To
RCAA Home Page
To RCAA Library Page
Chapter IV, Section 10, Section 11 and Section 12 - Water
Quality, Hydrology, Wetlands, and Floodplains
General.
Introduction to Comments on Chapter IV, Sections 10, 11 and
12. Our comments on these Chapters are in two groups. In the
first group, Comments IV-10-A through IV-10-F, we include six
studies of certain issues included within the scope of these
Chapters; these studies present materials, data, findings, &
analyses not included in the DEIS, which should be addressed in
the FEIS. In the second group, Comments IV-10-1 through IV-12-2,
are our comments on particular points raised in the DEIS or
suggested by it.
Listing of items included as Comments IV-10-A through IV-10-F:
Comment IV-1- A: Notice of Intent to Sue inder the Clean Water
Act, from Richard A. Smith, to Mic Dinsmore, Executive Director,
Port of Seattle dated June 13, 1995
Comment IV-1- B: Letter from Department of Ecology to Port of
Seattle dated February 27, 1995
Comment IV-1-C: Kludt v. King County and State of Washington
Highway Commisison, Port of Seattle et ux. Case No. 726259, King
County Superior Court Stipulation and Settlement Agreement,
October 1974.
Comment IV-1-D: Stipulated Settlement Agreement In re: Appeal
of NPDES Permit, Normandy Park Community Club, City of Des
Moines, and Minnie Brasher v. Port of Seattle and Department of
Ecology, Case No.
Comment IV-1-E: Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgement
and Declarative Relief, City of SeaTac v. Port of Seattle, No. 95-
2-03901-4
Sea-Tac airport sits on just 2400+ acres on top of a major
unconfined regional acquifer located in the middle of an existing
densely populated area. The central focus of this section of
the DEIS must therefore be the effects on water quality and this
population, both under the existing conditions, as well as the
proposed alternative conditions.
Comment IV-10-1: The intent of Lake Reha was to provide flood
control on Miler Creek for a hundred year storm event. However,
the controls are, set at a levcl to provide storage for a storm
of somewhat less than a hundred year event. If the plan chooses
to look at Lake Reha as a regional facility which provides
retention/detention for the third runway expansion, it first must
accommodate the hundred year predeveloped event before being
considered for retention/detention for airport expansion. These
facilities need to be designed in accordance with the City's
adopted code which references the King County Surface Water
Management Design Awual,
Comment IV-10-2: Detention facilities need to be designed and
sized to include all developed areas that have been constructed
without providing any retention/detention since the adoption of
surface water regulations in 1977. These facilities need to be
designed in accordance with the City's adopted code which
references the King County Surface Water Management Design
Manual.
Comment IV-10-3: This Master Plan EIS needs to address the
relocation and mitigation of said relocation of Mlier Creek above
S. 160th St. or the relocation and mitigation of said relocation
of Des Moines Creek above S. 200th St.
Comment IV-10-4: The plan minimizes the short and long-term
impacts of fuel and de-icing chemicals discharged to Miller and
Des Moines Creeks. The risks and impacts of fuel and de-icing
chemicals descharged to the streams needs to be provided.
Comment IV-10-5: THe plan does not address the impacts the
construciton of a third runway will have on ground water/ springs
in the vicinity of and west of the third runway. Springs and
ground water have been a problem in the area west of the airport.
Therefore, supplemental geotechnical exploration needs to be
performed to define the hydrology in this area. Based upon the
hydrology report, the impacts to the ground water and its
movement need to be defined. Existing settlement agreements
exist with proeprty owners where ground water or its movements
is negatively affected ot negatively affects down gradient
property. Violation of these settlement agreements must be
addressed in the FEIS.
Comment IV-10-6: The Master Plan EIS implies that it is
looking to the basin plans for Mller and Des Moines Creeks to
identify mitigations for impacts to water quality and quantity
resulting from the proposed improvements. The plan should also
independently address and n-dtigate the impacts from the proposed
improvements to both Des Moines and Mller Creeks independently of
the basin plans.
Comment IV-10-7: The Master Plan EIS does not identify how the
proposed improvements are consistent with the requirements of
Port's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Pemiit for
surface water control and discharge. The DEIS needs to address
this issue.
