the use of grated decking will reduce impacts from unnatural and sharp
contrasting shadows on outmigrating fish. Pile removal will also occur
during approved work windows to avoid the juvenile salmon outmigratory
period. Thus the project will improve PC Es for outmigrating juvenile
Chinook salmon and steclhead.
4.3.3 Summary of Potential Effects on Critical habitat
Based on the analyses provided above and in the BE, it can be seen that the
proposed project has the potential to affect only three of the six PCEs for
Chinook salmon and steelhead trout-spawning and rearing sites, and migration
corridors.
The analyses provided above lead to the conclusion that the proposed project
will result in no net degradation of these PCEs and probable improvements;
therefore, existing critical habitat for Chinook salmon and proposed critical
habitat for steclhead trout will remain fully functional to serve the conservation
needs of the species.
Page 19
March 26, 2014 12132-29
4.4 Essential Fish Habitat
The project could potentially adversely affect EFH for Chinook salmon and coho
salmon by temporarily altering spawning and rearing habitat during the removal
of 15 existing 12-inch-diameter piles within the stream channel and the removal
of some vegetation within the riparian zone. Habitat disruption will be limited to
temporary increases in turbidity during the construction period, after which EFH
will be improved. Spawning and rearing EFH for the salmonids will be improved
by removal of creosote-treated piles which may act as a potential contaminant
source, increasing the total amount of spawning habitat by 11.8 square feet, and
removing impediments to migration.
Impacts to the riparian zone will be minimized by preserving all mature trees
and revegetating all areas where shrubs are removed with native vegetation.
4.5 Interdependent, Interrelated, and Cumulative Effects
No interdependent, interrelated, or cumulative effects are anticipated. The
project will replace an existing pedestrian bridge within the same footprint.
5.0 TAKE ANALYSIS
Page 20
Section 3 of the ESA defines take as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, trap, capture, collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct." The
USFWS further defines "harm" as "significant habitat modification or degradation
that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavior
patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering," and "harass" as "actions that
create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to
significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited
to breeding, feeding or sheltering."
No measurable or significant effects on listed salmonids are expected; any
effects that occur would consist of minor and temporary changes in movement
patterns, would be discountable, and would not constitute a significant
disruption of normal behavior patterns. Thus, no incidental take is expected to
occur. Therefore, project actions will not result in the taking of Chinook salmon
or steelhead.
Hart Crowser
March 26, 2014 12132-29
6.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT
NOi\i\ Fisheries/USl'WS guidelines for the preparation of biological assessments
state that a conclusion of "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" is the
" ... appropriate conclusion when the effects on the species or critical habitat are
expected to be beneficial, discountable, or insignificant. Beneficial effects have
contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects .... " Insignificant
effects, in the NOAA fisheries/USFWS definition, " ... relate to the size of the
impacts and should never reach the size where take occurs [One would not
expect to] ... be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant
effects." Based on the analyses in this BE, the expected nature and level of the
impacts of the proposed project follow.
Although the conclusion of this BE regarding salmonids is focused on Chinook
salmon, it is applicable to steelhead trout as well. Because steelhead are not
documented to spawn in the project area and juveniles outmigrate at a much
larger size, this species is likely to be less affected by both the negative and
positive aspects of each project component. Bull trout have also not been
documented within the lower Cedar River; it is highly unlikely that the adfluvial
stocks present within the upper Cedar River watershed will be present within the
lower river. This BE leads to the following conclusions regarding the potential
effects of the proposed project on listed salmonids:
Effects from proposed project activities will be minor, temporary, and highly
localized to the immediate pile removal footprint within the Cedar River.
Turbidity will be highly localized and temporary and noise will be limited to
those emanating from vibratory pile removal during approved in-water work
windows. Ultimately, pile removal will improve both spawning and rearing
habitats on the long-term. Therefore, Riverview Bridge Replacement Project
may affect, hut is not likely to adversely affect, Chinook salmon and steelhead
trout, or their designated or proposed critical habitat. For the same reasons,
proposed project actions will have no effect on EFH within the project and
action areas.
