News
 | Email to a friend | 
|  |
Comment |  | Reprints |  |
Add to myDJC | Adjust font size |
May 31, 2000
Will salmon stop 3rd runway?
By SUSAN JANKOWSKI
Journal environmental editor
Journal environmental editor
A coalition representing five cities and a Southend school district is disputing claims by the Port of Seattle that construction of a third runway at SeaTac will not harm federally protected fish.
The Airport Communities Coalition late last week filed a lawsuit with the Ninth District federal court in Seattle against the Federal Aviation Administration asking for an injunction to stop construction in order to save Puget Sound chinook salmon and bull trout.
|
Protecting salmon isn't the only issue jeopardizing construction of a third runway. In 1998, the Corps began accepting public comments on whether plans for a third runway comply with the federal Clean Water Act. Currently, the Corps is reviewing these comments, which fall under Section 404 of the Act. The state Department of Ecology, in turn, is awaiting the Corp's decision on this matter to proceed with its review on whether a third runway will threaten water quality and/or affect related resource issues, under Section 401 of the Act. The proposed site is located on wetlands. According to the Port of Seattle, an interim report issued by Ecology last March ascertained that the Miller Creek basin "has been affected by years of residential use and that mitigation work planned in connection with the project may actually benefit some elements of the environment." Another environmental concern that has emerged, should plans for the runway be approved, is what materials to use as fill for the site. Originally, plans were to extract gravel from Maury Island to use as fill. However, a recent discovery that Maury Island soil is contaminated with heavy metals from a nearby copper smelter, now defunct, has prompted Ecology to specify that the top 18 inches of this soil would have to be discarded. This issue is still pending and no contractor has been selected in connection with this phase of the project. Another issue that emerged in connection with this project involves numerous abandoned wells in the area. These empty wells could provide a potential route for pollutants into groundwater. This concern is one of many currently under examination by local and federal agencies. |
"The FAA made a commitment on April 7 that no additional funding for projects that may violate ESA would be approved while awaiting the results of the new biological assessment," said FAA spokesperson Kirsti Dunn about the lawsuit.
Dunn said the FAA did not previously consider the potential impact a third runway could have on chinook or bull trout "because they were not listed." She added that, currently, the FAA is deferring to the technical expertise of the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency and ultimately, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which issues permits, to decide whether plans are adequate to move forward with the project.
The ACC represents the cities of Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Normandy Park, Tukwila and the Highline School District No. 401. The group is claiming that the FAA violated the ESA by neglecting to conduct a formal Environmental Impact Statement, a step that's required under the ESA when applying for a permit.
To date, the Port of Seattle, the local lead agency, has conducted two biological assessments of the project -- one in April and one last November. Sumner-based Parametrix conducted the assessments on the Port's behalf, but is deferring all comments to the agency.
"We did the biological assessment for the FAA and found no endangered species in the two creeks (Miller and Des Moines). The overall outcome is that while it may affect the situation, it is unlikely to adversely affect any endangered species," said Bob Parker, a spokesman for the Port of Seattle.
ACC executives called the Port's claims "totally false. It is likely to affect and will impact our creeks and streams; this is at the core and heart of ACC's concerns. We don't believe in the documentation and reports the Port submitted," said Kimberly Lockard, ACC's administrator.
Bob Sheckler, ACC's chair, said, "The very fact that there are numerous fish species in these creeks warrants that we take a lot of action. The Port's claiming they're not there; we have evidence that they are wrong."
The ACC, a nonprofit organization, was formed in the late 1980s to block the third runway and address other airport issues. The group hired marine biologist Dr. John T. Strand to study the potential impact of the third runway on fish species last year. The findings are published in a 30-page report, issued last month, which includes a spawning study conducted by Strand and his team. The report says that while area creeks have recently seen strong runs, adult salmon die before they can spawn. Biologists working for ACC are looking at environmental pollutants as the possible cause.
Specifically, the group believes toxic runoff and stormwater drainage from a third runway could further pollute the creeks. According to Lockard, glycols, found in "de-icer" chemicals used on airplanes in winter, are of particular concern.
Before last year, Lockard said, ACC "focused primarily on procedural and administrative issues" in connection with growth management and land use concerns as their strategy to block a third runway. Now, Lockard said, ACC is focusing on quality of life issues for community residents. She noted that ACC executives are also city officials representing their constituents.
According to Lockard, the FAA and Port of Seattle have acquired 75 percent of the land needed for the project, which involved buying out many residents. She speculated the remaining 25 percent are committed to preserving their communities, but also said some may be holding out for a higher price on their houses.