Muckleshoot concerns put plug in 520 tunnel idea

The Muckleshoot Tribe has entered the debate over a new Highway 520 bridge, telling lawmakers in Olympia that it opposes a tunnel that would connect the highway to the University of Washington.

The tribe's opposition, based on environmental and cultural concerns, boosts the odds that lawmakers won't decide this session what kind of interchange should be built on the west side of Lake Washington.

Late last month, the usually reticent House Speaker Frank Chopp made clear that he, along with his constituents in neighborhoods near Washington Park Arboretum, preferred the tunnel — known as "Option K."

But with Chopp, the governor and other legislative leaders all locked in a power struggle over plans to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct and the 520 floating bridge, the tribe's timing — whether politically astute or coincidence — could complicate efforts to settle on options this spring.

The tribe holds a fair bit of leverage in dealing with large projects on Lake Washington, where it holds treaty fishing rights to protected runs of salmon.

The tribe's involvement will likely help keep other options on the table, which some in Olympia applauded.

"I think there were people who came into this legislative session hoping they could get some reference to Option K in a 520 bill," said Ron Judd, the governor's senior transportation adviser. "We don't think that's good policy."

He and other lawmakers said the Legislature should instead stay focused on passing a tolling bill that could start raising money and begin constructing the bridge's pontoons. Other decisions, they said, can wait until federal agencies and the Washington State Department of Transportation finish reviews detailing how all options could affect wetlands, salmon habitat and fish migration to Lake Union.

The issue for salmon

Some environmental concerns already are known. The area where 520 approaches the Montlake Cut is a gantlet where all seagoing salmon in Lake Washington pass on their way to and from Puget Sound and the Pacific Ocean.

Building a tunnel under the Cut would require digging nearby ditches that could disturb fishing access for several years and could stir up sediments, ultimately harming fish. Artificial lighting used during construction could attract bass and pike minnow, which are natural predators of juvenile salmon.

The other 520 options pose different problems for salmon, but the state has maintained that any new bridge project also would — for the first time — collect stormwater runoff, a vast improvement for fish.

Publicly the tribe has been cryptic about its concerns.

"There are a number of fishery-related concerns with each of the 520 replacement alternatives being considered, including tunneling in the Montlake area," tribal spokesman Rollin Fatland said in a statement. He said the tribe was working with state and federal agencies on environmental reviews.

But it was made clear to lawmakers this week, including Chopp, that the tribe had particular concerns with the tunnel.

Tribe's natural concern

Chopp this week seemed not at all surprised the tribe opposed the option he preferred. "They have a natural reason for being concerned about the water bodies, particularly Lake Washington, so it's not unusual," he said. "They've done that in many, many other projects."

Chopp said the concerns were legitimate, but "I'm sure we'll deal with it."

Earlier this month, a 520 bridge-toll bill in Olympia called for including a tunnel under the Montlake Cut as Chopp had suggested, even though the state has said that option would cost $2 billion more. The tunnel was eventually stripped from the bill for now; Chopp has not indicated how hard he'll push for that option this session.

Judd and others said the tribe's objection shows that calling out one option this early could complicate matters quickly.

"I think the tribe's move is good, quite frankly," said Mike Grady, the branch chief for environmental reviews of road projects for the National Marine Fisheries Service. "In my judgment, you end up with a better product if you let the environmental review play out with a public process first."

Staff writer Andrew Garber contributed to this story.

Craig Welch: 206-464-2093 or cwelch@seattletimes.com