7.0 REFERENCES
Hart Crowser
Bisson, P.A. and R.E. Bilby, 1982. Avoidance of Suspended Sediment by Juvenile
Coho Salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 4:371-374.
Burton, K.D., A. Bosworth, and H. Berge, 2013. Cedar River Chinook Salmon
Redd and Carcass Surveys: Annual Report, Return Year 2012. Seattle Public
Utilities, Seattle, Washington.
Page 21
March 26, 2014 12132-29
Page 22
Burton, K.D., 2000. Temporal and Spatial Distributions for Cedar River Chinook
Salmon spawning activity, 1999. Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, Washington.
Casillas, E., L. Crockett, Y. deReynier, J. Glock, M. Helvey, B. Meyer, C. Schmitt,
M. Yoklavich, A. Bailey, B. Chao, B. Johnson, and T. Pepperell, 1998. Essential
Fish I labitat, West Coast Groundfish, Appendix. National Marine Fisheries
Service, Seattle, Washington.
Celedonia, M.T., R.A. Tabor, S. Sanders, D.W. Lantz, and I. Grettenberger, 2008.
Movement and Habitat Use of Juvenile Chinook Salmon and Two Predatory
Fishes in Lake Washington and Lake Washington Ship Canal: 2004-05 Acoustic
Tracking Studies. US Fish & Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish &
Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington.
City of Seattle, 2000. Cedar River Watershed I labitat Conservation Plan For the
Issuance of a Permit to Allow Incidental Take of Threatened and Endangered
Species. Seattle, Washington.
Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber, 1987a. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile
Marine Fishes in Estuaries. Part 1: Field Studies at Lake St. Lucia on the
Southeastern Coast of Africa. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology, 109:53-70.
Cyrus, D.P., and S.J.M. Blaber, 1987b. The Influence of Turbidity on Juvenile
Marine Fishes in Estuaries. Part 2: Laboratory Studies, Comparisons with Field
Data and Conclusions. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology,
109:71-91.
Healey, M.C., 1991. Life History of Chinook Salmon ( Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha). C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific Salmon Life Histories.
UBC Press, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Kerwin, J., 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors Report for the
Cedar-Sammamish Basin (WRIA 8). Washington Conservation Commission,
Olympia, Washington.
Kiyohara, K. and M. Zimmerman, 2012. Evaluation of Juvenile Salmon
Production in 2011 from the Cedar River and Bear Creek. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
Kiyohara, K. and M. Zimmerman, 2011. Evaluation of Juvenile Salmon
Production in 2009 from the Cedar River and Bear Creek. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
Hart Crowser
March 26, 2014 12132-29
Hart Crowser
Kiyohara, K. and G. Volkhardt, 2008. Evaluation of Downstream Migrant
Salmon Production in 2007 from the Cedar River and Bear Creek. Washington
lJepartment of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 1999. Essential Fish Habitat
Consultation Guidance. Office of Habitat Conservation, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), 1998a. Final Environmental
Assessment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (October 1998). PFMC, Portland,
Oregon.
PFMC, 1998b. The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan:
Amendment 8 (December 1998). PFMC, Portland, Oregon.
PFMC, 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix A:
Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and
Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon (August 1999). PFMC,
Portland, Oregon.
Salmonscape GIS Database. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
h lip:// apps. wd fw. w a.gov/ sal rn o nsca pe /.
Servizi, J.A., 1988. Sublethal Effects of Dredged Sediments on Juvenile Salmon.
