_______________

Home

SE Bypass
- A Chronology

EIS Analysis
- Adequacy Review

Iss. Environ. Council
Biological Assessment Peer Review

Issaquah Voices

Ms. Connie Marsh, President,
Issaquah Environmental Council
1175 NW Gilman Blvd, #B-11
Issaquah, WA  98027

Dear Ms. Marsh,

As requested, this letter summarizes my professional conclusions and recommendations regarding the possible impacts of the proposed Issaquah Southeast By-Pass on local fisheries resources (Alternative 5, North C – South A alignment). Although the project appears to have potential impacts on flooding, wetlands, and wildlife, my comments are limited to my area of expertise: fisheries ecology and management, particularly of salmon and trout.

This project has been in various stages of planning over the past decade and a number of planning documents have been prepared. Most information used in my review was obtained from the following documents (abbreviated references shown in parentheses):

• Streams and Fisheries Technical Report, Southeast Issaquah Bypass Environmental Impact Statement, Herrera Environmental Consultants, September 1998 (SFTR 1998)
• Southeast Issaquah Bypass, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and 4f Evaluation, June 2004 (DSEIS 2004)
• Southeast Issaquah Bypass, Interstate 90 to Front Street South, Biological Assessment, Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, Bull Trout, Bald Eagle, June 2004 (BA 2004)
• Concurrence Point 3 Packet, Southeast Issaquah Bypass Project, March 2005 (CP3 March 2005)
• Concurrence Point 3 Packet, Southeast Issaquah Bypass Project, Revised December, 2005 (CP3 December 2005)
• Concurrence Point 3 Packet, Southeast Issaquah Bypass Project, December 31, 2005 – Attachments (CP3 Attachments A-I)
• Conceptual Mitigation Plan, Southeast Issaquah Bypass Project, Concurrence Point 3, Revised December 31, 2005 (CP3 Mitigation Plan)
• WDFW letter on non-concurrence, April 25, 2005 (WDFW April 2005)

The project area streams contain a number of fish species and are used for spawning and rearing. The East Fork of Issaquah Creek supports Chinook and coho salmon and steelhead. The North Tributary supports juvenile coho, kokanee, steelhead, and other species common to small streams although this stream is currently only accessible to anadromous salmonids at high flows due to a partial barrier. The barrier is being removed this year, however, making the north Tributary fully accessible for up- and downstream migration. Some salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout use the South tributary for spawning and rearing (SFTR 1998). All these streams may also support cutthroat trout, kokanee, longnose dace, speckled dace, redside shiner, three-spine stickleback, sculpin spp., Pacific lamprey, large scale sucker, and river lamprey.

Assuming the project proceeds as generally planned (CP3 December 2005), there are a number of impacts that can be expected on fish. Although the Concurrence Point 3 Packet (CP3 December 2005, Section 7.1.1) states there will be no direct impacts to fish, there are several indirect effects that have either been minimized in the planning process or not addressed at all.

Increased Stream Flood Discharges. Increases in the amount of impervious surfaces have the potential to significantly increase the deleterious effects of stream flooding on fish: erosion of eggs from gravel beds, dislocation of rearing fish from stream habitats, and increased erosion and disturbance of stream habitat structure and configuration. Depending on the configuration of the final project, stormwater runoff could have increased effects on fish and fish habitat in East Fork Issaquah Creek, the North tributary, and the South tributary (Kees Creek). Furthermore, increased stormwater discharged into any or all of these tributaries create the possibility of increased flooding effects deleterious to fish in the mainstem of Issaquah Creek, since they all eventually discharge to the mainstem of Issaquah Creek.

There are three major unresolved issues about the project design that argue for additional studies prior to making conclusion regarding runoff effects on fisheries. First, in reviewing Section 7.7., it is clear from the stormwater retention pond descriptions that the extent of infiltration is unknown; infiltration rates are assumed for the report (CP3 December 2005). Lack of infiltration will both increase the likelihood and frequency of flood-like conditions and will reduce groundwater discharge (discussed further below).

The second unstudied issue that will affect stream flooding is the detention pond capacity and the relation to storm event intervals. As presently configured, the ponds are intended to "….meet the predeveloped, forested runoff rates for peak flows and durations between ½ of the 2-year storm and the 50-year storm, assuming forested pre-developed conditions. If soil conditions are favorable, infiltration will be incorporated into the detention pond design. An infiltration facility will return between 95% and 100% of rainfall to groundwater." (CP3 December 2005, section 7.7.). There are four problems with this concept relative to the current design.

