Truth in Aviation

“You are winning in a big way,” attorney Peter Kirsch told a rally of third-runway opponents on September 25th. The runway was originally scheduled to begin operation this year. At present, there is no date for start of construction. Kirsch said the indefinite delay was the result of the legal struggle by the Airport Communities Coalition in the courts and before the Expert Arbitration Panel of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC).

Five legal cases about the runway are pending. Kirsch says that for the project to proceed, the Port must win all these cases. The first to be heard by a judge is a suit in Superior Court against PSRC, which goes to to trial in January. That action attacks violations of the Growth Management Act and State Environmental Protection Act. A similar case against the Port of Seattle under the Growth Management Act is set for trial in May. Two other cases will go to court after completion of administrative stages. A fifth case, challenging the FAA’s approval of the environmental review of the entire Sea-Tac expansion program, has been filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals at San Francisco; no hearing date has been set. ACC chairman John Rankin and Mr. Kirsch said that the peak period for litigation will end in 1998, with the four state court cases having gone to trial. Legal expenses will then drop sharply .

Kirsch was confident of success, citing other cases where nearby communities had achieved their goals through lawsuits (Dallas-Ft. Worth, Cleveland, and Tempe, Arizona were cited. (Also see item in on page 1 in the In Brief Column on El Toro, pg. 1) Kirsch and Mayor Rankin agreed that the lawsuits are buying time for the communities until the project ‘collapses of its own weight.’ Kirsch noted that the Sea-Tac community has prevailed before the only independent authority that has considered the project—the Expert Arbitration Panel. The airport tried for years to prove it was a ‘good neighbor’ but the Panel found otherwise.

Sea-Tac Airport’s search for massive funding for the third runway and other expansion projects continues to come up short. FAA was asked to provide $260 million in grants for the runway, but its Letter of Intent, announced in late September with considerable fanfare, was for only $161 million. On October 28, Port Commissioners approved a plan to borrow an additional $260 million for various expansion projects, including $104 million for the runway. The Port would pledge all passenger landing fees (PFCs) for the years 1998 through 2022 as security for the bond issue. Port staff calculate that it will cost $314.98 million to borrow $260 million, for a total of $574.98 million, all to be paid from future PFCs. If this plan is approved by FAA and if Wall Street likes the deal, the runway shortfall will be only (!) $324 million.

Port staff calculate that it will cost $314.98 million to borrow $260 million, for a total of $574.98 million, all to be paid from future PFCs.

No other source of money has been identified for runway construction, and the other expansion projects are also unfunded by hundreds of millions. This funding shortage was recognized by the Port late in 1996, and it is a principal reason why the Port and local FAA agreed to postpone start of work on the runway, and to issue a supplemental environmental impact statement based on revised construction schedules, with 2005 as the estimated date for completion of the runway.

In presenting the PFC plan to the Commissioners, Port staff without explanation reduced the cost of the third runway from the previous estimate of $587 million to $552 million, still leaving this as the most expensive runway ever built, costing 8 to 10 times more than almost any other runway of comparable length. The staff also stated the amount of FAA’s LOI as $219 million, a $58 million exaggeration. Proceeds from the PFC plan do not begin to cover the full costs. So far, the Port has only budgeted for a paltry $50 million in mitigation costs, restricted to schools and multi-family units. This figure depends upon the ability of the Port to persuade a court that this project creates little or no impact on the adjacent community as claimed in the Environmental Impact Statement. True mitigation costs are estimated by the State-funded mitigation study by H-O-K at more than $2.95 billion, far exceeding the $50 million presently budgeted by the the Port. Supposedly the third runway would not be able to function properly without some of the other underfunded projects, so their full costs must be added to the runway costs. No announced start or completion dates mean anything until there is money in hand for all the costs. In addition to money difficulties, the project faces delay because of problems with the fill operation, described in ‘Dirt Delivery Delays’ on p. 2.

