April 20, 1998

U.S Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
P.O. Box 3755
Seattle, WA 98124-2255
Attn: Jonathan Freedman, Project Manager
Re: Port of Seattle's Section 404 Permit Application to fill 11.42 acres of wetlands

Dear Sirs:

We are writing to urge you to deny the Section 404 Permit application to fill 11.42 acres of wetlands. The purpose of the Section 404 Permit is not to provide permits to applicants to fill wetlands whenever convenient, but to protect our existing wetlands from being filled or otherwise destroyed.

The Seattle Community Council Federation is a city-wide federation of community clubs, community councils, neighborhood associations, and similar groups in the City of Seattle. Seattle is heavily impacted in both positive & negative senses by the activities of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (hereafter referred to as 'Airport' or 'Sea-Tac'). Seattle is the originating point for more personal & business passengers departing Sea-Tac than any other city, and it is the destination of more arriving passengers than any other city. Many of the residents that our members groups represent have a direct financial concern with the Airport, & with the costs that they incur, personally or in business, as the result of using it. All arriving & departing flights fly over Seattle residential neighborhoods. The aquifer underneath the proposed fill area is relied upon by the City of Seattle water supply system.

Our major points of concern are as follows:

1. These particular wetlands sit on the top of the hill and feed other wetlands and the watershed of several creeks that feed directly into Puget Sound. Filling this area of the wetlands system will have a substantial impact on other wetlands and watersheds, as well as Puget Sound. To fill in such a substantial wetland, as well as causing untold damage to other wetlands and streams is a major breach of the Corps mandate to protect wetlands.
2. We are concerned that, should a permit be given, the Port will rush to fill the wetland even though it does not have the necessary financing for the its project. If financing falls through, as seems likely, then a large wetland will have been filled and downhill watersheds ruined for nothing. In no case should the Corps issue any permits until all financing has been fully secured.
3. We are also concerned that the Port and the Corps appear to be negotiating this permit behind closed doors. Most citizens know little or nothing about the Corps or the process by which it makes this decision, who reviews it, what standards are used, who reads the public comment, how the agency replies to public comment, and who approves or disapproves the permit. Some of our communities are familiar with the Corps of Engineers' roll in Section 404, but most wonder what the agency better know for destroying natural wetlands and watersheds is doing here. Given the very poor quality of the Port's application (no examination of alternatives, no viable design for the replacement, replacement in a different watershed, etc.), granting the permit will feed public cynicism in a very unhealthy way.
4. No consideration has been given to alternative designs that could avoid the fill or reduce fill. In the Port's EIS for the airport master plan, their consideration of alternatives was based on their own needs, not on wetlands issues. No consideration was given to alternatives creating replacement wetlands in the same watershed.

   Indeed, the Port's EIS on the airport masterplan failed to examine the impacts of filling, relying on the NPDES permit process to cure all the of damages to Miller Creek, Walker Creek, Des Moines creek and Puget Sound that would be created by the Section 404 permit fill. However, the Corps would be unwise to rely on the NPDES process to cure the problems created by filling the wetland. There is a sorry history of sloppy permitting and failure to comply with permits. The last time the Port was issued and NPDES permit, it was appealed for lack of stringency, and the appellants substantially prevailed. Thereafter, the Port was found to be in violation of that more stringent permit and paid a heavy price for those violations. The NPDES permit issued by DOE this spring is also under appeal for stringency. We have every confidence that the appellants will also prevail in this instance.

5. We do not believe that recreated "replacement" wetlands-especially of this large size-can be shown to be viable, nor has the Port given any serious thought to the replacement's design and maintenance. How many replacement wetlands of this size have been attempted? What has been the success rate? What are the criteria for success? How is that success monitored? How long have the wetlands been sustained to date? Does the Port intend to maintain the replacement wetland? What happens if they fail?
6. Given all the downstream damage that will be created by this fill, it is particularly wrong to build the so-called replacement wetlands in another watershed in another city. The communities surrounding the airport have enacted ordinances that require wetlands to be replaced in the same watershed. Corps regulations do not allow it to issue permits that do not receive stand and local authorization. This alone should cause the permit to be denied. We are particularly concerned that federal agencies not ignore local ordinances that are designed to protect the environment under the guise of "protecting the environment" on a federal level.
7. The Port has rather vaguely claimed that wetlands need to be filled because of bird "problems" near the airport. However, the FAA's own documents show that there are no significant bird problems near Sea-Tac now. The FAA has testified even more vaguely that the fill "would not conflict with their regulations." We have examined FAA Advisory Circular AC No: 150/5200-33. The reason it won't conflict with FAA regulations is because those regulations do not exist. This circular does not require filling in wetlands to prevent bird strikes. It recommends that"when expanding existing airports in or near wetlands, the wildlife hazards should be evaluated and minimized through a wildlife management plan prepared by a wildlife damage management biologist, in consultation we with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers"-a recommendation the Port has apparently not accepted because no such plan is available. Even if this wetland is filled, there will be other nearby wetlands to the airport.
8. The proposed fill area would overlie a major aquifer relied upon by the City of Seattle. We recommend to the Corps that they compare the permit they are being asked to issue with Appendix Q in the Airport Masterplan EIS, especially with regard to the intermediate aquifer. Furthermore, it should consult with the Seattle Water Department and read the 1990 Report by the Water Department on the aquifer.
9. We are not familiar with the statute, regulations, guidelines, handbooks, and so on under which this permit is evaluated. But the District Engineer stated at the public hearing on 9 April that 'public benefit' is a criterion. The only 'public benefit' claimed for this project is the reduction of 'delay' (undefined) at the Airport. This claim has been much criticized. The newest group of critics is major air carriers now using the Airport, who have responded to a pending request by the Port of Seattle for use of passenger head tax ('passenger facility charges', or 'PFCs'), by noting the insubstantial nature of the 'delay' justification. We believe that reviewers in the Corps of Engineers should secure the full texts of the responses by the air carriers, rather than relying on paraphrases & partial quotes as found in Section C (Tab C) of the Port's application to the Federal Aviation Administration, or our paraphrase. We have reviewed the paraphrases & partial quotes, which start in most relevant part on p. 6 of the applicant's "summary of substantive comments by air carriers", which is the last document in Section C of the document. We concur completely with the comments of Delta and United. If there is delay caused by circumstances at Sea- Tac, it is ill-defined, and not likely to be much improved by construction of the world's most expensive runway. While there is admittedly delay in commercial aviation, it springs from a myriad of reasons, many of them uncorrectable & almost all of them quite unrelated to any possible physical projects at Sea-Tac. Whatever delay there is, the costs of the Master Plan Update projects, and of the third runway in particular, and the damage to protected wetlands and streams, far outweigh any possible financial benefits that might be achieved from its construction. We concur also in Delta's quoted observation that the true costs of the projects are not stated completely. This is so not only as to the base costs but also, we believe, as to the cost of borrowed money, and also costs of mitigation of adverse impacts.

   It is noteworthy that this analysis by the named airlines extends to financial benefit to the airlines themselves, even though the justifying documents prepared by the Port and the FAA (EISes and the 'Record of Decision') claim (quite without documentation, or even reasoned analysis) that there would be financial benefits to the airlines far outweighing costs to them. One should be inclined to believe the airlines on a matter like this, rather than project proponents.

   The financial analysis by airlines, especially United and Delta, suggests that the overall MPU proposal cannot receive needful support from Sea-Tac air carriers in terms of new long- term lease agreements, from which it follows that the financing strategies adopted by the applicant have already failed.

We hope you will consider our comments and deny this permit.

Sincerely,

Jorgen Bader
President