• The South Ponds S-2 and S-3 are in the 100-year floodplain. Therefore, during a large flood, they will be ineffective, so can only be counted as ameliorating flooding when they are not already flooded.
• The discharge of runoff from North Pond N-2, South Pond S-1, and South Pond S-2 is into wetlands. While at first glance this sounds innocuous, it actually may still result in stream flooding because, once those wetlands are full, they will start overflowing, and find other outlets to the streams.
• The North Tributary downstream of South Pond S-2 is acknowledged to likely receive increased discharges in events larger than the 10-year interval (CP3 December 2005, Section 7.10). It is incorrectly rationalized that the increased discharges will not result in increased erosion because of the relatively flat gradient. However, the increases in flow will enter Issaquah Creek, where it will contribute to elevated frequency and intensity of flood discharges in that stream.
• Setting the design target to meet "….between ½ of the 2-year storm and the 50-year storm…." is misleading because it’s based on statistics from the past, not on what the streams and fish can withstand before damage is done.

The third unresolved issue is how the project will affect flood flows, and associated effects on fish and their habitat in the South tributary. The Concurrence Point 3 Packet states that the only stream potentially affected by the project is the North Tributary (CP3 December 2005). However, Figure 2 of Concurrence Point 3 Packet shows the project overlapping the South Tributary somewhat (CP3 December 2005). There is already a flooding problem in the South Tributary during high runoff. Under present conditions, water has frequently been observed backing up in the South Tributary when Issaquah Creek is at high flows. Then the South Tributary backs up over the Issaquah-Hobart Rd. and flows along Sixth Ave and into the North Tributary. If the new roadway is elevated higher than Issaquah-Hobart Rd, to raise it above this flooding situation, the backup of South Tributary floodwaters will be worsened. The effects of the project on the South Tributary need to be reconsidered in project planning.

Increased run-off of sediments, contaminants, and heavy metals. Increased road surface and traffic levels can result in a greater potential for road-related contaminants that enter project area streams. Although there are several implications in the Concurrence Point 3 Packet that there will be no project impacts to water quality, the following statement is also found. "Water quality treatment will also be provided for project site runoff in accordance with the stormwater manual requirements. Flows will be treated up to the water quality design storm, which is equivalent to treating 91% of the total average annual runoff volume (per the Ecology manual). For stormwater discharges to surface waters, enhanced treatment and phosphorus treatment will be provided. The specific treatment facilities have not been identified, but for now are assumed to be large wet ponds as illustrated on Figure 2." (CP3 December 2005, Section 7.7).

This raises concerns in several ways. First, although the criteria is to treat 91% of the total annual run-off, contaminant events critical to fish can happen as a result of the other 9%. There have been numerous documented cases of fish kills due to road run-off carrying contaminants into streams and these tend to happen under the extreme conditions of "flash floods". Second, the more subtle and insidious aspects of contaminant loading in wetlands and streams includes the effects on the microorganisms and invertebrates that are the basis for healthy aquatic food chains. There is a high potential for both lethal and sublethal effects from imperfect treatment and/or the untreated portion of the runoff. Third, the statement above clearly indicates that the scoping for treatment capacity has not yet been completed. Therefore it is not yet possible to determine the potential effects on fish resources from the project.

Changes in Flow Patterns. In addition to the extreme damage that can be done to stream fish and their habitats due to increased flooding, as described above, similar damage can be done to stream rearing juvenile salmonids and all life stages of stream resident fish due to reductions in flows at the low end the range. In particular, low summer flows are well-documented to be the primary limiting factor for juvenile coho salmon.

In Section 7.9 of the CP3, several scenarios are used for calculations supporting statements that the reduction of aquifer recharge will be minimal. This may be true for the aquifer as a whole. However, determining the effect on local stream recharge involves additional considerations. For example, determinations should be made on the percent of localized recharge that flows back into the nearby streams, rather than only calculating the entire aquifer recharge.

It is also important to consider the subsurface flow patterns that influence streamflow. Small-scale changes in infiltration, especially during summer and early fall could become critical in that diversion of infiltration from one area of the project to one of the infiltration ponds, may actually move the water from one subsurface lense to another, in effect moving it from one stream to another, or from a stream to the larger aquifer.

This is exemplified by the statement that "Drainage captured from behind the [retaining] walls will be conveyed to facilities designed to infiltrate this water." (CP3 December 2005, Section 7.9). This type of change may, in fact, divert water previously infiltrated to one stream into a different stream, or away from the streams altogether.

There are a number of issues regarding the regulatory process that generate concern for the protection of fisheries resources. These are addressed by topic as follows.