C.A. Simenstad, editor. Effects of Dredging on Anadromous Pacific Coast
Fishes. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Tabor, R.A., H.A. Cearns, C.M. McCoy Ill, and S. Camacho, 2006. Nearshore
Habitat Use by Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Lentic Systems of the Lake
Washington Basin, Annual Report, 2003 and 2004. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2009. Cedar River Side Channel
Replacement Project. Final Environmental Assessment. King County,
Washington. Seattle District, US Army Corps of Engineers.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2007. Endangered Species Act -Section
7 Consultation. Biological Opinion. Operation and Maintenance of the Lake
Washington Ship Canal, Lower Sammamish River 171100120301, Cedar River
171100120302, and Shell Creek 171100190401. King County, Washington.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 2002. Lake Washington
Sockeye. http:www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/sockeye/background.htm.
Page 23
March 26. 2014 12132-29
Page 24
WLJFW, 2004. Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory: Rull Trout/Dolly
Varden.
Whitman, R.P., T.P. Quinn, and E.L. Brannon, 1982. Influence of Suspended
Volcanic Ash on Horning Behavior of Adult Chinook Salmon. Transactions of
the American Fisheries Society, 111 :63-69.
Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames, 1975. A Catalog of Washington
Streams and Salmon Utilization. Volume 1. Puget Sound Region. Washington
State Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington.
UUU 2\029\Riverview Bridge i.!<>placf'nwnl BE 032514\Riveiview BE 032514.doc
Hart Crowser
March 26, 2014 12132-29
Pentec Environmental
March 26, 2014 12132·29
TABLES
This page is intentionally left blank
for double-sided printing.
Table 1 -Escapement of Chinook Salmon and Steel head Trout in the
Cedar River, 1980-2012
Year Chinook Steel head
1980 1360
1981 624 1668
1982 763
1983 788 2575
1984 898 1250
1985 766 474
1986 942 1816
1987 1540 1172
1988 559 858
1989 558 686
1990 469 714
1991 508 621
1992 525 599
1993 156 184
1994 452 70
1995 681 126
1996 303 234
1997 227 620
1998 432 584
1999 241 220
2000 120 48
2001 810 42
2002 369 38
2003 562 20
2004 587 44
2005 525 22
2006 1090 32
2007 1729 8
2008 788 4
2009 474 0
2010 496 2
2011 626 4
2012 1175 0
12132/029/R1verv1ew Bndge Replacement BE 032614fTable 1.xls
Source: WDFW Salmonscape GIS Database
Table 2 -Total Number of Chinook Salmon Redds in the Cedar River
and Between River Miles 2 and 3
Redds
Year Total No. of Redds Between RM 2-3 % of Total
1999 182 0 0
2000 53 0 0
2001 390 1 0.2
2002 270 1 0.3
2003 336 0 0
2004 511 1 0.2
2005 339 0 0
2006 588 8 1.3
2007 899 1 0.1
2008 599 20 3.3
2009 285 3 1.1
2010 265 4 1.5
2011 322 5 1.5
2012 433 14 3.2
00132\029\R1ve1V1ew Bndge Replacement BE 032614\Tables\T.ible 2 R1ve1v1ew docx
Source: Burton et al. 2013
Table 3 -Estimated Abundance of Juvenile Chinook Salmon
in the Cedar River, 1998-2010
Juvenile Abundance
Year Fry Parr Total
1998 67293 12811 80104
1999 45906 18817 64723
2000 10994 21157 32151
2001 79813 39326 119139
2002 194135 41262 235397
2003 65875 54929 120804
~
2004 74292 60006 134298
2005 98085 19474 117559
2006 107796 14613 122409
2007 691216 78584 769800
2008 124655 14883 139538
2009 115474 36916 152390
2010 153126 34680 187806
00132\029\R1verv1ew Bndge Replacement BE 032614\Tables\Table 3-Rrverside.docx
Source: 1998-2010 (Kiyohara and Zimmerman 2012)
Table 4 -Effects of Project Activities on Habitats Used by ESA-Listed
Species in the Project and Action Areas
Effects of Action
Project Habitat Indicator Improve' Maintain' Degrade' Activities
Construction Noise X
Disturbances Entrainment X
Stranding X
Water Quality Turbidity X
Disturbance Chemical contamination/nutrients X
Temperature X
Dissolved oxygen X
Sediment Sedimentation sources/rates X
Disturbance Sediment quality X X
Habitat Fish access/refugia X X
Disturbance Depth X
Substrate X X
Slope X
Shoreline X X
Riparian conditions X
Flow and hydrology/current patterns/ X
saltwater-freshwater mixing patterns
Overwater structures X
Disturbance X
Biota Prey: epibenthic and pelagic zooplankton X
Disturbance lnfauna/Epibiota X X
Prey: forage fish X
Aquatic/wetland vegetation X
Nonindigenous species X
Ecological divers~y X
W.\CLIENTS.WP\00132\029\R1verview Bridge Replacement BE 032614\Tables\Table 4 Riverview.doc
Notes:
2
Action will contribute to long-tenn improvement, over existing conditions, of the habitat indicator.