Sea-Tac Airport’s third-runway project is located far below the grade of the existing airport. To make the project possible, fill material must be trucked into the low-lying area centered on 12th Avenue South (see photo). The materials must then be compacted into a firm base for the actual concrete runway. Delivery vehicles and compacting equipment will generate noise and dust most days of the four to six years of the filling and compaction. During construction, this huge and growing mound of earth and rubble will also be subject to erosion from rain and melting snow.

The text of the third-runway EIS indicated that 23 million cubic yards would be needed. One entry in an obscure table stated the amount as 26.4 million. Both the Port and FAA have said in final environmental paperwork that the larger number is correct. (Some experts think even that number is too low). The Port has yet to determine how much glacial till or other soil not suitable for compaction must first be removed from the site. This will require more fill and create a problem of where to put the unsuitable dirt estimated at 7 million cubic yards. The Port has to find sources for all its fill. The local supply is so tight that to get a head start the Port is already stockpiling some fill dirt that it happened to own and some that it is buying from its main earth-moving contractor, M.A. Segale, Inc. The Port plans to have 370,000 cubic yards on hand by year’s end (sounds like a lot but is only 1.4 percent of the total needed).

Most of the fill will have to come from outside sources. Arlene Brown, Normandy Park resident, told the DOE hearing on November 10 that the Port is acquiring contaminated recycled rubble resulting from demolition of the old First South bridge. The Port’s preliminary source list includes ‘sources’ that have indicated that they will not sell, and many are subject to severe environmental and permitting constraints. Large-scale fill removal is subject to stringent strip-mining State regulations. A Port proposal for gravel mining on Maury Island has resulted in massive vocal opposition on Maury and Vashon Islands. Proposals to mine in cities near the Airport will face stringent requirements for issuance of permits by city governments.

And then the fill material must be moved. Local roads are already feeling impacts from the present minor operation (including the North Employees Parking Lot). If hauling reaches the 4-million-cubic-yard level posited for 1999, traffic will be badly snarled. Will dump trucks get the right of way on freeways outside the airport? SR 509 is proposed as a major corridor for trucks hauling material from a barge dock on the Duwamish to a temporary interchange at 176th. Grady Way and SR 518 are also under active consideration as truck routes, perhaps with a temporary railroad involved as well. A conveyor belt from the Duwamish is no longer under discussion.

Most amazing is the proposal for a barge terminal on Des Moines’ waterfront, to serve a conveyor belt running up Des Moines Creek to the new western part of the Airport. This proposal gets a lot of Port attention because some staffers see it as being the first step to a conveyor system for cargo between the Airport and a permanent freight terminal in downtown Des Moines. At a November 5th meeting, Port Commissioners said they favored the conveyor system, on the ground that it would not contribute to traffic problems and could move dirt faster. However, the City of Des Moines is strongly opposed to any conveyor operation within its boundaries. “It will be a cold day in hell when we are all skating on the ice before the voters in Des Moines would allow that,” said Des Moines resident Jeanne Moeller. The general public has yet to see any detailed engineering studies for the fill. Questions of stability, including drainage, ground-water issues, and earthquake risks apparently remain unaddressed, and no cost estimate can be regarded as valid until the serious engineering is done.

Heralded by the County Council as a “a voice loud enough to drown even airport noise from the King County International Airport”, the Airport’s new “Roundtable” is heavily weighted in favor of expansion. In creating the group, which replaces the independent-minded Citizens’ Advisory Council, County legislators unwisely gave appointment power to the County Executive, Ron Sims, who has delegated his power to the Airport manager Cynthia Stewart. Sims has made it clear that if the Council does not confirm any of his appointments, he will simply re-appoint the same person over and over again.

Ms. Stewart has made her priorities clear in remarks quoted in The Seattle Press for November 4: “The roundtable needs someone who can say noise is a really huge issue and then make decisions within the constraint that are imposed on us...We’re talking about letting Airborne Express build a real facility in the middle of the airport …”. In other words, Ms Stewart wants Roundtable members who are pre-committed to her vision of the airport’s future. This is a typical airport-expansion agenda: decision first, selection of the rubber-stamp committee second, then adoption of the preferred alternative, and last of all, analysis of the environmental impacts by an airport-selected consultant. The initial draft of the enabling ordinance for the Roundtable gave a clear majority of seats to pro-Airport interests. In response to public pressure, the Council altered the balance, to provide for eight community representatives, eight business/union representatives, and one non-voting spokesperson from FAA.

