(Note: This FAQ was taken from the Army Corps of Engineers website. The original was at http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/pao/MoreHotWindow.cfm?recno=27 on 12/14/02.
| Frequently Asked Questions--Third Runway Permit Decision |
Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the 3rd Runway Permit decision by the Army Corps of Engineers Q: Why did the Corps issue a permit to the Port of Seattle for the 3rd Runway construction? A: The Corps believes the project is in the public interest and in compliance with the applicable federal laws and regulations in the Corps’ Regulatory program. The Corps completed a public interest review and Section 404(b)(1) evaluation that included assessments of alternatives, wetland impacts, compensatory mitigation, and water quality. The Corps also conducted a thorough review of wall design, cumulative impacts, and other impacts to the human environment. The Port adequately addressed the issues raised by the Corps and by the public. Q: Opponents for the 3rd Runway have raised concerns about impacts to water quality - did the Corps take water quality issues into account before making this decision? A: Yes. The Corps worked closely with the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Port of Seattle to assure that water quality issues were carefully addressed. Ecology must issue a State Water Quality Certification to the Port in order to do work under the Corps permit. The State Water Quality Certification was issued on September 21, 2001. The Corps also considered the additional conditions resulting from the PCHB decision and imposed those conditions we believe are necessary to meet Federal requirements. Q: How would it impact the Corps’ permit if the Ecology certification were to be overturned? A: The Corps permit requires the applicant to have a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the State in order to do work under our permit. The Corps considers the Water Quality Certification issued on September 21, 2001 to be valid and compliance with this permit is a condition of the Corps’ permit. If the pending appeals of the Pollution Control Hearing Board’s (PCHB) decision by either the Port, Ecology, or ACC were to change either the Water Quality Certification or the PCHB conditions, the District Engineer has the option of modifying, suspending, or revoking the Corps permit. Q: Why didn’t the Corps add all of the PCHB conditions as special conditions to the Corps’ permit? A: The Corps must include any Water Quality Certification (WQC) conditions issued within the 1-year waiver period from the date of WQC application, which began Jan. 17, 2001. Therefore, compliance with the Section 401 WQC issued Sept. 21, 2001, within the 1-year period, is a condition of the Corps permit. The PCHB decision was issued on August 21, 2002, after the 1-year waiver period expired, and the Corps is not required to incorporate changes by the State after the 1-year waiver period. However, the Corps did evaluate each PCHB condition to determine whether they needed to be added as special conditions to the Corps permit and ended up adding 6 of the PCHB conditions. The State, including the PCHB, can require different or additional conditions than what is required by the Corps to meet Federal requirements. Q: Opponents to the 3rd runway project expressed concerns regarding the structural integrity of retaining wall proposed as part of this project - did your process evaluate the wall in any way? A: Yes. We asked our own structural experts to evaluate the design of the wall and asked the Port for structural data for the wall. The Corps' experts believe the wall design is structurally sound. Q: Did the Corps evaluate the structural integrity of the proposed retaining wall in light of the high likelihood of seismic activity? A: Yes. We asked our own structural experts to evaluate the integrity of the wall in an earthquake and asked the Port for structural data for the wall. The Corps' experts believe the wall design is structurally sound. Q: A great deal of the mitigation for wetlands impacts from this project will be undertaken out of the Miller Creek basin. Why does the Corps think this mitigation is adequate? A: The Corps performed an extensive review of the wetland functions, project impacts, and proposed compensatory mitigation (see Appendix C of the Record of Decision for this review). The Corps determined the November 2001 Natural Resource Mitigation Plan (NRMP), as amended, adequately compensates for the project impacts. Corps’ guidance states compensatory mitigation projects that have the potential to attract waterfowl and other bird species that might pose a threat to aircraft should not be sited with the limits specified by the Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular on Hazardous Wildlife Attracts on or near Airports. Therefore, in our review of the NRMP, we made sure all the functions being impacted, except habitat for waterfowl and other bird species, were mitigated for on-site. The off-site mitigation at Auburn provides the mitigation for passerine birds and waterfowl that cannot be located close to the airport for safety concerns. Q: Exactly what kind of wetlands impacts does this project