Action will maintain existing conditions.
3 Action will contribute to long-term degradation, over existing conditions, of the habitat indica
Pentec Environmental
March 26, 2014 12132-29
FIGURES
This page is intentionally left blank
for double-sided printing.
1999
} H· '" I ci .;_gi PO " ,. "" n " ;i §~n:: '" ' 0 0 ' ' ' ' • " ' 9
0 -----------
2000 " ! .. '" j f... g ... 120 o:: ·= i 80 ' ' ' " ' ' ' ' ' ~ ... 1311: 40 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 ---------
'" 2001 '-"'->< 160 ,oo
.8 ... ~&:1201 '" I I " Eo:.:ll so
0 ' ' ' ' " " ' 0 0 ;i .<>(311:: 40 • • 0 0 -------
2002 " f··"'j ts:.IJ 1~g " n " ;i .agca: 40 0 0 0 ' ' " • • • " 7 7 0 0
0 0 ------• 2003
j.l'h "' I " ''° " " '6 0: ,!i 1 " • ,0 ;i 3 i3 Iii! " 0 0 ' 0 ' ' • • ' ' 0
0 ---• ---
'" 2004 •. p; '" I " '" " I n " ~<I.a~! " 0 0 0 " • • • " ' ' 0 " 0 • z o" 0 ----
2005 , ,~·"'I ,06 " .<>... o"' 120 I " §0 1.1:1 so
0 0 0 0 ' " " • " 0 ' ' z ... 1311: 40 • 0 0 ------,,. ,,. 2006
J; !~·"'l '" O o"' 120 " I I I "' i i~! :g 0 0 0 0 0 • • " ' 0 0
0 0 --
'" m 2007
J 1··"'1 "'
ci 1-~i 1~8 " I I I " " 0 0 0 0 " • • " 7 0 Z "'i3 D:: 40 • 0 0 ---
"' B3 2008
.ii l"•'"l I "" ... §"' 120 " I • " f"=·-11 80 0 0 0 ' " • " ' 0 0 .o i3 II: 40 • 0 0 ----
2009 1 i··'"j 0 .. §; 120 " " " " " _a·-80 0 0 0 0 " • • ' ' 0 0 01311:: •g ------
2010
j_)ii]~~ " " '3 §Q ·=! 80 " ,0 7 0 0 0 0 ' • ' ' 0 z 36 4g --------
2011
I,Hi :~l " " " OS
;i 3§n:: 48 0 0 0 0 ' " • • • " ' ' ' -------
L!h "' l '" 2012 "" " " I " §"i~! ~ -~
0 0 ' '
,. • • ,0 ' ' 0
z o" -~ ----------
N ro ' -,; ro ~~ ;,~ ,:, "' ~M ~g .'."' 'M vo ~N ~v ~-~~ ~ -NN N~ ---N . ti ---N ~~ >;;. _N
di~ ci:, gi -~ i. ri_ .,.a s.1 ~ " /lo ti ts ti ti . ti 00 > ~ ao • • /lo 1Jz ~<( ~<( ~ ID ID ID ~. io 00 00 zz ~z ,jl ID .1l u, ID
Riverview Bridge Replacement
Source: Burton et al. 2013 Renton, Washington
Temporal Distribution of Cedar River Chinook
Redds Below Landsburg Dam, 1999-2012
12132-29 03114 -Figure -1 11/JRrOfOWSER
9,000 6.000
c:::=::::J Pre-Trapping = 1.798 Irv
8.000 f. = Inclined-Plane Trap~ I 76.005 fry
r -Screw Trap = 9. 909 parr • 5.000
7.000 f\~---Post-Trapping~ 94 parr
':;•: ........... Flow
"'
i V -6.000 = ' 4.000 = ...