The Concurrence Process. Protection for fish species and their habitat can be overlooked or misrepresented through the concurrence process where, at some stage, a conclusion is drawn that there will be no impact given the general intent of the design criteria, even though the final design may turn out to be deleterious to fish. This is because under a preliminary design, the decision is made that there will be no effect, but the final design does turn out to have an effect. For example, the BA of 2004 states for Chinook salmon Puget Sound ESU that the appropriate designation is "May affect, and is likely to adversely affect" as a result of this project (BA 2004). Yet, in the Concurrence Point 3 Packet there is no mention of negative effects on this or any other fish species, even though the project may have effects on these species, depending on the final design.

As a case in point, there is a reference to previous projects in WDFW’s non-concurrence letter: "Storm-water impacts have occurred in the Issaquah Highlands development and I-90 Sunset Interchange projects which were not anticipated, resulting in failure to infiltrate storm-water and blowout type erosion of steep slopes." ((WDFW April 2005). This demonstrates that development projects do have unanticipated impacts, even though there is a planning process designed to prevent them.

Overlooked Species. While several of the planning documents mentioned species other than ESU species, for the most part they have been overlooked. The project may have effects from stormwater discharge, contaminants, and/or reduced summer stream flows, as described above, which could impact a number of species. The two important species most likely to be affected are juvenile coho and steelhead. Yet there is very little reference to these species in the planning documents. There is hardly any mention of other freshwater fish species except to mention they are likely to be present in the project area (DSEIS 2004), but no further mention of them in CP3 (December 2005).

Lack of fish use information. There is actually only a limited amount of information available about fish use in the project area, especially in the North and South tributaries. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has cited a lack of this information; "The assumption of fish absence was invalid" (WDFW April 2005). Rather than basing decisions on assumptions about fish use, a thorough survey of fish use, especially juvenile salmonids and all non-salmonids, should be conducted in all the streams planned to receive discharge so that potential impacts can be evaluated.

Steelhead Proposed for Listing. The Puget Sound steelhead is now proposed for listing as threatened under the ESA, as of March 2006. A final determination, if one is warranted, should occur within a year (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Steelhead/STPUG.cfm). The project may have influence on steelhead spawning and rearing, as described above under "Likely Impacts to Fish". Steelhead should be reconsidered in the planning process.

It is difficult to predict the exact effects of a development project on surrounding natural resources. The true effects are only measurable after the project is completed and even then are sometimes difficult to measure. Suffice to say that a wealth of experience has demonstrated that projects such as the Southeast By-Pass have incrementally contributed to the loss and reduction of important fisheries resources throughout the Puget Sound area.

Specific conclusions about how this project still threatens fisheries resources are:

1. Without further studies of project-induced stormwater runoff, fish and their habitat in streams around the project area, including East Fork Issaquah Creek, the North and South Tributaries of Issaquah Creek, and Issaquah Creek, may be injured by the project.

   Recommendation: Initiate detailed rainy season studies on how the project depends on or will influence surface runoff, retention pond sizes and locations, localized infiltration rates, specific groundwater movement patterns, and downstream flooding, at a finer scale than previously determined, for the entire project area, including the effects on Issaquah Creek, the East Fork, and the North and South Tributaries.

2. More scoping and analysis is required to determine the potential for contaminant-related fish kills and harm to other aquatic ecosystems from this project.

   Recommendation: Implement a study to determine how the flow, infiltration, and runoff patterns described under Conclusion 1 influence the ability of the proposed retention ponds to serve as treatment facilities.

3. Reductions to summer low flows in streams, critical to juvenile salmonids and other fish, are likely from the project.

   Recommendation: Detailed, localized groundwater flow patterns should be analyzed in the late summer relative to project design.

4. The Concurrence Point regulatory process results in premature or inappropriate conclusions that the process will have no effect on fisheries.

   Recommendation: The likely project effects need to be re-evaluated and clearly articulated in light of the final design choice (Alternative 5, North C – South A alignment).

5. The regulatory process does not provide sufficient consideration for all species and primarily focuses on ESA-listed or candidate species.

   Recommendation: Consideration of project effects on fisheries should include all species.

6. Decisions are currently being based on assumptions about fish in project-area streams.

   Recommendation: A thorough investigation of seasonal use of all project area streams should be conducted.

7. There is a need for updating the BA and the CP3 for the changed status of Puget Sound steelhead under ESA.

_____________________Dr. Knudsen's Resume_____________________

Since 2003 -- Consulting Fisheries Scientist, 13033 Sunrise Dr, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273, Home/Office Phone: 360-424-5767, Cell Phone: 907-229-4876, e-mail: ericknudsen@gci.net

Peer-reviewed publications 21
Non-Peer-reviewed Proceedings/Technical 7
Significant final reports 16
Recent Invited Presentations (1995-present) 12
Other Recent Presentations (1995-present) 28
Recent Posters (1995-present) 10