cause and how will they be mitigated? A: The functions supported by the wetlands include water quality (sediment, nutrient, heavy metal, toxic, and organics removal), hydrology (reduction of peak flows, decreasing erosion, groundwater recharge and discharge), and general habitat suitability (fish and amphibian habitat, aquatic food web conditions, invertebrate habitat, terrestrial bird, waterfowl, and other wildlife habitat, and native species richness). The proposed project will permanently impact 19.62 acres and temporarily impact 28.78 acres of wetlands. The on-site mitigation includes 11.95 acres of restoration, 22.32 acres of enhancement, 54.93 acres of buffer (primarily riparian) enhancement, and 2.35 acres of wetland preservation. The off-site mitigation includes 29.98 acres of creation, 19.50 acres of enhancement, and 15.90 acres of buffer enhancement. Q: What is the Corps’ involvement with the proposed material conveyor belt project? A: Wescot Company (Environmental Materials Transport L.L.C.) has submitted an application for a proposed conveyor belt project consisting of an offloading pier for fill material offshore of Des Moines marina and a 4.8 mile conveyor belt transport system to move material to the Port’s construction site. The Corps considers this application as a separate action. The Corps has assigned this project file number 2000-1-01481. The Corps is currently consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service for compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act on this project. Q: Did the Corps take impacts to listed species, such as chinook salmon, into account? A: Yes. The Corps relied on information obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as the lead federal agency coordinating review under the Endangered Species Act. The FAA received concurrence from the National Marine Fisheries Service and a biological opinion from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that the 3rd Runway project was not likely to adversely affect listed species. The Corps could not have made its permit decision without ensuring that ESA requirements were met. Q: Why was the Army involved in the 3rd Runway proposal? A: One of the Federal laws that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers implements is Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This law requires that a Federal permit be obtained from the Corps for discharging dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The Port of Seattle is proposing to permanently impact 19.62 acres of wetlands, fill and relocate 980 feet of Miller Creek, and impact 1,390 linear feet of drainage channels in Miller and Des Moines Creeks. Q: Did the Corps complete an EIS for this proposal? A: The Port of Seattle, together with the Federal Aviation Administration, completed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed expansion at SeaTac airport, according to the procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EIS was completed in 1996. In 1997, based on new air travel demand forecasts, the FAA completed a supplemental EIS. The Corps of Engineers was a cooperating agency for the EIS process to ensure that the methods used in the analysis of information were consistent with our regulations. As a cooperating agency we adopted those EIS documents. Q: Why was a second supplemental EIS not completed for this proposal? A: In following both the Council of Environmental Quality and Corps’ NEPA guidance, the Corps carefully reviewed the additional information submitted since the publication of the Final Supplemental EIS. The Corps has determined relevant to environmental concerns, the design modifications do not represent substantial changes and the additional studies and reports do not represent significant new information and circumstances relevant to economic concerns. The Corps also afforded the public an opportunity to provide comments on these revisions to the project and has independently reviewed the additional information to ensure the “technical or procedural adequacy” of the EIS. Based on the Corps’ review of the Final EIS, the Final Supplemental EIS, and the changes to the project since that time, the existing Final EIS and supplement are technically and procedurally adequate for the Corps to make a decision. Q: When was the original application submitted? A: The Corps received the first complete application from the Port in 1996. The Corps sent out the first public notice in December 1998. A revised public notice, after additional wetlands were included in the proposal, went out in September 1999. The Corps received the most recent application in late October 2000. The Corps sent out the second revised notice December 27, 2000, with an erratum dated January 17, 2001. Q: Why was the permit application resubmitted to the Corps? A: When the first revised public notice was published in 1999 to fill wetlands and waters of the U.S. (as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act), the Corps’ public notice started the Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Certification process. The State has one year in which it must reach a decision on a certification or waive its authority. The State did not believe