"" :::i :; 5.000 --
C .._ • 3.000 :,; ' C 4.000 ::. ~ ... ~ ;': " ., • .-. :;;, : :,: .. ~ -= ,.
3.000 " ·-~ !-: 2.000 :::, ,.,
;z . ·. ....... \/ ·•
2,000 ~ w ; • ~ ;· : ' ..
_)I~\. ' ; ... ' ··· ..... --·-; ··~t\.: . -1,000 :.; il I
.. _ .... ,-..
1,000 .. .J·····
'V' "•. ...•
&. • .• I
•. .
' -0 Ii 0 --
01 01 0131 0302 04 01 05 OJ 05 31 06'30
Date
Source: Kiyohara and Zimmerman 2012
~--. Riverview Bridge Replacement BE
Renton, Washington
Estimate Number and Migratory Timing of
Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the
Cedar River in 2011
12132-29 03114 -Figure -HI.IRTOtolNSER. 2
Pentec Environmental
March 26, 2014 12132-29
SHEETS
This page is intentionally left blank
for double-sided printing.
PAClflC
00:AN
;:_
• PURPOSE: BR ID GE
l MAINTE NA NCE
~
·!
~ DATUM : NAVO 88 i ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
::-1. CITY OF RE N TO N
8 2 . STA TE OF WA DOT
-."' ~~
CANADA u. s . ._ FLOOO ELEVATION: +54.5 ft, NAVD 88
OHW: APPROX . +46.5 ft
LAT: 47'28'37.90"N
LONG: 122 "10'46.64"W
BASE FLOOO ELEV ATION: ~54 .5 ft
£\t'.REn
VICINITY MAP
MOSCN.I
RIVERVIEW PARK
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
VICINITY AND SITE MAP
CITY OF RENTON PAR KS, P LANNIN G,
AND NATURAL RESOU RCE S
1055 S. GRADY WAY
RENTON, WA 9805 7
PROPOSED: REPL ACE EX IS TING
BR IDGE IN SI TU
IN: CEDAR RIVER
AT: RENTON, WA, KING CO.
SEC.16, TWP.23N, RC.SE
APPLICATION BY:
Cl TY OF RE N TON
SHEET 1 of 5 DATE: MAR . 2014 ~·~
~~
____________________________ __. _____________ ___.
!
I
-----·
. I> ..
. I
• I
I
DEMOLISH EXISTING
BRIDGE AND APPROACH
& 0 5 10 20 30 FT.
DEMOUllON NOTES:
DEMOLISH (I ) I 2" ~ SlEEL PILE
APP ROXI MA lE
TOP Of BANK,
DEMOLISH ( 14) 12" ~ llMBER CREOSOTE PILES
j .,_ _________________ i-....------'I _________________________ .....
c:. ~ PURPOSE: BR IDGE
I MAINTENANCE
~ a.
I ~ DATUM: NAVO 88
RIVERVIEW PARK
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
AND DEMOLITION PLAN
~ ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: ~ 1. CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON PARKS, PL ANN I NG,
~ 2. STATE O F WA DOT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PROPOSED: REPLACE EXISTIN G
BRIDGE I N SI TU
IN: CEDAR RIVER
AT: RE NTON, WA, KING CO.
