To RCAA Home Page
R.C.A.A. Comments on DEIS Airport Master Plan, 8/03/95
Introduction to comments of RCAA on Master Plan
Update DEIS
A note on method: The abbreviations used in these
comments
are the same as those used in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. These Comments are numbered for ease
of reference. Most Comments are directed at materials
appearing in the numbered chapters in volume one of the
DEIS. The initial Roman number refers to the Chapter.
The comments on each chapter are serially numbered,
e.g., II-27. Subcomments are designated with letters in
parentheses, (a), (b), &c.;
In our text, "DEIS" followed by numbers refers to volume
one of the DEIS. The few references to the second or
third (appendices) volumes designate the volume number
with a preceding Roman numeral: II DEIS.
In most instances, we accept & use the definitions of
terms found in the DEIS' Glossary. Note the two major
exceptions: (1) normally, when we use "region", we wish
to be understood as referring to the entire State of
Washington, adjacent parts of British Columbia, the entire
State of Oregon, & those parts of Idaho primarily relying
on Sea-Tac for their major airport. (2) We use "air
carrier" in a broader sense than does the EIS, to
encompass all commercial common-carrier air travel & cargo
activity.
General Comments: Our review of, & our following
comments on, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
lead us to the conclusion that the proposed third runway
at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport is the most-
expensive, most-damaging, & least-effective method yet
proposed for meeting long-term air & ground travel needs
in the immediate area, in the State, in the Region. It
is in no way integrated with other transportation modes.
If constructed, it will not make any significant
contribution to the needs of our State, &, in addition
to direct environmental & economic harm will damage the
State by diverting enormous sums of money & effort from
more fruitful efforts.ì
Our review also reveals that the environmental
consequences are grossly understated -- many are ignored
entirely -- & that mitigation measures are utterly
inadequate. The graver the consequences, the more
cursory the study, in fact.
On almost every topic examined, the DEIS does not meet
minimum standards for accuracy, completeness, or
technical competence. Scientific, engineering,
economic, & other technical studies, published in
learned journals & subject to peer review, are passed
over in favor of unscientific bureaucratic self-serving
declarations. Major conclusions are stated as bald
matters of fact, without citation to authorities.
Repeatedly, technical & scientific conclusions are
based, it seems, on conversations between staff of the
co-lead agencies and/or other preparers, or similar
conversations with other bureaucratic colleagues,
instead of examination of scientific literature and
consultation with recognized & independent experts.
* * *