they had adequate information at the end of the one-year period on which to base a certification decision. The Port chose to withdraw their permit application and reapply. This action gave the Department of Ecology another year, from the date of the erratum for the second revised public notice, in which to reach a certification decision. Q: What did the Corps do with all the comments? A: We read every comment and considered all comments received up to the date of the final decision. Comments were also provided to the Department of Ecology. District Engineer Col. Ralph Graves made the decision to issue this permit, and a very important factor in this determination was evaluation of the comments and opinions in response to the public notice and comments presented at the hearing. A summary of how comments were addressed is contained in the Corps’ Record of Decision, which is available on our website at http://www.nws.usace.army.mil Q: Where can I find documents related to this proposal, such as the storm water plan? A: The Corps’ public notice and record of decision for this project are available on-line through our homepage http://www.nws.usace.army.mil. Additional materials related to the proposal are available for review at: US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District Regulatory Branch 4735 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98134 Port of Seattle Neighborhood Field Office, Building E 19639 28th South, Room SC4-1011A SeaTac, WA 98188 Q: Opponents have argued in favor of other options to a third runway, did the Corps evaluate other options? A: Yes. Part of the application review process for this application included a thorough, independent alternatives analysis (see Appendix B for the alternatives analysis). In the Corps process, the Corps assumes a less environmentally damaging alternative exists unless the applicant can prove otherwise. In this case, the applicant met the requirement to show that the third runway was the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative available to meet the project purpose. Q: Did the Corps consider the impacts of transporting enormous amounts of fill for this project? A: Yes. As part of the public interest review we looked at the potential construction related impacts including air and noise pollution and disruption of transportation patterns. The Corps reviewed the FAA’s analysis as presented in the NEPA documents and did not find any reason to disagree with FAA’s findings. Q: Will the Corps permit ensure that the fill being used is clean? A: Yes. In the state of Washington, the Department of Ecology is the agency with primary responsibility regarding Section 401 and 402 of the Clean Water Act and implementation of Section 307 of the Clean Water Act. The Port, in conjunction with Ecology developed criteria by which to screen and test the acceptability of the fill material to be used for this project. The criteria have also been reviewed and modified by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through the Endangered Species Act consultation process. The Port has agreed to additional testing requirements as discussed in the Biological Opinion, Appendix A in particular, issued by USFWS on May 22, 2001. These criteria apply to both fill material imported from off-site sources and the on-site borrow areas. The material already imported to the site meet these same criteria. The PCHB also further refined the fill criteria and does not allow the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) testing process. As discussed in Paragraph 9(C) of the ROD, the Corps has reviewed the PCHB condition, WQC, the USFWS BO, and the various other comments provided regarding the fill criteria and have determined the fill criteria provided in the WQC are protective of the aquatic environment. The Corps has also determine the SPLP testing should be allowed to be used. The State, including the PCHB, can require different or additional conditions than what is required by the Corps to meet Federal requirements. Q: Did the Corps consider impacts from increased traffic from construction and additional airport ground transportation when making its decision? A: Yes. The FAA has prepared a thorough analysis of traffic impacts in both the FEIS and FSEIS. They determined no surface transportation project-related mitigation would be required. The Corps reviewed the FAA’s analysis as presented in the NEPA documents and did not find any reason to disagree with FAA’s findings. Q: Was air safety a factor in the Corps’ decision-making process? A: Yes. The FAA holds primary federal responsibility for determining airport and aircraft safety. The FAA reviewed the proposed project for airport and aircraft safety concerns including incursions and safety areas. The FAA determined the implementation of preferred alternatives approved in their Record of Decision are reasonably necessary for use in air commerce. They further directed the Port to develop air traffic control and airspace management procedures to effect the safe and efficient movement of air traffic to and from the proposed new runway. Approval of this plan by FAA is required. The FAA, in conjunction with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is