Airport
Communities Coalition Lawsuit
Over Flawed
Army Corps Permit
Halts Wetlands Filling
At
a closed press conference on Friday, 13 December, the Army
Corps of Engineers issued a Section 404 permit to the Port
of Seattle, allowing it to fill wetlands areas on the west
side of Sea-Tac Airport as part of the third-runway project.
Before
the ink was dry on the permit, however, the Airport Communities
Coalition (ACC) filed a legal challenge in federal district
court. Attorneys for the ACC and for the Port agreed that
afternoon that the federal court should issue a preliminary
injunction, which forbids any filling of wetlands for the
time being. In statements to local news media, ACC representatives
pointed in detail to the flaws in the permit as issued.
ACC’s lead attorney described the permit as “dead on arrival”.
The
ACC lawsuit raises two basic issues. It challenges the conclusion
by the Engineers that the runway would serve a genuine public
need that can best be met with a third runway. The ACC also
says that the Engineers were in error when they did not
include all the conditions for runway work previously required
by the State Pollution Control Hearings Board in its August
Ruling. (See Truth
in Aviation,
Aug. 12, 2002).
The
documents are long and complex. The initial analysis by
RCAA’s reviewers agrees with ACC that the permit is seriously
flawed & must be challenged in court. To call this wetlands
protection is a farce. On the other hand, spokespersons
for the Port are simply wrong when they take pleasure in
this permit. Even with its faults, this permit has bad news
for the runway project.
The
Corp of Engineers is requiring the Port to meet several
of the conditions that have already been imposed by the
State Department of Ecology and the state’s Pollution Control
Hearings Board. But the Port appealed those conditions in
September saying that it cannot build the third runway if
the project must meet them.
The
Flaws
State’s
Conditions Must Be Included
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal Clean Water
Act requires the Engineers to include in their sec. 404
permit all the conditions in the State’s sec. 401 certificate.
Colonel Graves of the Corps said that all of the Pollution
Control Hearings Board conditions must be met at the December
13 press conference, but the Corps failed to include all
of them in the permit. The lawsuit by the ACC contends that
the Engineers made a major legal error in treating the rulings
of the State Pollution Control Hearings Board as if they
were not official action by the State of Washington.
No
Clear Need for Project
RCAA
also disagrees with the Corps’ finding that the runway project
meets the public good. “The Port’s runway plan makes no
sense,” said RCAA President Larry Corvari. “Supposedly,
they need a new runway with all sorts of costs and harm,
to deal with delay in arrivals during bad weather. Yet FAA
analysis shows that only one flight in a hundred into Sea-Tac
is significantly delayed by local causes. With air travel
on the decline since Spring of 2001, there just isn’t any
need for this damaging and wasteful project, now or in the
foreseeable future.”
Costs
& Funding Should Have Been Updated, Financing Explained
The
Corps also found that this project was the best way to meet
a public good. It’s hard to understand how they could find
this without necessary information on what it would cost
and how it would be financed. What happens to wetlands if
the Port runs out of money? How much will the large rammed
earth walls so important to the wetlands portion of the
project cost? How is it going to be financed?
The
Corps simply accepted costs estimates that haven’t been
updated for years & don’t include many of the items
needed for wetland mitigation, such as the large rammed
earth walls (called the “great wall of Sea–Tac”) which are
supposed to protect Miller Creek and its associated wetlands.
The Corps had no information on how it would be paid for.
Some
Tough Wetlands Protection Conditions Included
The
Army Engineers did include in their permit several of the
tough conditions previously imposed by the State Pollution
Control Hearings Board. Of special interest are the following:
*
Contaminated fill. The Engineers will use most,
but not all, of the criteria for runway fill material that
the State board adopted. Unbelievably, the Engineers would
allow importation of material contaminated with petroleum
products. Allowing fill that is contaminated with diesel
fuel, gasoline, etc., is unacceptable and is being challenged
in the ACC lawsuit. The Engineers did however adopt the
State’s requirement for much more extensive sampling of
incoming fill (making it much more likely that contamination
will be found, if present). The Port will have a very hard
time finding 15 million cubic yards of fill that meets even
these looser conditions.
*
Stream flow. A big issue is loss of stream water. The
runway would intercept a great deal of rainfall, which would
then be directed into the Industrial Wastewater System &
sent out of the area for treatment. A large part of the
water contaminated by the Airport won’t be dumped, untreated,
into Puget Sound as it is today. That’s good. But the loss
of water would be very, very bad for the health of the local
streams, especially during the usual Summer dry spell. So,
both the State and the Engineers are requiring the Port
to find additional water for “augmentation” of stream flow—a
hard chore in the over-taxed Miller, Walker, and Des Moines
Creek basins. The Engineers set the required amount too
low, and were weak as to whether the Port absolutely must
have water rights for this stream flow augmentation. While
the State says the Port must acquire water rights,
the Engineers say that the Port must acquire such rights
“if necessary”, which is too vague, but offers little joy
to the runway project.
*
Water-quality testing. There are numerous issues
as to how to test the local waters, how frequently to test,
and what to look for. In some aspects, the Engineers do
not require enough, but on some important issues, they agreed
with the PCHB. Both agencies want a lot more sampling than
the Port proposed. Both agencies want biological testing
that measures non-fatal effects on aquatic organisms, not
just death. Measuring non-fatal effects is much more sensitive
a test than death, measuring much lower concentrations of
pollutants—a primary reason the port has appealed this
condition.
*
Phasing. The PCHB and the Engineers both require
he Port to complete 100 percent of its stormwater-facility
upgrade project by the time that 50 percent of the paving
and construction are done. The stormwater treatment must
be upgraded to current standards early on. This requirement
may help to some degree if the Port does proceed but runs
out of money well before project completion.
|