SEC.16, TWP .23N, RG.5 E
APPLICATION BY:
Cl TY OF REN TO N
{:: 1 0 55 S. GRADY WAY
?·! RENTON, WA 98057 SHEET 2 of 5 DATE: MAR . 2014 ~a..._ ____________ __..._ _____________ __. _____________ ___.
SOUTI-1 BANK
~ PURPOSE: BRIDGE
l MAINTENANCE
I ~ OATUM: NAVO 88
DEFLECTION WALL
TO BE REMOVED
1J5'-0"
EXISTING ELEVATION
NOT TO SCALE
TIMBER
POST, T'1'P.
TIMBER
SULLR AIL, TYP.
8'' CONCRETE
DECK
1.
1.
' l
' I'
I•
l
SECTION A-A
NOT TO SCALE
W18 STEEL
BEAM, T'r'P.
TIMBER
CAP
12"'1 STEEL
PILE
DEFLECTION WALL
TO REt.!AIN
OHW ELEV. +46.5'
12"!11 llUBER CREOSOTE
PILE, TYP.
APPROXl~A TE
GROOND
RIVERVIEW PARK PROPOSED: REPLACE EXISTING
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT BRIDGE IN SITU
EXISTING ELEVATION IN: CEDAR RIVER
AND SECTION AT: RENTON, WA, KING CO.
~ ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: ~ 1. CITY OF RENTON
SEC.16, TWP.23N, RC.SE
CITY OF RENTON PARKS, PLANNING, APPLICATION BY:
6 2. STATE OF WA DOT AND NATURAL RESOURCES CITY OF RENTON .~ 1055 S. GRADY WAY
RENTON, WA 98057 SHEET 3 of 5 DATE: MAR. 2014
~-o'·i
~~
..._ ___________ ..._ ___________ __,..._ ___________ _.
EXISTING SID£
SLOPE, TYP.
I i
~ PURPOSE: BRIDGE
I MAINTENANCE
! ~ , DATUM: NAVO 88
~ ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: ~ 1. CITY OF RENTON
~ 2. STATE OF WA DOT
<N
o• ~~ ~-
1J5'-0~
CEDAR RIVER
PROPOSED ELEVATION
O 5 10 20 30 FT.
~
GRATED
DEO<JNG
CEDAR RIVER
PROPOSED PLAN
0510 20 JOFT.
RIVERVIEW PARK
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
PROPOSED PLAN
AND ELEVATION
CITY OF RENTON PARKS, PLANNING,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
1055 S. GRADY WAY
RENTON, WA 98057
NEW ALU~INUM ARCHED TRUSS
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE CONCRETE
WALKWAY, TYP.
EXISTING DEF1£CTICN WALL
12"<6 STEEL PILE, TYP.
'~\1 i
I + I
l' i ~ 0 ~ 'f
1ro STEEL PILE,
1'1'. (BELOW)
i
EXISTING
DEFLECTION
WALL
I
.J
PARKING
~
PROPOSED: REPLACE EXISTING
BRIDGE IN SITU
IN: CEDAR RIVER
AT: RENTON, WA, KING CO.
SEC.16, TWP.23N, RG.5E
APPLICATION BY:
Cl TY OF REN TON
SHEET 4 of 5 DATE: MAR. 2014 ;;-~
____________ ...._ ___________ ___...__ ___________ ...
TOP OF DECK
ELEV. +62.95'
ALUMINUM
HANORAI~ TYP \
ca,!CRETE
BACKWALL\
TOP Of
EXISTING SU:PE __ _
ALUMINUM DECK ALUMINUM
BEAM, TYP. GRATING COOCRETE
BACK WALL ~-.
CCNCRETE
WINGWAU.. T'1'P.
CONCRETE
CAP
GROUNO
'• ' ::--/ "
: ' s' ;
UTILITY LINES
AS REQUIRED •
·~. :-_
.-t
ALUMINUM
FlOOR BEAM,
,.
