April 17, 1998

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle District
Regulatory Branch
P.O. Box 3755
Seattle, WA 98124-2255

Reference: 96-4-02325
Port of Seattle

Attention: Jonathan Freedman, Project Manager

Dear Mr. Freedman:

The Regional Commission on Airport Affairs ("RCAA") is a non-profit organization concerned with regional transportation issues affecting Puget Sound area residents. RCAA's mission statement includes the goals of finding sound, environmentally sensible solutions to our region's growing transportation needs.

We are enclosing the following additional comments concern the recent public notice of application of permit related to watersheds and wetlands located in the Miller Creek and Des Moines Creek basin issued December 19, 1997 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps") related to the facilities operated by the Port of Seattle ("POS" or the "Port") at Seattle-Tacoma ("Sea-Tac") Airport. These comments supplement our previous written comments and our testimony at the public hearing on April 9, 1998. We believe the following comments provide information heretofore unknown to us which have not been addressed in the proposed permit.

The Port of Seattle is proposing the elimination of an as yet undetermined number of acres of wetlands and as yet undetermined lengths of streams and creeks located in both the Miller Creek and Des Moines Creek basin systems.

I emphasize the term undetermined because the extent of the wetlands and streams which the Port of Seattle proposes to destroy are by the Port's own admission unknown at this time. Please note that in a footnote on page of the application filed for this proposed permit the Port admits "[t]he quantity of wetlands to be filled is based on the best information available at this time." It is possible that some additional wetland areas and acreage could be identified when access is available to all wetlands in the project area."

If the Corps doesn't know how many acres of wetlands are affected how can the public comment intelligently upon the proposed actions? Further, how can the public assess the mitigation required to replace affected wetlands?

The effects of the addition of 26 million cubic yards of fill material on top of the existing underground aquifer is uncertain. The Port has not provided a hydro-geological analysis of the existing area proposed for the fill operation. Therefore the Port is currently unable to assess the impacts of the fill operation upon the Highline aquifer and surrounding drainage system. As a condition of this permit the Port should be required to conduct such a study and submit the analysis for public review and comment.

The Port has also failed to identify the impacts caused from the mining of million of yards of fill material from quarries which would provide the fill dirt for the airport project. We are aware that one of the potential borrow sites for the runway project is a 200+ acre site located on Maury Island. The impacts on the local aquifer supplying Vashon Island residents, the effects of a large-scale mining operation and barge off-loading facility on fish habitat in Puget Sound, for example, have not been identified. Until the Port produces an environmental impacts statement for the proposed borrow sites supplying the fill dirt for the project with accompanying study of the impacts of the fill operation on local roads and traffic, the permit should be denied.

The FAA previously evaluated the Port of Seattle's proposed SASA facility and determined that replacement wetlands should be created in the same (Des Moines Creek) basin system of those destroyed in conjunction with the construction of the SASA facility. The permit application provides no explanation of why conditions have changed concerning the proposed replacement of wetlands in another unrelated basin system.

The Port of Seattle recent Passenger Facility Charge Application states "[o]nce the new runway is operational, SEA's [Sea-Tac airport's] annual capacity will increase from 460,000 to 630,000 aircraft operations." This statement is inconsistent with the statement contained in the Port's environmental impact statement, which assessed the environmental impacts of the proposed runway project based on a level of 474,000 annual operations with a 3rd runway. This major revision in the total number of operations projected in the Port's recent Passenger Facility Charge Application necessitates a re-issuance of the EIS for the runway project and a reassessment of the impacts of this increased level of operations on the surrounding environment.

In its February 3, 1998 to the Corps of Engineers the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended that the Corps "evaluate other off-site facilities such as Paine Field for meeting the overall project purpose for SASA and avoiding the wetland impact.

It should be noted that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a Record of Decision on December 29, 1995, disapproved the Port's application for funding the SASA project. After reviewing the Port's proposal for funding land acquisition for the SASA facility did not comply with FAA requirements and subsequently disapproved the project.

THE PORT HAS REMOVED THE SASA FACILITY FROM ITS RECENTLY SUBMITTED PFC FUNDING REQUEST

One major project envisaged in the proposed Corps permit has apparently been shelved by the Port. A section of the application proposes that 1.70 acres of fill be paced in wetlands and that a 2200 section of Des Moines Creek be re-channeled in order to construct the South Aviation Support Area (SASA) facility.

Areas of the existing golf course facility can be modified to provide replacement wetlands. However, the proposed permit fails to consider the use of these existing areas for replacement wetlands.

In October 1997, subsequent to issuance of the final EIS for the proposed project, Vice- President Gore announced the Administration's Clean Water Initiative. This policy revises the previously existing policy on no net-loss of wetlands in the waters of the United States, and instead adopts a policy calling for a net increase of 100,000 acres of wetlands habitat per year.