Comment IV-10-8: The DEIS only states that the Port will
provide stormwater runoff mitigation pursuant to the
Department of Ecology standards. Surface water runoff
requirements also need to be designed in accordance with the
City of SeaTac's surface water management ordinance which
references the "King County Surface Water Design Manual"
standards.
Comment IV-10-9: The discussion regarding streams and
creeks in SeaTac is found throughout different sections of
the DEIS (Water Quality, Wetlands, Floodplain). Because of
this, it is difficult to ascertain the full impacts on the
streams and creeks. The issue of streams and creeks should
be dealt with in it's own sub-section under wetlands so that
it would In easier to fully detemiine the impacts of the 3rd
runway on these resources. This will result in the need for
an additional review and comment period for this sub-
section,
SECTION 11 - WETLANDS
Comment IV-11-1: The DEIS does not provide a detailed
mitigation plan for wetlands mitigatoin. (Appendix P-A)
Only a very sketchy conceptual plan has been provided. The
DEIS needs to provide a detailed wetland mitigation plan
Comment IV-11-2: There is no assessment of the potential
sites where wetland mitigation may be implemented in the
same drainage sub-basin (Miller Creek). These potential
sites need to be identified in the DEIS.
Comment IV-11-3: The DEIS only mentions a general
location five (5) miles S.E. in the Green River Valley for
wetland mitigation. A specific site location has not been
identified for the proposed wetland mitigation in the Green
River basin. Since the wetland impacts are occurring in
the City of SeaTac, the mitigation should also be contained
within the City of SeaTac. Also, the City of SeaTac
Ordinance requires that mitigation be replaced in the same
watershed basin where the loss has incurred. The DEIS needs
to address this issue.
Comment IV-11-4: The DEIS states, "The avoidance and
minimization of stream and floodplain habitat impacts will
be addressed during future refinement of the fill slope
design." Therefore, a supplemental DEIS will be required.
Also, impacts and mitigations will need to be addressed.
Comment IV-11-5: The plan proposes to provide mitigation
outside of the City of SeaTac for the impacts of
constructing a third runway. Since the City receives the
most significant portion of the impact, the mitigation must
be incorporated within the City boundaries.
Comment IV-11-6: The DEIS states that wetlands mitigation
within the same drainage basin was not considered because
the FAA will not certify an airport where "wildlife
attractions" are within 10,000 feet of the runway. Based
upon this interpretation of the FAA regulations, wetlands
are regarded as wildlife attractions. The statment implies
that the existing airport is not certified since ther are
existing wetlands located north and south of the existing
runways wwithin 10,000 feet ofthe runway. Please reconcile
the statement in the DEIS that the FAA will not certify
airports where wildlife attractions are within 10,000 feet
of an runway with existing wetlands.
Comment IV-11-7: The DEIS does not identify a Class Ii
wetland located approximately at 1000 S. 158th PI. South.
This wetland should be acknowledged.
Comment IV-11-8: The DEIS states that a detailed
mitigation plan for wetland and mitigation will be conducted
at a later date. A supplemental EIS will be required.
Comment IV-11-9: The DEIS does not cover the removal
of fish barriers for the reestablishment of anadromous fish
north of 160th street. The DEIS does not cover mitigation
plans for the impacts on Miller and Des Moines creeks.
These matters need to be addressed.
SECTION 12 - FLOOD PLAINS
Comment IV-12-1: A plan for Lake Reba relative to
operation and flood control procedures should be developed
to the satisfaction of the City.
Comment IV-12-2: The DEIS does not provide detailed
information regarding the methods in which the Port will
maintain the current floodplain capacity where fill is
proposed to be placed within the floodplain. Please provide
this detailed information.
TO DO
Discuss Impending Clean Water Suit
Discuss Lagoons
Discuss Kludt settlement in detail.
A State Department of Ecology (DOE) official has cited numerous
violations of the National Pollution Discharge elimination
(NPDES) permit recently issued to the Port of Seattle which
controls water outfalls from Port property.