9'-4~ 1-------------~I
(l PILE ~ PILE
ABUTMENT ELEVATION, TYP.
CONCRETE
BACKWALL 8" ----•H-
D--------
. • I
12·i STEEL PILE
BELOW, T'r'P.
CONCRETE
Yt1NGWALL, TYP .
• ~
' 6
i
• i
]
~ PURPOSE: BRIDGE
~ MAINTENANCE
~
!
~ DATUM: NAVO 88
ABUTMENT PLAN
CONCRETE
CAP
RIVERVIEW PARK
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
ABUTMENT
DETAILS
~ ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: ~ 1. CITY OF RENTON
5 2. STATE OF WA DOT
•N
~~
H
CITY OF RENTON PARKS. PLANNING,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
1055 S. GRADY WAY
RENTON, WA 98057
//.
' , '
b :) ·' . ...
1r, STEEL
PILE
SECTION B-B
El. +62.95
PROPOSED: REPLACE EXISTING
BRIDGE IN SITU
IN: CEDAR RIVER
AT: RENTON, WA, KING CO.
SEC.16, TWP.23N, RG.SE
APPLICATION BY:
CITY OF RENTON
SHEET 5 of 5 DATE: MAR. 2014 ~~ .__ ___________ .._ ___________ ......,...._ ___________ -1
This page is intentionally left blank
for double-sided printing.
Pentec Environmental
March 26, 2014 12132-29
APPENDIX A
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
This page is intentionally left blank
for double-sided printing.
Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon & Steelhead
Spctie-\1
C11rrent
T::11d,mgered
Specir.. ,kt
ESA lijfi11g Actiom
l,"nd,n Review ----------------------------~-----------Sn~keRinT ........
s,x~cyt· s~i.m,,1
(Ona,,/,rnd:m
l!<"J"l.-11)
Chinook :-.almon
(0. lsh""Yl5cllll)
Coh-0 Salmon
\ 0. tisurd,)
· C'hum Salmon
ro. keta)
S1eelh1:,1d
: (0 rnyt;MJ
Pink Salmnn
9
IO
II
" Jl
14
IS
16
17
" 19
20
)I
"
" '4
" 20
" " i '.!9
: JO
JI
3'.!
' JJ
" i J5
; 36
; 31
" )9
" 41
4'
: 43
i 44
i " " : 4~
48
! 4')
,0
Ozetre Lake
ll~ker Rin,r
Quinalt L:i1c
Lake Pleasant
Sacrament,, Rin,r Winter-run
!;we, Columbia Ri\'u Spring-run
Snake R1,·er Spnng,Summer-run
: Snake R1nir Fall-run
PuJ,>et Sound
· Lower Columbia Rl\·er
Upper Willamenc Riva
Central Valle,· Spring-nm
Cahfom1a Coastal
. Central \iallev Fall and Lal~ Fall-nm
Upper Kfamath-Trinilv R11·ers
Oregon r,a~
Washington Coasi
Middle Columbia Ri\'er spring-nm
Upper Columbia Rivc:r summcr.'fall-run
1 Southan Oregon and Nnnhem Cahfom1a CoaSl
I Deschutes Ri1'er summei. fall-run
· Cmtnl California Coa.'il
; Southern Oregon. Nonhcm (3lifom1a
Ul"'·er Columbia Ril't:r
Oregon Coas,
Sou1hwc:st WashmGlon
Pugel Sound"Slrait of Georgia
1 Olvmpic PrninSllla
: Hood {"anal Summer-run
Colwnbia River
P\l_\!ct So.,nd/Swut of Georgia
' Pacific Coa5\
Southern ('11ifomia
: lipper Columbia Rfrer
; Cmlral California Coast
: South Centr.il California Coa~I
Snake Ri1·er Ba5ia
L.ower Columbia Ril'er
California Central Valle-,
· t:pper V. itlamene Ri ,,c,-
Middle Columbia Ri,·e,·
~onhc"n 01lifomia
i Oreg.on CooSI.