EVEN THE PORT NOW ADMITS THAT ITS PROPOSED PROJECTS EXCEED ITS FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY

In the attached Policy and Staff Briefing memorandum Port admits that the magnitude and complexity of the proposed capital program at the Port's Sea-Tac facilities is overwhelming the financial capacity of the Port. As a result of a recent review of the Port's capacity to deliver proposed projects Port staff have indicated that the following changes would be needed to successfully implement the capital improvement program:

1. Reschedule projects;
2. Refine and clarify responsibilities for the capital delivery system; and
3. Augment staff resources

Because of the uncertainty now evident in the Port's Master Plan program of capital projects the Corps is in no position to be able to seriously evaluate the Port's application. The application should be rejected and the Port should be required to present a completed application indicating a completely funded capital program capable of being implemented prior to the issuance of any Section 404 permits for Port projects. The funding issue is critical element related to the proposed Section 404 permit because the cost of mitigating the impacts of wetland relocation must be secured prior to granting of permits. Mitigation should necessarily occur before construction, before the damage can occur.

On March 23, 1998 Citizens against Sea-Tac Expansion (CASE) filed a notice of appeal of the proposed National Pollution discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit which the Washington State Department of Ecology had issued to the Port. The appeal raises a number of substantive issues in the proposed permit. Among the issues including the failure of the permitting agency to comply with requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act for due process and public notice. Many of these issues relate to the proposed issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Therefore, approval of the Section 401 certification should be withheld pending resolution of the NPDES permit appeal and other issues. Further, if the NPDES permit appeal results in a modification of the permit or a re-issuance of the NPDES permit for public review and comment the proposed Section 404 permit and associated Section 401 Water Quality Certification process should be reopened.

In its application the Port refers to Advisory Circular 150/5200-33 and claims that the document requires that replacement wetlands for those destroyed may not be located in the same basin system within 10,000 feet of airport facilities. This is a misinterpretation of the FAA guideline and not consistent with direction provided in the Advisory Circular. In fact, in the circular recommend that when expanding airports near wetlands that "wildlife hazards should be evaluated and minimized through a wildlife management plan prepared by a wildlife damage management biologist". The Port has not conducted this recommended analysis and provided it for review in the permit application. Similarly the Port has failed to provide any evidence supporting its assertion concerning existing wildlife hazards? Further, the Port has failed to consider that the Advisory Circular provides that "FAA recommends against the placement of airport development projects pertaining to aircraft movement in the vicinity of hazardous wildlife attractants." Thus, if the Port assumes that hazardous wildlife attractants exist from wetlands surrounding Sea-Tac, it follows that the Port should not consider new facilities it is proposing at Sea-Tac.

Other Reliever Airports
Alternative Technologies including GPS and LDA Demand Management (Include a copy of the Expert Panel's March 26, 1996 Final Decision on Noise Issues and the Expert Panel's Final Decision on Systems and Demand Management Issues -Explain that the scope of the Panel's inquiry did not permit them to consider alternative airports.

Recently, the Port filed an application with the Federal Aviation Administration to collect Passenger Facility Charges from passengers departing Sea-Tac airport.

Cite airline objections to the 3rd runway project. In written statement provided to the Port an airline carrier writes "We are concerned because it appears that the port has not included all runway-related costs in its estimate."

This airline also disputes the Port's assertion that the runway will eliminate delay at Sea- Tac and states that "none of the delay is attributable to the lack of a third runway but a number of other factors." United airlines for example states that it disagrees with the use of PFC's for the 3rd runway project because its believes that the project "is inconsistent with the purposes of the legislation authorizing airports to impose PFCs, would facilitate the Port's improper diversion of federal transportation funds to a local municipality (revenue diversion) and lacks the required detailed financial plan."

In conclusion, an analysis of wetlands impacts associated with this permit that would satisfy the requirements of the Clean Water Act, as well as other Federal and State laws will lead the Army Corps of Engineers to conclude:

The project violates the FAA Draft Advisory Circular that recommends new facilities not be located in the vicinity of existing wetlands or other wildlife attractants.

Sufficient land is available such that wetlands mitigation could be located in the drainage of impact as required by local ordinances.

Wetlands mitigation could be designed that does not create an undue wildlife hazard to airport operations. The lack of a prior history of wildlife hazard problems at Sea-Tac would indicate that existing wildlife habitats do not attract species hazardous to flight operations.

Due to cumulative effects of past projects, a high proportion of wetlands habitat that existed in the two watersheds 20 to 50 years ago have been filled by Port and by commercial and residential construction. Further loss of wetlands in the MiIler and Des Moines Creek drainages will add to degradation of water quality and changes to stormwater runoff regimes. These conditions would contribute to existing downstream erosion/mass wasting problems in both drainages.

The permit application has failed to consider feasible and reasonable alternatives to the proposed filling of wetlands

Therefore the permit application should be rejected by the Army Corps of Engineers.

If you have any questions please contact me.

Sincerely,

Allan M. Furney
President
Regional Commission on Airport Affairs

Enclosures:

cc:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
U.S. Congressman Adam Smith
Office of the Inspector General - Environmental Protection Agency
Office of the Inspector General - Army Corps of Engineers
Washington State Department of Ecology
Airport Communities Coalition
Miller Creek Management Coalition
Normandy Park Community Club
Sierra Club
Trout Unlimited
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority