RCAA
Regional Commission on Airport Affairs
19900 Fourth Avenue SW
Normandy Park, WA 98166-4043
Comments Regarding the
Port of Seattle's Application
for Section 401 Certification
by the Washington State
Department of Ecology
Submitted by RCAA
Reference: 1996-4-02325
Date: December 13, 1999
All Rights Reserved
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 3
1.1. Subject 3
1.2. Identity of Commenter 3
1.3. Interest of Commenter 3
1.4. Limited Scope of Comments 4
1.5. Notes, Glossary, References, etc. 4
1.5.1. Notes & references 4
1.5.2. Abbreviations 4
1.5.3. Glossary 4
1.6. History
2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES
2.1. The Notice
2.2. The Notice Delivery
2.3. Accuracy and Completeness
2.3.1. Incomplete List of Relevant Documents
2.3.2. Inaccurate Information as to Other Documents
2.3.3. Documents Not Listed
2.3.4. Location of Corps' Office
2.3.5. Missing Documents
2.3.6. Missing Documents Not Available for Review
2.3.7. Late Documents
2.3.8. Problems for the General Public
2.3.9. Needless Burdens on Interested Public Groups
2.3.10. Superseded Documents
2.3.11. Responsibility; Solution
2.3.12. Incomplete and Inaccurate Documents
2.3.13. Selective Release of Documents
2.4. Piecemealing
2.4.1. What IS the Project under Review?
2.4.2. Piecemealing the Documentation
2.5. Problems with the Public Hearing
2.5.1. Insufficient Time Allowed
2.5.2. Lack of Identification of Self-Described
Experts
3. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
3.1. Related Proceedings Are Pending
3.2. Hydrology Studies
3.3. Maury Island Mining Review
3.4. Hazardous Waste Issues
3.5. Issues Concerning Toxics in Material
Proposed for Use in Filling Wetlands
3.6. Auburn Wetlands
4. FACTORS REQUIRING DENIAL OF PERMIT
4.1.Water Quality
4.1.1. Ecology Must Consider the Cumulative Impacts
of All Current and Proposed Activities at Sea-Tac Airport in Evaluating the
Proposed Discharge
4.1.2. Washington's Water Quality Standards and
Toxic Effluent Standards
4.1.3. The DOE Must Prohibit Violation of State
Water Quality Standards and Toxic Effluent Standards as a Condition of any
Permit Issued
4.1.4. Water Quality Continues to Fail Meeting
Standards
4.2. The Port's Proposed Stormwater
Management Plan
4.3. ESA Issues
4.3.1. Coho Salmon
4.3.2. Migratory Birds
4.3.3. Habitat Issues
4.3.4. Other Marine and Riparian Biota at Risk,
Especially Amphibians
4.4. Wetland Impacts
4.4.1. Wildlife Hazard Management
4.5. Alternatives
4.5.1. No Build Alternative
4.5.2. The Alleged Delay Problem is Non-existent
4.5.3. Technological Improvements Considered
4.6. New Cost Benefit Analysis Needed
4.7. Benefits and Costs Incongruent
4.8. Offsite Impacts
4.9. The Wall
5. FACTORS REQUIRING RETURN OF APPLICATION FOR
FURTHER WORK
5.1. Return of Application for Further
Work
5.2. Missing Documents
5.3. Inadequate Analysis
6. CONDITIONS THAT SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON APPLICANT
IF PERMIT IS GRANTED
7. CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
References Concerning Scope of
Projects, Cumulative Impacts, Procedural Issues, SEPA/NEPA
References Concerning
Alternatives to Proposed 3rd Runway
References Concerning Rising
Runway Cost Estimates/Airline Position on 3rd Runway Proposal
References Concerning Wetlands/Mitigation
References Concerning Aquatic
Habitat Issues
References Concerning
Stormwater and Water Quality Issues at Sea-Tac
References Concerning Model
Toxic Control Act (MTCA) Issues at Sea-Tac
Additional References
Reports referenced in Port
documents not available to the public as of November 29, 1999
Copies of this
document may be obtained:
RCAA
Document Number: DOE/401/1996-4-02325
19900 Fourth Avenue SW
Normandy Park, Washington 98166
e-mail: rcaa@earthlink.net
These are the comments of the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs concerning the revised application submitted by the Port of Seattle, as owner-operator of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, requesting that the Washington State Department issue a certification that the project will meet the requirements of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"). The pendent application is a revision of an earlier application, notice of which was issued to the public in December 1997. The public notice of the revised application is dated 30 September 1999. These comments supplement oral remarks made on behalf of this commenter by its Vice President, Allan M. Furney, at the occasion of the joint hearing on the application held during the evening of 3 November 1999, at Foster High School in Tukwila, Washington. If granted, the permit would allow the Port to proceed with construction projects at Sea-Tac airport including an additional dependent runway 8,500 feet in length. The central project under discussion in the pendent application is commonly known as the third-runway project.