currently studying procedures governing staging of departing and arriving aircraft. Any changes to procedures made through this review will be implemented at Sea-Tac. The Corps reviewed the FAA’s analysis as presented in the NEPA documents and did not find any reason to disagree with FAA’s findings. Security concerns regarding potential terrorist activities were also examined. The airport could be a target regardless of the construction of the third runway. Security concerns will be addressed by the various Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Q: Did the Corps consider potential impacts to the area’s drinking water aquifers when making this decision? A: Yes. The Corps independently reviewed the potential impacts to aquifers from both potential compaction and as a result of the excavation in the borrow areas. The Corps’ review of the potential compaction determined the total recharge to the groundwater aquifers will not be significantly affected by construction and the compaction of the aquifers underlying the third runway will be slight, with negligible impact on aquifer permeability and storage. Regarding the impacts related to excavation in the borrow areas, infiltration is expected to increase as soon as the till is stripped and therefore, total recharge is expected to increase. This increased recharge will minimize any adverse impacts to the aquifers. Q: Did the Corps consider the changes to the airline industry that have occurred since September 11th and as a result of the economic downturn? A: Yes. These issues were factored into the alternatives analysis and the discussion can be found in Appendix B. The Corps requested additional information from both the Port and FAA on several occasions, which was provided, to address these changes. In their 2001 ROD, the FAA addressed concerns regarding more recent predictions regarding activity levels at Sea-Tac. In particular, they considered the variance between actual activity levels at the Airport and the levels forecast in the Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS) and the implications of the 2000 Terminal Area Forecast. The FAA explained the difficulty in predicting the precise year in which an airport may be expected to reach a particular forecast level. They acknowledge the recent economic conditions have affected the growth in aircraft operations and passenger activity even prior to September 11th. The FSEIS addressed this difficulty in predicting the year by performing a “what if” scenario to compare a faster growth rate with a lower-growth or constrained-growth scenario. As the Forecast relies more heavily on national trends, it is a useful guide to projected airport activity, but is not adjusted to the specific conditions at Sea-Tac. The FAA believes it is reasonable to use locally developed forecasts for purposes of environmental evaluations of specific local improvements. Airport activity has been known to grow in a fashion that graphs as stairs – growing and then leveling off for a period before additional growth. In their Aug. 7, 2002, letter the FAA stated the “operational levels nationwide are expected to return to pre-September 11th levels sometime in 2003 or 2004.” Q: How did the Corps consider the increasingly higher cost of the project in the permit decision? A: The FAA holds primary federal responsibility for determining the need for improvements, changes, and/or additions to airports. The Port has prepared a cost/benefits analysis as part of the federal grant process and it was reviewed and approved by FAA July 3, 1997. An amendment to the original Letter of Intent with revised construction costs were submitted to the FAA July 12, 2000. The revision increased the costs from $587 million to $773 million. This placed the estimated ratio of benefits ($2.7 billion) versus cost at 4.5 to 1. There have not been any additional revisions to the costs since 2000. While there has been a decrease in the number of operations at the airport since the last revision that would affect the benefit/cost ratio, the Corps reviewed all of the information provided and find the changes are not contrary to findings in the FAA’s initial analysis. Cost can be factored into the Corps decision through the alternatives analysis done for the 404(b)(1) evaluation. In this situation, the Corps considers cost regarding alternatives which are reasonable in terms of the overall scope/cost of the proposed project as compared to other alternatives. The Port did not claim cost was an important factor in comparing alternatives. This is in contrast to a recent Corps decision, Resource Investments, Inc. (RII) (OYB-4-013996), where RII stated that cost was the defining factor for determining the practicability of an alternative. Therefore, in RII we compared the cost of one alternative against another and ultimately determined the costs of most alternatives were reasonable. For the Port, other factors were used to compare alternatives including meeting acceptable standards for average aircraft delay, size of the potential airport location, a local airspace evaluation, instrument approach capability, site constructability, accessibility, and potential impacts to the natural environment. |