TagTruth in Aviation(12)

The Newsletter of the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs Vol. 6, No. 1 Winter 2000 CROWD PACKS SEA-TAC WETLANDS HEARING On November 3, a crowd of more than 500 people overflowed the auditorium at Foster High School in Tukwila for a hearing on the revised application of the Port of Seattle for permission to destroy 18-plus acres of wetlands as part of its third-runway project. Both the Department of Ecology and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must determine that there will be no needless, unmitigated im- pacts on wetlands and wildlife before they can give permission for the Port to begin construc- tion of the third runway in the headwaters of Miller and Des Moines Creek, west of the exist- ing airport. The hearing was sponsored by the two agencies. The Corps is responsible for clear- ing the so-called “404” permit, which is needed to fill any wetland. Ecology is responsible for issuing a “401” certificate, which concerns the water quality in State waters, wildlife issues, and impacts on the coastal zone. The auditorium was too small for the crowd, so the fire marshal turned away many latecom- ers. Only 59 of those who signed up to speak were called to the podium. Local elected public officials led off the testimony with vigorous com- plaints about the over-all project, the details of the wetlands damage, and the inadequate pro- cess. Aside from some Port-paid “experts”, al- most all of the speakers pointed out serious de- ficiencies in the Port’s…

The Newsletter of the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs Vol. 6, No. 4 Spring 2001 IN BRIEF �������� ��� �������� ���� ��� ������������ �� Not once, not twice, but three times, the Port of Seattle, owner-operator of Sea-Tac Airport, has sought official permission to destroy wetlands with its third-runway construction project west of the existing airport. And three times the community has turned out in great strength to tell the regulat- ing agencies that this is a bad idea—bad for the environment, bad for people—and wasteful. Each of the first two applications had to be withdrawn, re-written, and resubmitted, because of fatal flaws. On 26 and 27 January, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Ecology held hearings on the latest proposal submitted by the Port. Hundreds of residents in attendance heard nearly one hundred speakers tell the agencies about their concerns with the proposal. Most of the 117 speakers were in opposition, citing numerous is- sues—airport safety, damage to local streams, con- cerns with the environmental mitigation plans, lack of community mitigation, and, over and over again, the problems posed by the four vertical embank- ment walls. —Against— In their five-minute comments, a stream of residents and local elected officials carried a few basic messages to the two regulatory agencies. * The environmental planning is questionable and incomplete in many details, especially as to ���������� ��� ��� ���� ���� ������� �� ���� �� �������� �� �� �������� ������ ���� ��� ��� ��� ���� ��� �� �������� �…