Regional Commission on Airport Affairs
19900 Fourth SW
Normandy Park, Washington
WA
98166-4043
Telephone number: 206.824.3120
FAX number: 206.824.3451
Website is: www.rcaanews.org/rcaa
The commenter is often known as the "RCAA", and that abbreviation will be used hereafter.
RCAA is a Washington not-for-profit corporation. RCAA is a citizens group concerned with airport and aviation issues, particularly in King County, Washington. Its Board of Directors governs RCAA, with input from numerous volunteers and from endorsing and supporting organizations. The mission of RCAA is to achieve a long-term integrated plan for air and surface transportation to meet the competitive needs of Washington State, and to achieve immediate and permanent reduction in noise and other adverse environmental impacts from commercial aircraft in the Puget Sound region.
Since its founding, RCAA has been concerned with the future of public air transportation in the State, and especially with proposals for expansion of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. RCAA has closely followed and actively participated, to the extent permitted, in such processes as:
·
Port-PSRC study referred to in § 1.6 infra
·
State Air Transportation Commission
·
State High-Speed Rail Commission
·
Expert Arbitration Panel review ordered by the Puget Sound
Regional Council (see § 1.6 infra)
·
The environmental review of the site-specific portion of the
proposed third-runway project (submitting extensive scoping comments at the
start of that process, following with extensive comments on the Port of
Seattle's draft and final environmental impact statements (1995), followed by
extensive comments on the Port's Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(1997), Port of Seattle 1997.
·
Representatives of the organization have spoken and
testified at numerous public hearings, have submitted comments & critiques,
and have encouraged others in similar activities
·
RCAA has commissioned expert studies of particular issues
& has submitted those studies to appropriate official bodies involved in
airport & transportation issues and related environmental issues.
RCAA has concluded that the project is deleterious to the general interests of the people and commerce of the State of Washington, and of King County, and that the project will not achieve the goals set forth by the project’s proponents. It is also the least effective & most expensive of the several alternatives proposed for dealing with either the general problem of increased air traffic for the State or for the purported bad-weather arrival delays at Sea-Tac airport.
These comments are not intended to be all-inclusive, or exhaustive of the topics that they address. RCAA relies on the administrative expertise of the reviewing agencies (in this case, the Washington State Department of Ecology) to be fully aware of the relevant & applicable statutes, regulations, and case law. RCAA also relies on the reviewing agencies to have appropriate experts peruse all documents in the administrative record with a critical eye, and to call to the attention of the responsible officials in writing, and as part of the administrative record) all matters requiring expert interpretation. Therefore, we feel it neither necessary nor appropriate to analyze in these comments the entire administrative record. Rather, it is the intent to focus on issues that are of particular interest to our organization, and as to which we have developed our own body of expertise over the years. We do not profess legal expertise, nor expertise as to soils science, geo-technical and seismic issues, environmental engineering, or construction of very large retaining walls; as to those subject areas, we adopt as our own, by this reference, the comments of the Airport Communities Coalition. RCAA does have institutional expertise on air-transportation-planning issues (including "delay" and capacity) and on water-quality and other environmental issues in the Highline area (the part of King County immediately surrounding Sea-Tac Airport).
Literature and documents relied on are listed in the endnotes. The number assigned to each such document in our endnotes makes references to such documents in the text of these comments.
The following abbreviations are used in the text:
|
Abbreviation |
Definition |
|
FAA |
Federal Aviation
Administration, a component part of the U.S. Department of Transportation |
|
HSD |
Highline School
District, a Washington school district that owns & operates numerous
public schools in cities and unincorporated areas near the Airport |
|
PSRC |
Puget Sound
Regional Council: the Federally
mandated coordinating organization for Federally funded transportation
projects, covering King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap Counties |
|
RCAA |
Regional Commission
on Airport Affairs |
Most technical terms used in these comments are self-explanatory in the context of these proceedings.
|
Term |
Definition |
|
Airport |
Standing alone
refers to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport |
|
Applicant |
The Port of Seattle |
|
Application |
standing alone, or
not qualified, means the application referred to in the Notice; in the broad
sense, "Application" includes all documents lodged with the
Department of Ecology and the Corps of Engineers by the Applicant in support
of the applicant's request for issuance of a permit under § 404, Clean Water
Act |
|
Corps |
standing alone
means the Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers |
|
Delay |
in the context of
scheduled commercial passenger traffic to & from the Airport, has no
clear, certain, or generally accepted meaning |
Cont'd in Part 2</P>