: Soulhwest Wa~hin:.::tcn
' Ol)mpi~ Peninsula
Pu~d Sound
Klamalh Mount aim• Pml'ince
,\'Qt Warranted
,'-.'o/Warranll'd
,',i(I( Warronted
Sot l/'a17anwd
.\"QI Warronted
,\'Qf Warnrnted
,\'0/ WalTilnted
Undetermined
NQ/ Wamwed
NQ/ w.,rnv1red
N"' fl'a1-romrJ
• CnnciH habita!
! jJ : (0. gorbusc/1<1)
! 5'.! '
'Jl,~ ESA dcli,IC'f, ~ "1pci:,~~" 10 111dui,k ~11y dis1inl1 p,;ipufalmn segmenl of an)' species of,·er,ebrate fi$h or wildlife. F<:ir Pacific salmon, NOA.>\
Fisheries Ser,·icc considers an c;olutionnril, signifiqnt umL or ~csu.·· • ''spce,~--un<kr the F.SA. For P-.ici fie steclhead, NO/\A Fisheiie1, Sen·,c~
ha5 delineated dis1inct popula1ion scgmenl.'I (D/'Ss) for rons1deratrnn as "spcc1e,t under1he [SA.
LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL
HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN
LISTED
IN KING COUNTY
AS PREPARED BY
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE
(Revised March 15, 2012)
Bull trout (Sa/velinus conf/uentus)
Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)
Gray wolf (Canis lupus)
Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos = U. a. horribilis)
Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)
Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)
Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to
listed animal species include:
1. Level of use of the project area by listed species.
2. Effect of the project on listed species' primary food stocks, prey species, and
foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project.
3. Impacts from project activities and implementation (e.g., increased noise levels,
increased human activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat) that may
result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area.
Castilleja levisecta (golden paintbrush) [historic]
Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project
impacts to listed plant species include:
1. Distribution of taxon in project vicinity.
2. Disturbance (trampling, uprooting, collecting, etc.) of individual plants and
loss of habitat.
1. Changes in hydrology where taxon is found.
DESIGNATED
Critical habitat for bull trout
Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet
Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl
•
PROPOSED
None
CANDIDATE
Fisher (Martes pennanti) -West Coast DPS
North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) -contiguous U.S. DPS
Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) [historic]
Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)
Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis)
SPECIES OF CONCERN
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus /eucocephalus)
Belier's ground beetle (Agonum be/Jeri)
Cascades frog (Rana cascadae)
Hatch's click beetle (Eanus ha/chi)
Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larsel/ij
Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis)
Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans)
Northern goshawk (Accipiter gen ti/is)
Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni)
Northwestern pond turtle (Emys (= Clemmys) marmorata marmorata)
Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)
Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata)
Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii)
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)
River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi)
Tailed frog (Ascaphus truei)
Valley silverspot (Speyeria zerene bremeri)
Western toad (Bufo boreas)
Aster curtus (white-top aster)
Botrychium pedunculosum (stalked moonwort)
Cimicifuga elata (tall bugbane)
This page is intentionally left blank
for double-sided printing.
Pentec Environmental
March 26. 2014 12132-29
APPENDIX B
PHOTOGRAPHS
This page is intentionally left blank
for double-sided printing.
•
Hart Crowser, Inc.
12132-29
Photograph 1 -Cedar River within the project area downstream of the existing pedestrian
bridg e .
Photograph 2 -Stee p , vegetated banks with bank revetments showing adjacent to the
pedestrian bridge.
Hart Crowser, In c.
12132-29
Photograph 3 -Existing pedestrian bridge showing creosote-treated pile bents and armored
banks.
Photograph 4 -Parking area immediately above the riparian zone adjacent to the pedestrian
bridge (right bank).
Photograph 5 -Riverview Park adjacent to the pedestrian bridge (left bank).
Hart Crowser, Inc.
12132-29
Photograph 6 -Grave l bar and la rge woody debris downstream of the pedestrian bridge.