However, with three and a half months to act, Executive Sims has failed to nominate two of the community representatives. He has appointed an ardent aviation enthusiast for one of the six remaining citizen slots and an airport nominee (rejected by his neighborhood) for another, leaving the community representatives outvoted four to ten, at best. The airport staffs the Roundtable and controls the agenda. The pro-expansion faction has seized control, electing two industry representatives as chairman and vice-chairman. Airport staff is pressing the Roundtable to approve the airport cargo-flight expansion plan, prepared by staff and consultants without public input or environmental review. What looked like a good step forward to permit business interests and the communities to work together to solve the severe environmental problems caused by the facility has turned out to be just another airport-expansion power play.

Members of the Roundtable are: Bruce Baker (business -- UPS); Randy Banneker (business); James Bennett (business – KCIA tenant); Larry Brown (union); James Combs (business – pilot); David Dougherty (Magnolia/North Seattle); Randy Eatherton (Georgetown); Frank Figg (Boeing); Daniel Bruce Hartley (Boeing labor union); Cathy Mooney (West Seattle); Georgianne Ray (unincorporated); Ms Lynn Tucker (Beacon

A committee of residents in the SeaTac Westside area, where the Port of Seattle plans to construct its proposed runway, is organizing a team of experts to give independent advice about Port efforts to acquire properties. The experts include some of the most knowlegeable attorneys in the State on the subject of property acquisition by government agencies.

Two initial meetings are planned. The first will be held on Wednesday, January 7, and the second on Wednesday, January 21. Both meetings will start at 7 p.m. at Highline High School Cafetorium, 225 S.152nd, Burien.

The experts will inform Westside homeowners and tenants of their rights under State and Federal law. One expert, an attorney specializing in condemnation law, who will speak at the first public meeting on January 7, points out that Westside property owners need to understand that they are in the driver’s seat. It is up to owners to decide whether to sell. The law concerning property acquisition by state agencies (including the Port) requires that they strictly conform with state and federal law. It is inappropriate for the Port to impose a time limit for response to its buyout offers. The Port is prohibited by law from engaging in any other coercive action to compel an agreement on the price to be paid for an owner’s property.

The experts will explain the circumstances under which homeowners are entitled to recover their own attorney and witness fees in the event they do not agree with the Port on the fair market value of their property.

Many Westside residents report that Port agents are making "lowball" offers for the purchase of their property and suggesting that refusal to sell will result in immediate court action. Port agents imply that owners who wait to be condemned and go to court will get even less than the lowball offers. In fact, State law provides greater rights than the Port’s buyout process. If the Port should eventually seek condemnation, the fair market value of the property will be set by a jury, not by Port agents.

Several experts have noted the appraisal methods used by the Port are cause for concern. notably, Port Appraisers use of noise-impacted ‘comparables’ in evaluating the fair market value of property. Other appraisal practices that are proper in normal situations are potentially inadequate to capture the effects of the Sea-Tac airport runway project on local property values.

Fast-track expansion plans for King County’s Boeing Field came to a sudden halt in early November, when Airport Manager Cynthia Stewart publicly recognized that the State Environmental Protection Act applies even to airport expansion plans. Highly critical public comments pointed out that the airport’s staff and consultants were asking the County Council to approve a doubling of operations at the airport without an environmental impact statement being prepared. In response, Ms Stewart told the monthly meeting of the Georgetown Crime Prevention and Community Council with public officials on KCIA in early November that the draft plan was to be considered as only “conceptual”, and assured listeners that it would not be going to the Council for action. No timetable for further action has been announced, though airport staff are attempting to secure approval of the plan by the Airport’s new advisory committee (see KCIA Roundtable story). Despite the usual poor public-notification process, numerous adverse comments were filed. The Georgetown group, Magnolia Community Club (Seattle), Seattle Community Council Federation, RCAA, and Victoria Park Homeowners Association (Renton) all called attention to the conscious refusal of the airport staff and consultants to comply with State environmental law. Also commenting critically were officials from the cities of Burien, Seattle, and Tukwila, from the Puget Sound Pollution Control Agency, and the King County Office of Cultural Resources. All comments from Georgetown residents were strongly negative. Airport tenants were fully advised of the process, and contributed numerous comments, many calling for acquisition of more land for the facility and greater expansion than that hoped for by staff, and some even seeking increased helicopter usage.