According to a February 27, 1995 letter to Port of Seattle
Facilities and Maintenance Director William E. Brougher,
Department of Ecology engineer John Drabek cited numerous
violations of the conditions of the permit. Dravek wrote that
the Port has failed to "properly operate and maintain ...
treatment systems ..." and noted that "some of the improper
operations and maintenance have been occurring since 1965."
Dravek stated the Port of Seattle must develop and follow an
operating plan and submit an inspection schedule by April 1,
1995.
Dravek apparently agreed with a Port consultants recent
findings which recommended that the periods of detention of
wastewater undergoing treatment in the IWS facility be increased
and required the Port to submit a revised test plan to determine
concentration of total suspended solids in the effluent from the
system by May 1, 1995.
Dravek wrote "Discharges that result from a failure to follow
the requirements of the plan may be considered proof that the
equipment was not properly operated and maintained and may be
considered a violation ...".
The DOE letter also stated that the lagoons used to collect
sludge removed from wastewater by the Port's IWS system "needed
immediate cleaning" and required a monitoring and cleaning
schedule for all three lagoons associated with the IWS system to
be submitted by the end of June 1995
In noting the Department of Ecology's apparent renewed
commitment to regulate environmental matters at SeaTac airport,
Attorney Richard Smith, said "It appears the cozy relationship
between the Port of Seattle and the state Department of Ecology
has been fractured."
Waste Action Project, an environmental organization based in
Seattle, has served the Port of Seattle with a sixty day notice
of intent to sue for violations of the Clean Water Act. Waste
Action Project ("WAP") focuses on citizen enforcement of
environmental laws and includes a coalition of citizens from the
south King County area. The Port of Seattle operates the Seattle-
Tacoma International Airport, the site of the violations, and is
responsible for compliance with the Clean Water Act discharge
permit issued for the airport by the Washington Department of
Ecology for the airport's discharges of wastewater to Puget Sound
and Des Moines and Miller Creeks.
The sixty day notice takes the form of a June 13 letter from
WAP's attorney, Richard A. Smith, which describes the numerous
violations of the discharge permit that have occurred at the
airport. The citizen suit provision of the Clean Water Act
requires a citizen enforcer to give notice to the defendant, the
state and EPA sixty days before a complaint can be filed in
federal district court. WAP's lawsuit against the Port is
scheduled to be filed in early August. The lawsuit will seek
injunctive relief in the form of a court order to fix the
violations, civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation per
day, and recovery of litigation expenses, including attorney's
fees.
Included in the twelve page letter are alleged violations of
effluent limitations for discharges into Puget Sound and many
violations of monitoring and reporting requirements. In
addition, WAP alleges that inadequacy of the airport's treatment
system results in illegal bypasses of untreated wastewater to Des
Moines and Miller Creeks. The letter also alleges that the
airport discharges from eleven unpermitted outfalls and that the
Port has illicitly allowed jet fuel-laden sludge to accumulate in
wastewater treatment lagoons for nine years.
Smith, who represented citizens and the City of Des Moines in
an appeal of the airport's discharge permit settled earlier this
year, states, "It must just have been low priority to keep the
wastewater system up to date. This is one of the worst
situations I've encountered, especially considering that it's
gone on for years. We're going to realign the Port's priorities.
Any judge we get is going to slam them."
Greg Wingard, WAP's President, also worked on the earlier
permit appeal as a consultant and has had increased access to the
airport as part of the appeal settlement. According to Wingard,
"Every time we turn over another rock at the airport, another
appalling environmental problem crawls out. While our lawsuit
can't address all of the airport's environmental disasters, it's
a start. Maybe after this the Port will take environmental
responsibility more seriously."
Wingard also feels that, "Some of the violations can't be
attributed to negligence or stupidity alone. Not only has the
situation been bad for a long time, but it seems that they have
misled the agencies about what they've got there. The Port may
ultimately be looking at criminal charges if the agencies get
interested." Both EPA and the Department of Ecology have
discretion to bring criminal investigations and prosecutions for
knowing violations of the Clean Water Act.
For more information contact Greg Wingard (622-7803) or
Richard Smith (624-0893).