Planning for Miller and Walker Creeks,
both heavily impacted by Sea-Tac Airport, will come into
public scrutiny at a
meeting on Thursday, 2 October, to be held in Burien at
the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Center,
19010 1st Avenue So. (Map).
Doors open at 6.30 p.m., with the formal presentation
beginning at 7. The meeting is expected to adjourn shortly
after 8.
This will be the public's first
opportunity to learn what representatives of the cities
of Burien, Normandy Park, & SeaTac,
the State DOT, King County Department of Natural Resources,
and Sea-Tac Airport (Port of Seattle) are planning for
the future of Miller Creek and its main tributary, Walker
Creek.
Why Is This Relevant to the Third Runway?
The headwaters of the two creeks
are on Sea-Tac Airport property, in areas that will be
seriously affected by third-runway construction, if it
starts
up again. The Airport is under heavy obligations to keep the creeks healthy
despite construction work, existing Airport operations, & possible actual
operation of the third runway. The creeks, wetlands, ponds, lakes, &c,
are already under stress from pollution from many sources, especially from
Sea-Tac, which is by far the biggest industrial operation in the basin. For
example, zinc & copper, very hazardous to fish, are present at unacceptably
high levels in local water, & most of this pollution comes from Sea-Tac.
Glycols from de-icing escape from the Airport all year round, & they
too are fish-killers. (These, & similar, problems are supposed to be
addressed in the Port's new NPDES permit, but it may take years for the Port
to come into compliance.)
The Port seems to have no budget for the necessary, expensive
mitigation of runway impacts as required by the State and
the Army Engineers. The Port is also very concerned about
the cost of meeting the conditions of its renewed NPDES
(sec. 402) permit, which is supposed to go a long way in
reducing future pollution in the basin.
Neighbors are concerned that the Port may try to shift
responsibility for ITS duty to mitigate impacts on Miller-Creek
impacts over to other entities, and/or delay doing what
it is supposed to do until the Miller Creek Basin study
is complete and ITS components are in place.
What To Expect at the Meeting
The first half-hour of the meeting will be the usual "open house" with display
boards & maps on view. Printed hand-outs should also be available. Starting
at 7, the planners will make a formal presentation of about 40 minutes, describing
the planning process, the work done to date, the goals of the process, basin
problems identified, & possible solutions to those problems. Then there
will be a short question-&-answer period, ending at 8, with further opportunity
for comments. No doubt, there will be the usual sign-up sheet to receive information
as the process unfolds.
What To Look for, What To Ask for, at the Meeting
Describe
the situation at "build-out". Interested citizens can insist that the planners ("Project Management Team") present a clear description of their proposals
for work in the basin & the intended results, at "build-out" (all
work completed). Exactly what will be built, & where?
What pollutants will still be present, at what levels,
where? How will stream quality be affected? What will
be the effect on wild life (especially fish)? This description
should be in two parts: the basin with the third runway,
the basin with no third runway.
Describe the
Port's mitigation work, at "build-out". The planners should also give us a separate, parallel,
description of their understanding of the in-basin work
that the Port is obliged to do under the terms of its sec.
404 wetlands-filling permit from the Army Engineers & under
the terms of the State's approval of the wetlands work,
as modified by the Pollution Control Hearings Board. The
project team should tell us what the state of the basin
will be after the Port does its required work, & then
what the basin will look like after the additional work
that the team will recommend.
Describe the
impact of implementation of the new NPDES permit at "build-out". The basin
will change as the conditions of the Airport's new
NPDES permit come into
effect. The project team needs to show the public how
this will affect the team's plans. The public expects
that the Port will do the necessary work under the permit,
on its own budget, & not try to shift work needed
for NPDES compliance over into this plan.
The public needs to know the differences
between these three different projects (runway mitigation,
NPDES permit, & other
general improvements in the basin). The public needs to
know how the three projects relate to each other.
The project team assumes that
things will work out just as planned, if the Port complies
with the conditions imposed
on its wetlands work by Ecology & the PCHB. Is this
a safe assumption, or should the experts in this team take
a second look, make a Plan B in case contamination leaks
from the fill into the local waters, for example?
How reliable
is the information gathered to date? Is
the project team dependent on the Port to give them descriptions
of present conditions inside the fences? Or is the relevant
information coming from independent sources? It is well-known
that serious pollution problems continue on Port property,
out of public observation. A companion question is whether
independent monitoring will be in place to ensure that
the plan is complied with, when everything is completed.
Can the culvert
problem be fixed right away? The
study has already revealed that there is at least one culvert
in the basin that is nearly impassable to fish migrating
upstream to spawn. (A culvert can be a worse obstacle than
a dam.) The team should provide more precise identification
of all culvert problems. Any culvert impeding migration
should either be rebuilt entirely, or modified, so as to
allow passage to spawning areas deeper in the basin. This
would appear to be something that the planners could recommend
to their bosses as an item for immediate action.
How much restoration? An
issue in the planning to date is the level of restoration
that should be achieved.
Does the team conclude that the basin so heavily urbanized
that creek restoration should not be planned in some areas,
because of cost factors? If so, how much money is involved?
Will the planners, or their bosses (especially at the Port
and the WSDOT), choose cheap solutions instead of the right
solutions?
Budget. Do not expect much talk about the
budget for doing the work that the plan will eventually
describe. (The study itself will cost $580,000.) The planners
appear not to have reached the cost-estimation phase of
their work, but they may have some approximate numbers
that they could discuss, if asked. It would be useful to
know how the costs will be shared amongst the various governmental
agencies, but the plan is not expected to make recommendations
on this subject.
Where To Go for More Information
In the
last few days, a great deal of new information has been
posted on the project's
website (part of the King
County website). Especially interesting, but too long to
report in this newsletter, is the document "Findings",
which sets out goals, problems, and solutions. The site
also contains a map of the basin area, general description
of the project, summaries of the meetings of the project
team, & much more, including a comment form.
What Happens after the Meeting?
After
the meeting, citizens & outside experts will
doubtless make a variety of comments & suggestions,
the project team will "tweak" the work done to date, &,
yes, another public meeting will certainly follow.
Citizens in the mean time can be lobbying
for early action on items (such as culverts that block
fish migration) that
can be dealt with, independently of the full plan. And
they can be talking with their local elected officials
about
the need to find money to implement the final plan.
The study is to be completed in
2004, & then it will
be up the various agencies to decide what to do with it.
Put it on the shelf? Implement it? Try to cut costs by
deciding not to do various expensive parts?
An overview
This study aims, & should
aim, at correcting problems in the Miller/Walker Creek
basin that will still remain after the
Port of Seattle has done what it is charged with doing
by its various permits. Keeping the Port's obligations
separate from the obligations of everyone else is central
to our concerns.
A first impression after reviewing
the materials at the project website is that the planners
have been focusing
on relevant environmental issues, & have identified
real issues to be addressed, but that their proposed solutions
at this stage seem to lack detail. The study is, of course,
still in early days.
Normandy Park & Burien have their own water-quality
experts looking at this study, & citizen groups may
also want to have their own consultants review the proposals.
Outside expertise will be especially helpful in identifying
anything that would shift the Port's legal obligations
under its various permits into the work that this study
will recommend.
The project team has responded
quickly to requests to put additional information on
their website. This seems
to be one project where one can keep in touch through the
World Wide Web (& without having 10 pounds of paper
on the desk).
Miller Creek
Miller Creek Estuary
September, 2003
~ |