As released to the public for comment, the main document in the draft expansion plan contained of only one of the 11 or more chapters of the main document, together with a brief, separate summary of the preferred alternative.

None of the background studies or technical reports were subject to comment, for they were not released to the public.

Neighbors Challenge Water-Pollution Permit For Sea-Tac

Sea-Tac Airport’s State-Federal permit to pollute surface waters is overdue for renewal by the Department of Ecology. Two lengthy draft renewal documents have been released for public comment, months late. Reaction has been mostly negative. At a hearing in Burien on November 10, citizens focused on the long history of airport violations of water-quality rules and the repeated silt discharges into Miller Creek, Lake Reba, and other waters from the Port’s new parking lot. They wanted to know what in the proposed new permit would guarantee that Miller and Des Moines Creeks would no longer be subject to discharge of toxic materials and silt. Will the embarrassment to the Port of $11,000 in fines every half century lead the Port to mend its ways? Or will the Port consider such nuisance-value fines just another cost of doing business? State Representatives Rod Blalock and Karen Keiser both commented that the level of fines must be increased to the legal maximum of $10,000 per day per violation, if the Airport pollution situation is to be brought under control. Other citizens expressed concerns over the seeming failure of the permit to guard the underlying aquifer.

Under the ground rules for the hearing, DOE did not respond to comments at the hearing.

Port Fined for Miller Creek Discharges

“If they can’t manage a simple parking-lot project, how can we trust them with 26 million cubic yards of fill for a third runway?” That was one citizen’s comment on the news of repeated silt discharges into Miller Creek from the site of the Airport’s new hillside parking lot in late September and early October.

Despite watershed-protection rules of the Department of Ecology and conditions of a SeaTac construction permit, mounds of silt were sluiced by seasonal rain into various waterways around the west side of the Airport, resulting in plumes of silt being visible all the way into the waters of Puget Sound. “Just Mud River,” said Normandy Park resident Helen Kludt.

Trouble began on September 16, with more erosion on the 17th, and a third incident on October 30. Inspections by the Department of Ecology showed clear violations of rules for erosion. An initial fine of $2000 was imposed on the Port. When more erosion occurred Ecology added another $9000 fine. The Port ejected Normandy Park Councilmember Kathleen Vermeire when she attempted to inspect the site. The Port blamed on its contractor, Scarsella Brothers, who in turn laid the blame on an unnamed supervisor, reportedly now removed from his post. Blame for the incident on October 30 has not been assessed.

Community sentiment was that the fines were too little, too late. Citizens Against Sea-Tac Expansion (C.A.S.E.) called for an immediate revocation of the Port’s construction permit, in a detailed letter to the regional director of Ecology, in which the numerous violations by the Port and its contractor were spelled out. The agency rejected the call. The City Council of Normandy Park unanimously voted on November 12 to appeal the penalty to the Puget Sound Pollution Control Hearings Board .

State, Port close to Deal for Sea-Tac To
Control Ground-Water Studies

Water-quality problems at Sea-Tac Airport include pollution of soil and ground water in the Aircraft Operation Maintenance Area (AOMA). The Department of Ecology is proposing to enter into an “agreed order” with the Airport, which would have the effect of giving control over future studies of pollution in this area to Port. This would save the Department the cost and bother of doing the work itself, and this method is often used with other polluters. Critics of the proposed order argue, however, that the Port’s 50-year history of uncontrolled pollution, including its inability to control simple soil erosion at its new parking lot in recent weeks, demonstrate that it cannot be trusted to act as judge in its own case. The technical problem is that the AOMA is known to be polluted, but the extent of the pollution, and the identity of the pollutants, remain to be determined. The agreed order, unfortunately, is based on a minimal interim set of standards for petroleum by-products, instead of on the soon-to-be issued, and tougher, permanent standards. Thus, the order would give the Port the right to continue pollution at levels that would be unlawful for other industrial polluters.

A full analysis showing many other problems is available on our website, along with comments on the DOE process. [Webmaster's note: forthcoming]

1988 Port claims a third runway will open in 1997.
What Really Happened in 1997
January Westside Advisory Committee recommends housing and compatible commercial zoning for westside area of SeaTac.
February 25 Airport Planners tell Port Commission that cost estimates for runway (only) have jumped 28% ($455.5 to $587 million ).
February KCIA (Boeing Field) announces five alternatives for its master plan, all supporting high growth in annual operations. (From 350,000 to 428,700 for the lowest- growth alternative, up to 621,000 operations per year for highest-growth alternative.)
February FAA issues a revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Sea-Tac Airport Master Plan for public comment.
March State study of mitigation costs prepared by H-O-K issued; estimates mitigation cost of constructing a third runway at $2.9 billion, not including closing an estimated 8 schools and insulating 26, nor abating air and water pollution. Half of Des Moines would be destroyed and replaced with industrial uses. Burien, Normandy Park, and Federal Way would experience substantial social costs, property value losses, and loss of tax base, Tukwila will struggle with traffic problems.
June 13 Court rules that all relevant evidence, including results of the H-O-K study will be considered in ACC v. PSRC, in response to PSRC/Port attempt to exclude H-O-K.
July EPA adopts a new 2.5 micron standard for particulate emissions. (The previous standard was 10 microns, larger than the fine particulates emitted by jet aircraft.) EPA says it will take a “go-slow” approach to implementiation.
August FAA issues Record of Decision, formally accepting its own impact statement and clearing the way for a Letter of Intent (LOI) for an FAA grant for the Sea-Tac 3rd runway.
August SeaTac City Council announces that it will settle SeaTac v. Port by surrendering zoning control and parking tax revenues to Port in exchange for $10 million.
August Growth Management Board gives split decision in Port appeal of Des Moines Comprehensive Plan. Des Moines files court appeal.
September SeaTac City Council ignores public protest and signs agreement with Port.
September-October Minor Port parking lot construction floods Miller Creek.
September 20 U.S. Senators Patty Murray and Slade Gorton, joined by Tacoma Congressman Norm Dicks, announce that they have met with Rodney Slater, Secretary of US Department of Transportation, and Jane Garvey, FAA Administrator, and secured a letter of intent (LOI) for a grant of $161,000,000 in FAA-administered funds toward construction of the proposed third runway. The Port had requested $260,000,000. Port spokesman Michael Feldman is quoted as saying that the Federal funds were adequate to ensure construction of the $587,000,000 runway when combined with other sources. The Port did not identify those sources or discuss the funding of runway related terminal and taxiway improvements which will cost more than the runway itself.
October King County Executive Ron Sims stacks KCIA Roundtable.
October Gov. Gary Locke provides $165,000 from his discretionary funds to Highline School District for conducting further studies of impacts of Sea- Tac overflight noise on the District’s schools. Negotiations between the Port of Seattle and the District for Port-funded school insulation come to a standstill. Sen. Julia Patterson (D, 33), who was instrumental in securing the funds, says that the Governor acted when ‘it became clear to him that the Port was not going to co-operate’.
November SeaTac Council raises parking tax $1 per hour to pay for freeway to airport.
November KCIA fast track-planning slowed by adverse public comments.
November 25 King County adopts budget provision for County planners to begin study of all aspects of mitigation of third-runway impacts.
December 3 First public hearing on the Port’s legally mandated Part 150 noise study. Residents ask for expanded noise insulation program.
December ACC appeal of EIS before Port Hearing Examiner begins: the first ACC litigation to go to hearing.